User talk:Marky mark&thefunkybrunch

Discussion page I hope I can edit this later.Marky mark&#38;thefunkybrunch (discuss • contribs) 12:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Etiquette
Hi. There may be some confusion floating around here somewhere; to clarify: I saw you'd edited page User:GregXenon01 and undid it because user pages (as opposed to user talk pages, in this case User talk:GregXenon01) are ordinarily considered personal and not to be edited by anyone but their owner; even admins are generally quite cautious and deferential about editing someone else's user page. I'm not sure what the case is here, but that's what I was reacting to. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note the edits you're referring to were part of a class demonstration (in real time) for class members to try out editing on a fellow wikipedians user page. One element of the class project that students are required to do for this semester is to respond to and peer-review other students' work on *their* user discussion page. The only times when this is likely to happen are at specific assessment points, but there may also be occasional discussion of the class project itself on the user discussion pages. Sorry for the confusion - you'll see a lot more activity this week once the class project begins proper. The project page this year is Debates in Digital Culture 2019.
 * GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki exercise #2: To what extent my online and offline identities aligned?
I use social media very considerately. I spend most of my social media time on either Facebook or Twitter, but I barely post or comment anything for two reasons: one, I am planning on acquiring some sort of status in the film industry after I finish university. Famous, talented artists went down after people “dug up” their posts from the early 2010`s and found inappropriate, provocative posts on their social media accounts, so I take extra care controlling what I say and how I present myself on social media. Two, I am not fond of social media anyway, I don`t have the urge to express myself on various platforms. Whenever a thought pops in my mind worthy of posting it, I usually contemplate over it a day or so, trying to debate with myself whether if it`s interesting and appropriate enough to give my name to it. Therefore, I am trying to hold my posts to a relatively high standard, so I can be fully accountable to any visible action or comment that appears under my name.

I believe more or less the same goes with my real-life identity as well. I am trying to filter myself and be appropriate according to the situation, so in my case I would like to believe that my online and real-life identity comes as close as it`s possible. But it wasn`t like this all the time. Of course, to some extent I was always considerate on what I post online. I never used any aspect of the internet for trolling or flaming or showed any kind of `toxic disinhibition`. The only change I can detect regarding my online identity is the extent to which I filter myself. This is the most visible on Facebook at the pictures section: I used to blindly accept every tagged picture of me (uploaded by someone else) to appear on my profile, but I changed my privacy settings years ago. Now if someone tags me on a picture I get a notification and I can decide whether I want that picture to appear on my timeline or not. This gives me control over what appears under my name. Most certainly, becoming more mature and responsible over time is the reason for this slight change in my online identity and behaviour. I would like to believe that the same goes for every other individual too, but unfortunately, I don`t always see the reflection of this on social media.

User comment feedback
I liked how you approached this question by sharing a lot of your own personal experience. The image of the fingerprint was interesting as it's easy to forget how everything you do online can be traced, enjoyed reading!NatashaRcurly (discuss • contribs) 11:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I enjoyed reading this mini-essay. You have answered the question to a satisfactory standard. I like the fact that you have given a surprising but understandable reason for monitoring your online presence. Having posts from 2010 thrown back in your face is not something people may consider when posting, I certainly hadn't. I believe that for most, the reason they might monitor posts is the online connection to family members. Your essay is well written, clear and concise. Well done. ConnorB044 (discuss • contribs) 22:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I perfectly understand the points you are making. We are constantly reminded how what we post on social media and how we present ourselves could affect whether we get a job in the future. You say that you think for a long time if something is relevant enough before you post, and I do the same. I now arrived at a point where I most often draw the conclusion that it is not interesting enough to be published; I might be wrong sometimes, yes, but I do not feel the urge anymore of constantly populating my social media channels. I read that you are not a fan of social media, but would you not say that it can be useful for developing your personal brand? Some people use social media as platforms to advertise themselves and what they do. Could that not become advantageous if you want to work in the film industry after you graduate? Also, you write that your online and offline identities are quite well aligned because you filter yourself according to the situation. But don’t you think that you can control more the online depiction of yourself compared to who you are offline? I believe that sometimes we all just act out of instinct, because being conscious 24/7 demands a lot of effort and hinders us of sometimes just ‘being ourselves’. You take more time thinking about the content you post online, but you cannot always take as much time when acting, saying or doing something in ‘real life’. Therefore I think that even though our online identities are closely related to who we are offline (even though for some people this claim is more true than for others), who we are online is rather a perfect depiction of ourselves. In some instances we might really be ourselves however: when we watch videos on YouTube, Netflix, listen to music, or make online accounts, we might not think about the image we give of ourselves in the first place, but just do what we like. Eric.berd (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

