User talk:Ryleyfred

Aloha, I am a student participating in a class project. Ryleyfred (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

=Wiki Assignment #1= I love social media. As a 90’s baby, I grew up with social media. I remember when Myspace came out, and I was far too young to participate. When Facebook became mainstream, I was the only thirteen year old who wasn’t allowed to have one. At least that’s what it felt like. I eventually convinced my parents to allow me to have an Instagram, because we ball were under the impression it was just a picture editing app. After starting on Instagram I ended up getting a Snapchat, and then a Twitter, later a Facebook, and eventually even a LinkedIn. I went from having no digital footprint to being findable on almost every relevant social media platform. Because of this I am highly visible online. I have an account in almost every single social media platform, and I am consistently active on most of them.

There is a lot of information available about me online. My name is public on all of my accounts. My age is available on some of them, but like my location, can be inferred pretty easily. Most of my social media biographies lit where I go to school and where I am from. None of my profiles list my actual address. Other than direct messaging, the only account with contact information in on my LinkedIn for business purposes only. My work is available on Facebook and LinkedIn, again for business purposes. All of my profiles either list my likes and dislikes, or it is easily inferred. Facebook lists my favorite movies and activities. Even though my Instagram does not list them, it is pretty clear based off of the amount of Ironman accounts I follow, and the fact that a majority of my pictures involve snowboarding, surfing, and nature. All of my accounts show who I am friends with or who I follow, so my social circle is public as well.

The way I choose to share my social media profiles differs on the platform. I am very private on snapchat. I only have my very best friends and family on. On twitter, other people cannot retweet you if you are private, so I have a public account which means anyone can follow me which makes it harder to decide who gets to see my account, but I am just sure to block any one inappropriate or threatening. When I first got an Instagram I was private and only allowed people to follow me whom I knew, while I am still private, I pretty much allow anyone to follow me as long as they are not inappropriate or threatening. I am only friends with people I know on Facebook, I put serious updates on my life on Facebook, so only people who need to know are to see it. LinkedIn is trickier, because I have gotten friends requests from people who know me through someone else. If they have a legit profile and there is potential for the connection to benefit me, I accept the friend requests. Each platform carries different kinds of people and require different types of privacy.

I believe a pretty good amount of this information is under my control. I am given the choice to display my age, contact, address, etc. I am confident that other users can’t see anything I don’t want them to see. I am aware platforms can see all my information and use it sell it to advertisers, but that is an unfortunate trade off in using their platforms in my opinion. Tragically, I would rather sacrifice my information, then to not participate in social media. That could be argued as social suicide for my age group.Ryleyfred (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

=Wiki Assignment #2= The way I present myself online, reflects who I am in real life almost to a t. I am a very self-aware person and I believe in self-discipline. Every time I am posting, or scrolling through my newsfeed, I stop and check myself. I ask, Is this really who I am? Am I trying to squeeze myself into a mold that I wish I was? I have gone through taking photos, edited them, thought about a caption, tagged the right people and users, found the wittiest location, and after all that work, I have deleted the draft before hitting “share.” This is because if I catch myself posting anything for the wrong reasons, I do my best to hit delete. Because of this I am proud to say I am the same online as I am face to face. My online identity has subtly changed over time. It changed as I changed. Whatever I was posting or how often I was posting, reflected what was going on in my life. When I first got an Instagram which was my first social media profile, all I did was post SpongeBob stuff, weird pictures of my friends and I being goofy, and Ironman memes. This is because at that point in my life, I was in middle school and I had like, 15 followers who were all my good buddies. When I fast forward to now, not only do I have hundreds of more people following and watching what I post, but as I have grown up, my content has as well. Unlike my followers when I was in middle school, my followers now follow me to see what is going o in my life, not to see which ever SpongeBob I think is the funniest. My posts are more though out, not as frequents, higher quality, and overall just more mature. I have maintained my goofiness and my love for ironman. I have an attitude of posting what I want regardless of what people think, because it is their decision to follow or unfollow me, and I have that power too in who I choose to follow on social media. In order to answer whether or not identities change overtime we need to define identify. According to sociobiology, self-identify is the qualities, beliefs, personalities, and looks and/or expressions that make a person who they are. With this in mind, it is easy to say that yes identify changes over time. Beliefs change based on experience and learning new things. Qualities change as person matures and experiences life. Anthony Giddens explains in depth his theory of self identity. ] I agree with the idea that self-identity is constantly changing. This happens through experiences and relationships. Change and growth come hand in hand. I would not say a person has multiple identities, but instead they never have a set in stone identity because it is destined to change forever. My identity online has changed over time, but it has been consistent with the ways in which I have changed in real life. Over the years, I have cared less what people care of me. I am much more defined in who I am as well. Social media has been a very positive addition to my life, and enables me to express who I am. Ryleyfred (discuss • contribs) 19:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

