User talk:LeKinibb

Online Visibility
The internet, in particular social media platforms, has given us the tools to reach out and communicate with anyone, anywhere, regardless of where we are. It can be used to post intimate thoughts or our internal monologue. We share images and videos of memories we want to keep and memories we want others to see. By the very nature of the beast it is an extension of its users – it is personal, much like a diary but unlike a diary it can be, and often is, very open to others to peer into.

I don’t really like oversharing online but that has never stopped me from getting involved with social media. I have accounts on Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, Twitter as well as accounts with gaming platforms like Xbox Live and Steam. When I was younger and Facebook was first introduced to me I posted a lot and pretty much about anything, it was anarchic freedom to just spout whatever I wanted towards the collection of friends I had there. Most, if not all, of it was fairly mundane everyday things but it felt exciting and fresh because it was a new way to reach out and communicate with people.

As my collection of Facebook peers began to grow I began edging off what I shared. It didn’t feel personal anymore and I became aware of what I was posting. It was an unrelenting and, as far as I was aware uncontrollable exposure to those I knew. Eventually I shifted site to twitter, then Instagram and Tumblr and finally ended up at Snapchat. Out of all of those though I don’t think I have ever engaged with them as much as I did Facebook in those early days. Of course I still use the sites, I post occasional photos on Instagram, scroll endlessly through twitter and communicate with friends through Facebook Messenger or Snapchat but that’s really it. I post most to my Snapchat and Instagram stories because I enjoy the limited glance into life it gives, it is more throwaway than any of the other posting options and feels a little less permanent.

The permanence of a post, and lack of full control over it is what has always worried me about social media. I have my Facebook and Snapchat accounts set up so that only people who have added me can see what I post, or in the case of Facebook the things I am tagged in. This is purely because my use of Facebook is fairly family centric and my Snapchat is only really for friends. I understand that although I have these privacy settings, Facebook can still share my information with companies in order to specialise advertising and make a profit. On the same topic I understand that by posting on Instagram I am giving them permission to use my photographs as advertising without my permission.

The concept of Online Visibility is covered by Zizi Papcharissi (2010) in his book ‘A Private Sphere: Democracy in a Digital Age’. In his chapter on the evolution of the Private Sphere he discusses that online presence has presented the opportunity for users to act publicly from a private space. The user “enters the public spectrum by negotiating aspects of his/her privacy as necessary” (Papcharissi, 2010, P. 132). As a result of this they are given the opportunity to share private thoughts or passionate feelings on a public forum with ease and present the best version of them that they can. Adrian Athique in Digital Media and Modern Society (2013) continues this idea of online visibility being tied to a presented identity when he discusses the idea of social media being a personal public space and the difficulties in navigating that of that: “Facebook has enormous ramifications for social interaction because it marks a critical shift in interpersonal communication via the Internet… An inappropriate performance that may have produced acute social embarrassment in a traditional social encounter becomes a permanent and public record when it occurs through social networking technologies.” This shows the difficulties presented by social media and how online presence can be damaging and inflammatory even if meant to only be seen and approached in a personal manner.

LeKinibb (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Hey Leon! It's Fiona! How are you doing? (Remember to come to Airtv on Wednesday!)

Its pretty spooky that Instagram owns and can sell any and every picture you upload. Imagine walking into somebodies apartment and seeing a picture of your 'brunch' on a canvas behind their couch. Spooky. Tasty but spooky.

That being said your Instagram is pretty sick. Instagram stories are a bunch of fun also.

Also, have you ever been to the film society? I kind of want to go back but only if they promise to play better films. Let's hound them about their awful film choices. I think they hate foreign films.

Anyway, I enjoyed reading your post very much! I hope you are finding your way through the collaborative essay ok! I cannot wait until Thursday when I can finally stop working on it and then we have no more deadlines for this course until April!

(come to Airtv to help avert the tory agenda)

Digitalmediafiend (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello ! I am doing grand, how are you doing? (I am afraid I will not be at AirTV to wave the red flag as our capitalist society insists that although I am a full time student I must give my labour and become a minimum-wage slave)

I would be honored to see a tasty home cooked meal that I not only made with my bare hands, but managed to snap an artsy photograph of, hung above somebody's sofa. (Unless their sofa and living room was nasty) I would probably offer to cook them that very meal so that they could look from plate to photo and experience the same emotions that occur in art galleries when canvases cover whole walls.

