User talk:Doctor-Riddler

I will log in any activity to this space, as part of a class project Doctor-Riddler (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Engagement Tasks
Wiki Engagement Task #2: Online Identity

My Online identity has never been static. It has changed according to the circumstances in my offline life. In my early teens I believed there was so much to explore and when I started to establish an online presence I was clumsy not fully understanding the consequences of sharing online. In this short piece I will explore the changes to my online identity and how this relates to the argument of a 'tethered self' presented by Shirley Turkle.

As mentioned above my online identity has shifted significantly; I believe that at present my online identity fits my offline self quite well. Perhaps online I am more confident in my opinions and less shy but mostly myself. In my first experience with the online world I did not understand what was going on, 13-year-old me was naive and just wanted to fit in somewhere. Once I got used to the internet, things began to change; I discovered Tumblr. An online blog in which I could be more like myself. I found comfort in being with people who were not peers than with those who were, in a way I was tethered to this version of myself I had created; I had no interest in ‘real conversation’ (Turkle, 2011, 161). I had a terrible sense of who I was, who I wanted to be and so this lack of uncertainty pushed me to rely on the internet and compensate through this idealistic online version of myself.

This dependency came from a struggle to connect in the offline world. It was easier to place my energy in fiction and an online identity. It became more important to me than anything else in my offline life I fell so far behind in the social food chain that I did not see the point in trying to engage with it, so I fell further into developing an online identity that was better than offline me could ever hope to be. This immersion meant that I could not see my future without this identity and the Star Trek fandom. Turkle argues, young people create a paradox for themselves and they can only feel the pride of their growing online identity, despite knowing it is never 100% real (Turkle, 2011,169). I knew it was rooted in fiction but I had so much pride for my part in said community.

The presence of peers and people can have a profound experience on an identity both on and offline. The fandom community is much less interested in selfies, unless it is a cosplay, than real life peers are. Sites like Facebook and Instagram make the user to feel eager to post endless selfies, and most of the time users do. Papacharaissi argues that Social network Sites are the perfect stage to present oneself and sites provide props to allow users to do so (2010, 305). In a way I am thankful that it was fandoms that caught my attention, even though I started my online identity away from Facebook I have become more confident in sharing my nerdy hobbies on said sites. I think if I had found a dependence on praise through selfies; everything would be different, both on and offline.

Overall, I think that it is inevitable that young people will try to compensate their struggle for offline identity by turning to the internet to establish themselves and thus ending up tethered to the image the identity creates. When it comes to the added pressure of peers it can change a person completely; the presence may embolden them to create a new image or disturb the identity they already have.

References

Turkle, S. (2011). Always on. In Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other (pp. 151-170). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Papacharaissi, Z. (2010). Conclusion: A Networked Self. A Networked Self: Identity, community and Culture on Social Network Sites (pp.304-318). Routledge.

Comments/Questions

Please feel free to enter comments as per the second part of this task

(Response to Wiki Exercise #2)

I think it's interesting that you feel your online and offline personas are mostly aligned, then go on to say that the online version of yourself is more confident and ready to offer an opinion. It seems like since it is easier to be more outspoken and less reserved online, maybe we are all predisposed to presenting this idealised, confident versions of ourselves on these platforms, getting involved in discussions where, if they happened offline, we would just stay quiet. I don't know if this is necessarily down to shyness, or just how much easier it is to post online and how much more open the platform is, compared to making your voice heard offline.

I've never used Tumblr, but I can see how such a platform where you can find a community of like-minded individuals, could be very consuming, maybe even detrimental to offline life. I agree that people could become consumed by the image they present online, tying validation to "selfies" etc, but I think we probably all do it to an extent just by virtue of how the social media platforms work. Since we have complete control of our profiles we can manipulate what we present to others online. Like you I feel I am broadly the same online and offline, but even so I can see where some selection or curation might creep in. If I took a photo of myself and I thought I looked dreadful, I'd probably just delete it and take/use a different one, for example.

Do you think the validation people look for through posting photos/content for likes and comments on something like Instagram is similar to the praise or community good will people would strive for in something like Tumblr? I'd be interested to hear if there are similarities SoylentGraeme (discuss • contribs) 21:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

From my experiences with Tumblr, which have mostly been positive, users don't usually post their own faces; it's slightly more private than other social medias tend to be. I would also say that most discussions that have started come from a genuine interest for gaining more knowledge and connecting with like-minded people. However, I know from experience that when I post I have an excitement to gain responses so my questions or thoughts usually try to grab the attention of other users; and I think it's quite natural especially on a busy platform everyone wants to feel as though their thoughts on for example, an episode or a character are valid, so in some sense there is a secondary thought to validation of one's opinions but with Tumblr I think it comes second over genuine interest. Thanks for commenting.


