User talk:LateRawley

This is my user discussion page for my media class project LateRawley (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: Online Visibility and Footprint
I am in the ever-growing category of people who are unquestionably addicted to social media, with relatively little to show for it. I was a slow starter to the online world, spending my formative years in abroad Spain where I first became acquainted with Facebook at the age of 11, however I rarely used it until later on in life. Upon moving back to the UK I became more of a consistent user of the online world, beginning to become more visible online as I posted on my private Facebook account every month or so, usually with pictures of my baby sister or photos that related to my interest, which was at the time skateboarding.

My life online became much more public when I got my first mobile phone in 2013, I used social media sites such as Instagram to fell more integrated with the skateboarding community, posting photos of my skateboard setups and videos of new tricks that I had learned, I still had a private Facebook, as I still used that purely as a means to share photos with family and friends back in Spain.

Throughout high school I started using other online sites such as reddit and snapchat, that being said I still wasn't particularly active on these sights and I made sure that all of my accounts where private. this was because I was much more comfortable as a consumer of the online world. my only public account was Instagram and it remains public to this day however that remained in the relatively niche area if skateboarding.

Currently, as I had already mentioned I am in a bizarre position as I am becoming increasingly less visible. I use Instagram the most but a rarely post, when I do its usually pictures from my kickboxing matches, mostly because most of my friends don't believe I compete as "I don't seem like the type". Often when I engage with posts, it's never much more than a 'like'. As for Facebook, my account remains private and my feed is still made exclusively of friends and family however I have started posting more as the anonymous admin of an MMA and Kickboxing page which allows me to share my current obsession, combat sports, without feeling exposed. As for Snapchat and Reddit, I hardly ever use them as there's not much on there that I can't find elsewhere.

Aside from that I spend a fair amount of time on MMA forums such as Sherdog and Tapology, again just as a means to feed my obsession with the sport, but much like Instagram I seldom comment on things, instead taking in information and making fight predictions between my close friends.

Overall I'd say that I'm visible, but I don't stand out, instead I use the online world as a bystander because I contribute less than I consume. Most of my profiles are private and I make sure that the ones that aren't are managed so that I don't have to worry about my life online being seen by somebody I wouldn't want to. LateRawley (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 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 there’s clearly room for improvement here. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. 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) 11:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Annotated Bibliography part B
Graham, M., Hjorth, I., & Lehdonvirta, V. (2017). Digital labour and development: impacts of global digital labour platforms and the gig economy on worker livelihoods. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 23(2), 135-162.

In this article written by Graham, Hjorth & Lehdonvirta, the relatively recent practice of businesses outsourcing for cheap digital labour is explored. The authors have aimed to highlight how the world of digital labour and initiatives such as Rockefeller Foundation’s 7-year Digital Jobs Africa as well as the Malaysian government’s Digital Malaysia strategy allows opportunities in low income areas. The article revolves around interviews conducted with 125 digital workers and 27 digital work stakeholders. This article is incredibly useful to my work as it allows me to better understand not only the opportunities that digital labour provides, but also the ways in which that can be taken advantage of on a largely unlegislated internet. A significant limitation of this reading is its emphasis on cheaper digital labour in Africa and Asia, digital labour is available wherever there is connectivity. The article concludes that although digital labour is growing globally, and more people are able to make a living out of it, there is still ‘uneven power relations’ which can be attributed to the aforementioned lack of regulation online. This article will be used to show the downsides of digital labour and therefor, throughout the collaborative essay. LateRawley (discuss • contribs) 17:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
How I present myself online:

The online world allows us to be whoever we want to be, whether that be our true selves, or ‘create entire alternate identities nothing like their “real-life” counterpart’. (Marwick, 2005). This mini essay will look at who I am online and discuss whether I portray myself in a way that is recognisable to my offline self. It will also discuss my development online through the years and how I and other people have shaped my online identity throughout my time on social media. This essay will support the claims and reflections I make with reference to professionals in the field of social media. There will also be captioned images to reinforce the points made throughout the mini essay.