Thank you! I have not posted on it in a long time though, keep meaning to as I have so many photos to put up. Instagram stories do seem fun but I never really use them -I'm a sucker for a boomerang though, love those weird forward/reverse looping videos- Your Instagram is also pretty dope. I wish I had the dedication.

I have never been to the film society - I would like to go though, the premise of it seems pretty cool. Shame about the foreign films though... Subtitles can be hard to read off of a classroom projector though and I'd rather eat my own hand than listen/watch an unsynced dub.

Thank you for stopping by! I hope your collaborative essay is shaping up well and that the extension has helped somewhat! LeKinibb (discuss • contribs) 09:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I am doing a-ok but I will never fully recover from learning about what humans must do to those poor bees in order to obtain honey. There should be laws against that- it just doesn't seem in anyway consential. Also, I have to admit that as a veggie I feel like i'd be okay with eating bugs. After all, it was Woody Allen who made the film about insects being complex beings and I don't trust anything that pervert does so who knows what agenda he has with the insects? What did you think of the documentary last night? I'm upset with past Fiona not trying the free pizza.

I am sorry to hear about your labour tonight. These fatcats just don't care for the rise and fall of AirTV, do they? So selfish.

I would certainly enjoy an art gallery full of Instagram pictures of food. I love me some modern art.

I still believe we should join the film society and take it over. It would be really cool to be able to use the projector to watch anything we wanted. Imagine: Neil Breen on the silver screen- A priceless event.

I'm pretty happy about the extension to be honest. I didn't realize the comments were supposed to be in for today so I'm glad I have more time to try and write as many words as I can to get a better grade. On that note: I shall leave you with my favourite quote from the Jerry Seinfeld's hit 2007 masterpiece of a movie: "The Bee Movie": "According to all known laws of aviation,there is no way a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway because bees don't care what humans think is impossible. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Ooh, black and yellow! Let's shake it up a little. Barry! Breakfast is ready!"

Digitalmediafiend (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

1. I can relate a lot to the younger sense of freedom and novelty to social media. I was not allowed to have Facebook but got an account behind my parents back and the sense of freedom that I could post anything and interact with other friends was such a unique feeling that seems so rare now that everyone is one numerous social media websites. Your observation on how your activity is now a lot less than it used to be and you like Snapchat being a short glimpse into our lives it gives is one that I relate to myself.

Good use of a source. It's weird to realize that we can be so public for the private space of our own home. In a source I read, it looked at how our presented identity online is often constructed and controlled, often impacting our real life identities. For example, a teenager deleted all her photos that she thought were ugly before she went to university. The feeling that we can be judged privately before we even meet up with people publicly causes a great deal of anxiety and pressure for individuals. They want to make the best great impression and can manipulate that online through editing or self-censorship. There is definitely 'enormous ramifications' as Papcharissi state on our social relationships and interactions.

Overall, I found your post really interesting and well constructed.

--Stirsb00027 (discuss • contribs) 23:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Leon!! I find the concept on which you wrote your annotated bibliography really interesting. The idea of anyone being able to post whatever and whenever they want shows the freedom of speech quite clearly. But it would bring a lot of uninteresting information and could be the reason for fake news!! In addition its a scary thought that people are willing to share this much information about themselves voluntarily. It gives people insight into your thoughts and life that you might not want to have public. This can have its consequences like cyber bullying and stalking. I have all of my settings on any social media as private as possible because i dont like people knowing too much about me. Chrisalwayson (discuss • contribs) 12:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography #2
[1] HARRELL, D. F., & CHONG-U LIM. (2017). Reimagining the avatar dream: Modeling social identity in digital media. Communications of the ACM, Volume 60( Issue 7), pg. 50-61. 10.1145/3098342

[2] The authors Harrell and Lim focus on the idea of the ‘Avatar Dream’, representational gaps in current avatar creation and how, through the study of sociocultural phenomena, technology can improve and change to create a fully inclusive experience for users. [3] The study is quantitative and focuses on cluster-based archetypal analysis. The study looks at the videogame “Elder Scrolls: Oblivion” and an avatar customisation system called “Heroes of Elibca”, created using the researchers “AIRvatar” system. The authors aimed to identify the link between physical world and virtual world identities and how ‘box effects’, the effects of prejudice such as racism and sexism, carry between the two. [4] This article is useful in my research for my collaborative essay topic as it shows a different, interpretation of the meaning of “online identity”. The study showcases how preconceived notions and stereotypes can effect a user when creating a digital recreation of themselves. [5] The main limitation of this article is that the scope of the research was limited by the authors only focusing on the effects of gender in “AIRvatar”. [6] The authors indicate that more research needs to be done into avatar creation and how physical world experiences can limit self-imagination in virtual spaces. [7] This article will not be the basis of my research into online identities but it has helped me develop a further understanding of the topic itself.

