User talk:NatashaRcurly

Wiki Exercise #2: To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
Your online identity and offline identity can be vastly different or very similar. However, since you can pick and choose how other people see you on social media you can therefore influence their perception of you.

Your online identity may not be the same on all social media platforms you use as different platforms allow you to showcase yourself in different ways, “Unless users adopt multiple online profiles, social networking sites represent a confluence of identity roles, spaces where users ‘must adjust their behaviour so as to make it appropriate for a variety of different situations and audiences’ (Papa Charassi, 2011 p. 207). For example, with ‘Twitter’ the user’s profiles don’t include much detail about the user and it is not necessary to contribute directly by sharing pictures and writing posts as most people use it passively and ‘like’ and ‘retweet’ other user’s creations and so it is difficult to build a profile or identity through twitter (Papacharissi, 2011). Personally, I feel that my ‘online identity’ shares both similarities and differences with my ‘offline identity’. For example, with my Instagram page, I post a few times a month of when it has been a special occasion and so I have make-up on and am dressed up. However, in reality, I do not wear make up that often and prefer to be dressed casually and would also prefer to stay in and binge watch Netflix than be as sociable as I may come across on Instagram. Although, my captions that come along with my posts are usually amusing and light-hearted and with the Instagram story function I will usually post humorous videos of my friends and I or share more usual daily tasks I do such as writing or submitting an essay, studying etc. that is much more telling of my ‘offline’ identity. How someone reacts and expresses themselves online can also contribute to their identity offline, “The self as a reactive and expressive entity to the wider world composed through the screen is also an important part of identity creation today” (Ibrahim, 2018). Although one may think that the ‘real’ world and ‘real’ experiences you have creates who you are as a person; your activities online can also influence your persona. For example, following someone you admire on a social media platform could encourage someone to adopt their traits or style.

Many people use social media to express who they are, who they want to be or how they want others to perceive them and so I feel that it is common for your online identity to change when your offline identity changes. This may not be so that your online and offline identities align but just as your offline identity grows up and goes through life experiences it is bound to change the way you want to express yourself online. From my own experience, and probably a lot of others; I used to post a picture of every time I had spent time with friends or family for others to perceive me as busy and popular but now, I just post one or two pictures from a special occasion more to look back on the memories.

In conclusion online and offline identities can share some similarities however, your offline identity tends to be truer to who you are as some parts of your character are just not able to be created or shown online, especially when people can have multiple perceptions of you.

References:
Papacharissi, Z. (2011). A networked self. New York: Routledge.

Ibrahim, Y. (2018). Production of the 'Self' in the Digital Age. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-74436-0

User Comments - Wikibooks Exercise #2
I agree with your point that offline identities present a more accurate and complete image of the individual. SOcial media has its limitations and a user can only share a part of their life. What I found interesting in your essay was the quote by Charassi. Users often do have to adjust their behaviour to fit a certain platform. You could see this as an aspect of digital determinism, where the media itself already defines part of user's displayed identity. However, you can compare this to real life as well. A person's behaviour is heavily influenced not only by their personality, but by context. Different situations and different associated groups can require people to present themselves in a certain way. To get a full understanding of a person's identity and sense of self, you would have to try gather a complete image of how they conduct themselves in different contexts. I believe the same if true for social media and it is important to look at all platforms as a single unit.

Hi Natasha, I really agree to the point that most of the people have different online identities. And I would like to share two of my online identities in here too. Just as what you have done (probably most of the girls), I also usually upload photos that shows a better me on my private account, for example, putting on make up which is not common for me. And I also have another account for sharing food on Instagram, which I think also matches with yours saying about being an influencer online, in that account, I rated food in my home country and giving comments to restaurant that I have been, but actually I am not truly a food lover, I just loved to share my experience, and I also think that my Instagram foodie page might have influence to my followers by looking into my rates and comments to know whether they would try the restaurant. I gain satiation by managing the foodie account, even that is only part an online identity to me, but I still that having multi-identity is never a bad thing. Web9999 (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I found your piece to be an enjoyable read and agree with you over most of the points. It is particularly interesting how we represent ourselves online with regards to how we believe it will be perceived by others. Also I really liked the way you used the images to influence the structure of your text. BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography
Lupton, D. (2016). The quantified self (pp. 49-65). Malden, MA: Polity.

In this chapter, Deborah Lupton examines the ways in which self-tracking cultures portray the self and the body. Lupton draws on the discussion of some theoretical perspectives from other authors such as, concepts of selfhood and embodiment in contemporary western cultures to create a well-rounded argument on how self-tracking can optimise one’s self. Lupton’s research is based on the subject of the quantified self. This article is useful in helping me to understand the concept of ‘the quantified self’ as Lupton draws on opinions of other writers to give a broader and varied chapter. The limitations to this chapter is that there can be some jargon which some readers may find difficult to understand especially those who are not familiar with self-tracking and new technologies. However, this chapter is well structured, informative and includes useful and relevant material to how self-tracking has enabled people to be more knowledgeable on their health.

Wiki Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation – What ARE Wikis?
Wikibooks is an open knowledge, knowledge-building platform which allows people to collaborate and contribute their knowledge on a limitless number of subjects for society to access and use for free. “Wikipedia represents a new way of collaborative decision-making […] disrupts older models of production, ownership, consumption and distribution” (Fuchs, 2013). Wikis allow people to work with others to produce information on a topic without the strict legal guidelines as other platforms may have which means it is a very popular resource for many. Despite not being able to rely on the information for research due to the unreliable sources it may come from. The five pillars of Wikipedia are; it is an encyclopaedia, written from a neutral point of view, free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute, editors should treat each other with respect and civility and Wikipedia has no firm rules. More detail on the five pillars can be found here, Five Pillars of Wikipedia.

Wikis represent a digital-commons, as in a commons-based internet, humans co-create and share knowledge, are equal participants in decision-making processes, have free access and sharing of knowledge (Fuchs, 2013). Which is essentially what Wikimedias represent and this can create well-rounded individuals.

Individuals continuously work together, most often anonymously, to create a wikipage on various topics. Despite Wikipedia not being a social media, a sort of community can still be built and people use it to communicate with each other on the project, “A sense of community is absolutely essential to Wikipedia. A look at the ‘Talk’ pages shows community at work, with shared norms, even if the definition of those norms is endlessly argued over” (Myres, 2010). The user pages illustrate how other users give positive and critical feedback while also fixing punctuation and making the article as best it can be (Myres, 2010). Despite this community aspect; Wikibooks is not used to build relationships with others.

My experience with Wikibooks was a positive one. It was a platform I usually take knowledge from rather than give and I found the experience even more enjoyable actually contributing to and creating something. I liked being almost anonymous and still being able to effectively work as a team. However, since this was a graded assignment and we had a deadline this added extra stress and frustrations than if I was to create content on Wikibooks as a hobby.

In conclusion Wikibooks and the other associated Wikimedias are unique platforms that enable individuals to work collaboratively to provide knowledge to the public. I enjoyed my experience with Wikibooks and would happily use it again for other assignments.

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:
 * A mix of smaller contribs throughout the project period, with a couple of slightly larger “substantial” ones.

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
 * Good
 * Evidence of peer-review of others’ work
 * Good

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Satisfactory
 * 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) 15:32, 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.


 * 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, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would make a difference. As it stands, generally this was quite good – however, there were one or two things that seem to have escaped your attention (e.g. a missing image on your user discussionpage).


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are generally very good, and appear on time. I like that you are beginning to discuss 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).

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 good.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)