User talk:Ohmygoldfish

G'day, my name is Finlay Hearn and this is part of a university project taking place spring 2019 Ohmygoldfish (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Ohmygoldfish

=Wiki exercise #2=

This piece will discuss the nature of online identities, and their relationship to reality, whether they are a fabricated construct or if they are more just reflections of people’s personalities. The essay will argue that what people portray online and who they are in the real world are two dissimilar and disconnected identities.

There is much discussion around the online identities that people create, typically through social media and how attached they are to a person’s reality. Andrew Mendelson and Zizi Papacharissi(2010) discuss the changing nature of photographs, as photographic technologies have been extent long before the internet, they discuss how photographs now have become a ‘mediated performance’ (Pg 251). Mendelson & Papacharissi(2010) describe how photos have changed from being a format for families and friends to reminisce over to a state now where photos are taken for the purpose of sharing online for a person to attempt to portray themselves in a particular light (Pg 252). Photographs have changed from being a way to save a memory in the form of a graphic to being used in attempt for people to try construct a fabricated image of their life, in a small snapshot, to create a story and identity for themselves out of a single frame in time. In this way, time is stretched from being just a snapshot, to become a signifier of who oneself might be. Furthermore, the nature of what people choose to share with these photos is carefully selected and ‘the positive is always recorded over the negative’ (Mendelson. Papacharissi. 2010, Pg 253). In this way, the identity people portray online is just that, a portrayal, while one might not want or need to display every element of their life online, it is where people real identity and online identity diverge. Sherry Turkle (2011) describes how much social media has changed people’s relationships with themselves, in that ‘we think we will be presenting ourselves, but our profile ends up as somebody else – often the fantasy of who we want to be’ (Pg 153). Within the logic of photographs to portray one’s identity, the online persona is in some ways more solidified and streamlined, as it is a narrative constructed by the person, with less baggage of real life, it only reflects whatever one chooses to display.

However, the introduction of internet how it can be a medium through which one can pursue furthering their own vanity through sharing images isn’t necessarily the beginning of this type of self-image presentation. Yasmin Ibrahim (2018) discusses how this type of image preservation and sharing was something historically perpetuated by the rich, but in the modern world, every person has access to this type of self-exhibition (Pg 40). In the present day everyone can present themselves however they desire creating ‘a new form of emancipation where we could discard and re-invent identities and indeed not declare our real selves to others’ (Ibrahim, Yasmin, 2018, Pg 41). The current technological environment affords every person the ability to sustain more than one identity, there is a person in the flesh, and then there is a person carefully constructed, created by the gathering of selective pieces of information, whether they be images of oneself or the sharing of other data.

This piece has discussed the nature of a person’s identity, and the identity that can be created online through social media, and how in its core these identities are always separate. In this current technological age, a person can create as many different manifestations of themselves as they wish. Through the selection of information a person shares an identity can be constructed from that, but like a photograph, it only really can capture a tiny frame of a person’s life and identity, while the motion around that is left unshared.

Bibliography:

Ibrahim Y. (2018) Self-Love and Self-Curation Online. In: Production of the 'Self' in the Digital Age. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Papacharissi, Z. (Ed.). (2010). A networked self : Identity, community, and culture on social network sites, Routledge,

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together : Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books. New York

Comments
Hey!

I agree with a lot of points you made here. I particularly liked your discussion of photographs and related to the selection process you spoke of when choosing the right photo to share via social media. I particularly found the section "In this way, time is stretched from being just a snapshot, to become a signifier of who oneself might be" useful when reflecting back on how I present my identities online and how I discussed these identities in my own piece. It feels like there are a lot of subconscious impressions we get from photos of others as well as the impressions they intended us to have when posting them. A chapter from Bollmer I read goes into a bit more depth about this and was something I cited in my own work.

Your section on Yasmin Ibrahim and how this wasn't the first type of self-representation of this kind was very interesting to me as well as I had no idea this process of creating identities for ourselves was so old!

I especially agree with you on the point of multiple identities and I think there is a very strong argument for this. I initially tried to question if my single identity was possibly just very fluid and could change from situation-to-situation. However, after exploring this I found that accepting I have multiple identities makes navigating this topic much clearer.

Good work, this is a great read! Blythenisbet (discuss • contribs) 23:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Bonjourno! I really enjoyed reading your exercise it was well written and easy to understand. I thought the topics you chose to discuss were very interesting. I agree with the points you made throughout the piece of writing and also think the use of Papacharissi's work was a strong source as it relates so well the the topic in question. Also I agree with the above comment that the section on multiple identities is fascinating and really made me question myself and how I act on social media and what goes with it.


 * The structure of the article is also really well laid out and easy to read, by the way you have presented in a neat and efficient way. As well as the separate section for the bibliography clearly stating your chosen sources, which you referenced within the text itself.


