User talk:OutOfBoundsHeather

My name is Heather, and I am using this account specifically for a media class project. OutOfBoundsHeather (discuss • contribs) 13:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Online and Offline Identities
I personally feel that my online persona is different from my offline identity on any public forum I use. This is chiefly because, as a performer, I maintain various online accounts for the sake of reputation and following. I very rarely post or interact with anyone online as I would in person, because the motivation is simply different. My Facebook account for example is used primarily to share and promote content related to my most recent project. Similarly, my Instagram account has only a few pictures I actually have a desire to share with others because those pictures are not as exciting to people who do not know me personally, and thus get far less engagement. The few things I do online as an authentic identity are things I do without attaching my name—for instance, I love watching Youtube videos, but I never comment and rarely even like videos or subscribe to channels (I think I am subscribed to two channels only). To be entirely fair however, this silent participation (or lurking) may inadvertently be a rather accurate representation of my offline identity. Personally, I get nervous voicing my opinion or sharing my content that I actually care about, so I am not active in any fandoms, though I may view posters’ participation.

Beyond my own involvement however, I take great interest in the idea of communities of interest. At the very least, there is an extent of authentic identity in those who participate in these communities, as those who interact with a certain forum specifically seek one of that topic. There are online forums for so many topics, all one needs to do is a bit of surfing. These communities are primarily used to discuss one specific topic, so members don’t share an extensive amount of personal information, so I don’t think it is fair to say these identities aren’t authentic, but perhaps incomplete. There are of course aspects of online personas, such as those on social media platforms, that suggest an entire identity; this is where I think there is more of a difference between online and offline lives. While there are some people who post negative parts of their lives online, this is less frequent and often discouraged through a lack of engagement or even negative engagement. Most people create an image that is how they hope the world sees them, rather than how they naturally exist—yet even this is relevant to the offline identity, as it shows what the user thinks is the best sides of them, as well as what the user thinks is important enough to share. While this is largely affected by what society as a whole suggests is appealing, each individual still selects an aesthetic from those deemed attractive to other users. However, as mentioned before, the amount and kind of engagement a user’s posts receive are likely to affect what they post in the future. Thus, some users allow their persona to be defined by others’ viewing desires. This is not unreasonable either, as Clay Shirky describes, there is a design of sorts in online communities that rewards good content with positive-standing. Everything a user posts is somewhat telling of their personality, but not always directly—users who alter their personas for others may not explicitly show their authentic selves, but they do display other aspects of personality, such as a desire to please.

Comments/Questions
Please feel free to leave any responses here for the second portion of Wiki Exercise #2!

I think you have some very interesting opinions on this subject and I particularly agree with you when it comes to identities being incomplete as opposed to unauthentic. I think that having an identity online is something quite difficult to manage and when identities are incomplete it is for a specific reason; no one can be completely transparent online without facing some judgement or backlash. Which is why I think that so many people chose to have incomplete identities online. A fear of such judgement exists.

I also like what you talked about surrounding Shirky, a lot of things that are online do reflect who we are offline and because a lot of our generation has grown up in such a boom of social media engagement it has become something quite unrecognisable, in the way that we can't see what our posts say about the offline us, as our online or offline peers may be able to do. Doctor-Riddler (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that you've taken a really interesting view on the idea of offline/online identities and I definitely think that it's really true that online identities are inauthentic but still telling of a person's personality as it is difficult to completely remove yourself from opinions. Particularly when they are your own opinions, especially since our generation really loves to share their opinions online and available for everybody to read. I also think that your point on how people will create an identity on how they wish to be viewed rather than how they are viewed. This greatly ties in with the idea of escapism which a lot of people use online communities for - to get away from real life and be involved in something they love with other people who share they same interests, even if they don't actually know these people in real life. In general, I think your take on online/offline identities and how it relates to Shirky's findings is a different and really interesting way to take things. Snapshotscan (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought this was a really interesting interpretation of the exercise, and seeing the different ways in which you use social media. It definitely makes sense to be careful with what we post on social media, particularly given the scrutiny that social media profiles can sometimes be put under. I also agree with the point you raised about an identity not being entirely complete when it comes to communities of interest. In this instance there might be certain personal information deemed not to be relevant within that community so there is no need to bring it up. It can also be nice to be able to participate without anyone having pre-conceived opinions of you, and rather judging you and forming an opinion based on the content posted.

I also like the way you used references, and the way that they all supported the point you were making. The reference to Clay Shirky in particular made me think about the content I post; more often that not I am motivated to post in order to please other social media users and create a positive reputation for myself online Jessiehosk27 (discuss • contribs) 21:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It’s a really thought-provoking idea you mention about how your inactivity on certain online platforms like Youtube actually aligns more with your offline personality than what you post. I’m the exact same way with Youtube – I will watch videos and read the comments, but I never get involved in the conversation myself. It’s sometimes the same in real life, I will act as more of a wallflower and observe others without joining in. I do think that having an online identity for others could potentially provide the opposite effect. The ability to be anyone online can certainly encourage others who may be more introverted to be more extroverted online. I believe this can have both a positive and a negative impact for individuals. On the one hand, somebody who finds social interaction difficult might be able to come into their own online without the strain of social anxiety. The great thing about online communities is that everyone has an opportunity to find like-minded individuals within their niche and share the experience with each other. The potential negative impacts of this are that people can lose themselves in the online realm and end up feeling lonely and isolated in the offline world. I think a really good connection on this is the man called Pete that Turkle mentions her chapter, Always On, who lives on his phone instead of facing the reality of his disappointing marriage. For me, this biggest issue with living online instead of in real life is that people will start to lose their empathetic powers, and that can have detrimental effects for civilization. Mmm00044 (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

