User talk:RichardwikiB

This is my discussion page, I think..RichardwikiB (discuss • contribs) 12:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
Personally, I always try to be the same person in virtual life as I am in the real one. In case I comment something on Facebook or YouTube or share a picture with a few words, that represents my feelings and my thoughts. It does not have any effect on my behaviour or actions. However, my online personality is slightly different compared to face-to-face situations. In a text or comment, there is a chance to express your feelings with smileys, but a few emoticons are not able to represent the true feelings and non-verbal communication, like in a conversation face-to-face. It is easy to pretend to be happy or curious about certain things in front of the laptop, while in the same time you are sad and do not really care what your friend is writing about.

A decade ago I played a lot with MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game), where I had the chance to create a character (a hero) and also I was able to form the story with my decisions. The hero (the online me) was brave and chose always the hard way to become stronger. If it was necessary, I protected harassed players on the chat. It is hard to admit, but I was not that brave in real life as I was in these games.

Donath says social networking sites are online environments for people to create their profile with self-descriptive information and some pictures in order to make connections with others. The same year I was playing with MMORPGs, I created my first social media account (it was a Hungarian site, called Myvip) and I used MSN as well to be connected with my friends. MSN was great to chat with others, Myvip gave the chance to share photos with your friends. It was new to me and I really enjoyed to share everything. Photos about my dog, about me with my friends or just an amazing Dragon Ball picture I have found on the net. Then I became older and realized the hazards of online information sharing. I do not post many pictures and personal information anymore, in the social media I am a closed person. In case someone would check on my profile, he or she would be able to see my profile pictures, my school and date of birth. Nothing about my friends, about my hometown, email address or phone number. On the other hand, in real life, I am a different, extroverted person. It suggests I have at least two identities. One in social and another one in real life.

Turkle says “those little devices in our pockets are so psychologically-powerful, that they don’t only change what we do - they change who we are.” Certainly, most of us would be distracted in the middle of a conversation after a notification on our phone and that would result in the lack of attention. Thanks to technology, the world is a well-developed place, but it has its disadvantage; although we have never been connected with that many people like nowadays, we have never spent as little time face-to-face as today. Those little things in our pockets changed everything.


 * Hi Richard! I was pleasantly surprised whilst reading your piece here I was not expecting an exploration of online identity through a MMORPG. I do think this sets your writing outside of others and in a good way, an online world is a great place to form a new identity, or at least make an extension of your existing real-world identity. You are right to assert that there are dangers online and the importance of keeping some of your private information to yourself as it shows you have learned something from the days of your online usage as a younger person. - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 18:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello! I think that your discussion points clearly demonstrate the ways in which online identities are more easily controlled by the users. The asynchronicity and lack of visual contact make our reaction less spontaneous and more controlled, and I can certainly relate to your comments on how online it is easier to pretend that you are interested in something when you do not care at all. The example of the choices you made when creating your gaming avatar show Bollmer's (2018) opinion that sometimes the existing prejudices of the offline world can be extended into the online platforms, repeating "privileged identity categories" (Identities and Performances, 129). All in all, your exercise effectively shows how the increasing use of the internet can affect our identities on- and offline, shifting and intertwining both of them. --Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 18:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe most people work to present themselves as accurately as possible such as stated in his piece. I know personally I find myself working to share pictures and comments that truly reflect who I am as an individual and not someone else. However, this does not mean that people do not alter things when given the ability to do so. Turkle explains in her writing that people tend to share “who we want to be,” and that people can alter the image portrayed online to be something different than what is seen in real life (2011). This is a huge factor as to why social media and other online platforms are so popular, because the online tools and control make it easy for one to change their appearance to fit the image they wish to show their audience. With the ability to make large alterations to ones online identity, catfishing can become a major issue, which is when a user falsely says they are one person but in reality are someone else completely. With problems such as this, it is easy to understand how people can become hesitant with meeting others online. And the change in identity does not just revolve around pictures, it can also be the things you say. Similar to what mentioned, emoticons can be used in text but might not reflect what the user is actually feeling. His example of texting someone happy emoticons but feeling sad is something that I myself can relate to, as I’m sure others have before. Social media, and the internet overall, provides a barrier that allows people to have space to think and say what they want in a calculated way. With the ability to edit and delete content, the representation of each user can be altered and shaped whereas offline what is said and presented can not be changed after the fact.