Key: 1. Citation; 2. Introduction; 3. Research Methods and Aims; 4. Article Relevance; 5. Limitations; 6. Conclusions; 7. Reflection.

LeKinibb (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Hey Leon, I found this very easy to follow and also helpful. I too, am in a group which has chosen to do online identity. However, my annotated bibliography went down the route of the use of how people use filters, to crop out what they don't want everyone to see. It highlighted the filter use on Instagram the most, and it would illustrate how many people would choose to filter their photos, to help with confidence. In addition, the chapter from the book explained how using a filter can only work for so long before it let in the things it was trying to stop. Moreover, I read and commented on someone else's post which was very similar to yours (I assume they are in your group), as I have realised only two groups are doing online identity in the full course; I'm hoping we can help one another out with ideas. I believe Harrell and Lim have been able to identify some link between the physical and virtual world identities, by using the virtual world of video gaming- it is definitely more apparent, which has been helped by them focusing on the 'Avatar Dream'. Have you been able to find anymore of Harrell and Lim's work that have been useful to you? The question that myself, and the rest of the group have come up with is: would people be able to recognise you from your online identity or not? What is your groups question? MTxPrincipessa18 (discuss • contribs) 20:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3 Discussion
Hello Leon or 'Lekinibb' if you prefer, I found this bibliography very easy to read and its subject matter rather interesting. The digital avatar as I knew of it I would largely just associate it with an individuals username, but of course within social media platforms and especially within video games we have visual representations of how we choose to present ourselves. Profile pictures on social media are a much stronger sensory representation of a persona and looking towards the interactive form of this in videogames is most extreme. For instance in most videogames if there is a customization option I usually go for my race and species type (Caucasian, Human) a perhaps boring choice but even within fantasy games like the Elder scrolls series I suppose I want that representation to be closely linked to an idealized version of myself. I have noticed through dabbling in some customization options that there are some problems, for both separate genders there are usually customization options that should be available for both that are not, so there are options that do not help diversity and inclusivity within digital avatars. I think that this could very well help you with your group collaborative essay, Online identities as a topic is multifaceted, meaning that gathering multiple sources of study and opinion pieces are important to achieve a well informed voice on the subject, as you pointed out here, there are different interpretations of definitions and I think that they are all equally important to investigate. I hope everything goes well with your essay, I look forward to seeing it develop! Jackaodha (discuss • contribs) 13:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello,, thank you for using at least one of my preferred names. Thank you also for your kind words regarding my bibliography. I too originally perceived the ‘videogame’ aspects of online identity as stopping at the username.

Avatars are the body a player has to inhabit within a digital universe, and as such it makes sense that their choices regarding customisation reflect them. I had never really thought about the effort that I have put in to customising videogame avatars until after writing the bibliography. Looking back I think I have also tended to opt for Caucasian male avatars if a choice is purely aesthetic and without any impact to my gameplay experience. I try and put a little more thought into it when stats are brought into play -even then I tend to go for avatars I feel represent something about me, which is once again usually race or gender-.

The limitations in customisation of character creating tools is one of the reasons I chose to focus on this particular article; the researchers had their fairly extensive ‘AIRvatar’ creator built to see if the limitations built into games like Elder Scrolls have an effect on the choices made by players. I mention it in the bibliography but I feel as if it would have been a much more gripping article if they presented more findings from the results, perhaps exposing how different groups such as races and social classes choose to represent themselves.

