User talk:Jessiehosk27

Hi, I will be working as part of a joint university project Jessiehosk27 (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: Online Visibility and Footprint
When I think about how visible I am online, my first thought is my social media presence. This can manifest itself in several ways, with different social media platforms having different aims. For example, being active on Twitter allows me to post ‘tweets’ that update my followers on anything interesting that might be happening in my life, or just general thoughts. On the other hand, Instagram allows me to post photos that document my life and show the people who follow me what I’ve been up to. The number of people who see this online activity could therefore refer to online visibility, with the more friends or followers you have on these platforms means that higher number of people can see your activity and you are therefore arguably more visible online.

Despite this, this level of visibility can sometimes be altered depending on the privacy settings set by the user. On my Facebook for instance, the viewing of my activity is restricted to my friends, meaning that my visibility is narrowed. Similarly, privacy settings on other social media sites are useful in ensuring the user’s safety, and users are encouraged to set these up in order to protect their privacy.

Furthermore, visibility can further be affected by the ability to block certain users if they post material that is viewed as inappropriate or offensive. To some extent this means that social media users have the power to control the information they view.

The information available about me online varies depending on the social media platform. For example, my Facebook profile shows others where I go to university; this makes it easier to identify me when they’re adding me as a friend and can be useful in order to find things in common with other users.

However, I am careful not to post too much personal information online so as to not my compromise my online safety; a fact that has repeatedly been emphasised as I grew up by other adults.

Due to the nature of some forms of social media, like Twitter, when you’re not on private it can be hard to control the amount of information you view. This is due in part to the sheer amount of users that are registered onto these sites, and can make it difficult to decipher content, causing some to suffer from information overload. With an increasing amount of users across all social media platforms this is a problem that is unlikely to dissipate anytime soon.

When you join these social media sites, you are joining an online community, which will be discussed in more depth in the collaborative essay. Particularly on sites like Twitter, to give one example, users can create a ‘fan account’ which shows that they support a particular artist or film series. As a result, they belong to that particular community. These communities can arguably become quite territorial, with some fandoms less willing to accept new members who may have not been supporting the artist for as long a period.

On a wider, more broader scale, these communities could refer to the actual social media websites themselves; in this case I am part of the Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and Google+ communities. When I think about how visible I am online, my first thought is my social media presence. This can manifest itself in several ways, with different social media platforms having different aims. For example, being active on Twitter allows me to post ‘tweets’ that update my followers on anything interesting that might be happening in my life, or just general thoughts. On the other hand, Instagram allows me to post photos that document my life and show the people who follow me what I’ve been up to. The number of people who see this online activity could therefore refer to online visibility, with the more friends or followers you have on these platforms means that higher number of people can see your activity and you are therefore arguably more visible online.

Despite this, this level of visibility can sometimes be altered depending on the privacy settings set by the user. On my Facebook for instance, the viewing of my activity is restricted to my friends, meaning that my visibility is narrowed. Similarly, privacy settings on other social media sites are useful in ensuring the user’s safety, and users are encouraged to set these up in order to protect their privacy.

Furthermore, visibility can further be affected by the ability to block certain users if they post material that is viewed as inappropriate or offensive. To some extent this means that social media users have the power to control the information they view.

The information available about me online varies depending on the social media platform. For example, my Facebook profile shows others where I go to university; this makes it easier to identify me when they’re adding me as a friend and can be useful in order to find things in common with other users.

However, I am careful not to post too much personal information online so as to not my compromise my online safety; a fact that has repeatedly been emphasised as I grew up by other adults.

Due to the nature of some forms of social media, like Twitter, when you’re not on private it can be hard to control the amount of information you view. This is due in part to the sheer amount of users that are registered onto these sites, and can make it difficult to decipher content, causing some to suffer from information overload. With an increasing amount of users across all social media platforms this is a problem that is unlikely to dissipate anytime soon.

When you join these social media sites, you are joining an online community, which will be discussed in more depth in the collaborative essay. Particularly on sites like Twitter, to give one example, users can create a ‘fan account’ which shows that they support a particular artist or film series. As a result, they belong to that particular community. These communities can arguably become quite territorial, with some fandoms less willing to accept new members who may have not been supporting the artist for as long a period.

