User talk:Msweeney00

I am contributing to a class project for university in Spring 2019. This is where the project will be created and managed. Msweeney00 (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Msweeney00

Wiki Exercise #2: Online vs Offline Identities
The concept of an online identity is one that has sparked discussion among both internet academics and regular internet users since the dawn of the web, and one that has grown considerably since the onslaught of social media. The question of who one really is, in comparison to who one presents themselves as while online, can be an incredibly individual concept. That said, this essay will discuss whether or not the concept of online identities is a feasible one, whether or not others' online identities are purposefully or unintentionally created, and my own experience with online vs offline identity.

One way in which online identities may differ from offline identities is usernames - the names we choose to present to the social medium of our choice. Some social networking sites, such as Facebook, encourage you to use your real, full name when signing up and creating a profile - this is to make it easy for others to find you, and for you to craft your circle of family and friends by 'adding' them simply by name. However, interestingly, this phenomenon of people readily and willingly using their real names on social media is a relatively recent one. Still, even though one uses their real name on their profile, this does not mean they will present themselves online exactly as they are offline. Don Slater, in his piece of writing, Social Relationships and Identity Online and Offline, points out that "the ideas of virtuality and simulation evoke the construction of a space of representation that can be related to 'as if' it were real, and therefore effects a separation from, or even a replacement of, the 'really real'." (Slater, 2002) This distinction, made intentionally or not, between one's online life and one's offline life, will surely have an impact on one's perception of their own identity - there may be their 'real' offline identity, and their online one.



One could also pose the argument that people in general do not simply have one fixed 'identity', which they use in their real lives, and another separate, online identity, but rather many aspects, or fragments, of identities that are used depending on the situation. There are certain ways one chooses to present themselves depending on where they are and who they are with - for example, one does not act the same way around their close friends as they do around their employer. In this way, it may be difficult to determine whether or not an 'online identity' is, in fact, an entirely separate identity to the person, or if it is simply different facets of one's identity that they are emphasising or 'playing up'. There are, of course, some issues surrounding this - namely due to the fact that on social media we often display a version of ourselves that is closest to how we want to be, rather than what we truly 'are' (Turkle 2011), however, it is still largely incorrect to suggest that, for the most part, the people we portray ourselves as online are a completely different identity to who we are in the real world.

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:
 * Poor. Among other things, poor contributions may just offer links without real comment or apparent point. They may offer nothing more than poor-quality synopsis or description of material of dubious relevance. They may have serious clarity problems (including dead links, random graphics) which affect comprehension (or even worse, admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement). They might be off-topic, private trivia, or of unclear relevance. The wiki markup formatting will be of a poor standard.

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:
 * There is not much in evidence here to suggest that you have amassed learning and engagement to the standard required at this level. You did manage – just – to scrape together enough material towards the end to get by, but this is really not what the project is asking for.

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

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

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.
 * Poor

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio

 * Posts of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. This is an incomplete portfolio, and you seem to have run out of steam after the first assessed exercise, which was (along with the peer-review elements) rather good. This is a shame, but you know what to look for next time.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)