You mention the multifaceted nature of online identities. I think our group is going to try and expand from videogames into the wider world of online identities through the course of our research in order to help portray a more three-dimensional and in-depth account of the area of study. Obviously the virtual world of online identities can be viewed as players creating the perfect version of who they would want to be, so looking into how people craft their social media accounts in a similar way could be very interesting. LeKinibb (discuss • contribs) 19:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

, Thanks for the response!, I am glad to see there are some similarities between what we think about Online identities. I agree with you on the limitations of the article you chose, I would be surprised however if there were not research articles out there covering more of the resulting data of similar studies, I would say that may be a place to look into!. It is very good that you are going to not only look at video game avatars but into the broader scope of digital avatars. One instance of digital avatars which border the lines of video game and simulator is from the Online virtual world Second Life I have never used this myself but I do know of people who spend a large amount of there time within this alternate world to do as they see fit, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse, there are tons more just like this, straying further from the video game element. As a final piece of advice, I would suggest getting your group to communicate with other teams doing the same category of Digital media & Culture, that way you could all share ideas and have a conversation on the wiki to improve your understandings of the topic, gain new insights and of course have a meaningful conversation that would provide you with contribs, I would also love to see your groups work so far, if you can show me it. thanks again Jackaodha (discuss • contribs) 00:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

LeKinibb (discuss • contribs) 11:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are indeed correct in your assumption that there are similar studies out there, many of them undertaken by Chong-U, Lim, one of the co-writers of the article in my bibliography. I too think that Second Life would be a good area to look in to, especially since it is sort of a one of a kind model living somewhere between simulator, videogame and chatroom -as you said-. I believe some of the set reading we were given for the Always-On section of the module mentioned the game: there were interviews with a man who was having a virtual affair on Second Life because he felt his real wife was not being caring enough for him. The Second Life model also seems to be the closest thing to perfection available in terms of digital avatar creating, I may even check it out to see how extensive its character creation tools are. Thank you for the link to the article, it is unbelievable that it is possible to be sucked in to a virtual world in such a big way, but I suppose it links back to the idea of creating ‘perfection’ in the form of an avatar. I had not really considered the possibility of using sources like reports and blog posts but I suppose they will help add colour and expression to the essay, as well as link in handily to the nature of the module. Thank you for all the advice and handy tips you have given to me over the past couple of comments, I definitely need to reach out to other groups because corroborating sources and ideas is never a bad idea, even if we just discuss which areas we are all studying. Have you attempted anything similar within your group? Our group is still very barebones on the wiki as we are doing most of our communicating through social media -which I know we need to stop promptly-, but the page can be found here!

Hey Leon, it's Iana! Remember when we did that journalism presentation in 1st year? Great times! Or terrible times depending on what way you look at it - nevertheless it's always fun talking about how terrible The Sun is.

Not to be weird but I left a comment for you on my page for the 3rd exercise last week, but maybe you didn't get a notification or something! We're probably in the same boat in that we need more contribs (at least I do, desperately), so I thought we could have a discussion! How has your collaborative essay gone? I'm pretty happy with mine, it's wild how much you can bond with a group you're collectively stressing about how much work you have to do for this module. Sorry I'm asking a lot of questions - stretching out sentences to write as many characters as humanly possible is more difficult than I anticipated.

On a completely unrelated note, Fiona told me you went to that vegan documentary that was showing at uni. How was it? I was planning to go but I had to meet my digital media group.

Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to leave the signature thing. I keep forgetting to do that! I have been called out multiple times on it but I still never learn.

Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Iana! I do remember that Journalism assessment! I also seem to remember doing very little for it and muttering the whole thing, sorry about that. It could not have been that bad though, Margot clearly enjoyed it somewhat. I agree: any excuse to rag at a paper that would not be out of place in the loo roll aisle is a good excuse.

Not weird at all, do not worry about it. We are all clambering and grabbing at those elusive contribs at the moment. I am not too sure if I am posting correctly at the moment, just sort of stabbing in the dark. I am afraid I did not see the reply originally but I have just posted my response now, despite it now being a little late. The collaborative essay is going well. We were a little slow on the uptake but it is getting much easier now that we know what direction we are going with it. Good to hear that yours is going well too! This module is really stressful but I feel as if the extension has been a godsend, I did not know what I was doing at all until this week. I know what you mean with the sentence stretching, it is sort of difficult to engage a conversation when you are stuck having to block ask questions. I suppose it ties in to how we communicate digitally though. Have you enjoyed the style of the module overall? How about the use of external sites for marking? I understand choosing to do it this way as it keeps everything under the branch of digital media, I just think I prefer in person lectures.

How is journalism going? Did you get your specialist article in on time?

The vegan documentary was really good! As far as undercover documentary footage of animals being slaughtered can be considered good of course. Maybe interesting is a better word. It sort of has me itching to change my diet further but it is so difficult. Might begin cutting back on certain food to begin with, see how it goes. I met with my group earlier on in the day for that exact reason. I am not sure if you knew but the documentary is on YouTube and can be found here. I am not too sure if it is needed but: content warning for gore. Some of the footage is pretty disturbing and grisly.