On a wider, more broader scale, these communities could refer to the actual social media websites themselves; in this case I am part of the Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and Google+ communities. Jessiehosk27 (discuss • contribs) 22:26, 28 February 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 lower 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, you would have achieved an “Excellent” grade, were it not for the fact that you went excessively over the word limit. Please read the instructions which state that you need to “address each exercise brief specifically. It is also important to be concise in online writing, so try to keep your posts to no more than around 2500-3000 characters each” Unless other wise stated.


 * 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) 11:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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


Social media has changed the way many people view the world and their perspective. As more social media sites have been introduced, the more information that is stored about us online. Despite this, there is still some freedom; internet users can choose which information they are comfortable with making public. Therefore, the extent to which my online and offline identities are aligned depends on the social media site and my own personal decisions.

On social media, users have the power to choose how their online identity is shaped. The ability to create fan accounts offers an outlet for users which perhaps draws a line between their online and offline identity. On many platforms, an individual user can choose to create their own identity by joining the numerous fan communities that exist across social media websites. In this instance, the users have the ability to adapt their presentation of self to accommodate different social situations . This means that the way an individual portrays themself could be very different to the identity they have established for themselves offline; therefore their online and offline identities are not as aligned as they might be otherwise. Using social media like this can prove to be an escapism for people as they join a platform to solely talk about and promote their interest in television shows, films, artists within the music industry to name a few.

The ability of social media users to choose what is visible to other users continues onto other social media websites. For example, people tend to only post the positive aspects of their life, making an Instagram profile being an inaccurate representation of somebody’s addition. Furthermore, people’s lives can be glamourised and only certain parts of their offline identity revealed, which means that online and offline identities are indeed de-aligned.



Social media has also been used negatively; some people have dramatically changed their offline identity by choosing to alter it online to the extent that they are using someone else’s personal information

Luckily, this does not happen very often and the separation between online and offline identity can sometimes appear to be blurred. This has become increasingly evident with the growth of the ‘always on’ culture with some people choosing to constantly post about their lives and interests on social media. Therefore, the information available on a Facebook profile can be useful in shaping both an online and offline identity through looking at some of the user’s expressed interests, likes and what they post when online. However, certain more personal information is often hidden through privacy settings so as to protect more sensitive information, and this can protect the very core of someone’s identity.

In addition, Twitter can also be useful in determining what people are interested in through what they tweet and which users they follow. Therefore, if a user uses a social media site for more personal reasons, their online and offline identity arguably becomes more aligned.

To conclude, the extent to which a person’s online and offline identities become aligned can largely depend on how they choose to use their social media platforms. By joining an online fandom, the user posts less personal contact and as a result more distance is created between the two separate identities. Furthermore, significant control is given to the individual user to choose what they post by showing the more glamourous aspects of their life. Jessiehosk27 (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments and References
Please feel free to leave any comments here.

Reply to Wiki Exercise 2
I really enjoy the way your wrote this piece and your writing style in general, and I also believe that you gave an interesting insight into online identities and the current social media culture. I agree that our online identities can often depend on the social media platform we use, as I have noticed that more visually-driven social networks tend to bring people to only showcase an improved version of themselves. I liked how you mentioned the idea of fandom and communities as well, and how you did not talk about them in a negative light how they are often portrayed. Chiarabpapo (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you so much for the feedback. I agree with the point you made about the more visually-driven social networks- I think people feel the pressure to present the best version of themselves online, given that it is on social media sites when we have more control over how we portray ourselves to others. Jessiehosk27 (discuss • contribs) 17:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Wiki Exercise 2
I was interested in your thoughts that opening fan accounts and participating in online communities can be a different online identity than a persons personal account. It makes me think about "finstas" or "spam" accounts. I wonder if the real life identity is closer to the real account, or the spam account. If I have an Instagram account for my dog, would that mean I have another online identity? Or is it that of my dogs? Having an online identity different from a real life identity has a negative connotation to it, but I think participating in a fandom, or being goofy behind a dog account is far from negative. Ryleyfred (discuss • contribs) 10:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * the point you raised about "finstas" or "spam" accounts is an interesting one. I think that it can perhaps show a different side to that user's personality that may not be shown in their 'official' account. I think that if you made a instagram account for your dog, then it would be a representation of two identities, both yours and the dog's if that makes sense? You are still in control of how your dog is portrayed with the content posted and the captions you post underneath could also reveal a side to your personality. I definitely think that participating in a fandom has both positive and negative implications, it can be nice to feel part of a community but there can also be the risk of online trolling and bullying. Which I guess is similar to life offline. Jessiehosk27 (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3 Annotated Bibliography
Armstrong, Arthur, and John Hagel. "The real value of online communities." Knowledge and communities 74.3 (2000): 85-95

