User talk:JL1999

This is my user discussion page for my class project JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC). Hi this is rather confusing. I Hope this gets easier.



Wiki Exercise #1: Online Visibility and Footprint
As an avid user of social media it is clear that since I began using various social media sites over 8 years ago, i have amassed a large online Footprint and I am easily visible on the internet. As with most people my age, I use the majority of social media sites; Facebook, twitter, Instagram and to a lesser extent Snapchat, the use of which is becoming less and less with each month.

Through these different sites there is a vast amount of information about me online, my Facebook shows my likes,dislikes and hobbies, as does my twitter feed. My Instagram however could be seen as the social media site which the most personal information is shown, due to it being the only social media site i post on and through this my followers can see where I have been and what I have been doing. Another service that I am a part of is the PlayStation Network, through this people can see what games I play, what services i use whilst on the PlayStation 4 console as well as knowing how far I have progressed into a game through the trophies (in game achievements) that I have received.

Despite this usage of multiple social media sites and services, I do not feel out of control to what I post and what Is shared to my profiles. For instance, Facebook never posts anything to my feed without my prior permission, so it can be seen that despite wanting to post things on your behalf, there is always an option to opt out of these posts.

Furthermore, most of my social media profiles are set onto private settings so that strangers that I do not know cannot search through my personal information. For instance, information that is held private includes; my age, my birthday and the things that I post and like. However the things that I post and like are only visible to those that I accept to be my friends or followers on these sites.

The only site which bucks the trend of having fully private settings is Twitter, the reason for this is that having an open twitter account allows me to discuss and view other opinions freely on the internet without having to worry about blocking anyone out due to settings, the only reason for the lack on privacy on Twitter is the lack of personal information that is shown on the site, and due to this I feel more comfortable using it in this manner.

Thus I would argue that social media for me is a private matter, since the advent of social media there have been privacy measures put in place to ensure users safety and i believe that, in my own personal experience, these privacy measures work perfectly to keep users in control of their data and helps them to only show information to those that they want to share it with. JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC).


 * I found your discussion interesting and from reading what you say, it does seem like you are conscious of your online visibility by having most of your accounts set as private. However, I would suggest that this doesn’t entirely keep your personal data in your complete control. For example, with Dataveillance, likes on Facebook and other social media sites can become collected data that is used to target advertisements specifically towards you, even if you are in private settings. If this is something that would interest you, there is an article called Teaching and Learning Guide for: New Media, Web 2.0 and Surveillance which discusses how Web 2.0 and Social Media “collect, store, and share” personal data and raises questions about this in regards to privacy. It can be found through the search engine of Google Scholar. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 22:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise #1
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds 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 upper end of this grade band, so a little improvement will go a long 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. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to this particular post, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – none undertaken. This would effectively halve your mark in assessed work.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
My online and offline identities are intertwined in different ways, they both show similarities and differences to one another. For instance, on any social media site or online website that I use, I use my own name and information, which most of the time include a photograph of myself of my friends.

I believe that over the course of my time using the internet however that my identity online has changed somewhat. Not in a sense of pretending to be a different person but purely in the way that I interact with others online and share my experiences with them. When I was younger and perhaps more naive to the dangers of the internet I would certainly say that I was more open about the personal things that I posted and messaged people about on sites such as MSN and Facebook. However I do not believe that it is a negative thing that I share less things about myself now, as compared with then. It can be seen as a sense of maturing that I do not post as much information about my daily routine with the outside world as it in essence would not be very interesting to anyone but myself.

However negatives from showing less of a personality online can also be seen. “People are able to post only that information which presents a desired image. While people are purportedly presenting themselves, they are presenting a highly selective version of themselves” (Papacharissi, 2010, pp 252). Papacharissi’s thoughts about people using social media to portray a very specific image of themselves perfectly works with the ideas surrounding the hit television show “Catfish: the TV show”. The show itself follows how people use fake online identities in order to trick people into doing things for them or even falling in love with their fake persona.

However showing a selective version of yourself online does not mean that you are lying to people.“People tend to do and say things that they would not ordinarily say or do in the face-to-face world” (Suler, 2016, pp 96). Suler’s thoughts on people saying things differently from what they would in real life can be perfectly seen in the way that people use the social media site Twitter. On Twitter, many users can be seen to tweet abusive and mean comments towards other users, whether the people they abuse are people that they know in real life or celebrities who have said something that they disagree upon doesn’t matter, the ease of saying things without any real repercussions has allowed people to say what they want and in turn create an online alter-ego for themselves.

Thus it can be seen that although mine and other people's identities have changed online compared with real life, for some people the differences can be monumental and for others they are simply portraying a better idea of themselves.JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 11:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC).