The sign off with tildes gets me too, it is so easy to forget - hope the habit does not get too ingrained though, I do not want to start signing essays off with "LeKinibb (discuss • contribs) 16:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)" LeKinibb (discuss • contribs) 16:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Leon! I’m just trying to get all my contribs done for today because I’m going to see Isle of Dogs tonight! In all honesty, this is my third time seeing it because I’m a bit obsessed with it. I’m obsessed with Wes Anderson in general, so this isn’t a new phenomenon. (I think I’ve seen The Grand Budapest Hotel around 20 times!)

I completely understand feeling like you’re stabbing in the dark. I think none of us really know what we’re supposed to do – I’m just hoping I’m doing it right. I’m happy to hear your collaborative essay is going well! At first, I thought it was a bit of a drag to get through, especially with delegating roles and tasks, but in the end, I found our topic really interesting so I didn’t really mind talking about it at length. I also think that because digital media has become so deeply integrated in our lives, it’s not too difficult to talk about it because we can draw from our own experiences. The extension has been quite helpful for me – I don’t think I had made enough contribs to warrant a good mark – however, I have been peeking at other people’s contribs and I’m not the worst, so maybe I’ll get a decent mark just in comparison to others. In regards to your question about the module, I liked that there was a larger emphasis on the practical elements on this module, however I think I would’ve enjoyed it more if we received more guidance and help. Unfortunately, the strikes got in the way (not that I don’t support the strikes!) so it couldn’t really be helped. I prefer in-person lectures too, but I do see where Greg was coming from about people not showing up. Everyone usually attends lectures in the first few weeks and then the numbers diminish until a woeful ten people show up to the week 12 lecture. I’m guilty of that myself!

I’m not sure how I feel about journalism. I always believe I’m turning in well-written articles for the assignments, but my grades this semester aren’t reflecting that. I told Tom that I feel disheartened by marks and he told me that 2nd year doesn’t matter too much – I’m aware of that but it still hurts my perfectionist heart. I did get my specialist article in on time! I’m anticipating a low mark again though, so I’m banking everything on the shorthand test to bump up my final mark. How is journalism going for you?

I’m always trying to cut back on certain food but I’m so impulsive that I can’t help but eat them anyway when my moral compass is telling me otherwise. My diet is very unhealthy but as they say, old habits die hard. Thanks for linking the documentary! The footage is very brutal and uncomfortable but it’s definitely eye-opening. I think it’s easy to consume products (food, clothing, electronics etc.) when you are unaware of the process that brought them to the shop floor. I supposed that all ties in with our discussions in the workshops last week about digital labour. (I can’t believe I’ve just managed to connect a vegan documentary to the course.) I think we’re all aware that animals are regularly mistreated in farms and it’s an open secret of the poor conditions in the Chinese factories that make iPhones, but are we willing to make a change to stop these practices from happening? I have to admit I have been thinking about it a lot more since the workshop, but these devices are so integral to our everyday lives that it’s close to impossible to give them up entirely.

Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 17:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Daily contribs can be a struggle. I slipped up over the weekend and could not find the time to add to mine as I was working and needed to get some shorthand practice in. Isle of Dogs was mind-blowing. Ridiculously so. I genuinely do not think I have seen a more perfectly made piece of cinema. It is pretty cliché but think he is up there with my favourite directors – although admittedly I am still to see ‘Bottle Rocket’, ‘The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou’, ‘The Royal Tenenbaums’ and ‘Rushmore’-. I adore his style and he has now proved once again animation is the perfect fit for it.

The fact that there is a collective consensus of ‘what are we doing?’ has helped me keep my head screwed on during this module. All we can really do is hope at this point. We have known our essay topic for a while we just really did not have a clue where to go with it, especially since our lecture still has not been made available on canvas. The fact that we do not have the information available has sadly meant that as a group this feeling of total cluelessness is hovering above us. I really hope our area of study fits the topic. I have also found digital media easy to talk about and discuss, the course and its content has been really interesting and eye-opening – I had never put much thought into the effect on the world that the technology and companies I associate with can have. I had done the base amount of contribs before this week kicked off, I still do not think I have done anywhere near enough but I can always hope that I have salvaged a point or two. The strikes fell at an unfortunate time but they had to. I would find it difficult to hold any ill feelings against anyone striking to protect their future, especially when the outcome could potentially harm the perception of working within higher education or general academic fields. I am very guilty of mid-semester laziness, it is a habit I really need to kick. I never noticed how integral lectures are to my understanding of a topic. I find it so much easier to focus in a lecture with a notepad than I do with podcasts on my laptop or my phone.

