User talk:Eefa78

Digital Media and Culture 2019 Eefa78 (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)eefa78

Wiki Exercise #2 To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
With the growth of the digital age in recent years, there comes the question as to what extent our online and offline identities are aligned.Papacharissi (2010) discusses the concept of the self online, and how this is most apparent through social networking sites in which individuals can connect and communicate with one another. She speaks of how the presentation of the self via online channels involves numerous performative elements. These elements use a multitude of strategies to present parts of an individual’s personality, such as likes and dislikes, and affiliations with others and clubs etc. The word “performance” in itself is very telling, as this assumes that the online self differs from the offline self, in that it is not a natural presentation.

Papacharissi (2010) also highlights the significant use of photographs in relation to social media content. She discusses how in a general sense, photographs allow individuals to connect and rediscover past images and truths of themselves and of loved ones. Social networking sites, such as Facebook, offer a more contemporary means of doing this; with many Facebook users uploading new and old photographs for their friends and others to see. However, Papacharissi further discusses how unlike our offline experiences of reality, social networking sites allow us to carefully post only the information in which we desire people to see. This presents a vast difference between our online and offline identities, as in the online sphere, we can present a highly selective version of ourselves for others to see; one with no upset or negative traits. An example of this would be taking hundreds of photographs, carefully selecting your favourite one, and then editing it thoroughly to make sure it is exactly how you want other people to view you. Ibrahim (2018) discusses the notion of the glass house society, in which the curation of the self online is altered due to the watchful gaze and consumption of one’s identity by others. This may lead to forms of impression management, in which an individual manages the perception of oneself by others. An example of this would be displaying connections with affluent people online as to show importance, or carefully editing photographs as to make oneself appear very attractive to others online. This shows that there may be a disconnect between the online and offline self, as the online self is perhaps more so concerned with outward appearances and impressions, whereas the offline self may find this much harder to control.

User Coomments on Wiki Exercise #2

 * Hi . I think you've summed up the reading well in this exercise, but I would have loved to hear how your own experiences may align with these frameworks. I think your use of images help to add texture to the article - especially the one of the people laughing, representing the 'happy' moments we often put out to others on social media. You speak about Facebook mostly, but I'd love to know your thoughts on exclusively image platforms such as Instagram verses more textual platforms like Twitter. Do you think that people are more likely to be true to 'themselves' if the platform is textual due to the detachment of image? Springicon (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)springicon


 * Hello! Loved reading this. Interesting to see yur take on this assignment. I agree with the questions that has proposed, about Instagram as an image outlet. What are your thoughts on this? Kay.Abbiey (discuss • contribs) 00:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello and ! Very interesting points which I shall certainly take on board in future assignments! Eefa78 (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Eefa78


 * I agree with what . This exercise was writing well but if your point of view was presented, I would have more knowledge and experience on identity. For me Identity is constructed in multiple ways be it online and offline, but I also find Eric Goffman and many scholars which have presented similar ideas of the world as a performance to be true. There many spaces that this can be shown such as student life in the classroom, work and online which represent parts of our identity. Thegirlwiththewhitebrother (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3 Annotated Bibliography Entry Part B
'''Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley W. H., and Gilstrap, J. B. (2008) A Multi-Level Review of Impression Management Motives and Behaviours. Journal of Management. 34 (6). Pp 1080-1109. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206308324325 [Accessed 19th March 2019]'''

In this article, Mark C. Bolino et al. introduces the concept of impression management, and discusses the motives and behaviours associated with such. The authors use research published by others in the field in order to inform their understanding, and develop on such by analysing their findings and offering other interpretations. The author’s main area of focus is in analysing the strengths and limitations of various impression management motives and behaviours in a number of avenues, such as on an organizational level. The article also makes recommendations for future research and analysis in the field of impression management. This article is extremely useful in regards to my research topic, as it directly informs my understanding of the area of impression management that I am focusing on; which is behaviours associated with impression management. However, a potential limitation of this article would be that it is relatively outdated, as it was published in 2008. This could mean that there could be more up to date information regarding the topic that the article cannot shed light on. Despite its limitations, it is possible that this article will form the basis of my research regarding the motives and behaviours associated with impression management, as it provides a substantial amount of knowledge and information on the topic.

