User talk:Jenniferd1205

FMSU9A4 Wiki Exercise #2: To What Extent Are My Online and Offline Identities Aligned?
Depending on each individual person, our online and offline identities may differ greatly or be exactly the same. We must reflect on our own online profiles and ask ourselves the question, does this show who I am in reality? Perhaps we should change the question of whether we even have just one identity, or many that we store online. In this mini-essay I will discuss how myself and my peers present our identities online and offline, and the differences and challenges we face as young people trying to express ourselves on SNS sites. I will use quotes from Zizi Papacharissi's A Networked Self: Identity, Community and Culture on Networked Sites and Yasmin Ibrahim's Production of the 'Self' in the Digital Media Age to support my mini-essay.

Firstly, naturally social media began as a way of becoming easier to connect and share with people all over the world. However nowadays it could be argued that it has become solely, "a theatre for assembling ourselves and narrating our lived moments to others." .

This suggests a falseness to the way we portray ourselves online. I believe that as much as we would not like to admit it, that the majority of us have separate or even multiple identities online. What is meant by this is that the vast majority of people share what they would 'like' to be seen, and perhaps maybe not the reality of the situation. For example, if we go on to Facebook right now, we would see floods of posts and pictures from birthday parties, engagements, baby showers etc. No matter how stressful these major life events are behind the scenes, how often do we see those negative sides to them on our profiles?

Personally, I can confidently say that I separate my online and offline identities. I think as a young person in the digital age, one could argue that we 'overshare' or share every single detail of our lives on SNS sites. However, for me I do not think this is the case. I have to agree with Ibrahim's statement above, that we 'assemble' ourselves online to show others, we pick out the parts that we wish to be seen, our "desired image" or "highly selective" version of ourselves" . I think that the reason for this is that, generally, we would all like to be seen from the public and from our friends as 'fun' and always having a perfect time and we wish to keep our negative realities more hidden.

In conclusion, I believe that the majority of people could admit that they have different identities that they show publicly online and what they show offline. I think that it can be argued that documenting the happiest parts of your life online can be positive activity, however how to we decide where to draw the line between sharing those parts and being unauthentic? In my own experience I feel as though the older I have become, the more private I am on SNS sites due to my perspective on excessive sharing evolving. However this is purely my experience and I stand by that every person has their own views on their online and offline identities. Jenniferd1205 (discuss • contribs) 22:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jennifer, I have also written my own take on the extent to which our online and offline identities aligned. However, you've taken it in a slightly different direction to me which I find interesting. I agree on the element on falseness that is perceived when individuals choose to share online content on the web surrounding their personal lives, as they do indeed only choose to share the moments and elements of their lives that they are proud of, or what they choose as the best version of themselves. By doing so, individuals keep their negative realities hidden. This could potentially lead to setting unattainable standards to others and reinforcing social media expectations of others. Within Yasmine Ibrahmin's work (2018) She discusses the desire to curate the digital self feeds into the desire for the validation of others, which in turn feeds into digital narcissism. In my own take on the subject matter I discuss the concept of the disinhibition effect, the idea that people may say things online that they may not say in person. You are welcome to read my mini essay and give me feedback! Digitalmediajade (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

FMSU9A4 Wiki Exercise #3 Annotated Bibliography Entry
In this book, Fuchs attempts to answer the question of, how is digital media changing our definition of labour? Specifically in the 'Digital Slavery' section, he explains how exploitation of workers in the digital media production process is still extremely present. Fuchs uses case studies and examples such as Apple's Foxconn and mining for minerals for phone production. He uses these examples to highlight the alienation and exploitation that the workers encounter. In digital labour that is performed on corporate social media, users are objectively alienated because in relation to subjectivity, they are coerced by isolation and social disadvantage if they leave major capital platforms; in relation to the objects of labour, their human experiences come under the control of capital; in relation to the instruments of labour, the platforms are not owned by users but by private companies that also commodify user data; and in relation to the product of labour, monetary profit is individually controlled by the platform’s owners. A possible limitation of the book is defining what is and what is not digital labour under Fuch's extremely broad category and definition. However, the main elements of the book are relevant to to our focus on digital labour therefore will be helpful in increasing my knowledge of the topic further. .

Jenniferd1205 (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

FMSU9A4 Wiki Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation- What Are Wikis?
Wikibooks is an online wiki-based platform that allows anyone with internet access to read and edit free e-textbooks. It is the sister website of Wikipedia and acts as a place to write, edit, copy and contribute to books on a wide variety of topics. Wikibooks is dedicated either to original works, significantly altered versions of existing works or annotations to original works, which slightly differs from other Wiki sites. Ultimately, it allows a wider range of people to contribute and an easier access to online academic resources.

Wikibooks is an extremely visible platform due to "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 meaning that anyone can edit or write anything, therefore this comes with pros and cons. Anyone writing content that is not appropriate for the site can easily be removed, however these changes can still be made, if only online for a short time. The online visibility helps these cases as users can be identified easily and quickly with lists of contributors and editors on pages.

Another advantage of Wikibooks is the ability to work on books collaboratively. In my own experience, it has been extremely helpful in our university media class to work together and create a section of Debates in Digital Culture 2019. As a group, our assignment was to create a page within Debates in Digital Culture to write our own research and contribute to the overall book on various aspects of digital media. Our group worked on Debates in Digital Culture 2019/Digital Labour and every contribution we made individually was clearly stated. As there is a high level of collaboration in wikibooks as explained, "The collaborative technology as platform, and the alteration of roles and power relations brought about by the new method, enable a new kind of student–teacher-curriculum relationship." . Meaning that wikis serve as a new kind of teaching, that students can do independently while contributing to what they are learning. However, the pros are not only for teachers but mostly for the people who write and edit the pages. Findings and research can be posted bit by bit with easy access to communication with other contributors, making the creation process easier. Therefore, the collaboration feature is a major part of the platform.

Overall, wikis are a greatly effective way of contributing to existing information already available. The platform creates communities that can communicate more easily, discuss when necessary and add their own research whenever they wish. Digital commons (economics) explains that through wikis, "knowledge can be pooled and compiled, generating a wealth of information from which the community can draw." Meaning that, the group working on a collaborative book have a unified ownership of their work yet can share it with the world. Jenniferd1205 (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 4 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:
 * 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:
 * insubstantial

Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages
 * Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration
 * Little or no evidence
 * Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay
 * Little or no evidence
 * Evidence of peer-review of others’ work
 * Little or no evidence

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Little or no evidence
 * Clearly labelled sections and subsections
 * Little or no evidence
 * Contributions are all signed
 * Little or none in evidence

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) 15:26, 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 lower end of this grade band, primarily due to the fact that you haven’t completed the peer-review element for Ex4. So there’s clearly room for improvement here, especially in terms of paying attention to detail (in *any* assessment brief). 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 a some to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. You do make some good use of this though, especially as time moves on and you became more proficient.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, if a little brief, and the main one from EX4 is missing. 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 – mainly 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: good use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)