I am enjoying journalism a lot but I feel similar to you regarding grades. I keep thinking the pieces I am submitting are a definite improvement to my writing but my grades seem to suggest differently. I know they say second year does not matter but I am paranoid about getting dropped from Study Abroad so I cannot even fathom adopting that mentality. My specialist article was in on time too and I am definitely expecting a low mark. It is probably the first article that I have not been happy to submit. It felt really rough around the edges and was more a corroboration of external sources to paint a picture than it was a thoroughly original article – I really hope I get marked up for research though-. Shorthand is by far my weakest area, I am dreading Friday, this week is so busy!

I did not find the switch to vegetarianism as hard as I thought it would be. Most restaurant menus offer more than just one vegetarian dish now, I often feel spoiled for choice. I originally turned vegetarian in an attempt to become more healthy but my diet is awful, it is just too easy to eat badly! I think footage like that should be shown more often because it becomes forgotten rage so quickly. Someone shares a video of cow slaughtering on Facebook and then goes out for a triple stack burger, there is a societal disconnect even after people have made the connection. It is a disconnect I am guilty of when it comes to things like technology. It is easy to get hyped up and excited for a new thing but I never think about where it is coming from and who is making it. I do not see the point in throwing tech or clothing I already own out as it is then a waste of the efforts and sacrifice made by the bodies involved in production; I do however think I am going to try and be a more conscious and ethical shopper in the future. It sometimes feels as if being a totally ethical and good person is an uphill struggle though, so much is simply ingrained as societal norms some of it is difficult to fight back from to make change. Have you radically changed since the workshop?

((I think I rambled a little bit there, think I can submit this as an essay?))

LeKinibb (discuss • contribs) 15:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Exercise #4
Wikibooks is an open-content textbook website. Users can contribute to, edit, and create textbooks based upon any number of things as long as they are both instructional and factual -non-fiction or fiction books that are not instructional may not be uploaded to the site-. Wikibooks is meant to be used to generate user created content that can then be used in academic settings or for self-learning. The platform utilises an idea of visible creation in order to help further its collaborative ethic. By leaving four tilde (‘~’) symbols at the end of a post, a user leaves a timestamp. This timestamp leads to their account, user discussion page, and their ‘contribs’ -a list of contributions they have made on the website-. By implementing timestamps and contribution listd in this way Wikibooks ensures that those uploading and making edits to posts are instantly recognisable and sourced, lessening the opportunity for users to piggy-back off of the work of others.

The discussion pages linked to the books created by other students on my university course made it easier to see how they worked through their creative process. The '{'{ reply to| }'}' template helped structure conversations and the academic nature of the platform helped keep many on track with their work. Discussion pages also helped my group develop our ideas and bookmark discussion points for face to face meetings and discussions.

The Wikibooks community did not feel too dissimilar to that of discussion boards and social media sites like Reddit. Users are able to host discussion under different topics depending on what book they are commenting on. The community element also helps develop the collaborative element of the book. Everyone is invested and interested in their topic and, as a result, discussion can grow. The username based interaction provides enough identity to create a reputation on the site without giving in to the need for personal information, bar what is given by the user. This means that users can remain relatively anonymous and, as a result, can share without the risk of judgement or comment on their ethnic or gendered background, a topic that we covered in my groups collaborative essay on online identity.

By being collaborative and based in academia Wikibooks can be described as a digital commons. The collaborative nature of the website, in theory, ensures that what is posted is factually correct and encourages a peer-review style system. By being free and open it allows anyone to contribute and, as a result, avoids class stigma sometimes associated with educational establishments.

The collaborative and accessible nature of the platform also makes it a place for information emancipation. As long as users stick by the basic rules of what constitutes a Wikibook they are free to create and post whatever sort of book that they would like. Due to the fairly anonymous nature of the platform they can strike up discussion on any topic and without the backlash often associated with speaking freely online, however the moderated and formal stylings of the platform seem to restrict effects often associated with online disinhibition. By creating an emancipated platform of this style Wikibooks opens itself up for users to discuss and create to their hearts content.

