User talk:Fatguywithglasses

My name is Rhys from Cumbernauld and studying at Stirling University Fatguywithglasses (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
Social media is addictive, It’s what you do in your free time that will set you free – or enslave you. – Jarod  Kintz. This is very much an issue I face when it comes to social media. While I am not very active online myself I still consume a lot of media from it. My behaviour and attitude online doesn’t really reflect who I am in real life as interacting and talking in real life is far easier and more enjoyable to me than trying to compete with the infinite amount of opinions and discussions that are going on online constantly.

Also, I have always viewed the people who are very online are mainly putting on a performance, It is what they want you to see instead of the truth of their lives. This may be my overly sceptical mind however research has shown that the performance is what society demands from people not just through the personality but also through how people look as well. This is more so put onto women as there are standards that the online society demand women stick by as shown through the article |How cultural norms for appearance affect social comparisons and self-image so when I see these posts made by any gender I can’t help but question the intent of it. This again is reinforced by | Yasmin Ibrahim where she states “Where the screen once stood for the construction of a wider world beyond us, today it is a theatre for assembling ourselves and narrating our lived moments to others.” Since I have never really narrated myself to others and have never expected their acceptance or positive feedback to the few interactions so see no need I constantly trying to prove people I don’t know of me being someone I’m not.

However, I would say that I am trying to be active online which is a change in how I present myself in these situations, this is what many people go through as a lot of people get social media when they are young and haven’t really figured out who they are and with the change of growing up comes the change of new identity and personalities online. It has now become a natural way to grow up in the digital world that we live in and I have seen many people go through almost 3-4 different social media accounts on the same platform to re-identify themselves online. This shows the role in which others play in how we shape our identities online as | John R. Suler says “This digital-screen self is a self that is made vulnerable through its screening yet a self that is constantly mesmerised by its own image online. It represents a potent moment in the digital age.” Meaning that we are open to critics from all around the world and our most private details are the ammunition they can use to either lift us up or tear us down through social media. This is our own fault as we have used our own private lives to win the “Game” of social media we have used our vanity to make money off of who we are or at the very least who we present ourselves to be and through that privacy anyone who decides to take part in them. Game of like and retweets is almost completely gone. Fatguywithglasses (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2 Comment Section
I agree with your argument for this piece. Especially, how you talk about people are now growing up in the digital age. We have had these social media accounts for a number of years. There is physical evidence of our growing up from the first post we ever shared or to our most recent. It truly does play a role on our identities. You make a very good point and is well worded. Your final sentence raises a question as to what you mean by "Game of likes and retweets is almost completely gone"? Cornelius06 (discuss • contribs) 11:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Cornelius06


 * are you insinuating the presence that you present online is not part of you? Due to the multiple identities produced by the individual. Zizi Papacharissi as well as Eric Goffman and many more scholars highlight identities are constructed on the basis of interests presented by the individual as you have clearly established. With factors such ‘avatarism’ which is another way introducing the self on multiple accounts. But the thing is our identities are so visible online that it only takes a minor detail for people to recognise you, be it on or offline.Thegirlwiththewhitebrother (discuss • contribs) 13:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What you have exemplifies is very interesting, specifically the idea that we are all performers, as it is an act that people show regardless of whether individuals recognise it or not. Thegirlwiththewhitebrother (discuss • contribs) 13:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I do agree with you on your stance that social media and that social norms play a big role, especially for women, in how we behave online and I think that you phrased it quite well. However, have you considered that social media might possibly be an outlet for people to be their actual authentic selves depending on the circumstances they are in? It may not always be the case but just to give a concrete example: LGBT+ people who live in a place where it is illegal to be LGBT+. These people have to hide parts of themselves to avoid conflict with authorities and many of these people seek some kind of comfort online where they can share their experiences without the fear of consequences by the laws of their countries. I am not trying to disprove your argument, in fact I think it is very well structured, I just think this might be something to take in to consideration when looking at the argument overall. Antisocialblonde (discuss • contribs) 19:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Pounders, K. ,Kowalczyk, Christine M. ,Stowers, Kirsten(2016)
'''Pounders, K. Kowalczyk, Christine M., Stowers, Kirsten (2016). Insight into the motivation of selfie postings: impression management and self-esteem. European Journal of Marketing. 2016, Vol. 50 Issue 9/10, p1879-1892. 14p. https://www-emeraldinsight-com.ezproxy.stir.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1108/EJM-07-2015-0502 ''' In this article, Kathrynn Pounders et al investigates the social media trend of selfies and the motivation of women at a certain age who post more regularly than their male counterparts. The authors used qualitative data from 15 in-depth interviews of women aged 19-30 to try to understand why women in this age category tend to post more selfies on social media apps. Their research focuses on impression management as well as the two sub-themes of the individual being happiness and physical appearance which is useful to my research as it provides an inside into what the mentality is behind posting selfies as the article suggests that there are large self-esteem factors that are in play when individuals decide to post photos online. The main limitation of this article is the small scope that the authors use for their data collection, the use of only 15 interviewees may not reflect the wider world of online selfies as the article states itself, over 300 million selfies are posted on Instagram a day which is a much wider scope than the 15 individuals they interviewed. However, this article would be a benefit into y research as the interviews that they do conduct provides a deep description of what individuals feel before during and after they post selfies online.