 * Overall good piece, easy to understand and well thought out! Seethruspecks (discuss • contribs) 22:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey ! First of all, well done with your essay! I enjoyed reading your view on the nature of online identities. What you said about photography and how it has changed from being a way of capturing memories to becoming a mediated performance was an eye opener to me. It really has changed. All our photos these days are staged, in some way or another. We dress nicely for pictures, we make sure to know what out 'best angles' are, and we are always on the look out for a new "back drop". It's a little sad, really. Before digital cameras, you only had a set amount of photos in you camera roll. This more or less meant that you only got one chance at getting the perfect picture. Film roll was expensive, you know. Just a click, and then it was done. But now we can go back and look at the photos, decide if we want to delete them and try again. Now, people are more concerned with getting a flawless photo than to cherish the memories made in that moment. Talljenny (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello there! I really enjoyed reading your mini-essay! It was very concise, articulate and inspiring. You have highlighted some very interesting points around the evolution of the photograph and how much it had become a tool in creating one`s identity. I would have love to read more about how your personal identities aligned or if they have changed or shifted as time developed. Looking forward to read you annotated bibliography as well.Marky mark&#38;thefunkybrunch (discuss • contribs) 19:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey there! This essay is well structured and excellently written, with amazing use of word choice and explanation. The use of sources is expertly used within your arguments and suitable to your discussion. I really enjoyed the analysis you offer, especially in comparison to photographs and the fascination of sharing photographs. This argument is definitely of academic material and is refreshing with its original response. Hysterichattie (discuss • contribs) 21:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

= Wiki Exercise #3 =

Annotated Bibliography

Reichart, I. (2002), The Environmental Impact of Getting the News. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 6: 185-200. doi:10.1162/108819802766269593

In this journal article Reichart researches the the environmental impacts of different mediums of news media, including television, paper and on-line news, and accounts for why there are different impacts to be considered within these media. The data is gathered by investigating the three different news media outlets and using environmental ‘life-cycle assessments’ to try and understand the different impacts that they have. The research focuses on assessing why the different medias cause different environmental impacts, and by what processes the impacts come to exist. The article is particularly useful in my own research as it goes into detail as to what the causes of different environmental impacts are throughout the three mediums it assesses. The main limitation of this article is that it assesses some older technologies and doesn’t take into account the changes to the impacts when there is prolonged usage of these technologies. The author provides that further research is required into newer, more mobile technology, to produce a better understanding of the environmental impacts of these devices. This article is a good starting point for my research into this topic and the surrounding discourse about how media production has some large environmental costs to the planet.

=Wiki Exercise #4 - What are Wikis? =

This piece will discuss the nature of Wikibooks (and Wikipedia by association), and what important elements that have contributed to the public sphere, in helping education and a general accessible piece of materials surround a myriad of topics.

One of the most anticipated aspects of the internet since its inception has been its potential to radically change almost every facet of life, and in many ways it has done so. Although arguably one of the largest impacts it has is on the knowledge that has been made accessible to those who possibly otherwise wouldn’t have received it. The reason that the internet is such a revolution in terms of education and information accessibility lies in the way it works, unlike an author of a textbook, everyone can be an author, and in this way “users benefit from each other in the spirit of ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”’(Guth, S, 2007, Pg 61). Stacey Kuznetsov (2006) explores the motivation of people contributing to Wikipedia and the importance of it as a source of information and that the ‘primary purpose of Wikipedia is to create a comprehensive, free and reliable encyclopedia’ (Pg 6). This is the importance of Wikipedia as a public tool, but also why it possesses value to society, as it allows free access for anyone to read about any topic that someone has provided information on.

Furthermore, Wikipedia/Wikibooks provide an engine that not only facilitates but promotes a sense of community between those who contribute to it. Kuznetsov (2006) discusses the community aspect of the wiki websites, that the set-up of the operation makes it not only easy but almost essential for people to work together, the environment the wiki sites have created mean users are ‘encouraged to join portals and collaborations and work together to achieve a common goal’ (Pg 5).

Despite the potentials drawing from personal experiences from using Wikipedia and Wikibooks websites, there are both pros and cons in the area. It can be a great tool to facilitate group research and collective information, but it can also be problematic. The ability to any user to edit anything, even another person’s contributions can be greatly problematic. While more people can produce more information, that also provides issues in trying to keep up with everyone elses ideas, and some people may have different approaches which a person may be unfamiliar with. And while more people can produce more information, that can also lead to an over-abundance of information. Mark Andrejevic (2013) discusses how the human relationship to information has changed so dramatically in a relatively short space of time, in a larger sense so much information is being produced by the internet is unimaginable (Pg 1). Furthermore, these ideas on information can be applied in this sense here, in one Wikipedia page, so many different people can be accessing and editing a page at once it becomes less collaborative and more a fight for dominance in who has largest control over the narrative. This idea fits within my own experience with Wiki’s, sometimes it seems like a non-verbal shouting contest over who has a say over what is going on in a collaborative piece of work.