 * I can really relate to your story. When I was 12-14 I was deeply involved in an online community to the point where I cared far more about the people on it and the drama and who I was in that community for more than I did about my real world life and friends. When you're at that growing stage and finding out who you are it is very easy to be sucked into the online world and think that it is all that matters when in the end when that community starts to fade away and die off as online communities almost always do, you're left wondering what the point in it all was. If you are someone who is naturally shy or anxious in real life then it is even easier to compensate this online and become a larger than life user who interacts with loads of people because you don't have to do any physical talking and the nature of typing means that you can revise what you are saying one hundred times before you press send if you really want to. CnnrC (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I 100% agree, there is a definite comfort in knowing that you can edit or proofread what you're saying before it goes 'live'. For a lot of young people the internet is so easily addicting especially when you're still trying to figure out who you are but there is a slippery slope to becoming involved and obsessed with perfection of one's image and at a young age it is incredibly important to be careful because online interactions can shape who you become. Thanks for commenting.

Wiki task #3: Annotated Bibliography

Due 22nd March

MacDonald, A. (1998). Uncertain Utopia: Science Fiction Media Fandom & Computer Mediated Communication. In C. Harris, A. Alexander (Eds.), Theorising Fandom: Fans, Subculture and Identity (pp.131-152). United States: The Hampton Press.

In this chapter MacDonald explores the changes that computer mediated spaces and the subsequent computer mediated communication (CMC) have had on fandoms. Her main argument focuses on whether this has created a dystopian or Utopian type of virtual world. As part of this she uses a case study in which she observed a mailing list that was central to a group of women's interaction within their fandom: Quantum Leap. However this is only a part of her chapter. She also explores what it means to be a fan and how technological advances are having an effect on fandoms and the hierarchical structure which she argues exists within fandoms. She also discuss the benefits and the disadvantages that come with computer mediated spaces and CMC thus concluding that the users of CMC can be classed as an elite group (pp.150) due to the financial and temporal aspects linked to participating in such practices. In the final subsection of her chapter MacDonald concludes that CMC is neither a utopia nor a dystopia (pp.151) but instead the social norms of face to face communication have left it within a space between the two and through advancement it could become either.

Wiki task #4: What are Wikis

Due 5th April

Wikibooks is an online platform in which users have the ability to produce books on topics they hold an interest in. The task for this project was to, in a group, produce a book based on a specific topic linked to Digital Media and Culture. This task promoted group work and active learning, primarily.

The medium of wikibooks is a separate entity from Wikipedia but they are both largely community based platforms, which I feel has been exhibited throughout the duration of our task. In particular, we were able to include a tips and tricks section; in which we could let each other know what we were, personally doing to make things on wikibooks easier to navigate. We all had to participate for the project to work, as Rheingold explains, ‘’The wiki is a participatory medium’’ (pp.1922) and this has been demonstrated during the process; and not just from the simple tips and tricks we had learned. In coming together to plan a group essay we had unique form of active learning; we all took in information but instead of just digesting it we took it to the discussion; we told everyone in the group what we thought of it and if it could be helpful to others.

In their study of wikis as a learning tool; Ravid, Kalman and Rafaeli (2008) describe wikis as a ‘’hypertextual system’’, it not only has a capacity to keep information but also to distribute it, it is essentially a free textbook; and even if the reader does not wish to trust the word of a student producer they can explore the attached links to learn themselves, which is a fascinating prospect that contributes to the wider importance of active learning; when it comes to essay writing, text books even in their more modern e-book form struggles to have an instantaneous learning aspect the references are not links that lead the reader to their next stage of exploration but rather guidelines to what they could read. The wiki is a modern and active platform which emphasises leraning-by-making, which can defined as an opportunity for students to be a part of the construction of their learning it comes back to this idea of an active essay; while it is still critical, the links and available resources allow readers to keep going there is no barrier for which a reader may be able to find an excuse to not continue.

Overall this task and the introduction of wikibooks is a great opportunity to introduce students to a kind of learning that doesn’t stop once a chapter is finished because the next step is right at the reader’s fingers.

Wiki exercise 4 response

This is a great response to the question, I feel that it covers all of the prompts that Greg has given us. Your mini essay was easy to read and informative, the references where also relevant and backed up your points. I personally like the emphasis that has been put on instantaneous learning as I feel that this may have been something that I missed in my own essay. The reflective portion is also fantastic as you have manage to summarise 3 weeks of work in an informative yet concise manor. all I can say is maybe consider an image? I feel your writing explains more than enough but an image always helps I suppose? Aside from that (which is probably a non-issue to be honest) a solid response and a Great read! LateRawley (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 7 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:
 * Good. Among other things, good contributions 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 formatting, 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, discussing this in a transparent way with fellow researchers on the Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.

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 small number of substantial and other contribs through the project period

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

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Excellent
 * Clearly labelled sections and subsections
 * Excellent
 * 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.
 * Excellent

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 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:


 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries 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). The wiki markup formatting will need some work.


 * This work is at the upper end of this grade band, and a little improvement will go a long way to attaining a higher mark in future assessments. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might have been 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 set of posts, generally this is fairly good work. The organisation of your discussion page needed a bit of work, and you need to pay more attention to detail in the assignment briefs – Ex4 required a peer-review element of 3000 characters. You responded to this, and in time, but the content was well short of the required count.


 * Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of your discussion page. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would make a quite considerable difference. You seemed to start out very well indeed, and as time progressed (i.e. with each portfolio piece) the quality slackened a little more.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, if a little brief. 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.

General:
 * Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – all fine, bar the peer-review elements which needed further work.


 * 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 fine.


 * Presentation: fair use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)