User talk:MarketingMaine

Hello, my name is Katie Gould and I am a marketing student from Maine. I am currently working on a project this spring 2019. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

How visible are you online? What forms does that visibility take?
Online visibility has become a norm in our culture in recent years. Today, people expect to be able to search a name and find out a considerable amount of information on that person. We also expect that other people can find out valuable information about ourselves, such as contact information, relationship status, educational background, etc. Meikle explains that, “Networked digital media bring with them new kinds of visibility, new opportunities… and to connect with others who are newly visible to us and to whom we are ourselves in turn made visible” (Meikle, 2016, p. 91). I find that I am not as visible online because I am not active on all social media platforms, as well as the fact that I’ve only been consistently active online for the past three years. Before I started using social media, finding information on myself was extremely difficult. However, as I started using online social platforms, information on myself became more and more visible to others online.

What kinds of information are available about you online? Who have you chosen to share it with and why?
There is a large variety of information online about myself that different people have access to see. Depending on where they are finding the information, and whether they are friends on that platform with me determines the amount of information visible to them. Meikle states that, “…the user is also establishing a performance of self - a presentation that forgoes the individual in contemporary communication,” and, “ the individual is both presenting and performing versions of themselves,” (Meikle, 2016, p. 11). Meikle’s writing describes how today people have the online tools to share information and become visible in a way that can’t be achieved in person. For platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, I find I am more willing to share personal information with people I’m friends with. On the contrary, platforms such as LinkedIn are less transparent with my information because the privacy settings are lowered and more individuals are able to find that information due to the setup of the platform.

How much of this information is under your control? How do you know?
The majority of information shared online about myself is under my control. Social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram are tailored and promoted by me. However, when it comes to websites and online news articles regarding community or educational events, information about myself is circulated and there is no way for me control it. Despite this surface knowledge of the control we have on our information, there are many online sites that request information and store it for data. Most agree to the data being gathered, however are unaware of what the data might be used for. However, this is a tradeoff many people make, including myself, in order to get easier access to information and tailored content on different online platforms.

Think about how this theme relates to your Collaborative Essay work
Digital user visibility relates to Web 2.0 because it was part of the building blocks that helped to create accessibility that allows users to share information to form online communities. Online users are unable to connect over digital platforms until they share information that can be used to match them with others. Whether that be over online dating websites, social media communities, or fan group websites. Mandiberg wrote that during Web 2.0, Google became more than, “…a collection of software tools; it’s a specialized database. Without the data, the tools are useless” (Mandiberg, 2012, p. 25). This shows that without the digital technology that was developed during Web 2.0, digital visibility would not be able to be accessed in the same way.

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:


 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries 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 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 way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. 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. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.


 * This work, although excellent(!) is at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s some 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. You also went over the word limit a little. Please read the instructions which state that you need to “address each exercise brief specifically. It is also important to be concise in online writing, so try to keep your posts to no more than around 2500-3000 characters each” unless otherwise stated. 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, as you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this will make a considerable difference.


 * 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). Keep this up!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

How does the way that you present yourself online reflect who you are?
I believe the online profile of a person can provide a valuable glimpse into that user, because they only post what they wish others to see by filtering the information they share. Turkle explains that, “…on social-networking sites such as Facebook, we think we will be presenting ourselves, but our profile ends up as somebody else— often the fantasy of who we want to be” (Turkle 2011). Face-to-face encounters do not allow us to filter and change our presentation, conversations, and general content on the spot for others to see, which is why online social profiles have become so popular. Online profiles also have the luxury of the publicness of social platforms, “When people assume you share everything, they don’t ask you about what you don’t share” (Mandiberg 2012). Because information is so public on social media platforms, people do not typically search deeper to uncover what is not being said. This plays a large role in how a person is presented online because they are able to withhold the information they find unflattering to their profile which ultimately changes the online identity of that person.

What role do other people have in shaping our identities?
I believe that people are generally affected by others when shaping their online identities. This is usually because of the social standards society tells them to uphold. In Turkle’s writing, he gives the example of a middle age man named Pete with an online avatar that is “buff and handsome” and married online to another avatar which he describes as “intelligent, passionate, and easy to talk to”. These traits are commonly sought for and desired by society, and with online tools people such as Pete are able to present themselves in a way that is appealing to society’s standards despite it not being a true representation of himself. Online influencers are especially involved in shaping our online identities as they showcase a picturesque idea of what an individual’s life should look like through the careful crafting of their own online identity. I myself find that I write certain types of posts or share certain types of pictures to reflect myself in a way that is similar to others online, as I strive to showcase myself in a similar way.

