User talk:Digitalmediajade

Wiki Exercise #2: To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
Everyone chooses to represent themselves in a certain way. Our identities and the way we choose to represent ourselves represents who we are and how we want to present ourselves to others. Through the use of the internet and social media, individuals have the ability to carefully craft and edit the content one wants to put out. Particularly within cyberspace, individuals have the tendency to put say things they might not necessarily say in real life. This is known as the disinhibition effect. (Suler, 2016, p.96) People tend to loosen up a bit more in realms of the internet and are able to express themselves more openly and also contributes to the accelerations and amplification of social processes. This can be seen in the form of regressive behaviour on the internet, such as, sexual harassment, flaming as well as generosity and openness. These all play into the unconscious fantasies surrounding power, dominance, sex, and narcissistic gratification. Suler (2016) argues that this type of regression is caused by the confusion between the machine and the person. The computer is perceived as more human, whereas the human behind the screen is perceived as less. (p.96) This is also partially due to the anonymity experienced on the internet wherein individuals only share what they want to share, and as a result think their identities are hidden and feel less vulnerable (Suler, 2016, p.98,99) In recent years there has been increasing corporation of mobile technologies with built in cameras, wifi connectivity, and an increase in data storage. All of which help to facilitate the individual’s ability to watch, consume and remember images which has been elongated through technology. (Ibrahim, 2018) The improvement in technology is due to an increased emphasis of taking photos within social media which in return only increases the demand further. (Ibrahim, 2018) However, Ibrahim (2018) also argues that the desire to curate the digital self which is acknowledged through the validation of others is not a new phenomenon. However, social networking has expanded vastly in recent years wherein individuals are not able to present different forms of self at a distance for different audiences. (Papacharissi, 2010, p. 252) Therefore, identity online is considered fluid. Grant Bollmer (2018) argues, that identity is not who are you are, but what you do and how you choose to present yourself online. This becomes dependent on context. However, the multiple identities that one does present still make up the same person. (p. 118)

In conclusion, one may say things and choose to curate their online identities differently to their offline ones. This is due to the animosity experienced online wherein individuals may say things they may not say in the offline world or choose to present themselves in various different forms and the fluidity of identity. However, these identities online and offline still make up the same individual.



Bollmer, Grant. “Identities and Performances, IN: Theorizing digital cultures” 2018. SAGE. p.115-135 Papacharissi, Zizi. “A Networkd Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites”. 2010. Taylor & Francis p.251- 273 Ibrahim, Yasmine. “Self-Love and Self-Curation Online” 2018 Suler, John. “Psychology of the digital age: humans become electric” Cambridge University Press. 2016. p.95-111 Digitalmediajade (discuss • contribs) 10:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jade, as you said I also wrote about the Papacharissi reading but we both took it from different stances. However, I completely agree with your opinions. I really like the statement of identity being considered as more fluid and your identity being how you choose to portray yourself online, therefore I think the use of those quotes is very effective. I think it is very accurate to say that people would say things online that they would not say in real life which almost ties in with my exercise, expressing the falseness of being online. However you have stated that it is not being false, it is being more free to express yourself which I think is very good. I think this piece of writing uses the readings well and expresses your opinion of online and offline identities being different very well. Jenniferd1205 (discuss • contribs) 11:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi this is Akki, we both are doing digital economy if you contact me on Facebook (Akki ala) we can discuss what part you want to do and I will concentrate on another stuff. Contact me on Facebook. Ala Venkat (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Annotated Bibliography Exercise (Part B)
Burston, Jonathan, et al. “Digital Labour: workers, authors, citizens*” 2019, p.214 - 221 p.214

The paper by Burston et al. discusses the influences of digital labour in a media era and the challenges in regulation it faces. The authors use the digital labour conference as their main research focus as well as looking into regulations in other countries. Their research primarily focus on how to form a digital labour union for solidarity and to help battle layoffs, declining wages, and the job stresses that digitalisation has provoked. This paper is useful to my own research as I myself am also intending on writing an essay on digital labour, primarily focussing on the digital economy of it. By focussing on the digital labour conference, this paper is a restricting because it does not delve into many other examples or arguments surrounding the matter. Due to the fact that my own research is focusing on digital economies within digital labour, which this article does not go into much detail with, this paper will not form the basis of my research. However, it is a good starting point.

Digitalmediajade (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation – What ARE Wikis?
This mini-essay will address what exactly ‘Wikis’, specifically focussing on Wikipedia and Wikibooks as main examples as well as my own involvement and experience within the platform. Ward Cunningham developed the first coined and developed the first wiki. A Hawaiian word for quick. A fitting word for a platform that enables individuals to access information ‘quickly’. (Teaching and Learning with Wikis, p.95) Wiki are websites that anyone can read or edit. One of the world largest encyclopaedias, Wikipedia, enables individuals to do so. Unlike Wikipedia which is more of a site to access information whereas, Wikibooks, Wikipedia’s sister website allows for more discussion and collaboration amongst like-minded, information savvy individuals. ‘Their special feature is that people can do all kinds of revision of the text: they can create hyperlinks and fill them with content, they can revise a text by adding, deleting, or changing any parts they want to.’ (Raitman et al. in Cress et al., 2008). The open editing features within wiki websites, allows it to a platform that is especially good for collaboration within the online environment. (Teaching and Learning with Wikis, p.95) Since wiki platforms are accessible to anyone, this also aids in the emphasis of visibility. Anyone can access information on large variety of things on the wiki platforms no matter how niche it is, attracting a larger audience of both consumers of such information or collaborators. If there no information to be found on such topics that individuals may seek, they are free to contribute their own findings and facilitate discussions promoting its awareness. Such platforms are also especially good for the enhancement of education and learning. That’s why it is also argued that is it centred around students, to share authority and power with their own responsibility of building on a student’s own foundational knowledge. (Teaching and Learning with Wikis, p.95) However, all this being said, it is also important to acknowledge that people the content being published can be don’t by anyone and everyone, there is a lack of fact checking and validity within the work published which people need to be aware of.

Through my university module, I was able to take part in the Wikibooks platform and learn the functionalities of the platform first hand. Due to the nature of the Collaborative Essay that I was involved in, there was a lot of room for peer learning and development of ideas. We were able to post links and ideas with each other. This gave me access to read more resources that I may not have had access to or found independently. As well as the ability of sharing ideas and working with individual’s strengths and weaknesses for those who were involved. Therefore, in order to succeed in writing a collaborative essay successfully there need to be an enhancement in collaboration and communication in hopes that our project is well formed and edited collectively.

Wiki platforms such as Wikipedia and Wikibooks are a great source of information that is open to the public. It aids in the facilitation of collaborative work and allowing people to discuss topics that one feels passionate about.

Bibliography: Teaching and learning online with wikis. In Beyond the comfort zone: proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference, Perth, 5-8 December (pp. 95-104). ASCILITE. http://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU%3A30005482/zhou-teachingandlearning-2004.pdf

Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 105. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11412-007-9035-z

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:
 * there are three small contribs in evidence, but the one that actually involves interaction happens in the final couple of days of the project period. This implies very little to no engagement in the discussion, and goes exactly against advice given in labs, lectures and podcast materials. You have managed to contribute to the essay, but the engagement and discussion is absent to support evidence of process

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

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

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) 15:29, 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.


 * This work is at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s clearly room for improvement here. 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.


 * This work is at the upper end of this grade band, as you seem to have omitted the peer-review element for Ex4. Even so perhaps a little improvement would go some way to attaining a higher mark. 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.


 * Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a 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.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – where submitted, these are actually quite good.

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: good use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)