User talk:Digitalmedia2018

My name is Anna and I am participating in a class project. Digitalmedia2018 (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1
'''How visible are you online? What forms does the visibility take?'''

The internet allows for people to produce an online profile which is a representation of themselves and now normal in our culture. Through a profile, a person can choose what aspects of their life and personality are visible to their online audience. Turkle 2011 discusses this as an opportunity for a re-invention of one’s self, freedom which the ‘real world’ is not always capable of. I am visible online through multiple social media platforms; Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and Snapchat. I am active on three of those social media accounts quite regularly which means I would say I am very visible to those who follow my accounts. I have all my social media on private which means I choose who views the content I post.

'''What kind of information is available about you online? Who have you chosen to share it with and why?'''

Different information is available about me on my different social media accounts. My Facebook account was created in 2012, it has been active for the longest, which means it also has the most information about me. My posts on all my social media can only be seen by people I am friends with. However, on Facebook, anyone can see where I went to school, where I am from/live now and where I work. My Instagram and snapchat are the most private of my accounts and I only share my information with people I know on those social media sites.

'''How much information is under your control? How do you know?'''

Most of my information is under my control because I have adjusted the privacy settings on my social media to the setting I would like. However, if I am honest, I don’t know exactly what other information may be online about me. It could have come from my friends social media accounts and not mine, there could also be information about me on university or school sites which I am unaware of.

Think about how this theme relates to your Collaborative Essay Work.

Web 2.0 relates to visibility online because it allows for accessibility which enables people to communicate and share information online. Being visible online is a large part of creating your own representation and identity, as I discussed, but that representation can be similar to that of others online. Therefore, expressing information about yourself creates a data profile which can then match with others. Overall, it is the data which can allow for specified web results.

Digitalmedia2018 (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise #1
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall:


 * Good. Among other things, good entries will make a clear point in a clear way. They will relate concepts to original examples in a straightforward fashion. They will make effective use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons). They may also demonstrate a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns, and are likely to show evidence of reading and thinking about the subject material. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.


 * This work is at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s clearly room for improvement here. It’s also a little late, so there are marks you would have needlessly lost in an assessed piece. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to this particular post, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – none undertaken. This would effectively halve your mark in assessed work.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
The way I present myself online is an attempt at reflecting who I am as a person which means I don't go out of my way to create separate online and offline personalities. However, my online personality is only a small glimpse into my life and a lot of my hobbies, likes and dislikes are not always available through my social media platforms which means the building blocks of my personality are not often visible. Furthermore, it may only be people who are close to me offline who see and understand my true interests. Turkle 2011, discusses how online social media platforms can allow you to produce a version of yourself by which you are 're-invented' and able to portray yourself how you wish. I agree this is an opportunity for all who are involved with social media but I would never say I strive to differ my online self from my offline self. Turkle also suggests that although we may think we are presenting ourselves online, we may actually come across as very different in person. I think this is always possible and may be accurate in terms of my online use, as I tend to post every so often but never constantly. This results in people only seeing specific examples of different aspects in my life, what I am involved in, where I go, who I see and even what I eat are irregularly posted. Therefore, the times I do post photographs of where I am, who I am with, what I eat, it could be presumed by my followers that those activities are regular for m in my offline world, even if they are not.

When I was 12 I created my Facebook account which means I have had an online profile for almost 8 years now. Throughout these years my online identity has changed and I would describe it as having transitioned and changed as I go through different phases in my life. As my offline self grew up, I think this could be reflected on my social media in terms of what I would post, how often and when. The influence of other social media users, people I know and people i don't, will always be something which I think effects majority of people who use social media. In recent years it has impacted my personal profile less and less, however, I would say in my younger teenage years the pressure of what others would post and how often, was something that impacted my own platform. Ibrahim 2018, expresses his ideology that our perception of ourselves is built on how others perceive us. It is through social media this has been made doable, as Ibrahim believes it is through social media we are now able to construct how people perceive us, therefore, how we perceive ourselves.

Overall, I believe even if you were to document every moment of your life on social media, it is impossible for your online followers to truly know your online identity to be the same as your offline. Although I never purposely try to be something I am not on social media, my true personality will never be available to people who do not know me and people who do not spend time with me offline. Every person interprets things differently which I believe means even if you construct your profile to be seen in a specific way by followers, it doesn't mean it will be. Digitalmedia2018 (discuss • contribs) 10:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Turkle, S. (2011). Chapter 8: Always on. Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from eachother (pp. pp. 151 - 170). New York: Basic Books.

Ibrahim, Y. (2018). Chapter 1: Production of the 'Self' in the Digital Age. Producing the 'Self' Online. Self and Its Relationship with the Screen and Mirror. Queen Mary University of London, UK.

Hey. I believe that your answer demonstrates a clear understanding of the purpose of this assignment and you have engaged with most of the questions of the exercise. You have clearly shown how your offline and online identities are connected and to which extent. I totally agree with your argument that we can never present the exact same self online as we often do not put all that information on our social media accounts. You have effectively provided some evidence on how our online identities are influenced by the presence of other users on the platforms and I believe you support that there is no thing such a fixed identity. I notice that you have cited two readings in your essay one of Sherry Turkle and the other one of Yasmin Ibrahim. I wanted to let you know that this is not the correct way to cite any references on this platform and I encourage you to also include a bibliography at the end of your essay. You can find any information about this at the introduction page of Wikipedia. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 09:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I have added my reference list and I will take a look at the introduction page for some help on my citing! Digitalmedia2018 (discuss • contribs) 21:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Annotated Bibliography Entry Part B
'''Lytras, M., Damiani, E. and Ordóñez de Pablos, P. (2009). Web 2.0: The Business Model. 1st ed. New York: Springer, pp.237 - 271.'''

