User talk:Lucybrowneyes

Hi my name is Lucy and this is a discussion page for a Digital Media module at Stirling University. Lucybrowneyes (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WIKI EXERCISE #1: ONLINE VISIBILITY AND FOOTPRINT
Social media is a massive aspect of daily life now-a-days. Many people, like myself, check into platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat every single day as a way to keep in contact with friends and keep up to date with people such as online influencers or celebrities. On these platforms you are able to chose who is allowed to view the information on your profile and for myself I like to keep things private. On my social media I keep my content restricted to my friends and family only. This means that if someone I am not friends with was to try and view my Facebook profile, all they would see is my basic information such as my birthday, where I go to university and my place of work alongside any profile pictures I choose to upload. These platforms all have my email address and my mobile number but neither of these are shared on my accounts. These privacy settings will restrict access for users I am unfamiliar with, but it will not stop the sharing of my information with third parties or advertising companies who will try to target certain accounts or advertisements they think I may be interested in.

One thing I find particularly interesting about Facebook is the ‘mutual friends’ algorithm in place. This is where Facebook compiles a list of ‘People You May Know’ with the end goal being to connect my profile with another users profile. This is almost a way of Facebook pushing me to become ‘friends’ with more users and have more of my information out in the open for more people to see.

I also have a Depop account. Depop is an app where you are able to buy and sell clothes, whether they are second hand or from a beginners clothing line and on that account I have more private information than any other account. In order to experience the app fully, visibility is key. I have my full name, one photograph and when I make a purchase, the user I buy from is then allowed to view my address. A vague snapshot of my location is also visible to users who wish to purchase anything from me (eg. ‘Stirling, United Kingdom’). I also have my bank card details stored onto the app through the use of PayPal so in this respect, if this account was ever to be hacked and my details fell into the wrong hands, I would have a lot more to worry about. Unlike the three aforementioned social media platforms, I do not have this account linked to any social media (although it does give you the option and even pushes and urges you to connect them) because I wish to remain partially anonymous.

In my opinion, I think social media – when used correctly – is a really great way of connecting you to your friends and keeping up to date with them, especially when they live a long distance away. In terms of visibility, having information and pictures is pretty much essential to the mechanism of these platforms in order for them to live up to their full potential. Even though I control the information I put onto the platforms I use, there is no way to control the information/data collected while I am using them. Lucybrowneyes (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 1 March 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. It’s also a little late, so there are marks you would have needlessly lost in an assessed piece. 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) 12:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

WIKI EXERCISE #2: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE MY ONLINE AND OFFLINE IDENTITIES ALIGNED?
The online identity we give ourselves does not reflect who we truly are, but rather the side of ourselves that we believe society should see. This means we are only displaying a side of ourselves we deem to be more valuable and ‘socially acceptable’. We do not show the bad parts of our lives on networking platforms because we are all striving to show that we are living our best lives as that is what we conclude is of greater worth. “Identity is flexible and changeable, and people are highly skilled in varying their self-presentation appropriately” (Marwick, 2013). Many put more time and effort into their online persona rather than their offline personality because no one is satisfied with their offline ‘real life’. Seeing celebrities and online influencers living like kings and queens brought a whole new dynamic to social networking sites as people want to live up to that standard and be seen as someone living their life to the fullest.

Ones online identity is still showing who they are, it is merely just a reflection of the only side of themselves they want friends, family and strangers to see. “In everyday life, people consciously and unconsciously work to define the way they are perceived, hoping to engender positive impressions of themselves.” (Papacharissi, 2010) We are all guilty of emphasising certain aspects of ourselves in social media posts (specifically photographs) so in this sense it could be said that we are all catfishing because these photographs cannot always truly reflect our real lives. Sometimes a feeling of inadequacy comes creeping in when we see others who look happier or as if they are having more fun or even seem more attractive. This results in photo edits and manipulations to make sure you fit into the mould society has created for us – women especially.

Personally, I do not tend to use social media to post about my life very regularly. I find the only times I post are when I am doing something exciting such as going on a night out or showing off a holiday. The only social networking platform I tend to post on is Instagram so with this being said, I do not think my online personality is much of a reflection of who I am offline because I do not upload enough to give a deep enough sense of personality. I do not care much for updating everyone on my life at all times because I feel it is unnecessary however the urge creeps up on these nights out/holidays to post online. This is almost just an automatic reaction to let everyone know I have an exciting life sometimes. As a result of this, I think it is difficult not to let social media and the way others use it shape the way, not just myself but many others, also navigate the platforms and the way we let ourselves be looked upon. When seeing old friends I have lost touch with showing off (a semester abroad or a new car, for example) it makes me want to boast about my life and show that I too am living my life to the fullest.