Does each of us really have one fixed identity, or are there multiple?
I believe that people have multiple identities, especially online. Each platform has specific purposes which affect how a person is viewed. “Each (individual user) is a part of multiple networks, coming together in different configurations for different interactions” (Meikle 2016). With the ability to have different online accounts over different platforms, people are able to shape their online identity multiple times to suit their goals and reach their intended audience. Privacy settings also plays a large factor in managing multiple identities by allowing the user to filter their image to share certain information with specific groups of people. This adds another layer of control for the user, as they can filter content to be shared to different groups on the same platform. For example, people on Facebook might present themselves one way to their friends, but they may not wish for that representation of themselves to be seen by a business or employer. Not only has this allowed people to differentiate their online identity from their real-life identity, but now they are able to filter defferent information amongst various platforms and ultimately have unique identities to fit their needs.

User feedback
Really interesting and enjoyable read. Well structured and I liked how you used headings and the captions on the images were detailed. NatashaRcurly (discuss • contribs) 12:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I find that sometimes it is helpful to explain the picture and what it represents in order to avoid confusion and make sure the reader understands the specific use of that picture. When there is a lot of text it is always helpful to make things simple and efficient. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 22:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You are demonstrating your ideas in a clear way by dividing them into sections. Those images are relevant and help give a brief picture of what you are talking about in your essays. Great job with that. For the content part, you have provided examples not only in your personal experience but also with the examples from sources. You then relate the avatar with yourself. Just one thing to suggest, you have selected some key questions to answer in details. When you are answering those questions, I think you can tell some more about yourself. Like what other identities you have online, how they affect you, and what is like when you are offline. Like what you have pointed out in the second part of your essay, you may elaborate more on that. Cantthinkofanyname (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback I definitely see where I might be able to bring aspects from my personal experience into my writing. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 22:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Good afternoon! Firstly, I think that your division of the topics discussed makes the exercise's structure clearly organised. I think that your point on how people do not take into account the lack of online information is really interesting. It does say something about how our online identities are somehow limited and controlled compared to our real life ones. But I also believe that its a logical step in the creation of online identities as in both on and offline worlds people tend to hide the parts of their personality and body that they do not like. However, I do agree that it is easier to do this online, as your examples demonstrate. Overall, really interesting approach to the topic and structure of the exercise.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 13:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with you that it is interesting how much power we have over our online identities compared to our offline ones. I also agree with the fact that people will always work to present their best attributes, regardless of being online or offline. Like you said though, it is much easier to have control of what people see when using an online platform. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 22:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Katie, I really like the way you separate your idea into different parts, making the whole piece of idea user-friendly and easy to understand. I agree that the social media gets popular due to the reason of allowing users show their better side to the world, as if that’s isn’t the case, there would be much less people using it, after all, meeting friends in person is the best way of communication but not just reading from the internet. Talking about the privacy system on Instagram and Facebook, I think it somehow gave us a sense of security, letting us to share our information more, however, I would say that never trust the internet, as once you upload the information, it is sent to the internet database, and no longer something private.Web9999 (discuss • contribs) 15:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you about the security of information when placed online. People just assume its safe the way they want it to be, but most of the time people don't even read the privacy settings. I believe this might be the company's fault as they have made the information difficult to understand for its users. Because the information is so complex users ignore them altogether. This allows the company to have more access of you information for them to use however they want. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 22:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Found this to be a really enjoyable, well structured and thought provoking read. I particularly found the section on how our online personalities are influenced by others to be particularly interesting. The images used helped to inform the arguments and the piece as a whole was clearly very well researched. BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think people realize how much of what we post is influenced by others. We get an idea of what we think things should look like from the people we look up to. Social media influencers majorly affect how we present ourselves as individuals. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 22:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Annotated Bibliography Exercise
'''Caruso, S. J. (Third Quarter, 2018). Toward understanding the role of web 2.0 technology in self-directed learning and job performance. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 1(3). 89-98'''

In Shirley J. Caruso’s article, she discusses the relationship between employee self-directed learning (SDL) and Web 2.0 technology. She explains that employees require access to resources in the work place in order to support and guide individuals to increase productivity, and these resources have become available through Web 2.0. Caruso aims to create awareness around the need SDL employees have of Web 2.0 resources and analyze the key factors that affect how they use these resources to enhance their SDL. One study used to support Caruso’s theory by Boileau explains that employees are taking initiative to engage with interactive Web 2.0 technology to enhance their performance (2011). Boileau also claims that organizations increasingly interact with social media to facilitate social learning. This information is parallel to the collaborative essay on Web 2.0 because it gives a real world example of how society engages with Web 2.0. A limitation of this article is that it only addresses individuals in a work place, instead of explaining how the majority of society interacts with Web 2.0. However, employees are a great example of the interaction people have with online technology, and this can bring to light the overall effect of Web 2.0.