 * Good afternoon! Your arguments on the topic are highly interesting. Explaining the change in your online activities as an act of "maturing" really made me think about how similar the online and real world can be. Just as in real life we learn to behave a certain way around people, the internet also makes us shift our actions as we interact in the different platforms. At first, most users are unaware of the dangers that could be encountered but as we grow using the platforms these issues start having an actual impact on us. On the other hand, I think that your example of "Catfish" is very useful in the discussion, as it clearly demonstrates how these problems regarding online identity can have a repercussion in real life. I guess that it all depends on the users' intentions and how much this online world can impact them. Overall, I think that your exercise clearly illustrates the complex aspects surrounding identities on- and offline, I really enjoyed reading this! --Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 17:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * In response to your writings here, I am very intrigued by your use of the show Catfish, as I had never previously heard of it. But upon closer inspection I can see it is a perfect choice for discussing the identity of the 'self' in the online community. Much the same way that Lucia notes, I see your use of 'maturing' as a term for your change in online identity as a positive addition to you exploring the differences and similarities your online and offline identities have both now and in the past. I would not consider what you have to post online as 'not very interesting', as with Web 2.0 and idea's like Clay Shirky's 'cognitive surplus' I believe you could make some significant contributions to archives or pages dedicated to say a musician or band you have a deep interest in. I look forward to reading more good work from you in the future - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 17:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Leslie! You make very interesting points on your writing. It is very important to keep track of everything we post on social networks, and have also control of what others publish or tag us on. Even though it could be seen as a place to just be who we are and don’t care of what others could say about it; you are building and showing your personality. Who says the director of the company you applied for a job is not going to look into your profile and see that in 2008 a friend of yours tagged you on a picture that shows racism or mocks about another ethnicity? Social media is a two-edged weapon, and we should be aware of the benefits, but also about what could happen if we are not using it correctly. Emiliarosselli (discuss • contribs) 17:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Annotated Bibliography Exercise (Part B)
'''Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. First Monday, 13(6). doi:https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v13i6.2125'''

In this article Cormode et al explore the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, to show this the article shows how the web has changed in recent years and what specific websites are helping to influence and shaping web 2.0. The authors use multiple different ways to explore Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, these methods include putting different websites into tables in order to see what different content they produce. It also uses a chart to show how Web 2.0 allows content creators to show their works to content consumers. Rather than narrow their findings to specific parts of the Web, this journal focuses on multiple different areas of the web and how these sites can be viewed as a part of Web 2.0. This article would be useful for my Research as it helps to show differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 easily, through using charts and showing technical ways to view websites this journal article easily helps its readers to explore Web 2.0. However the main limitation of this article is its age, having been written in 2008, some of the articles topics could be deemed as outdated due to the changing nature of the internet. Thus, I believe this article could be deemed as partially useful as although its age hinders some points it is well written and provides many good points that would help form much of the research to describe differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC).

Wiki Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation – What ARE Wikis?
Wikibooks can be seen as the most modern form of text/instructional book. The majority of pages on the website are dedicated textbooks, annotated texts, instructional guides and manuals. Thanks to this it is more thorough in its use of research and references than its sister site wikipedia. This can be seen greatly in certain books in the wikibooks site as they must be backed up with research data and references.

There is a high emphasis on visibility in Wikibooks as “An entry can be added by any web user, and edited by any other, is a radical experiment in Trust” (O’Reilly, 2007, pp. 23) .This high level of user interaction is what drives Wikibooks on and thus due to the sensitive nature of this there is a high emphasis on visibility on the site. Anything that users post can be seen and reviewed by administrators. Due to this, if any incorrect statements have been made my a user then these posts can be deleted easily. Also this helps to combat online “Trolling” (annoying people through the internet) as if people are intentionally disrupting the work of others for their own personal amusement then this can be seen easily and the user can be banned. Thus, i would say that wikibooks does not offer online emancipation as there is a strict set of code and conducts that its users must follow in order to keep the site correct and in good order.

From my own experience of wikibooks there is a high level of collaborative research used in the creation of book pages. For instance the Debates in Digital Culture 2019/Web 2.0 discussion page that I had a hand in utilising was fantastic for showing any research that was found by other wikibooks members that are researching the same topic and wish to discuss their findings. This can be seen elsewhere on wikibooks as well : “Multiple authorship was the norm. For example, one publication about Wikipedia research in Scopus was co-authored by 37 individuals" (Park, 2011, pp. 5) . Through this it can be seen that collaborative research is a main feature of the wikibooks experience as through this it means a wealth of knowledge can be found easily and help can be given to other users with things that they are struggling with.

“Wikibooks seems to be a very loosely coupled community” (Sajjapanroj, 2009, pp. 335) (Sajjapanroj, 2009, pp. 335). This can be seen greatly in the way that users work. Unlike a research group in the real world that are with each other and constantly discussing their findings, from my own experience of wikibooks it seems that most users tend to focus on their own work and instead of constantly collaborating with each other, they only converse when they have to. However there is a clear community spirit as working together forms the basis of many if not all wikibook pages.

Finally I would say that the online collaboration found in Wikibooks does offer a representation of a Digital Commons thanks to the collective ownership of a piece that is created by many members of a group.

