User talk:Jade144

This will be where I discuss evidence and work towards my project. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

=Wiki Exercise #1: Online Visibility and Footprint=

Since the age of 11, when I lied to Facebook stating that I was 13 so I could create an account, my visibility online has only grew tenfold. Holding accounts on Social Media sites such as Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr and Snapchat as well as shopping platforms like Amazon and Etsy, in addition to my account with Fitbit, my online footprint is extremely visible, showcasing information about me that ranges from general name and age to what could be thought of as a public diary.

With the Social Media platform Twitter, I have developed a form of online disinhibition, as John R. Suler’s 2016 article suggests, in regards to the information I choose to share about myself. I have two accounts: One for friends and family in the ‘real’ world, and another I use for engaging in fandom activities. This secondary account is what I imagine as my “online personal space” where the anonymity and invisibility seem to have encouraged me to let down my guard and reveal more information about myself than I would elsewhere. Although the account is still public access it has become “perceived privacy” within my mind, and therefore I have shared a lot of information about myself despite knowing that this information is publically available. I took the ‘trade off’ in allowing my data to be widely accessible in exchange for the services of expression and ironically the sense of liberation it allowed from my ‘in real life’ activities.

Social Media is a platform were online visibility is an essential component to its use, hence the ‘social’ aspect. However, another platform where online visibility is necessary in order to use at its full function is Fitbit. When creating an account, my name, birthday, gender, height and weight were all required fields. Moreover, in use of the platform, the Surveillance and Dataveillance that the platform profiles from me ranges from location tracked through GPS, to sleeping patterns. Again, this is within the ‘trade off’ argument of services in exchange of personal data. However, when inspecting the Fitbit Privacy Policy, it outlines that my control over this collected data isn’t actually in my control - as even if I delete my account the data itself may not be deleted for 90 days or even at all as the policy states: “We may also preserve data for legal reasons or to prevent harm.”


 * I found you're discussion regarding Fitbit and their use of data quite interesting. For one I had never thought about it at all, even though I have owned one of their products for a couple of years now. I just blindly accepted the T&C's when I first signed up and never realized what and how they used the data. Yet I notice the stats available under sleep patterns that shows what the average trends are for my own age group, which they must have obtained from somewhere. Something that is more obvious now, is that they have taken all the information gained from all Fitbit users to collate these figures. This does lead to the question, Should data collection and the ownership of that information be more prominent when signing up for these apps/devices? Since I know myself, i dont even recall even skipping past the T&C section when I first signed up. Maybe it is time to force companies to be totally transparent and have it in shinny red letters as to what they are doing, and then let the end user decide if they want to continue or not? :Beardoin-AS (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I had the same experience of not fully considering the data that was being taken from my use of Fitbit until the module made me question just how much data about me is available. I agree that the terms and conditions of signing away personal data is too complex and typically leads to no one reading them. I found this short article. which discussed research that was undertaken to investigate alternatives to the current ‘terms and conditions’ in order to get “genuine, informed consent” from users when dealing with financial data. I would say the current terms and conditions for collecting data are too complex, this article finding the same results in their research, as people they talked to “expressed concerns about sharing their data”. However, it comes back to this idea of ‘trade-off’, as even if the terms and conditions were changed I’m not sure how many people would protect personal data over the commodity that they wanted in the first place. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 21:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I find this discussion on information storage very interesting, because throughout all of my interactions with the internet over the years I have agree to the terms given by companies and signed away my personal information without thinking twice about it. I do not believe that I would even be able to count the number of times I gave away my name and email to sign up for accounts online, especially since I started giving out information like this at the age of 12. Giving out email information and one’s name is common now, however giving out personal data such as one’s health and wellness data seems to be a little more concerning. What is that company using that information for? How can someones exercise and sleeping schedule be valuable to a company? Nowadays, data is collected about all aspects of a person's life, especially when online programs like ancestry.com and 23andme.com exist. I, however, believe that this information can be valuable enough to trade off your information for. I believe that the doubt users experience around these companies storing and sometimes owning this data is due to people being unaware of what the information is being applied to. This is where companies need to become more transparent, whether they are storing your email or your medical records. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 01:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The reality being that once my data is collected from my social media use, online shopping or even my personal device, I lose control of being completely in ownership of this data. This is a fact that I am aware of but chose to participate in because of the commodities I get in return. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 00:15, 1 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.


 * 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 – these are especially good. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) and also that you have engaged in discussion in an open and critical way with other users who have commented on your work (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!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

=Wiki Exercise #2: To What Extent Are My Online And Offline Identities Aligned?=

“Identity is not what you are, but rather is something you do.”