Wiki Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation – What ARE Wikis?
Wikipedia is a free informational website that was created in January 2001 and was closely followed by a secondary platform called Wikibooks which was created in 2003. Wikibooks, as its own page states, ‘Is on open-textbook platform’ in which multiple people contribute together in a specific topic of discussion to create a page of information easily accessible to the rest of the internet for more academic use in comparison to Wikipedia. This makes the platform a perfect place for collaboration between researchers and students as it allows the open discussion and creation of a page and the information that is held within it. The platform fosters a community through the users that are involved with it, the researchers who take part in these discussions want to be there and being interactive with others who share the same passion for a topic helps drive the creation of Wikibooks. However, an article was written by | S.Sajjapanroj that researched the Wikibooks communities and the relationship between them when working collaboratively found that a lot of the users like to work independently from other more experienced “Wikibookians” but there is usually open communication between users who are working on projects. In contrast to this, | Joan Soler-Adillon wrote an opposing article which was conducted within a higher education environment concluded that students found the Wikibooks resource be a more reliable and useful resource for their work than before the test was conducted. Therefore, it could be argued that Wikibooks could act as a deterrent for online collaboration as much of the research mentioned has shown that many users ignore the collaborative part of Wikibooks already. In contrast to this, this platform has allowed for the successful creation of multiple open textbooks in which multiple people have successfully worked together to create, therefore, the vast amount of infraction on the platform always suggests that Wikibooks is a very useful tool for collaboration in the online environment for researchers to create and edit topic focused pieces of work that benefit others who may need to research those topics.

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:
 * Very Poor. Often, contributions of this standard are quite brief, are structured poorly and are not spell-checked. They are often irrelevant, and offer little engagement with the concerns of the module or the assignment brief. Contributions of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be of a very poor standard and as a result it will be difficult for the reader or fellow collaborators to engage with the discussion.

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:
 * the engagement in evidence here is very inconsistent and mainly concentrated in the last day or two. Being inactive for the majority of the project period meant that you weren’t left in a position to build significant or substantial contributions over time and therefore it is difficult to see where or if any significant learning has occurred. There is very little evidence that you have made effort to engage, and what is there is really a case of too little, too late to really get much out of the project.

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
 * Very Poor
 * Evidence of peer-review of others’ work
 * Very Poor

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Very Poor
 * Clearly labelled sections and subsections
 * Very Poor
 * Contributions are all signed
 * Very Poor

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.
 * Very Poor

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 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.


 * 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.


 * For example, 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. Also, re: responses to other people’s posts – these are ok, if a little brief (and the peer-review element for Ex4 seems to be missing altogether). 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 – needs a little 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 ok, but needs a little work.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)