My identity online is a true reflection of me, but not all of me. I definitely try to have my posts online reflect who I truly am. Therefore I would not say that I hold any sort of persona, however, the Jacob that is presented online is a picture, or a 10 second clip, or a premeditated status post. So as much as I am the same as my online self, people who only know me online will only see posts that I put out, creating an obviously biased view of me. On top of that I only tend to post what I deem significant enough to share with the rest of the world. So, people will not see the days where I lounge about, eating pizza and talking nonsense with my flatmates. One thing that I actively avoid is saying things online that I wouldn’t in real life as there are too many people online who ‘may behave very kindly with his family or friends, but behave arrogantly with others. Here, the person’s identity is reﬂected as being kind in one situation and arrogant in another situation.’ (Kim, Zheng & Gupta, 2011). I also try to stay true to my self so that people don’t expect me to be mister extrovert should I have portrayed myself like that online.



I believe that my online identity has changed over my years on the internet as it has matured along with me, I do not partake in online debates as much as I did when I was younger. I will happily discuss and conversate as I believe remaining respectful and in my niche areas of interest has gained me unlikely friends as; the anonymity and isolation found on the internet may actually enhance group salience, as actors focus on commonalities rather than differences. (Wall, 2007). I have one identity throughout all of social media, but I believe people can portray themselves however they want as long as it’s not at the expense of others. I do believe that I have changed a bit lately, as I have become a writer for a leading MMA website, however it just further solidifies my current online identity; fact base, puppy like enthusiasm regarding fights, opinionated but always willing to discuss, and some occasional cheek that I use to wrap up my articles.



In conclusion, I do my best to remain true to myself, of course I fall short ‘Since there are fewer identity cues available online than face to face, every piece of digital information a person provides, from typing speed to nickname and email address, can and is used to make inferences about them.’ (Marwick, 2013). Therefore, what I share that creates a skewed perception of me as it is all up to how people take it, once I share something to the internet my thoughts and intentions behind it are in the court of public opinion. I believe I have developed this mindset due to my formative years on the internet in which I was a bit more out there, engaging in petty arguments about pointless topics like ‘what is the best skatepark in the UK?’. I now realise, unless I am being personal attacked, and even then, I’ll often just ignore, there is no point in hurling absurdities that I wouldn’t in real life.

References:

•	Wall, M. A. (2007). Social movements and email: Expressions of online identity in the globalization protests. New media & society, 9(2), 258-277.

•	Marwick, A. E. (2005). Selling your self: Online identity in the age of a commodified internet (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington).

•	Marwick, A. E. (2013). Online identity. A companion to new media dynamics, 355-364.

•	Wall, M. A. (2007). Social movements and email: Expressions of online identity in the globalization protests. New media & society, 9(2), 258-277.

Hi Jacob, I think you have done a really good job at answering the mini essay question. I agree that when presenting oneself online that even though it is a curated version of oneself that one chooses to present, it is still true to who one is despite it only being one aspect or a limited view. Naturally, a persons online identity will shift over time as ones offline identity shifts with it through experience. I would not say that I portray myself with multiple identities online, I do however post different things regarding different topics depending on which forum I am on and according to relevance. I do not think that this takes away from being true to myself online as I believe that individuals are more complex than that of which they put out with different interests. So maybe not to say multiple identities that are alluding to a false representation but rather that those identities encompass me as a whole. Digitalmediajade (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jacob, I think this is a very interesting response to the exercise. I really like the overall statement that the internet expresses you, but not all of you as I think everyone can relate to this. I also like that you have put in that you do not argue as much online as you did when you were younger because the majority of people can probably agree with this too. I agree also that people should portray themselves however they like as long as it doesn't effect others negatively. Overall I think this is a well structured and valid response to the mini-essay question. Jenniferd1205 (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I think that you have given a very concise and well written response to the exercise. I would also completely agree with you in saying that I too show parts of my life (most likely the best bits) on social media however do not portray my full identity online. This is due to not only being wary of people online but also there just isn't enough time in the day for someone to upload their full identity on social media. I think that it is great that you do not use the internet for saying things you wouldn't say online, and I think more people should be like this. At the moment there is a real issue with online disinhibition whereby many people feel it is acceptable to harass and bully friends, celebrities and strangers just because they have the protection of anonymity. Overall, I think that this is a well thought out piece and is very engaging and a good read! Tessanotyourseminar (discuss • contribs) 11:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jacob, I really liked your content it has very good points also your reference style is amazing. Your argument is really very good. I totally agree with your points. I assume everyone can relate to this. I think yours is a well formatted and valid response to the given topic. Ala Venkat (discuss • contribs) 11:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation – What ARE Wikis?
A wiki is a page, image or more generally some sort of information that has been put there by a person or group of people. the editorial review process that wikis go through is done by members of a community. This mini essay will answer the question ‘What ARE Wikis?’ and will do so by focusing on Wikipedia, Wikibooks and Wikicommons and personal experience using the aforementioned platforms.