From the start of your response, I was hooked. I had not thought about this assignment in the perspective of somebody who's social media presence is not personal, and actually almost strictly business. If your accounts reflect the professional version of you, I totally accept that the identity online would be different from the identity of the person in real life. I also relate to the way you lurk, specifically on youtube. I am a very opinionated person in real life, but to avoid petty conflict, I never share my opinions online, or comment anything that is not positive. I think things get lost in translation online and I would rather argue with someone in real life. As a side note, I admire the way your discussion page is set up, it looks very professional. Ryleyfred (discuss • contribs) 23:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). Benefits of Facebook "Friends:" Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168.

The authors, professors and assistant professors in the Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media at Michigan State University, use data from a study surveying undergraduate students at MSU to determine the relationship between Facebook usage and social capital. This article is especially useful to my research topic because it discusses various aspects of online communities, specifically various levels of communities on a personal online platform. It explores the existing categories of bridging and bonding social capital, and further delves into their newly established idea of maintained social capital, referring to the ability to keep up with social relationships. Some limitations of this article are that it is somewhat out of date (technology and media have changed a lot in 12 years), non-users and non-white users were underrepresented, and self-report surveys can receive inaccurate reports. While aspects related to the sample can only be controlled so much, the authors determined that further research should be performed with measures of behaviour in addition to self-report to better verify the accuracy of responses. This article is quite central to my research, as it provides a basis to discuss the value and maintenance of various types of social groups and relationships on personal online communities.

Comments/Questions
Please feel free to leave any responses here for the second portion of Wiki Exercise #3!

What ARE Wikis?



 * From time to time, most people interact with wikis for a number of reasons; the vast majority participating passively, looking for a quick answer to a question. After all, wiki means “quick” in Hawaiian . Wikis allow so much more though, providing a forum for users to create, edit, or link between content with ease . Simply put, Wikibooks is a platform that facilitated the “storage and transmission of information” . It is a place for the collection of a wealth of knowledge shared amongst groups of people. Wikibooks allows subjective information to be discussed in addition to the objective requirements of a Wikipedia entry, providing a place where anyone can voice their opinion—it does not however, do this carelessly. All wikis maintain a code of conduct, requiring its users to be respectful and civil, providing a safe place for thoughtful discussion.


 * As far as collaboration is concerned on Wikibooks, it provides the basics for communication while allowing the users to determine the style they find most functional. Wikibooks provides a discussion page along with various techniques to stay in contact with other users, and the rest is up to the users, once again proving its user-centricity. The users format the page how they like, with the ability to alter whenever necessary. During my group’s collaborative essay process, we changed the format of our discussion page a multitude of times, still figuring out what worked best for us. Of course, at times we would wish for a more strict layout on the page itself, as we found it more difficult to maneuver the page as more and more content was left on the page. However, Wikibooks also offers its users the ability to view the page as it existed at any point during its process, so we simply had to get used to the idea of removing unnecessary information as our work progressed. Once we came to terms with this, I found myself enjoying the freedom of the discussion page; being able to decide what we thought was most important as opposed to being forced in one direction. I feel that Wikibooks provides an excellent platform for collaboration, for the reasons listed above, as well as its rules for its users. By maintaining some control over its users, Wikibooks protects users from one another, allowing useful, productive conversation. This cooperative effort leaves wikis with an impressive accuracy, with users verifying information, an endless number of watchful eyes.


 * One of the best aspects of Wikibooks as a community is that it places value on individual thought, while encouraging the interaction with others’ thoughts. Not only does it allow users to learn from one another, but it suggests that each person has something to offer the community as a whole—each thought has value, each thought can be expanded upon, and most importantly, thoughts can alter. Wikibooks facilitates mental growth. It supports the importance of knowledge, giving free access to endless content and information. As a digital commons, it maintains communal ownership—while users can see who has posted what information, every user maintains the right to the content on wikis.


 * While Wikibooks does have certain guidelines and restrictions, it does allow for a certain degree of freedom, for both contributors and consumers. Users have the freedom to search as they please, and creators have the freedom to express their thoughts on whatever topic they wish. So while full freedom cannot be offered in order to maintain security and order, the forum is certainly made for the user.

Comments/Questions
Please feel free to leave any responses here for the second portion of Wiki Exercise #4!

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:
 * Outstanding. In addition to the criteria for Excellent, work at this standard demonstrates outstanding critical understanding of the exercise and is able to produce sophisticated lines of argument, and is highly original.
 * Excellent. Among other things, contributions will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including formatting, links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful and transparent way on the Discussion Pages. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts, justifying decision-making with transparency. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader as well as for fellow researchers collaborating. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.

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:
 * consistent and meaningful engagement throughout the project period, including small contribs every day, a number of substantial contributions, and well as one or two contribs that could be classed as significant and considerable. Well done!

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

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

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.
 * Outstanding

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:22, 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:


 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.


 * This work is at the upper end of this grade band, but even so perhaps a little improvement would go someway to attaining a higher mark. 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 some 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. That said, this really is an excellent portfolio.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) and also that you have engaged in discussion 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). Excellent.

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


 * 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 excellent.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)