User talk:LucyMW99

This page has been created as part of a project for the module Digital Media and Culture that I am currently taking at the University of Stirling. LucyMW99 (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikibooks Exercise 2: To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
Our social media profiles are unique databases, tailored to every individual and composed of all the information we want the world to know about us, however, this does not mean they are accurate projections of our lives. Rarely do we post about our negative experiences of; largely, the boastful posts on platforms such as Instagram have become a backbone for what these platforms stand for; users will do their best to show off their exotic lifestyles in order to prove that they’re living ‘the dream’ (for example, view the Instagram feed of literally any Kardashian family member). Frunzaru and Garbasevschi (2016) suggested that we view the self (or ourselves) as a project. If we view our social media as a part of this project of the self, we are advertising the interesting, most engaging pieces of ourselves, and disregarding the banal. Therefore, what social media fails to highlight is that this ‘ideal life’ is essentially non-existent.

The reality is that the majority of people are very selective (and competitive) over what they post online, and what information they share. For some people, particularly Instagram users, this is due to a need to be seen as someone who is succeeding at life, whether it be socially or professionally. The competitive nature of Instagram stems from the fact that it is easy to feel as though everyone is ‘doing better’ than you when half the posts you see are from models in a foreign country. Facebook users, on the other hand, are controlled less by societal expectations, and more by the online presence of family members, colleagues and employers. There are shameful photos of drunken flat parties that strike fear into the hearts of many young professionals or students - for many people, the fear of this ‘dark side’ of their lives being seen is a very real and frightening thought. This is one of the many reasons we filter the content that we post online.

Personally, I reserve a large part of my social media use for twitter. My Instagram is used for videos and photos from concerts, or pictures with my friends. My Facebook is very family friendly, with posts that are mother approved (usually photos from before a night out gets get too messy). Twitter however, is a different universe, where I am able to express my thoughts freely, retweet jokes that are perhaps a little too dark for my other profiles. Twitter is where I feel most comfortable, as my interactions are largely with those who make similar jokes, are around the same age as me and have a similar interest in bands and TV shows to me. As my twitter account is the most accurate portrayal of my personality and life events, it makes the contents of my Facebook profile look very obviously censored, because, depending on the platform, I feel that I am a different person, and I’m reserved for different audiences.

The reality of social media is that, depending on the person and the platform, there are many levels to the way in which a person can be viewed. We very much pay attention to ourselves in the creation of a social media platform – “available research suggests that spending time on social media such as Facebook leads to more focus on the self” (Twenge, 2013). Though there is no real guarantee that any profile is either accurate or superficial, as every single profile is unique to the person, it is obvious that social media platforms are, in some way, a mask we can hide behind, preserving who we really are. LucyMW99 (discuss • contribs) 03:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments
I like that you brought up the thought regarding Instagram and the users needs to post images that create the allusion of the perfect life, perfect image, and the kardashians are a good example of this, where publicity before reality comes first. In a way it makes me think of the Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen, where the lyrics ask, “Is this real life, or just fantasy” and Instagram very much becomes that fantasy ground people use to project this life on others. I think also another aspect of Instagram that comes to thought, and its one the kardashians subscribe to, is using the platform to be an influencer where they have a media presence via this platform to push a view, image or style that may gain traction in other media outlets. Instagram for me is a bit subjective in how I use it. I’ve not posted anything on there since December time and when I do post anything on there, I end up just using it as an extension of twitter, and not Facebook to share photo’s I’ve taken on holiday.

It’s also very interesting how you split the platforms by the way you use them to project yourself. I didn’t write about this myself, but on reflection what you have described is very close to how I use them as well. Facebook is very much where the family live so I’m selective of what I post on there, while twitter has become a bit more of a vocal outlet of who I am and what I enjoy talking about, which I feel sorry for all those that do follow me, as they are subjected to my Motorsport ramblings and sharing of music from the folk scene! But it is also the outlet where I have a good grouping of friends that enjoy the same subject areas where I don’t share onto Facebook as people become very glazed eyed over the posts. I know that it is possible to select who sees your posts on Facebook, but using that function for me anyway, can be quite a chore switching it back and forth, so being selective on what is shared feels a better way of projecting that image of ourselves onto that social media platform. Beardoin-AS (discuss • contribs) 04:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Resources (can be accessed through ProQuest with a Glasgow Libraries account):

1. Frunzaru, V., & Garbasevschi, D. (2016). Students' Online Identity Management. Journal of Media Research, 9(1), 3-13.

2. Twenge, J. (2013). Does Online Social Media Lead to Social Connection or Social Disconnection. Journal of College and Character, 14(1), 11-20.

