User talk:Morvenjamieson

Hi, I am Morven and I am contributing to a class project. Morvenjamieson (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Excercise #1 - Online Visibility and Footprint
'''How visible are you online? What form does that visibility take?''' I am extremely visible online on social media. I have multiple social media accounts some of which are open and some which are private. The option to keep an account private is very important as it prevents people from viewing things I might not necessarily want them to be able to freely access.

How much of the information is under your control? I feel that all my information online is very much controlled by myself. I can choose to my knowledge who can see what I have and what I have not posted online.

How does the theme of Web 2.0 relate to my online presence? The idea of Web 2.0 relates to my online presence because

Wiki Excercise #2 - To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
'''How does the way that you present yourself online reflect who you are? Is your online presence very different from in person?''' The way in which I present myself in an online setting is refined and more exaggerated than my presence in person. I have the ability to filter more of my online identity than myself in person.

What similarities and differences do your online and offline identities have? My online and offline identities are similar in the respect that they both have the same interests. Certain interests or pages I like or follow on social media platforms transverse into my real life. For example, if I like a certain musician or follow them on a social media platform it is highly likely I will be listening to their music in a physical setting. One way my online identity differs is it has more interactions with people that I would not be able to converse within a face to face settings. For example, frequently I use messaging platforms to contact long-distance family and friends, such as Facebook Messenger, Snapchat and Instagram/Twitter direct messages.

'''Has your online identity changed over time? What are the differences? Why do identities change over time?''' Over a short period of time, my online identity has changed quite dramatically. I think this is due to the fact that there have been dramatic changes with social media platforms. I believe the main reason that my online identity has changed is due to the addition of 'stories' to social media, which I almost now use as a near daily photographic diary. This is something I would never have considered using years ago when I irregularly would post something basic online.

'''Do other people shape our identities? Does each of us really have one fixed identity, or are they multiple?''' I think other people have a huge impact on my identity, even subconsciously. If I see an online trend I am much more likely to follow it. For example, if a film is released and my friends are posting about it online chances are I am going to watch the film too. Morvenjamieson (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Excercise #3 -Annotated Bibliography
The chapter ‘Web 2.0 Tools and Context’ explains what the key tools of Web 2.0 are and what the potential use of these tools is in a corporate setting could be. ‘Web 2.0 Tools and Context’ aims to show how these tools can be used directly by users. This chapter scopes to show how Web 2.0 tools should be seen as a set of configurable components rather than individual components. It discusses the concept of Web 2.0, blogs, microblogging, wikis, social tagging, RSS (Really Simple Syndication), social networking, semantic web, mashups and combining web 2.0 tools into a system for work. This is useful to current web 2.0 research as it shows a clear link to the web 2.0 subject and explains basic information about the expansion of web 2.0. The limitations of this chapter are that it is short so cannot show a full scope of web 2.0 as a fully researched area. This chapter effectively explains the main technological advances of web 2.0 and their effectiveness. Morvenjamieson (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 13 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:
 * Contributions of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. They offer little to no engagement with the concerns of the module. They are poorly written. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.

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:
 * Aside from an annotated bibliography entry, there is no evidence of enagagement on the discussion pages of this project.

Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages
 * Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration
 * Little or none in evidence
 * Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay
 * Poor
 * Evidence of peer-review of others’ work
 * None

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Little or none in evidence
 * Clearly labelled sections and subsections
 * Little or none in evidence
 * Contributions are all signed
 * Little or none in evidence

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.
 * Little or no evidence

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio

 * Posts of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. Unfortunately, this is an incomplete portfolio.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – none undertaken.

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


 * 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 – again, evidence of potential.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)