Turkle, S., 2011: ‘Always On’ in Alone Together. New York: Basic Books. 151-170

MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 11:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Annotated Bibliography Exercise (Part B)
'''Murugesan, S. (2007). Understanding Web 2.0. IT Professional Magazine, 9(4), 34.'''

In this article, the author describes Web 2.0 compared to its predecessor, Web 1.0. It highlights the differences and all the new possibilities Web 2.0 can offer, such as blogs, wikis or social platforms like MySpace or YouTube. The main focus is on the description of these new features, what are these good for and what should the users consider before choosing between the different possibilities. This article aims to go into details about the new features, describing for example what are blogs, wikis or Mashups. It gives a good first step for those who want to know more about the basics of these platforms. The arguments are supported by examples. The main limitation of this article is the date of publication, as it is a twelve years old article. This piece would be useful for my research to describe the characteristic features of Web 2.0 in a better way as it shows the basic knowledge about its platforms.

Wiki Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation – What ARE Wikis?
Wikis are web-based platforms, information-based sites giving the opportunity to the users to not only read but edit or change the content as well. Based on the collaborative essay, wikis give the opportunity to multiple users to create and edit a page, support the arguments by pictures or communicate. Thanks to the ‘contributions’ menu, it is possible to check the users' activities, like how many characters did they add to the text or how many did they cancel, when did it happen and where (which page which section) did it happen. These contributions are free to check for all users which is a good way to distinguish active and passive users.

Ward -father of the wiki - describes Wikis as ‘The simplest online database that could possibly work.’ Probably that is the reason for the name ‘wiki’ - it means ‘quick’ in Hawaiian. To create a new page and write a text, edit the format or make paragraphs, users do not need to use any special code or programme, it is possible to do it with only a combination of characters. For example, to make a text bold, the text should be between these characters: ‘’’. Wiki cheatsheet is helpful to learn about all these combinations. In case someone would struggle with anything about the wikis, Teahouse is the best place to looking for answers. After the user sends the question, answers should come in a few minutes from those users, who already know the answer.

These platforms are ideal to create a community, as literally, anyone can start a discussion under any of the topics, sharing ideas and exchange knowledge. By doing this, it is easy to build relationships. Occasionally, writing about a single topic can be so broad that teamwork is essential in order to make a good and accurate job. To do so, the users must rely on each other and they have to work on the project together (even if they do not know each other personally).

Apart from the most famous wiki, Wikipedia, Wikileaks also become popular a few years ago. As its name suggests, the platform leaked classified information mainly about the government, providing anonymity to its sources. All the information are free for those who are interested. This is probably the most popular platform that shares secret documents.

All in all, wikis provide a platform where users are able to share and read, edit or create content with no supervision or previous website knowledge and experience. Wikis help to form a community and give a great opportunity for teamwork between users around the world. It is easy to edit the pages and learn the different combinations in order to form the text properly. With hyperlinks, it is possible to connect one page with another.

Hello, I think your description of a wiki is very accurate and detailed. I like how you have explained exactly how the page works and further explained how to access a users visibility. This is key information regarding how visible a user with a wikibooks account may be which answers one of the questions well! Discusses the 'father' of Wiki is a clever way to introduce the understanding that Wiki's are a simple online database and it shows attention to detail when stating his name and the reference. I agree with Wiki's working as great sites for collaborative work and as you mention about not needing to know each other personally, this was the situation we had while writing Web 2.0, and it turned out well. It would be interesting to read your thoughts on whether wikibooks offers a potential form of online emancipation. Overall, a really good response and I agree with a lot of your detailed points! Digitalmedia2018 (discuss • contribs) 09:18, 8 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:
 * rather minimal - the volume and frequency just isn’t there

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

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.
 * Excellent

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 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.


 * You make fairly good use of the wiki functionality and markup which went 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 have made more of a difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, if a little brief, and you omit the final response to Wiki Ex4, which was a crucial oversight on your part. 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. General:
 * Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material

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


 * Argument and analysis: well-articulated and well-supported argument – yes, especially Ex2; evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position) - yes; evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections) – yes, although could be a little better; evidence of independent critical ability – yes.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)