There is the well-known online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, which brings communities together as they make banks of information on a topic that they are interested in. Wikibooks is a sister website of Wikipedia which has more space for discussion, and allows you to expression and opinion as long as you can reasonably justify what you say. Like Wikipedia it is community ran and has a wide number of users, whether that be contributors, moderators or administrators. It allows for people, who may or may not know each other, to discuss topics and create wikis. Wikicommons is a website wit images, which again, where put there by voluntary contributors. All of these platforms have Wikis, which are snippets of information which have been contributed by a community. These snippets are often a part of something bigger, and come together to make a page. For example, we can use world famous boxer Anthony Joshua page, in which someone has constructed his record while others have contributed to his background and career which adds up to create a community-based page that contain most of the public notable information regarding Joshua. Wikis create sense of community as people can come together to make something that will be public and visible to the world almost immediately which motivates people to create something that they will be proud of as is shown here; ‘the wiki has great potential as a tool for online collaboration’ (Augar, Raitman & Zhou, 2004:95). Augar, N., Raitman, R., & Zhou, W. (2004, January). It creates a digital commons where people can collaborate and create something on a topic they are knowledgeable about.



Throughout the Wiki lab project that I partook in as part of the FMSU9A4 module, I learnt how to use these platforms. I was always conscious of what I was posting, ensuring that it would be my best work. I enjoyed the platform as I was able to not only take in information, but contribute thoughts of my on a discussion page. I felt like a peer rather than a student and since then have created a new account in order to create wikis on my topic of interest (combat sports). I personally agree with the following article which has said that; ‘wikis can provide an efficient, flexible, user friendly and cost-effective interface for collaboration’ (Schwartz, Clark, Cossarin, & Rudolph, 2004: 5).

In conclusion, it is clear that Wikis are community driven as well as fulfilling as Cress & Kimmerle point out; ‘Contributing to an article does not only allow the creation of an artifact, it can also lead to individual learning processes in the contributors.’ (2008). Wikis are tools that allow for contribution, collaboration and most importantly, learning. .

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
 * Good. Among other things, good contributions will make a clear point in a clear way. They will relate concepts to original examples in a straightforward fashion. They will make effective use of the possibilities of the form (including formatting, links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons). They may also demonstrate a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns, and are likely to show evidence of reading and thinking about the subject material, discussing this in a transparent way with fellow researchers on the Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.

As instructed in the labs, and outlined in the assessment brief documentation, students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.

Evidence from contribs to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of editorial activity as evidenced through ‘contribs’). These are primarily considered for quality rather than quantity, but as a broad guideline:
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable”
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant”
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial”
 * Items on a contribs list that are <1000 characters are important, and are considered in the round when evaluating contribs as a whole because of their aggregate value

Overall:
 * a number of small corntibs adding up throughout the period, as well as a smaller number of substantial contribs in evidence

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

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

Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated.
 * Good

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 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.


 * This work is at the upper end of this grade band, and a little improvement will go a long way to attaining a higher mark in future assessments. 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 particular set of posts, generally this is fairly good work. The organisation of your discussion page needed a bit of work, and you need to pay more attention to detail in the assignment briefs – Ex4 required a peer-review element of 3000 characters. You responded to this, and in time, but the content was well short of the required count.


 * Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of your discussion page. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would make a quite considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, if a little brief. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work.

General:
 * Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – all fine, bar the peer-review elements which needed further work.


 * 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 fine.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)