User talk:MandrakeShepherd

Yellow there!

My name is Paul and I'm a 'mature' student at Stirling University, studying Film & Media Studies. I'm contributing to Wikibooks as part of a class project.MandrakeShepherd (discuss • contribs) 13:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

= Essays =

To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
“An identity is, at least in part, an explicit theory of oneself as a person” (Moshman, 2005, p. 89)



The difficulty with discussing a single, unified identity is that a single person has a multitude of identities that revolve in response to their environment. Erikson (1968) proposed that adolescents are in a period of identity flux, where they experiment with various roles and identities. I don't believe that this process stops with adolescence, as my own public identity has regularly mutated throughout the years, dependent on where and with whom I find myself.

The main difference between your offline and online identities is that, in person, you can see and respond to those around you in real time. Offline, your behaviour is captured in a semi-permanent archive, and, in many ways, we have little control over who views - and judges - our behaviour.



When I was 17, I attended college as an introverted stoner, who was terrified of the prospect of conversing with a stranger. When I was 21, I got a bar job and developed a garrulous, performer identity. Friends over the years have noted that there is a sizable discrepancy between this 'public performer' and the more introspective person they come to know in private. As Macek (2003) notes, this 'personal identity' is based on self-reflection, whereas 'social identity' develops from external context.



In many ways, this dichotomy continues online, with the performer identity competing for attention with the sensitive, reflective 'me'. For every tweet or Facebook post that I share which demonstrates that I am politically engaged and serious about social justice, there are half a dozen which are intended to show me as an irascible comedian with little time for my fellow humans.

Face-to-face, this comedian can judge how funny he is by how many laughs he gets. Online, this becomes how many 'likes' or 'loves' he gets; how many shares; how 'engaged' people are with my 'content'. It is this commodification of the individual and their experiences that make me a little queasy about becoming too focussed on my online identity.

With this system of peer review and judgement inherently built-in to social media, competition is an unavoidable outcome. From Facebook to the Guardian website, to Reddit, all of your comments and posts are subjected to recommendations, likes or upvotes. It is this competition that I rejected in my adolescence, withdrawing from social contact as I didn't want to play the game of accruing social capital.

Consequently, I try not to care too much about how my online identity fares, as it is a fool's errand attempting to keep up with an infinite number of Jones's. As Lindy West's fascinating interview with someone who subjected her to vicious trolling demonstrates, there can be a vast difference between who we were online yesterday, and who we will be 'in real life' tomorrow. --MandrakeShepherd (discuss • contribs) 10:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Comments
Hi! I enjoyed reading how you've related your own personal experiences to the subjects of the assignment, especially in the use of images and image captions. I really agree with your idea about commodifying individual experiences in an online identity and how it can feel queasy when you do this by focussing on an online identity too much. I also agree with your conclusion about not making a great effort to manage your online identity when your past behaviour online may not even match who you are now. I feel like I will now remember this conclusion if I ever feel overly self-conscious about my own online behaviour in the future, thank you! Brightredactually (discuss • contribs) 11:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. To begin with, I just wanted to say that opening this piece with that quote by Moshman was very effective and relevant. I must say that I do agree with your point about identity changing even after adolescence, as a 22 year old I can say with certainty that I was not the same person I was five years ago or even last year. Your section about your political side versus your comedic side was very thought provoking. I believe that we all have multiple sides to us and I wonder why we are expected to just be one type of person? This may be something that I look into in the future as it is a very interesting concept. Overall, this piece really sent me down a path of questioning human expectations of wanting everything to say the same and never change, people especially. This is a very thought provoking piece indeed. Silversophie97 (discuss • contribs) 18:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