This definition of identity by Grant Bollmer serves as the basis for this essay’s exploration of online and offline identity alignment. By Bollmer’s account, Identity is a concept that is performative and focuses around how we present ourselves to others. Crucially, he states that although it is performative, this doesn’t mean that some performances are more authentic than others, but rather, “they’re all part of you”. Therefore, with online identity through social networking sites, this definition could suggest that although the user constructs their self-image within each platform, the construction process itself is essentially the essence of identity. This construction isn’t seen in online activity alone, but is a familiar concept in ‘real’ life settings too. I am aware that I present myself and my identity differently depending on social context. While at work, I take on the performance of being a professional with vigorous manners and customer care. Whereas, my performance as a student is that of a learner. All of these ‘performances’ are still a part of who I am, one is not more authentic than the other, it is just the appropriate, yet varied ways in which my offline identity is established. I choose to present myself as highly as possible at work because I want others to view me this way. Yet, this is not the way I want my friends to view me, and so I find myself adjusting to the necessary social environments. This idea is relevant to identity online, as our performance in virtual environments also caters to the audience we interact with on social media.

Danah Boyd elaborates on this notion with her term “context collapse" which relates to how different contexts leads to different management strategies of identity. In her 2009 article with Alice Marwick, Boyd’s definition of identity is similar to Bollmer’s, and extends the idea that one performance is not more real than another by labelling authenticity as a construct that is constituted by audiences. The difference with online and offline identity, and the reason they cannot be completely aligned is due to the interactive elements with the audiences we communicate with. As Marwick and Boyd discuss, with social networking sites, the audience must be imagined, as with public accounts, the user can’t know exactly who sees what they say, differing from face-to-face interactions of offline communications. This results in people filtering what they post to appear like the best version of themselves. However, this is not always the case, as without face-to-face interactions, people have shown to become disinhibited with their self-presentation, which has resulted in a poor representation of self through toxic behaviour. The audience in this context may be imagined as not being there at all, the public aspect of the platform may be lost through text based communication providing a sense of anonymity. The consequences of such behaviour on people’s social media accounts can have serious results, such as losing a job because of inappropriate tweets. 

To summarise, identity is flexible with both online and offline presentations having multiple aspects that are dependent on social contexts. The online and offline identities both reflect who you are, but in some cases, the online identity may be more disinhibited. This being seen with some participants from Marwick and Boyd’s article relating social media use as a diary instead of a publicly accessible platform, which causes the performance of self to be inappropriate to the given context. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a well written commentary on the differences and comparisons between offline and online identity. The use of the Grant Bollmer quote creates a great starting point for the arguments made in this essay. Furthermore, the points in the essay largely stay on track with the essay's theme. The argument made is strong and convincing and backed up by plenty of applicable references. Overall, an excellent essay. Msweeney00 (discuss • contribs) 11:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Msweeney00


 * I enjoyed reading this essay! It's written to be easy to understand and very concise, fitting in a lot of relevant information to the topic. It's helpful that you use your own personal experiences of identity to illustrate your point. I also really liked the mention of online disinhibition in the essay as well, linking to the collaborative essay and utilising other topics of the module in this way! Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I found your essay very interesting especially the idea that our presentation online is a series of performances which are just as important as each other. I like the way you brought imagined audience into the essay. I agree that our identity online and offline are both accurate representations of ourselves. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

=Wiki Exercise #3: Annotated Bibliography Exercise (Part B)=


 * Oldberg, C.J.A (2016) Organizational Doxing: Disaster on the Doorstep, Journal on telecommunications and high technology law, 15(1), 181-206.

Oldberg’s article focuses on the rise of organisational doxing, the disastrous effects it has caused, and strategies to combat this rising issue. Doxing itself is explained as researching information available online, to find and publish someone’s personally identifiable information (PII). Through use of specific examples, Oldberg emphasises the dangerous effects that large scale organisational doxing can bring to people. For example, the ‘Ashley Madison’ hacking scandal was analysed in order to make readers aware of the threats organisational doxing presents. In this scandal an organised group who called themselves “The Impact Team” published data belonging to 35 million people, and as Ashley Madison was a dating site specifically made for people in marriages and relationships to find affairs, this personal data being released to the public had catastrophic consequences: ranging from divorces to suicides. This is just one of the examples that the article uses to demonstrate the mass amount of people who can be effected through organisational doxing – Oldberg stating that this online act can be used as a form of terrorism. Our essay would benefit from referencing the examples discussed in relation to toxic online disinhibition, as those responsible for doxing organisations data, act out of inhibition of being anonymous online and therefore exempt from their destructive actions. In addition, this article allows connections to be made between organisational doxing to Dataveillance, as doxing uses information that is publicly available, and is therefore data that we have put online ourselves through involvement in social media, or agreed to be collected through signing terms and conditions. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 20:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi! I think you provide a really well written annotated bibliography here that ties in really well with the topic of online disinhibition. I think it is important for the negatives of this form of communication, whilst it can be positive, when used inappropriately it can have severe, life shattering consequences. I look forward to seeing how you apply your findings from this source to our essay on online disinhibition! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 10:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

= Wiki Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation – What ARE Wikis?=

Wikibooks itself has a page dedicated entirely to the questioning around “what is wikibooks?”. In questioning Wikibooks itself to answer what it is, it states that “Wikibooks is a collection of open-content textbook.” This is true, yet, simultaneously fails to capture the extent of resource this website offers to users.