Hello , I found the points you brought up to be very interesting and that they also aligned with several of the points I made in my own argument of what wikis are. I agree with the point you wrote about in relation to “trolling” and that because wikis are so easily editable they can combat “trolling” much easier than say other platforms, especially social media ones where you have to report something before it is maybe removed. Although, I would counter with the point that because wikis are such a collaborative platform that this almost allows or calls upon the trolls since everything is so “live” and editable. I think that “trolls” might find it more fun due in part to the vast and endless nature of wiki platforms that you might not catch all the trolls.

I also partly agree with your notion that wiki platforms do not offer online emancipation for practically the exact same reasons you listed. I would also add wiki platforms might offer some online emancipation in regard to trust and transparency which I believe you can find both within wiki platforms. This relates to a press release and study published by the University of Nottingham (2016) about online emancipation, “The project is relevant for young people as well as society as a whole to ensure trust and transparency are not missing from the internet.” These points though are the only two which I can see relating to the notion that wiki platforms do kind of offer online emancipation, but not fully.

I also found the example you brought in from Sajjapanroj (2009) to be very interesting. I had never thought of that but it indeed makes sense because while our class used Wikibooks as a very strong example of collaborating because we had to keep in constant communication via wiki platforms to lay out and write our essays. While other users seem to use Wikibooks more “loosely” to collaborate because they did not set out and know they were going to collaborate with whomever to produce the wiki page because their collaboration is more in terms of correcting errors or adding a bit more.

At the very end, you brought up the point of how you would call online collaboration a representation of digital commons and I would be interested to hear more of what you have to say about that. For example, how and why you made this point. I personally agree with your notion because like I mentioned in my own argument on my discussion page, this project relates to Ursula Huws’s (2015) definition of “creative commons” which is that “to which all authors are supposed to donate their work for free” (p.173)

It is clear that since Web 2.0 we have reached a state of collectivism. Collective intelligence has become more and more relevant in today’s world and it is clear that Wikis play a large part in this. I agree that visibility plays a key part in information becoming so accessible, as visibility allows people to search and find information efficiently making information accessible to more people than it ever has in the past. With Wikibooks, I was a little worried about this visibility as I am a private person when it comes to posting online. Typically, my online accounts have the highest {{w:Privacy|privacy]] settings on them, and I do not post things that I wouldn’t be comfortable having many other people see. This can be an issue with Wikipedia and its sister sites. However I believe that the benefits far outweigh the risks, and that everyone should be able to access information when needed as it creates intellectual equality. I completely agree with your statement on how complete online emancipation is not possible. If it were so, issues such as trolling, racism, etc. would become a huge issue. Also, this could create a problem where people could post false information, and this could cause a large majority of problems that would ruin the benefits of collective intelligence. In O’Reilly’s writing he referred to a statement coined by Eric Raymond stating that “with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow” (O’Reilly, 2005). I believe this refers to the idea that because everyone has access to post information and make edits, people will fix the mistakes made by others. This helps to prevent false information from circulating, because many users are able to weigh in and fix information that isn’t correct. Wikipedia contributors claim that Wikipedia and its sister platforms have, “…mechanisms in place to reach consensus, most notably through the three core content policies ‘‘neutral point of view’’ (NPOV), ‘‘verifiability,’’ and ‘‘no original research’’ (Weltevrede & Borra, 2016). I also believe our collaborative essay relied heavily on the individual information each user researched and wrote about. Our topic, Web 2.0, is expansive. Because there is so much to cover, sometimes one individual might get bogged down or too focused on a single aspect and miss something else equally as important. I think that a large group working on the same written piece allows for a wide range of views and information to provide a better picture of the subject as a whole. However, this can also cause problems because people might not be on the same page with one another regarding what information is important and what is not. I also experienced the problem you expressed in your writing about how users weren’t always great at communicating back. I believe one cause of this was that the amount of information made responses slightly daunting. I know if I missed a day or two that the information would pile up and it could be overwhelming going through all of it and responding in kind. Another possible reason for this problem is that people were so focused on their individual parts they were unaware what others were writing. This caused problems in the end, because several of the parts were clashing with one another because they covered the same information. A possible solution to this problem would be to post more drafts of the essay to make sure that nothing overlapped. However, being a student I myself found juggling everything difficult and can see how 12 people might have difficulties posting information far enough in advance. I believe that the ability to collaborate is there, and with more time and experience users can utilize this tool to spread valuable information to society. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

. And this is exactly what we are doing within our Wikibooks project, we are contributing our collaborative work for free. Bojackpopsocket (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 2 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:
 * 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:
 * a small number of substantial contribs to discussion. Not as consistent, frequent or substantial as could have been.

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
 * Satisfactory

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Satisfactory
 * 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.
 * Good

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 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 upper end of this grade band, so although the quality of the work is very good a little improvement would go a long way to attaining a higher mark. This is especially so perhaps in challenging yourself a little further beyond what you know and in reading a little wider. 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 portfolio, you manage to get everything in, in plenty of time in order to give yourself time to respond. It did pay off, and there’s good work here.


 * 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 have made a difference. Having said this, you have managed to organise your discussion page rather well.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good. I like that 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). Keep this up!

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 – again, all good.


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

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