Overall, I definitely believe we all have separate identities on and offline. In ‘real life’ (offline) we can struggle to hide specific aspects of ourselves but online we are able to show only what we want to be seen. We live in a day and age where we are able to connect to anyone in the world instantly and it is a beautiful, powerful thing. Authenticity is one thing that should be present when we are online because this is a detail many would say they find attractive in a person. Seeing someone for who they truly are creates a deeper trust and admiration that a superficial media profile will never achieve. Lucybrowneyes (discuss • contribs) 22:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you made some really good points here. I especially related to your points about only posting on social media after big events or experiences and therefore not having much of a social media identity or personality. I also liked the point that you made in your conclusion about it being difficult to hide things in real life but social media allows us to hide these things much more easily as I feel that is very true. Social media allows us to be selective about what people see and how we present ourselves, which I feel is a big problem as we end up only seeing people online who look 'perfect' or living an idealised kind of lifestyle. Your point about seeing old friends you have lost touch with making posts about how great their lives made you also feel more inclined to boast about the same things on your own social media was very interesting and understandable, because sometimes it may feel like a competition to try and keep up and post like the rest of your peers are. As you said authenticity should always be apparent and seeing one's true self is something that social media can prevent us from doing.Speckynarwan (discuss • contribs) 12:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 REFERENCES 

WIKI EXERCISE #3: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
'Teruelle, R. (2012). Social media and youth activism. In N. S. Noor Al-Deen, & J. A. Hendricks (Eds.), Social media: Usage and impact (pp. 166-178). Lanham: Lexington Books. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/stir/Doc?id=10511506'

In this chapter Teruelle looks at the way in which the youth of today are civically engaged with political and social movements online. The author explains that many critics now-a-days believe that youth are self involved and are too narcissistic and competitive to be truly partaking in these societal changes but many disagree. The focus of this chapter was to investigate and explore youths' potential to be civically engaged as activist groups and political parties as well as individuals. The data was gained through examining five of the most popular Facebook youth activism groups that were concerned with the following topics: democracy; rising tuition fees; equal rights for GLBTQ; and exploitation of children. Two groups were based in the UK, two in the US and one in South Africa. The author also conducted questionnaires and interviews in order to get more detailed responses. This chapter is useful for my research on social media movements as Teruelle suggests the different ways in which the youth of today are very engaged and passionate about these movements on social media platforms. It has also showed a side to these movements that is not so fun which is trying to keep young activists interest in a particular topic and cause. The chapter concluded that a lot of youth now-a-days are definitely involved in activism and use social media as their tool to do so. The limitation of this research is that is was only conducted on a small-scale level and thus the author explains that more research needs to be done in this field in order to shake the stereotype of youth being uninvolved and lazy. This will help to form parts of my research on youth activism with social and political movements as well as the concept of civic engagement. Lucybrowneyes (discuss • contribs) 00:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

WIKI EXERCISE #4: COLLABORATIVE ESSAY CRITICAL EVALUATION - WHAT ARE WIKIS?
“A wiki is web-based software that allows all viewers of a page to change the content by editing the page online in a browser.” This is the technical definition of a wiki. It is essentially an online encyclopaedic style platform where anyone can add, take away or change content to suit the page. Wikibooks are a form of wiki but they are essentially used to give free access to e-books and annotated texts. This means when it came to working on a collaborative wiki essay, it was very simple to gain access to each page and edit it accordingly. It was easy for anyone to access any page you had worked on and they could see exactly what you had done through the use of the ‘contribs’ tab. In my experience of using this platform, I found that having a very open, public space to complete this body of work made everyone in the group a lot more conscious of what they were posting and contributing.

Every user is moderated and monitored closely. Wiki’s are moderated through the use of a webmaster who will take into account what different users are saying and will allow it to be added or removed accordingly. This is essentially just a form of online surveillance where a higher power watches over to make sure there is nothing abusive, incorrect or hurtful getting posted to these webpages. As a result, people will modify their behaviours according to who is watching. From the first edit you make with a wiki account, you can be held accountable for anything you write and everything can be traced back to you. Many scholars describe the internet as a participatory panopticon. . Every online user knows they are being watched, but we see they tend not to care so much. On the wikibooks however I feel that sense of being monitored and possibly even judged was very prevalent. When adding anything to the discussion page, everyone would always start their contribution with a greeting or some sort of pleasantry in order to keep everything polite and civil.