In this chapter Lytras attempts to consider the aspects of Web 2.0 that can be beneficial in higher education and offers a comparison between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 surrounding the impact on students learning. The author uses data from another academic journal by Benson in 2008 to identify the patterns in learners use of the web. Lytras research focuses on the functions of Web 2.0 and whether it is purposeful in higher education. Through the data Lytras identifies what aspects of Web 2.0 students are using to benefit their higher education and which aspects they are using which doesn’t benefit them. This chapter is useful for my research as it allows for a detailed study of how Web 2.0 impacted the educational system, an area of major importance in society. The main limitation of this article is that it was written in 2009, therefore, many of the barriers Lytras discusses have been overcome and Web 2.0 is now integrated into most higher educational systems. This article will contribute to my research as it situates Web 2.0 in a specific situation which will be beneficial when showing attention to detail. However, it will not contribute massively towards the whole project.

Wiki Exercise #4: What are Wikis? What kind of resource are they?
Wikibooks is a platform which has stemmed from Wikipedia, although linked, their characteristics vary and both have different purposes surrounding their information and contribution to the internet. Wikibooks is used for information which is usually found in textbooks or manuals, meaning there may be pages that focus on specific academic studies, help guides or research fields, an example being the collaborative essay we submitted in this module. This way of organising textual information is very modern and allows for a fast, clear way to find specific information easily.

From my experience, the platform can be used for a group of people who would like to produce material together whether it is an essay or group research report. The page facilitates this through users being able to create personal accounts which can then be added into group pages. These group project pages incorporate a ‘group discussion’ page where the planning can take place, and then a ‘book’ page where the final draft of the project is posted. Through using wikibooks for the Debates in Digital Culture 2019/Web 2.0 page, I can understand how it may foster a community through certain collaborative pages whereby people are interacting with the same interests or projects. It does allow for people to organise their information and receive feedback from it and the feedback is always friendly, helpful and supportive.

O’Reilly (2007) discusses the idea of wikibooks being an ‘experiment of trust’ due to users’ ability to edit or undo not only their own work, but other users work too. However, in terms of wikibooks this may not be a negative aspect. Anyone who contributes to a wikibooks page must have an account and anything that is posted is traceable, therefore, this emphasises user visibility on the platform. The visibility aspect then means most work that is edited is done only for correction, elimination of trolls and the work is mostly kept in context. Due to the upkeep and specific rules wikibook users follow, it is important the formatting is completed correctly, the creates for a distinct difference between wikibooks and wikipedia; wikibooks has a higher standard of formality.

The idea that wikibooks offers potential online emancipation is plausible when thinking of academic work being published without any official publication, ensuring references are accounted for. Myres (2010) talks negatively about Wikipedia as a wiki platform, expressing the flaws of how to moderate relevant content from irrelevant content. If I was to discuss whether Wikipedia offers emancipation, I would be inclined to agree more than when in comparison to wikibooks. With Wikipedia, there is less of a form, less structure and this results in irrelevant and wrong information being shared. This allows for users to post ideas with less restriction regarding what they are saying, the topic they discuss and the legal implications behind it. Therefore, when in regards to wikibooks, I would not consider the site a potential for online emancipation. Digitalmedia2018 (discuss • contribs) 16:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: ENGAGEMENT ON DISCUSSION PAGES & CONTRIBS
Grade descriptors for Engagement: Engagement on discussion pages, and contribs of this standard attain the following grade descriptor. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this descriptor will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level:
 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory contributions may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse) and will have little justification for ideas offered on Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will need some work.

As instructed in the labs, and outlined in the assessment brief documentation, students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.

Evidence from contribs to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of editorial activity as evidenced through ‘contribs’). These are primarily considered for quality rather than quantity, but as a broad guideline:
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable”
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant”
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial”
 * Items on a contribs list that are <1000 characters are important, and are considered in the round when evaluating contribs as a whole because of their aggregate value

Overall:
 * A few smaller contribs and one classed as substantial when app;lying the above criteria. However, this is fairly inconsistent, and there’s not much evidence of exchange of ideas and project management. Some eveidence of reading.

Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages
 * Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration
 * Poor
 * Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay
 * Good
 * Evidence of peer-review of others’ work
 * Poor

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Satisfactory
 * Clearly labelled sections and subsections
 * Satisfactory
 * Contributions are all signed
 * Satisfactory

Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated.
 * Satisfactory

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly correspond to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall:


 * Good. Among other things, good entries will make a clear point in a clear way. They will relate concepts to original examples in a straightforward fashion. They will make effective use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons). They may also demonstrate a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns, and are likely to show evidence of reading and thinking about the subject material. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.


 * Generally well written set of submissions for portfolio. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets, as well as pay more attention to the requirements of the assessments brief.


 * This is because Re: responses to other people’s posts, these are fairly good, the final peer-review element (for Ex4) is a little on the brief side. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work.


 * Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone some way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would make a difference.

General:
 * Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – all good.


 * Argument and analysis: well-articulated and well-supported argument; evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position); evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections); evidence of independent critical ability – all good.


 * Presentation: fair use of wiki markup and organisational skills, with a little room for improvement.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)