User talk:Lis00059

Assignment 2
Marwick, A. (2013). “Online Identity.” In Hartley, J., Burgess, J. & Bruns, A. (eds), Companion to New Media Dynamics. Blackwell Companions to Cultural Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 355-364.

In this article Marwick identifies and examines the basic theories of identity and apply them to new media to examine the problems that are faced with only identity. Moreover, the developments of media are researched to show how people’s online identities have altered based on the technology available. From anonymous and faceless chatroom's to detailed profiles which include personal information. Marwick’s builds her research from the stance that online identity is an active part of someone’s offline identity as there are conscious decisions made on what to share as well as structural oppression applying to people’s online experience which are their demographic face offline (discrimination). The article is useful as it identifies clear problematic social issues created through online identity such as context collapse where you cannot interact with groups of people differently as you would in different social settings offline. Limitations in this article is that there is no field research of statistical sources to back up the arguments made. This article would act as a good basis in my research on online identities as the article centers around online usage of new media providing analyses of critical issues. However, I would have to consult with other sources to strengthen my research findings.

Lis00059 (discuss • contribs) 02:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Reflective Account
Wikibooks is a platform promotes accessible scholarship and sharing educational resources. This is achieved as the platform is user-based meaning anyone can create their own book, discuss resources with other users and edit material other users have posted.

Moreover, users can create their ‘User Discussion Page’ this works as a voice and creates visibility to that user. The page gives the user freedom to profile themselves however they want through different sections of content. During this Digital Media module, it has been seen that many people have added an ‘about’ section on their Page. This is where they have added facts about themselves they wish to disclose to anyone who would see their page. The ‘User Discussion Page’ interestingly shows similarities to social media platforms. It allows users to create an ‘Online Identity’ many students disclosed very different facts about themselves, from their course to their interests and hobbies. Therefore, there was a level of construction and thought to what the students wanted to share about themselves and how it would make their page (and themselves) appear more appealing and interesting. In addition, Users do not have to create a username which is reflective of their identity, many students used pseudonyms or fictitious characters for their usernames. This provides Wikibooks users with a level on anonymity as they can upload whatever content they want without it being associated with their real identity. Therefore, Wikibooks offers users to become visible to each other easily however in an anonymously presented way.

I found this extremely effective and a useful aspect of Wikibooks. When I made comments and provided feedback to my class mates I felt protected by having the option to be anonymous. I was able to make honest constructive comments of the work my class mates uploaded without worrying if it would hinder their view of me. In addition, it meant there were no bias behaviours involved. For example, it would be easy to only interact with your friends, whom you feel most comfortable with. However, the anonymity meant nobody in the class knew who every user was which allowed a more even coverage of interactions which created a sense of community and a group feeling as I could contribute to any user discussion page without any prior knowledge to who they were.

Continuing with the topic of visibility, any users who makes edits or comments on other user’s content become very visible. This is done by the formality of ‘signing’ off contributions. Users place four ‘~’ symbols which then leave a time stamp and link to the contributor’s page via clicking their username. This means that any contribution a user makes is recognised by Wikibooks and therefore makes the user visible on the site. Furthermore, on the ‘User Discussion Page’ there is a contribution section listing all the activity and interactions each user as had, leaving a trail of interactions and contributions increasing the visibility of each Wikibooks user.

This was very useful for me when my group were building our collaborative discussion page as it was easy to identify what content each group member had provided making the research a more shared and interactive experience due to easily visible posts by each group member.

The easy accessibility of Wikibooks and the ability to contribute and edit at any time made this exercise feel very parallel to a real-life discussion. The opportunity to build and develop our ideas at the idea provided a community feel in using the platform. One drawback in Wikibooks that sets a part offline collaboration is that there is no way to live discuss and chat. The platform is more aimed toward responding to posts, posting and editing. However there is still necessary group communication offline which allows ideas and topics to be established and mutually understood, which Wikibooks does not necessarily provide. Lis00059 (discuss • contribs) 03:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

comments
Hey Liam, just to let you know (for our collaborative essay), I have commented on the page to clarify what we were talking about today.

MTxPrincipessa18 (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

MTxPrincipessa18 completely forgot to reply to this MT I'm finally getting the hang of using this although it's taken me long enough, I've made some small edits to the discussion page through adding sources etc. hopefully it's all in good shape for getting marked soon.

Hello Liam! Your annotated bibliography is a job very well done, in my opinion. You have clearly described the articles contents and purpose, and the topic of the article sounds very interesting. As you point out, it would be difficult to use only this article for the basis of your research, as it doesn't feature in statistical analysis. I find these numbers are often so essential to building and backing up solid arguments, wouldn't you agree? Do you think there is any way the author of the article could have included something like this in the article? Overall, you have done an excellent job, and I wish you and your group good luck on the collaborative essay! Mom00107 (discuss • contribs) 23:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Mom00107 Thank you very much, yes I completely agree the main issue I have found is a lot of articles being more descriptive based rather than valuable research in New Media. Once I started moving away from just using books as sources I and other members of my group found some really good journals and articles online showing statistical findings. I totally understand what you are saying it's difficult to build an argument and come to conclusions when you have limited sources to validate your points. I found a really good journal that was a piece of research on Anonymity which really helped build my points that I contributed to our collaborative essay. It included survey findings in statistical format which I think would have benefited this article for my annotated bibliography. Good luck to you and your group what topic are you's doing your collaborative essay on? Lis00059 (discuss • contribs) 06:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

First off, this is a great summary which highlights the key points within the article! As we have learned in this module, having multiple online identifies is something that happens when living in a always=on culture. My article, explored the multiple social media accounts an individuals has and the online identity people create when socializing with different groups. I definitely believe that we curate a different kind of self online than we do offline. Therefor, I feel that a relationship offline is more authentic. What do you think? Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 17:05, 6 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:
 * Clear Fail. Assignment responses receiving marks below 30% tend to not contain any merit or relevance to the module. Contrinbutions are one-liners, sometimes made up of text-speak, if there are any contributions at all. Often they are indicative of failure to comment on other students’ ideas, and therefore do not engage with the crucial peer-review element. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement, or the user has been blocked for vandalism or other contraventions of wiki T&C. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.

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 9 contribs logged in total on discussion pages (a very small number indeed that does not represent several weeks’ worth of work). Only 3 days total registered as having logged a contrib, and with the exception of one, these all occur on 4th and 5th April. This is a case of far too little, too late, I’m afraid.

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


 * The only contrib that could be regarded as “substantial” is a straight cut and paste from your wiki exercises, so I have discounted this as ought not to mark the same work twice. There is evidence of some contribution to the group’s research process, but nowhere near enough to show evidence and transparency necessary to validate the essay page.

•	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


 * Very weak – your contribs do not form the backbone of your group discussion.

•	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


 * Not much in the way of this at all.

•	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, but there’s not enough evidence to make a meaningful assessment.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 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:


 * Posts of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. They offer little to no engagement with the concerns of the module. They are poorly written and comments are often extremely brief or missing. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.


 * I draw your attention to the missing posts aspect of the above descriptor. You do not seem to have submitted the reflective exercise #4. This work is at the upper end of this grade band, however, to reflect the quality of engagement that you managed in the earlier parts of the project work, where you did actually write some fairly good material, and did contribute to discussion of others’ exercises. In order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be 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.


 * Additionally, 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 – Where they are present, this is good work. But these are too few, and you need to pay more attention to the assessment brief in future in order to reach full potential.

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


 * Argument and analysis: throughout, your work tends to be well-articulated and well-supported. There is evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position) as well as evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections).


 * Presentation: see above comment on use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)