User talk:Hysterichattie

=Wiki Exercise Portfolio=

Wiki Exercise #2
’To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?’

With the usual requirement of a profile on social media, small opportunities of sharing your personal information arise every day through numerous social online platforms. This ranges from encouraging short biographies, your favourite pictures and even your political views. With a few clicks, the array of information on one person is accessible all from their digital footprint and their identity plastered on their user profile. But how true is this identity? The term ‘Catfishing’ has become an extreme result of manipulating a user profile to portray any person, real or not. Whether or not users will go to extreme lengths to pretend to be someone else, social media does however make it incredibly easy to share what we want to share and therefore manipulate users into viewing their perfected self.



Social media platforms such as Instagram have become successful through their reliability on the ideas of narcissism. Although this contributes to our need to perfect ourselves, with the advancement of social media and millennials as users, it is clear that the pressure to be a certain way is posted all around the world for everyone to see. This notion is echoed by Papacharissi who states: “People who are able to post only that information which presents a desire image. While people are purportedly presenting themselves, they are presenting a highly selective version of themselves.” For example, personally I noticed the shift between my content becoming more manipulated to fit a particular aesthetic due to the trend of public profiles and gaining more likes. Once popularity was introduced into social media, including popular users now profiting off their content, I felt a need to keep up. This can be achieved at any cost with apps like ‘Facetune’ who profit billions of pounds every year to allow users to simply edit their photos including altering body shape and skin pigmentation. As well as this, the threat of judgement and ‘troll’ comments motivates others to keep within boundaries of what is acceptable to post and what is not. The uniqueness of user identities is becoming a rarity.



Although, some would contest this and argue that other social media platforms encourage a more authentic approach in what users should post. For example, Twitter has been praised for its involvement in politics and news, often resulting in more personal profiles with truer statements. I find myself that I use certain social platforms for different reasons. For example, I use Instagram for photography that I produce for others in mind, critical of what would gain more likes and therefore I lose my offline identity in the process. Yet, I use Twitter to encourage my offline identity to align with my online identity by posting what I feel are important reflections of my every day life and opinions. Harrison defines this in her paper, explaining that “…private images have a transcendental role in negotiating private and public realms. Personal photography, particularly the commodification of the self, threatens the boundaries between the public and private.”

Overall, the balance of offline and online identities seems to be effected by the judgements and criticisms followed from increasing popularities and trends. It can also be understood that depending on the social media platform, identities can change to being more authentic than others. In today’s world it is clear that the pressure of ‘goals’ is often the reason for the mask placed over user profiles.

Hysterichattie (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography

Harrison, B. (2002) 'Everyday Photographic Practice: people, relationships, Networkds and Community' Paper Presented at International Visual Sociology Association Conference, Greece.

Papacharissi, Z.(2010) 'A Network Self: Identity, Community and Culture on Social Network Sites'. Routledge. pp. 253

Hysterichattie (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Websites/ Articles Regarding This Topic

| Identity Hacked, Huffington Post

''Brett Gleason discusses his interesting response to losing his twitter account, and as he explains, his identity along with it. This link here comments on our attachment to social media and popularity and how we treat our social media accounts as possessions.''

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-29385577/photo-editing-app-facetune-why-so-popular| Why is Facetune so popular? BBC News]

''This BBC video shows presenter Mark Lobel visiting the designers of the Facetune app and investigates how they created it. This video explores the tools necessary in today's social online world and shows how photoshopping is a skill anyone can achieve through their smartphone.''

Hysterichattie (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Annotated Bibliography Exercise (Part B)
'''Maxwell, R & Miller, T. (2012). ‘Greening the Media’. Oxford University Press, Inc.'''



In this book, Maxwell and Miller explores the environmental issues created by mass media and media technologies. Both authors explain in depth the toxicities that are related to everyday electronic items and their detrimental effects on the environment that are often kept secret by large corporations. In detail, Maxwell and Miller examine how these technologies have contributed to climate change throughout the years. The term ‘e-waste’ or ‘electronic waste’ is defined in an alarming and thought-provoking way. Both authors conclude that despite efforts and research for a greener and eco-friendly technology, corporations are guilty of turning a blind eye. I decided to use this particular source as it relates to the direct impact of media technology on the environment. This source examines the effects on the environment through all current technologies, and with regards to the media industry that so relies on such immense technology, this only highlights the variety of damage this causes.

Hysterichattie (discuss • contribs) 10:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: What are Wikis?
Wikis, specifically Wikibooks, is a platform built for an online educational community to collaborate and contribute an array of information. Kalman, Ravid and Rafaeli define Wikibooks as a “hypertextual system for storage and transmission of information”. More deeply, they express that Wikibooks is also “a high point in the attention to the connection between community and content.” Here, all authors touch on the importance of information sharing within Wikibooks and the reliability on the community to continuously check and update information accordingly. This definition highlights both the culture of information provided on numerous categories and the community aspect of the platform allowing users to edit and update information.