What are Wikis? What kind of resource are they?
Wiki software has changed the way people collaborate and share information. Wiki creator Ward Cunningham stated that,“…wiki refers to a mass of pages, or when federated, a mass of sites” (Cunningham, 2014). Once, people were limited by time and distance when collaborating on information, however with the creation of Wiki software came the ability to overcome those limitations to collaborate on information. With the ability to post and edit information anywhere and anytime comes the potential for collective intelligence. Wikipedia, one of the main location for Wikis, is described as an “online encyclopedia based on the unlikely notion that an entry can be added by any web user, and edited by any other” (O’Reilly, 2005). This resources has shaped the way information is used and viewed. Now people have information at their fingertips the the ability to add or edit whenever they please.

What kind of platform is Wikibooks?
Wikibooks, a Wikipedia project, is a platform created for information typically written in textbooks. In my experience, Wikibooks is a place for academic writing to be placed, whereas Wikipedia is for generalized information to be searched and found. For example, people searching information typically go to Wikipedia, which means my work in Wikibooks might not be as visible unless someone is looking for the specific academic information I have posted. Wikibooks allows collaboration on academic writing, and provided the perfect place for our course to write our collaborative essays.

In what ways can it be used to help facilitate collaborative research? In what ways does online collaboration represent a digital commons?
Wikis not only allow the collaboration between individuals on one topic, but also allows articles to be linked together to create a chain of related information. O’Reilly states that these links between sites are important because the,“…associations becoming stronger through repetition or intensity, the web of connections grows organically as an output of the collective activity of all web users” (O’Reilly, 2005). The ability to link pictures, articles, and videos from one place to another helps to engage the reader. I find myself that if there are relevant links on a website to more information I will look at it. By linking information, online collaboration continues to grow and develop what is known as a digital commons, which is a place where information and resources are shared within a community.

Do wiki platforms offer potential form online emancipation? Why/not?
For the most part, Wiki platforms can provide a form of online emancipation because those platforms were created specifically for sharing information. However, Esther Weltevrede and Erik Borra explain that, “the different interests of Wikipedians and the potential disputes emerging from them in the content of the articles are negotiated with policies and guidelines with reaching consensus as the main method” (Weltevrede & Borra, 2016). This shows that there are rules and regulations when creating Wikis, so information that violates those rules with be removed. Overall though, Wikis provides a place for anyone to post concepts about whatever is right. This can be a concern for some in regards to the factuality of the information which is why Wikipedia and is sister sites have, “mechanisms in place that suggest that encyclopedic knowledge is never complete” (Weltevrede & Borra, 2016). This knowledge that the information is not ever finalize helps to invite others to edit, which was one of the main lessons I learned while writing the collaborative essay. Even when I finished reading the information and believed the essay was in its final stage, others were still able to added to it and edited it because its an open platform. That is what creates that feeling of online freedom, the ability to interact and edit whenever.

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:
 * Very consistent in engaging discussion throughout with a large number of smalle, if really useful and productive, contributions. There are a smaller number of these that would be described as substantial when applying the above criteria. Some very solid work here, and you clearly played an important role in shaping the essay.

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
 * Good
 * 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
 * Excellent
 * 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) 15:44, 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:


 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries 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 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 way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. 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. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.


 * This work is at the lower end of this (admittedly, high) grade band, so there’s perhaps a little room for improvement here. I am thinking of the annotated entry, which is a little dry and could have been made more useful for project work (or indeed for your wider degree programme) had you really engaged with some of the implications a little more critically.


 * Some really good use of the wiki functionality and markup, especially in Ex4 which is really well formatted. This went a longway 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. But here, you’ve done an excellent job.


 * 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!). Also 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). Very solid stuff.

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 excellent.


 * Presentation: some excellent use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)