For my own research and work I felt the collaborative and discursive elements of neither added nor subtracted to the experience. If anything it is the sort of discussion that I would have usually had on websites that I am more likely to access, such as a messaging app. I have somewhat enjoyed my work with Wikibooks as it was an opportunity to try a new platform, however I did not like that it became such a large part of the work for the module.

LeKinibb (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

COMMENTS
Hey Leon, just thought I'd relay some thoughts on your reflection - was checking out a few different pages and found myself attached to some of the ideas you've raised here.

Firstly I think you've done a good job at summarising the platform concisely, as fundamentally Wikibooks exists as an ever-expanding series of textbooks, a means to create and edit academic content freely, in-tandem with your peers. However the necessity for the signature system and contributions can't be understated when discussing the platform, whilst the absolute power of edit is bestowed upon all users, keeping track and archiving each change is necessary to bring order to what would be simply chaos - how can one reference a large text if they can't specify who to attribute it to? Whilst the collaborative ethic is something to be celebrated, it does indeed come with a hefty amount of burdens - whilst the rules for posting on Wikibooks are lenient, ensuring that work is built upon constructively and fairly is no mere feat.

Moving onward, I concur on using the discussion pages of other groups to inform and aid with my own work. Whenever I felt lost by a task posed, or even if I just wanted to check on how my peers chose to format their pages - I could consult a mass of pre-existing work to weigh up my own methods and thoughts. In my own experience, I'd say this process was essential in coming to grips with the usage and understanding of Wikibooks, whenever I struggled with say, referencing, I could check the edit on another page and see how they coded it into their own work - learning through observation. In regards to discussion pages, whilst I didn't use mine to the degree at which I believe I could have, examples of it being properly implemented within the group-planning dynamic can be seen - a resource essential for those who don't have the luxury of working in local collaborations.

As a reddit user myself, Wikibooks does certainly resemble the site's model - in fact there are only minor differences between a new textbook and a new subreddit. Both platforms allow users who share an interest to create a means to share and discuss content relating to that interest, and slowly a community of users build a wealth of relevant data - the only major distinguishing factor would be the ability to edit other users content, as reddit doesn't grant this feature to users. As for your thoughts on the relative anonymity of the platform rendering equal, free speech for all, I think it is indeed a valid one - besides what you reveal about yourself on your own page, an individual could withhold plenty of identity traits about themselves, creating an environment for identity-free, uninhibited discussion.

Wikibooks certainly does level the academic hierarchy associated with conventional means of collaboration. Certainly, the work of experienced and highly acclaimed academics should be celebrated - however status shouldn't obscure the work of less-distinguished, but capable researchers - or even students, a problem which platforms such as Wikibooks can alleviate. I personally worried first about posting my work for all to see, as I'm often quite critical of my own writing - but upon reading some of the feedback on my discussion page, and leaving some of my own, I felt we all celebrated the positives of each individual's work, which I believe is a brilliant thing. Quite often we can feel quite isolated in the university process, and your peers can feel like competition - but in reality we're all in similar boats and should freely discuss like this more often, it's truly comforting.

In closing, I was highly engaged reading through your discussion page - you're clearly an individual who has a great grasp on the content this semester, and also you just seem like a really great guy, confirming what I already assumed about you (good luck with the vegetarian diet, I couldn't hack it myself - turns out man cannot survive on chips and quorn nuggets alone!). Keep up the good work moving forward, kudos.

JamesFDTD99 (discuss • contribs) 19:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this 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.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * This was clearly not the case here – only 7 days registered as having logged a contrib. However, when you did engage, these seemed to be significant entries in terms of moving the project forward.

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: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	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


 * Several contribs registered as being under 1000 characters, only one classed “significant”.

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


 * This was the strongest element of your contribution. You clearly pushed your arguments and encouraged others to comment/respond.

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


 * There was a little organisation of the discussion page on your part.

•	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.


 * You conducted yourself well.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
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 have been useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) 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 long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts.


 * 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 (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). Some really engaged work here.

General:
 * Reading and research: This was all quite evident throughout the engagement.


 * Argument and analysis: Especially good – you engaged others in discussion and on one or two occasions these were fairly sustained discussions.


 * Presentation: Certainly, more could have been done in this regard, but overall I think you performed the tasks rather well indeed!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)