Wiki Exercise #4 Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation- What ARE Wikis?
As discussed by Lin et al. (2011), Wikibooks can be defined as “an open educational environment where sharing knowledge is the primary goal” (327). Due to its highly collaborative nature, Wikibooks allows its users to share information with one another and work alongside each other in creating their own book pages based on a variety of topics. As also discussed by Lin et al., although Wikibooks differs from that of social networking sites, such as Twitter and Facebook, as it does not focus on making friends and sharing personal information. It does, however, foster a community in which its users can communicate with each other in sharing educational thoughts and sources. As further discussed by Lin et al., Wikibooks enables users to work in collaboration with other users on the platform. For example, in a collaborative and open space, users can create and publish information, edit each other’s work, communicate, and have constructive discussions on particular subject matters. From my own experience with Wikibooks, I have loved the highly collaborative aspect. It has allowed me to work on and progress my project management skills, and take on constructive criticism in order to strengthen my own work. Sharing ideas and sources of information as part of the collaborative process has also been highly beneficial to my work, as it eliminates the need for one individual to do all of the research.

As discussed by Lin and Kelsey (2007), the anonymity that Wikibooks offers is seen as very attractive by many. This is because anonymous profiles and anonymous entries give users their own private space, which contributes to clearer understandings and independent thoughts. Through my own experience with Wikibooks, I have also really enjoyed this feature. This is because the anonymous factor enables me to see clearer and look at the information provided as my main focus point, rather than the individual posting it. I believe that if Wikibooks offered a higher sense of visibility, judgements may be made against certain users, and friendships may be formed, which is not the focus of this website. The anonymity offered by Wikibooks allows the focus to remain on the content, as opposed to the focus being on the authors.

To conclude, Wikibooks serves as an open educational site, where individuals can come together and share knowledge with one another. As further discussed by Lin and Kelsey, rather than focusing on the individual and their work, Wikibooks focus is on the community it fosters and the collaborative aspect this inherently brings. This enables larger amounts of information to be generated in a constructive learning environment, where entries are freely made, edited, and commented on in an open space.

User comments on Wiki Exercise #4
Hi Your summary of the uses of the Wikibooks platform is informative and well written. There is a clear understanding of both the collaborative and educational aspect that makes Wikibooks what it is. Defining it’s goals was a great place to start this article off.

I’m glad you picked up on the power of anonymity in the readings. Online personas, as you know from doing impression management as the collaborative essay topic, are often cultivated in order to gain attention from others. On Wikibooks I agree that the focus is entirely on the communal wealth of knowledge offered which takes a lot of weight off the shoulders in terms of wanting to contribute without an innate fear of judgement.

Lin’s work on this topic is highly relevant. I even used their article in my own engagement exercise so I’m familiar. The focus on education in particular is interesting due to the environment we were coaxed into by Greg. Our grades were at stake which I think made everyone a little bit more motivated - there’s discussion of this in Lin’s 2011 article. I think this made the collaborative element more enjoyable than the true anonymity of Wikibooks. I know two things about every user in our collaborative groups: 1) they take digital media and culture 2) they go to the University of Stirling. This was common ground that got things started and finished pretty quickly, compared to vanilla Wikibooks where everything is perhaps more anonymous.

The community aspect of Wikibooks is harder to discuss. Is Wikibooks the future, or is the “loosely coupled community” aspect detrimental to the overall effectiveness of their mantra? I’ve been thinking this over and your writing makes a clear case for these communities existing and working - which there is a vast amount of evidence for, just looking at any page on the platform there are coherent articles written by multiple people. Speaking from your own experience with the platform’s communal source of critique and extra information and this being a positive thing is a point in the favour of a positive and collaborative community despite the debate over Wiki’s community spaces being a main point of contention.

Of course, this wouldn’t be a proper evaluation if I didn’t talk about the contrast in formatting between your first Wiki exercise and this one. Before, the conventions of Wiki referencing were left in favour of the more familiar academic way. Now with the hyperlinks to relevant Wiki articles and the proper templates in use it can be shown how far you’ve come in terms of the platform! Your adjustment is clear and brilliant to see. The hours of work you’ve put into both the discussion pages and the essay really show through in this piece of work. From using Wiki’s own templates so your references are airtight to your addition of a graphic I’m pleased to say you’ve taken the lessons you have learned and put it into this exercise exceptionally. Well done! Springicon (discuss • contribs)springicon

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:
 * Some very consistent, good quality contribs throughout. These are virtually all smaller elements of discussion, however, clearly demonstrating an understanding of the importance of engaging in the process throughout the period. Only one contrib that could be considered substantial however, and although the emphasis here shouldn’t be on volume or quantity, clearly you could have done more to build larger contributions.

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

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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:42, 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:


 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.


 * 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.


 * Some very well written, organised and reflective posts in your portfolio. This work is at the upper end of this (high!) grade band, but 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 some way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. You did a good job overall though and 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 – these are especially good. I like that you have framed some of your responses as reflections and genuine engagement to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!). Also, you have engaged in discussion in an open and critical way (that is to say, you've responded to what other people are saying and are contributing meaningfully to discussion - arguably the civic element of wiki that you ought to be thinking about, which you clearly are). Excellent.

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


 * Presentation: v. good use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)