All users are visible, with all edits and contributions traceable from the moment an account is formed. As well as the mutual reliance of each-other, Wikibooks has also created a community through its discussion and talk pages, often allowing users to share tips and tricks with regards to coding and reliable guidelines. It seems the Wikibooks community share a similar purpose in providing reliable information and the overall objective of contributing the user’s best work is accepted silently amongst every user.

With regards to a digital commons, Wikibooks is a successful platform in becoming a collective online resource providing educative information. Moreover, the future of Wikibooks is compared with e-textbooks, an environmentally friendly response in the education world. Lin, Sajjapanroj and Bonk comment on this: “In the era of user-generated content, Wikibooks seem to be a perfect space for presenting purely open and free online textbooks.” Much like the project I was personally involved in, Wikibooks can become an educational tool and as these authors comment in their book, Wikibooks can be presented as “a textbook written by volunteers.” I found this very much the correct definition with regards to my personal experience of Wikibooks. Our collaborative project has produced an academically written and informative piece on yet another branch of Digital Culture. Branches of Wikibooks are being voluntarily added everyday and the community of Wikibooks allows such additions in the correct format and reliably sourced. However, as with all online communities, Wikibooks is not exempt from online emancipation. With the freedom of collective information comes the risk of altered and unreliable additions. Hysterichattie (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Portfolio Discussion

Hi Hattie! I really enjoyed reading your second wiki exercise. I especially related to the idea of creating and posting content with others in mind. I agree with your discussion of medium specificity - such as Instagram being a platform where I am less truthful and focused on the viewer.

Twitter is another platform I use that I agreed with your thoughts on, as my Twitter feed is more true to my 'real' identity than my other social media. In my own work, I considered the idea that this different level of censorship was down to who I was connected to on such platforms. Since on Facebook I am connected with friends and family and on Twitter, I am connected with friends and strangers. I think that there is definitely more to it than that though, as there may be something intrinsic to the platforms themselves that make us post this way - even if this is just by copying other users.

I found the connection to the term 'Catfishing' interesting as well as I had not considered the extremities of fake user profiles in my own work and the real-life issues this can cause - as well as the increasing popularity of this idea.

"The uniqueness of user identities is becoming a rarity." Is something that resonated with me as well, as we are more concerned with fitting in than creating new, unique, user identities which are perhaps truer to ourselves.

Hope you found my comment useful! Blythenisbet (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hattie! I really enjoyed reading your 'What are Wikis?' Assignment. I particularly found the definition: “a high point in the attention to the connection between community and content.” helpful, as it was difficult to sum up just how important community is in defining Wikibooks in my own work. I feel that this quote does so in a short format - avoiding taking up too much of the limited word count.

Your section on the mutual reliance of Wikibooks users was interesting to me, as within this small time I spent with Wikibooks I understand the silent, reliant work ethic you described. This prompted me to reflect on my own work, as I also felt I could really rely on my groups to bring good content and sources in and alert me of content that they thought might benefit us. I too felt responsible for bringing in content that was relative to my own groups topics as well as other groups when I came across it. This constant influx of sources ensured we were getting a range of different sources and were arguably more advised in this work than if we had been finding sources alone. I also felt I could rely on my group to make good edits, and I trusted that anything I posted that was relevant would be improved by my groups.

We used the same image of the Wikibooks logo in our work, and I also opted for the image with the caption 'open books for an open world below'. I felt this caption added to the image. I really liked the formatting of your work as each section was well divided and fit smoothly around the image with no issues. The right alignment of your image worked well here and the image was very relevant to the topic.

Overall, I think your work provided a deeper insight into the core values of wikibooks - as well as added some information on the processes that occur within a wikibooks project, as I could see the relevance to our work on Digital Culture and the Environment. I thought this work was very relevant and really easy to read and comprehend which is no easy task. Thanks for all your work on our wikibooks project as well as your really helpful comments on my discussion page - well done on writing a great piece!Blythenisbet (discuss • contribs) 09:42, 11 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 large number of smaller contribs added up to some really good engagement on the discussion pages here. A smaller, but important, number of substantial contribs which really made a difference. I would have liked to have seen a littler more consistency throughout the project period – your contribs tended to build more quickly in the final few days – but otherwise, some good work here!

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
 * Good
 * Evidence of peer-review of others’ work
 * Good

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * 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.
 * Excellent

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:


 * 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.


 * Some very well written entries for your portfolio work here. The quality of content is actually quite good. This work is at the lower end of this grade band, however, largely due to the brevity of the peer-review elements for Ex2 and Ex4 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, particularly in terms of the detail in the assessment briefs.


 * In addition, although you do a fairly good job of it, 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.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, but are quite 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. The quality of the work is good, so now it’s a case of working on detail.

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: fairly good use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)