First of all: thank you for your feedbacks! I am tremendously happy if I could raise some interesting points. Eric: I completely agree with what you say regarding developing my personal brand. Yes, I tend to forget all the positive things and potential in social media and social media advertising. You also highlighted for me the image that we unintentionally create with different sites such as Youtube (or Spotify would be another good example). You really hit the nail on the head with saying `just do what we like`: I feel like completely overlooked all the data regarding what I am listening to, watching or liking, but I do feel like - very similarly how I would `present` myself offline - I let my actions speak for me. You could possibly have a very strong sense of my online identity by digging into my taste and check what music I listen to, or where I have been, or which filmmakers I fancy the most, however, I don`t have the urge to constantly state them or highlight them. Just like in `real life`. Obviously, when you are online you have the power to decide which conversation you join and what position you take in an argument, but interestingly enough, the same goes with real life conversations as well. You are never truly obliged to express your thoughts, and many times listening and observing is better than talk. I believe in the end of the day, it really all depends on how do we want others to see us and how we want to navigate through life.Marky mark&#38;thefunkybrunch (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'm glad that I was able to give some input and raise some questions to think about. It's true that looking at the information some services collect or have about us can feel as if they know exactly who we are. And I like the point you raise, that you don't have to highlight and present everything you do to the world. Also, I agree that even in 'real life' - the offline world - you have the power to choose which conversations you follow and who you speak to. (I was trying to find a counter-argument for that, but unsuccessfully.) I believe that it depends on the person though and some people will have themselves more under control than others, which is a point you make at the end of your comment. Famous instagramers, youtubers, etc. will not always actually live the perfect life they are depicting, and rather present a capitalist, consumerist lifestyle that is always positive. They will filter what they show to the world. The boring bits will be left out, as these don't attract followers. Eric.berd (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki exercise #3: Annotated Bibliography Exercise
Lindsey, R., A., 2013. `What the Arab Spring tells us about the future of Social Media in Revolutionary Movements` in Small Wars Journal. https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/what-the-arab-spring-tells-us-about-the-future-of-social-media-in-revolutionary-movements In this article Lindsey discusses the implications of the | Arab Spring in the light of how much social media enabled it. The author combines contemporary academic literature on digital media and social media with military doctrine from the U. S. Army Special Forces and focuses on the role social media can play in different stages of the insurgencies. This article is relevant to our research as it highlights the benefits of facilitating social media, with a great emphasis on YouTube, to help organize social movements. The author concludes that social media can be used as a very effective tool in the early stages of insurgencies, however, alone it cannot and will not achieve or replace organized activism. This article will be very useful for our topic for Social (Media) Movements to the Wikibook project, as we will be discussing future trends in social media movements.

Wiki exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation - What are wikis?
The Wikis is a collective term referring to the different projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, which is a U.S. based non-profit organization. The Wikis are a collection of knowledge based, freely accessible websites where individuals collaborate on articles, books or encyclopedic entries. The content is created and peer-reviewed by a community of users; the platforms promote cooperation, as everyone is free to access/create/edit any content at all times. Personally, I have come across Wikipedia a very long time ago, first in primary school in the context of `anybody can edit the articles on Wikipedia, therefore the site shouldn`t be your source of knowledge`, uttered by my teachers on many occasions. While, retrospectively, I can understand now the general mistrust of my teachers towards a then emerging and expanding company, without doubt, Wikipedia (and its sister-projects) had become a cultural phenomenon as well as the ultimate source of knowledge, the website which helps settle family dinner debates. Although, the most known Wiki platform is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the organization has many Wiki sister projects such as Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Commons etc., each which is set within the moral and structural framework of the Wikimedia Foundation, however, each for a slightly different purpose. I got introduced to Wikibooks via a university project; we were collaboratively creating a book with my peers, titled Debates in Digital Culture 2019. The platform is built in such a way that it allows access to everyone to simultaneously create and/or edit content, meaning that me and my colleagues who worked on the same chapter, never had to meet up and make decisions in the offline world, we could do everything online. At every chapter of the online book there is the book page and the discussion page, where the ongoing discussion develops, and decisions are made regarding everything that concerns the chapter: the direction to take, resources, structure, layout etc. Platforms like such are a great example of the public good, which Rheingold describes as `resources from which all may benefit, regardless of whether they help create it or not`. He explains, that public good can only maintained via cooperation and `cooperation once established on the basis of reciprocity, can protect itself from invasion of less cooperative strategies`. As the Wikis are built on cooperation and collaboration, they very much foster online community, which I could experience at first hand working on this project.

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:
 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory contributions 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) and will have little justification for ideas offered on Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will need some work.

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:
 * one or two substantial – but not nearly the frequency or volume needed to evidence engagement level required

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
 * Good
 * 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) 15:10, 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 is good work, set at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s clearly room for improvement here. Generally good use of wiki markup and functionality, although making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of your posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would improve.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, although the final set of posts (both your own work, and the peer-review elements) were a little late. 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.

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


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


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)