In my experience of Wikibooks, the community value of an open knowledge platform was the most evident resource of quality that the Wiki provided. In regards to tackling the work towards the collaborative research project, there were three groups assigned to the same topic. With Wikibooks, we unconsciously decided that these three groups would not be divided and cordoned off from one another within the discussion or essay page. Alternatively, we became integrated as one communal group in every aspect of the essay and planning – allowing us not to be limited by singular group activity, instead, taking advantage of Wikibooks as a resource of connected knowledge. Through working as a collective, I believe my learning of the research topic was advanced, as the other members produced reading recommendations, found Wiki commons pictures that attributed to the section I was working on, offered feedback and overlooked editing.

In relation to the Wiki commons, using these images also made the universality of the Wiki ever more apparent, as using these images was only possible due to others on the platform uploading them, with the intention that others would benefit from their use. This was an element that made using Wikibooks unique. The platform, at the most fundamental level, is one that allows information to be shared with anyone who needs access, and thereafter could be used to contribute into further Wiki projects and knowledge sharing. In 2008, a case study focusing on Wikibooks potential as an empowerment platform was explored by Ravid et al. In an assignment similar to the one I carried out, university students contributed to sections of a pre-existing Wikibook page. From this task, Ravid et al discovered Wikis potential of complicating power dynamics in academic publishing and teacher relations, as with Wiki project assignments, students are given a more active role in the learning and teaching process. The Wikis “have community-level effects on cohesion, sense of belonging, solidarity, peer-to-peer learning, and group sense of efficacy” which stemmed empowerment from the case study students and also in my own work. Wiki’s contribute to a public good, which is defined by academic, Harold Rheingold as “a resource from which all may benefit, regardless of whether they help create it.” Through witnessing first-hand the visibility of ‘connection between community and content’, Wikis form a sense of responsibility and ownership of work, that can bring pride, yet also, anxiety, as the surveillance of the platform is apparent with other user interaction, as well as admin and robot interference at times.

To end this discussion, Clay Shirky’s notion of 'Cognitive Surplus' comes to mind when asking the question, what are Wikis? Shirky states: “the world’s cognitive surplus is so large that small changes can have huge ramifications in aggregate” The surplus of many individuals contributing their free labour to spend time expanding and engaging with the Wikis, is what makes Wikis, and allows them to work and thrive as knowledge sharing platforms, creating a public good to be made within society. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 21:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I quite enjoyed reading this last section for the wiki exercises. I like how you began with making reference to your own experience working on the collaborative essay and using self-reflection to consider what Wikis ARE and how they foster an environment of community and collaboration.


 * I thought it was interesting how you also referenced how the collaborative aspects of Wikibooks wasn’t just apparent in our own immediate collaborative work on the group essay but also how this is shown through other people’s use of Wikimedia. I guess this less immediate or obvious sense of collaboration and collective intelligence can be understood also through the way we had to add internal links to Wikipedia articles that are written, rewritten and edited continuously by people that we don’t know at all but are part of a community in which everyone has the chance to use or build upon other people’s work and learn from this.


 * I found your reference to Ravid et al. fascinating as it points to a central theme I found in researching for the engagement exercises and wiki exercises in that open-source online platforms like Wikibooks offer a chance for the democratisation of learning and gives people an equal share in what they can contribute and take away from the experience as opposed to relying on a hierarchical power structure, allowing for such a great platform for collaborating and making. This type of communal ownership that comes with Wikibooks links quite a lot to other themes on the module and I see quite a lot of similarities to Scholz’ conception of platform cooperativism for example. Through Wikibooks and platform cooperativism, the collaborative nature and the potential for peer-to-peer interactivity and a sense of community can be created online rather than it just being a place of consumption or a place of increasing surveillance or data-gathering for the benefit of companies.


 * I think ending your discussion with reference to Clay Shirky is very effective as I think his quote that you’ve referenced is so relevant to the Wikibooks platform and to the collaborative essay we were tasked with completing. It was all of our group trying to take a little part of our day every day to contribute or edit continuously in tandem that allowed us to bring together our knowledge and skills to create a 'public good' which anyone can use as they wish for their own learning. Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 05:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

=References=

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:
 * Excellent. Among other things, contributions 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 formatting, 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 and transparent way on the Discussion Pages. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts, justifying decision-making with transparency. 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 as well as for fellow researchers collaborating. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.

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:
 * several substantial contribs throughout the period of the project, and a number of significant contribs to discussion – consistent engagement in evidence here. Excellent.

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

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

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) 15:13, 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:


 * Outstanding. In addition to the criteria for “excellent”, entries at this standard demonstrate outstanding critical understanding of the exercise and are able to produce sophisticated lines of argument, and is highly original.


 * 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.


 * 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 – these are especially good: attention to detail, the level of critical engagement, generous commentary and peer-review. Really excellent work. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) and also 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). This all evidences that you are very familiar with the civic element of wiki participation. Well done!

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


 * Argument and analysis: well-articulated and well-supported argument - excellent; evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position) - excellent; evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections) - excellent; evidence of independent critical ability – excellent!


 * Presentation: excellent use of wiki markup and organisational skills generally.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)