References:

Andrejevic, M, (2013), Infoglut: how too much information is changing the way we think and know, Routledge, New York

Guth, S. (2007). Wikis in education: is public better?. In Proceedings of the 2007 international symposium on Wikis (WikiSym '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 61-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1296951.129695

Kuznetsov, S. (2006). Motivations of contributors to Wikipedia. SIGCAS Comput. Soc. 36, 2, Article 1 (June 2006). DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1215942.1215943

=Peer Comments=

Hello I both admire and appreciate the way you break things down. I like the way you communicate in person and in writing; t is my view that you see the world with fair eyes. Quite an appropriate use of references throughout your document especially ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts’ (Guth, S, 2007, Pg 61). This allows me to comment from shared experience though we were always situated in different locations as this project unfolded. I can certainly relate to the feeling that a collaborative experience in Wikibooks does not necessarily reflect the five pillars of Wikipedia. A corporation, company, entity or organization can have its mission statement outlined in black and white but in real life the people who sign up or volunteer are not necessarily enforcers of the mission statement. I think what resonates with me form your document, is that it is rather difficult for such a platform as wiki books to reflect equality among its members that collaborate for one specific outcome. Humanity has many tributaries and dis-tributaries of behavior and one inevitably affects the other when any number of people are present. I think that at the very least most of us have gained a bit of technological skill that allows us the understanding and know-how for editing wikis on Wikipedia! That is a tremendous achievement. This recent exercise allows me to see that in the over-abundance of information which you speak of, that objectives can be achieved although this is not so without varying strong opinions and ideas of others while the less vociferous are pushed back to the fence. At some point a culmination is inevitable but it is the learning that we all have to preserve.

Your understanding of wikis as providing an engine that not only facilitates but promotes a sense of community between those who contribute to it is also very accurate. The technology provided by Wikipedia that facilitates editing and updating contribution to documents was an interesting exploration. We all got to see how it was done! Wikis are cool, I guess when they are controlled by one it poses the problem of cognitive biases coming forward. On the other hand, when many are able to amend concurrently so that there is little or no subjectivity then maybe it will be again the heralding of ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts’. If people enjoy this platform, then to each his own; but ego is a difficult thing to subdue and quickly can turn into; a fight for dominance in who has largest control over the narrative. As we are all citizens of an ever advancing society where we are always learning - I discovered a few cool features on Wikipedia, specifically the Photo challenge of the month hosted on the Wiki commons page. I think it’s a cool way to get folks to contribute to a media pot without infringing on our emotional and energetic levels, check out the entries for the month of April and the theme is “beginning and ending”. Our most recent experience left me emotionally charged and I wonder if there are any studies yet on the emotional effects that volunteers of Wikipedia may have experienced over the years. As you mentioned- so many different people can be accessing and editing a page at once- it makes me wonder how specialist volunteers feel after they spend hours dedicated on work for the public domain on Wikibooks platform and then wake up 5 years later and see that the work the contributed has been completely altered and amended even edited down! If we can remember our log in details 10 - 15 years from now, we can come back to see the fate of our work!! I suppose the cognitive surplus that Clay Shirky speaks about is toeing ever so slightly on the edges of altruism though volunteerism on one side and egotistical ownership on the other.

I also agree with you; every aspect of life as we humans know it has been altered by the inception of the internet. I commend your contribution as it is not just from the heart but you also reflect your independent aspirations towards research and creating your own analysis on this platform. Our need for information and the easy access to information has led to platforms such as Wikipedia and social media entities surfacing out of the millennium crash. This web 2.0 is full of information and it is all around us, it is rather overwhelming. Wikis apparently have so much to offer; as Clay Shirky says in his Ted Talk presentation “the world has over three trillion hours a year to commit to shared projects” some use it for consumption and others use it in contribution to the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Well done and best wishes in this and all other aspects of your academic journey, looking forward to seeing you in the future. AuthenticEnough (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 5 April 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:
 * 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:
 * Fairly inconsistent record of engagement during the project period. What is there is of good quality, so I think that had you engaged throughout you would have made a considerable difference. That said, there are one or two contribs that could be deemed substantial as well as some useful contribs and exchanges towards the end.

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

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * 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.
 * Satisfactory

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:


 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries 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). The wiki markup formatting will need some work.


 * This work is at the upper end of this particular grade band, but even so perhaps a little improvement would go some way to attaining a higher mark. This is especially the case in terms of organisation and proofreading. Also, 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.


 * 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, and help you organise your work a little more easily.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly ok, if a little brief and somewhat descriptive (rather than analytical). 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; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – all ok, those a little improvement possible here..


 * 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, improvement possible.


 * Presentation: use of wiki markup and organisational skills needs improvement.

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