Wikibooks Exercise #3: Annotated Bibliography
====Karamat, Ayesha; Farooq, Ayesha. "Emerging Role of Social Media in Political Activism: Perceptions and Practises". South Asian Studies; Lahore Vol. 31, Iss. 1. (Jan-Jun 2016): 381-396. (Can be found if you sign up for ProQuest via Glasgow Libraries).====

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1832679116?accountid=16574

This article discusses the way in which social media can influence the opinions and attitudes of its users, in particular younger users, and reviews the way in which social media users can use the platforms to push their own agenda. Furthermore it explores the extent to which social media has influence over these individual political opinions - if social media posts (especially viral ones) have an impact on the beliefs. Many people engage actively with political or social movements, through the use of social media, such as by tweeting under hashtags, arguing and debating in Facebook comments, joining Facebook groups or pages designed especially for political and social engagement. For the people who use social media platforms in this way, the article asks the question of whether or not the influence of social media is enough to actually change the actions of politically-engaged youths, or whether it is just a medium through which they can engage and debate in order form their ideas and opinions themselves. LucyMW99 (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikibooks Exercise #4: What are Wikis?


There are a number of different Wikimedia ‘sister’ platforms such as Wiki Commons, Wikipedia and Wikibooks, which are all run because of the collaboration and networking of their users. Having recently become involved with Wikibooks through this university project, I have only begun to understand the scope of Wikimedia platforms – they are massive, with millions of contributors, contributors who can really be anyone. According to the Wikimedia foundation, their mission is “to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content”. Wikimedia platforms host pages on almost every subject; while Wikibooks educates readers on more academic topics, Wikipedia caters more to those interested in pop culture, events and celebrities. The editors and contributors to the sites differ too - while all the platforms are 'collaborative platforms', the majority of Wikibooks contributors work together to create their content. Wikipedia is often the opposite, as many of the contributors are fans of the celebrities that they are providing information on and therefore are much more competitive in their contributions, in order to 'prove' that they have the most knowledge on that person.

While Wikimedia platforms are primarily used for providing knowledge to readers, they are also spaces where contributors can interact and work together and even build online relationships. Though wikis are not considered to be social media platforms, Arwin Lund describes Wikipedia in particular as a “social institution that works to create an encyclopaedia.” I found while working on the Wikibooks project that the platform was relatively easy to use once I understood how it worked, however, due to the large sizes of discussion pages, it wasn’t always the easiest to navigate. This issue could be resolved depending on how the page is organised, but regardless, if a new comment is added without tagging your username, you have no way of knowing it is there. I found this especially difficult when trying to work collaboratively as often I had trouble finding the comments, ideas and edits that my teammates were making.

Despite this, I feel that Wikimedia platforms are incredibly useful and valuable platforms. Due to the fact that these platforms allow people the freedom to post information and update others on subjects that they are genuinely passionate about, and as it allows collaboration between people with similar interests, I would say that Wikimedia platforms do have a strong sense of community, providing they are used correctly and responsibly. Furthermore, those with similar interests are able to educate one and other on the subjects that interest them, so beyond the idea of community, Wiki platforms become incredibly important spaces for sharing knowledge, particularly academic knowledge, as they provide us with knowledge that is quick and easy to access, free and largely reliable.

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:
 * Poor. Among other things, poor contributions may just offer links without real comment or apparent point. They may offer nothing more than poor-quality synopsis or description of material of dubious relevance. They may have serious clarity problems (including dead links, random graphics) which affect comprehension (or even worse, admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement). They might be off-topic, private trivia, or of unclear relevance. The wiki markup formatting will be of a poor standard.

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:
 * the engagement in evidence here is fairly inconsistent, mainly concentrated in the final few days of the project period. This meant that you weren’t left in a position to build significant or substantial contributions over time. That said, there are a few good additions to discussion in here, and you have made an effort to engage overall.

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
 * Satisfactory
 * Evidence of peer-review of others’ work
 * Satisfactory

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Poor
 * Clearly labelled sections and subsections
 * Satisfactory
 * 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.
 * Satisfactory

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly correspond to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall:


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


 * The work produced for this portfolio is of very good quality – it is reflective, well written, and well researched. It is, however, at the lower end of this particular grade band because there are one or two peer-review elements missing (one from Ex2, and the one required for Ex4) so there’s clearly room for improvement here. This could be done through more careful attention to the assessment brief and its requirements. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets.


 * Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone some 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 difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, where submitted. 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. 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 are beginning to discuss 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).

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


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


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)