In this chapter, Armstrong and Hagel highlight the importance of the relationship between online companies and the consumer, and how a sense of community can be fostered through the internet. Furthermore, both the value of these communities and the challenges they could face with regard to competition between communities, design and operation are expanded upon during the chapter. Emphasised as being central to the user's experience, the chapter goes into further detail about the different types of communities that are established through the internet, these include communities of transaction, communities of interest, communities of fantasy and communities of relationship. I found the use of examples helpful in bringing the community more to life; when talking about communities of transaction Armstrong and Hagel used Virtual Vineyards in order to create a community in which people can source and buy wine through their online service.

I think this piece of reading will be a useful reference for when I'm writing my essay given that it talks about fantasy communities- this links in well with the idea of interest communities. Jessiehosk27 (discuss • contribs) 16:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Wiki Exercise #3
I really liked your content it has very good points also your reference style is amazing. Your Annotated Bibliography is really very good. I totally agree with your bibliography format. I assume everyone can relate to this. I think yours is a well formatted and valid response to the given topic. Good luck. Ala Venkat (discuss • contribs) 22:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you so much for the positive feedback. Good luck to you too Jessiehosk27 (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4 Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation- What are Wikis?
A platform that allows for the collaboration of users and encourages the collection of data which can be added and edited by anyone can be referred to as a wiki. Although there are many websites which use this model, arguably the most famous are Wikipedia and Wikibooks. The former has been described as one of the most visited sites on the web, and is is described as an online encyclopaedia. On the other hand, Wikibooks is more similar to a collection of textbooks and manuals, with the author's opinion coming through the piece of online material. This is different to Wikipedia, where the author (or authors) remain unbiased, preferring to state the facts rather than from an argument. Furthermore, both of these platforms are highly visible, with every user action stored by the wiki platform. This in turn means that both the Wikipedia and Wikibooks platforms must be carefully monitored in order to ensure that there is no foul play, with people going on and editing other people's work.

Furthermore, the sense of community that can be fostered through these discussion pages enables people to be held accountable for their actions; this is aided by the level of high visibility which sets wiki platforms apart from other websites.

Wikibooks can also prove to have an important educational purpose, despite students being told to not use Wikipedia for referencing due to the potential for its information to be inaccurate due to how many people have access. However, for a collaborative project Wikibooks can provide the ideal digital medium. A group of students can come together to produce a group project, talking about the same topic and therefore can form a community. These communities can prove to be problematic, with different issues arising in terms of who researches what, and working together to ensure that everyone's opinion is accounted for. To this extent, the ability to compromise is key when thinking about collaboration which occurs online.

Consequently, the collaborative function can prove to be useful in enabling discussion and facilitating free speech for the members of its community. This means that all users are free to talk about their interest and talk to others who share similar interests through the discussion and talk pages present on these Wikis. Furthermore, the influence and importance Wikipedia holds has been emphasised recently, with medical students in the US working to improve the medical articles available on this wiki platform. Being taught how to use Wikipedia, the students improved the quality of the articles, therefore making them more reliable and trustworthy for the general user to use. Despite these advantages, it is also clear that a certain amount of self-regulation with what an individual deems to be appropriate With the high-level of visibility, what people post can come under greater scrutiny. To this extent, it could be argued that wiki platforms do offer a form of online emancipation, but this must be moderated in order to maintain high standards that strive to educate users of these websites. Jessiehosk27 (discuss • contribs) 23:40, 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:
 * 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 handful of substantial, and other contribs through the period. 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
 * Satisfactory
 * Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay
 * Excellent
 * Evidence of peer-review of others’ work
 * Good

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
 * 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.
 * Good

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 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.


 * 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 make a considerable difference. As it stands the quality of the work you have produced is pretty good, generally.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – where you have done these, these are fairly good, although very inconsistent. One of the peer-review responses for Ex2 is quite late coming in, and the respoinse for Ex4 is entirely 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 - yes; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – yes.


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


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)