“Given that wikis do not enforce a specific collaboration mode on students and provide them with an opportunity to construct their own knowledge, a wide range of activities may be carried out.” There was no set limit of characters we could contribute, no specific layout or restrictions on what we could add onto the page. This allowed us as students to get creative and set out our work they way we wanted to do it. In studies conducted it was found that students seemed to prefer these intriguing methods of learning such as wikibooks rather than the traditional methods as it allowed their creative sides to emerge, however they were still hesitant to let other students view their work. There seems to be an almost fear when uploading onto these pages because of how highly visible they are. However, because of this added pressure students can sometimes produce their best work and as a result they create a wikibook textbook for future students studying the topic to look at for reference. Overall, this ends up creating a shared sense of community as not only the students of that year are able to learn in a creative way, but students in the years to follow will have a great source of information on these topics. Lucybrowneyes (discuss • contribs) 00:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I really like your opening sentence because I think it summarises what a wiki is in the most technical and logical of ways. The way you go one to explain wiki’s in more depth was also very well done and I think you did an excellent job of summing up the way wikis work in a very concise way. When working on the collaborative essay, I also felt that the wiki books platform made it much easier to use and navigate when contributing to the discussion pages and editing. Once I got used to using the platform and began understanding how people other users generally interact with one another, I found wikibooks very simple to use. I also totally agree with your point about being much more self-conscious about what you post due to the fact that the wiki books were so open and that anybody could go one and see what exactly everyone was posting. When I would try and make contributions to the wiki book I always found myself reading my posts multiple times before and after posting just to make sure that what I was saying made sense and to correct any spelling or grammatical errors that I may have missed initially, as I was concerned about what other would think when reading it.

The point you make about the webmaster was also very interesting to me; how they essentially can oversee and control what exactly is happening on all the different wiki pages that they are monitoring. Your way of describing it as a form of ‘surveillance’ or ‘higher power’ was very effective and conveyed very clearly the kind of role that the webmaster plays in the making of the collaborative essays and discussion pages overall. The point you made about people then modifying their behaviours when aware that the webmaster was moderating them was something that I found also to be very true in my own experience when using wiki books and collaborating with other users. Also the fact that any changes or additions you make are recorded, accessible for anybody to see and trace back to you was something that I found myself being very conscious of as well, although I did find it a very helpful feature so I could look back and look through precisely all the things that I had contributed. That feeling of being judged and watched seemed to be emphasised much more on wiki books than it is on any other social media platform that I tend to use was something that I noticed when using it, and like you said, you can really see it in the way people greet and interact with each other in a much more polite manner than they would usually. I also really loved your point about wiki books being less restrictive as there was no work limit or specific restrictions on users when posting and therefore allowed students to get much more creative in their approaches and ideas, as this is something that I did not really consider before. I also think its very interesting that studies showed that students actually preferred this method of study and education opposed to the more traditional ways that people are generally more used to because it gave them so much more freedom. The part about having extra pressure resulting in people producing a higher quality of work is something that I really agree with because I think people did put in much more effort than they usually would on a project because they knew they were being watched and everything that they were posting was being commented on or critiqued. I also agree that wiki books really did provide a better sense of community between students when collaborating on the essay, and I had never actually considered how future students will be able to use the wiki books created to aid them in their own studies, which in hindsight makes the wikibook all the more useful.Speckynarwan (discuss • contribs) 15:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 REFERENCES 

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:
 * 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:
 * some contribs through the period here, but I would have liked to have seen a little more consistency. A couple of annotated bibliography additions and other contribs that would be considered substantial or significant, and what exchange there is tends to be quite good.

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
 * Satisfactory
 * 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
 * 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.
 * Good

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 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.


 * This work is at the upper end of this grade band, but even so perhaps a little improvement would go some way to attaining a higher mark. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets.


 * Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone some way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts, especially with the longer pieces, where it would have been useful to break up the text a little with images, or add more links to enrich the contributions. You did a good job though and 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 very good. I like that you have framed some of your responses as reflections and you make an effort to solicit discussion. 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). Solid work.

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) 16:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)