= Annotated Bibliography = Liat Berdugo & Megan V. Nicely (2019) A new quantified self: embodied pedagogy and artistic practice, International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media, 15:1, 104-119, DOI: 10.1080/14794713.2019.1569348 Berdugo and Nicely are Arts professors, teaching at the University of San Francisco. They ran a pilot course, entitled The Quantified Self: Technology, Choreography, and Embodiment which looks to expand on the three central Quantified Self (QS) questions: What did you do? How did you do it? What did you learn? The intended outcome was to generate a broader and less simplified version of these three, basic questions. The outcomes of the course are limited in their usefulness as any kind of academic study, however, they do raise important questions regarding our perceptions of data, device-usage and prioritisation of scientism over a more qualitative perspective on life. The authors do not mention the number of students on the course but do state that they were all "women-identified or gender nonconforming". In terms of academic rigour, or practical usage of data, the outcomes are intentionally qualitative and non-scientific. The most important aspects of this article with regards to the Wikiproject are the challenging of the primacy of scientism and the linking of the QS movement to Positivism and Utilitarianism. '''Caseau, Y. (2019) Machine Learning Heuristics for Short Time Series Forecasting with Quantified-Self Data. Retrieved from https://roadef2019.univ-lehavre.fr/programme/ROADEF2019_submissions/ROADEF2019_paper_1.pdf''' Yves Caseau is the Director General of Technology and Services at the National Academy of Technologies of France. This is a preliminary paper which aims to produce a "toolbox of heuristic algorithms organised into a term algebra". While the paper is very much aimed at experts, as opposed to laymen, it does have some valuable points. In terms of definitions, it defines "time series", "trackers" and the "quest" concept. It proposes that "The main characteristic of “self-tracking” is that the data collected by the user is often biased, quite often short and makes a forecasting challenge which is difficult, when it is not groundless." (p. 1) and that "Most self-tracking time series have a strong “random noise” component and depend also on other factors that are not tracked or available at the time of the analysis." While most of the content is too advanced for our purposes, these definitions and criticisms will be valuable in considering other sources. '''Lines, B. W. G. (2019) The Quantified Self & Big Data: causing a new turn in science? Retrieved from https://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/tag/information-visualization/page/49/?s&monthnum&year&author_name&orderby=comment_count&order=desc'''. This is a blog operated by the New Media & Digital Culture department at University of Amsterdam. The first post provides an overview of QS and raises some issues, such as the value of individual data as opposed to comparative data, the subjectivity of analysis and the volume of data to be processed. It makes an interesting link to Behavioural Psychologist, Daniel Kahneman's, theory of 'peak-end rule', where "We judge our experiences almost entirely on how they were at their peak and how they ended." Later posts concern 'Big Data' and 'Mood Tracking' - the latter of which is particularly relevant to the subject of QS and also makes the link to the 'Hawthorne Effect'(a type of reactivity in which individuals modify an aspect of their behaviour in response to their awareness of being observed). The page contains multiple links to further research possibilities and cites a number of apps and websites relevant to the topic. Busch, L., Utesch, T., Bürkner, P-C., & Strauss, B. (2019). A Daily Diary of the Quantified Self – The Influence of Fitness App Usage on Psychological Well-Being, Body Listening and Body Trusting. Retrieved from https://psyarxiv.com/cd6t8/download/?format=pdf This study was conducted by researchers at the University of Münster in Germany. It aimed to examine the effects of fitness app usage on psychological well-being and explore causal relationships between 'body trusting' and well-being. They recruited three groups of 'novice fitness app users', setting one group a target of 10K steps per day using a tracking device, the second group with devices but no target, and the third being asked to document all of their daily physical activity without a tracking device. There were 152 participants in total. The study found no correlation between fitness app usage, specific goal-setting and psychological well-being - "Overall, the results indicate that fitness app usage — and specifically tracking of steps and burnt calories — cannot support the overall improvement of psychological well-being, body listening or body trusting. However, a large variability in effects was observed, indicating that the effects of fitness app usage are highly individual." The conclusion of the study isn't particularly helpful and there are some interesting data sets that they don't mention, such as whether the group with the steps target exercised more than the group with no target. '''Lupton, D. (2016). New Hybrid Beings. In The Quantified Self. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com''' Deborah Lupton is a professor in the News & Media Research Centre at the University of Canberra. This chapter looks at the social, political and cultural theories that underpin the self-tracking movement. Lupton describes as 'sociomaterialism', the school of thought that examines how material objects function as agents in social networks, interacting with both humans and other objects. Lupton also defines 'assemblage' as "when humans, non-humans, practices, ideas and discourses come together in a complex system". An example of an 'assemblage' is the "human-body-sensor-software-data configuration...generated when a person uses a digital device is used to monitor and measure physical activities". This chapter is especially helpful in considering the history and development of the QS movement, and the philosophy behind it. Lupton provides definitions, explains concepts and links to other scholars such as Turkle, Marcus and Thrift, which signposts multiple further opportunities for research. The book as a whole is a keystone text for research and other project members will benefit from following the links to other researchers for their own sections. '''Swan, M. (2013). The Quantified Self: Fundamental disruption in big data science and biological discovery. Big data, 1(2), 85-99.''' Melanie Swan is a Technology Theorist in the Philosophy Department at Purdue University. In this paper, Swan explores the QS movement, focussing on the opportunities for 'big data' scientists, potential and limitations of QS activity, and considering the long-term future. Swan employs secondary data analysis to synthesis the findings of other researchers - the extensive reference list cites 74 sources. The scope of the paper covers every aspect of the QS movement, from historic beginnings to the short- and long-term future. This is an indispensable paper when considering QS, as its scope is so broad that it would inform any aspect of research. Limitations are the lack of primary data-gathering and Swan's disclosure that she is affiliated with two of the collaborative health organisations discussed in the paper - a potential conflict of interest. This paper will influence my own research and writing on the subject greatly--MandrakeShepherd (discuss • contribs) 10:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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:
 * Excellent. Among other things, contributions will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including formatting, links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful and transparent way on the Discussion Pages. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts, justifying decision-making with transparency. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader as well as for fellow researchers collaborating. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.

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:
 * several smaller contribs across the whole project period, as well as a small but important number of substantial and significant contribs, and key delegation and logistical tasks

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

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

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.
 * Excellent

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

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


 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse). The wiki markup formatting will need some work.


 * This work is of very good quality – in fact, your annotated bibliography is exceptional. Unfortunately, you seem to have missed off the Ex4 entirely! So there’s clearly room for improvement here. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets.


 * 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, if a little brief.

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


 * 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) 16:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)