=Wiki Assignment #3= Lesser, E., Fontaine, M., & Slusher, J. (2009). Knowledge and Communities. Routledge.

In this article, Lesser et al. investigates the relationship between online communities and how businesses can harness them to sell their products or services. The authors break down online communities into four categories to better explain peoples need for community and how it relates to the internet. The categories and sections of the article help understand the history and impact of online communities, and how they behave. This article is helpful to my research because it goes over the basics of online communities, but it also expands on a different perspective in business. There are no obvious limitations found in this research, therefore the authors conclude that investing in online communities is beneficial for any business and every business should invest even the smallest amount into online communities to add value to their business. This work will fit into my research because it correlates to the impact and the future potential of online communities.Ryleyfred (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

=Wiki Assignment #4= Ever since the internet was available to me in elementary school, I have been one to use wiki at least once a week. To this day, anytime I “look something up” on my iPhone or mac computer, wiki tends to offer the clearest, simplest answer to my question. I always knew wiki was a platform that “anybody” could add information to, but I never thought I would be one of those people. This project has taught me so much about Wikipedia, wikibooks, and everything in between. Wit out physically going through this experience I would not have learned nearly as much as I did.

Wikipedia and Wikibooks are different. Wikipedia is written like an encyclopaedia, and Wikibooks is written like a textbook or instructional book on a  given topic. Both are written in collaboration by the wiki users. Anybody is allowed to add to any page, as long as they have created an account.

Wikibooks emphasizes visibility through the fact that a user should sign their name every time they post. Through doing this, everything they add can be traced, even if it gets deleted. Visibility is emphasized for a few reasons. First of all, it is important to see who is putting out what information. Also, it allows for credit to be given and awarded to users who deserve it.



Wikibooks can be used to help facilitate collaborative research, in the way that it is a meeting place that everybody involved can access from anywhere that internet is available. Everyone involved is able to see the work every other person has been doing, in real time. It is much easier to build off of one another when their work is easily accessible. For example, during my collaborative essay experience, I was able to see who was doing research on which online communities. Without this information, I may have been doing the same exact work as another person. Through knowing what everybody was working on, I was able to make sure I was doing valuable research that would add to my group.

Wikiboooks fosters a community in the way that discussions are available to every single user, and everyone is able to get their word in no matter what. ] emphasizes the fact that wiki is free to use. Even though that is an attribute commonly looked over, it is necessary for students who surely are not going to pay for research, and it fosters more of a community because it assures that nobody will be left out based on how much money each person has.

Online collaboration represents a digital community in a few ways. First of all, it is proof that people can come together no matter where they physically are. Another way is that people who may be very different, all might know a little about the same subject. If everybody’s knowledge on a subject is put together, a lot of information an come out of a group. ] says that the internet is a valuable medium for social discourse. I would argue that it is a necessary medium for social discourse. If anybody involved in this Wikibooks project had no access to the internet, or did not have a device that had access to the internet, that would present a number of challenges. Not only would that student have to make their way to campus every day to add their part, but they might miss important discussions in real time, in that they would have no idea the rest of the users are on and collaborating.

This entire experience with this assignment has taught me more about the wiki platform than I thought possible, and it taught me more about working as a group. I never even met certain group members face to face. They will always just be their username to me. I am thankful for this experience where I learned more about online communities in research and experience. Ryleyfred (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Response
Hi, I am here to give you some comments about your essay, even though a bit late. So, first of all I wanted to comment a bit on the structure of your work which seems quite appropriate to me. You have managed to include the required word count, a little higher than what asked but I don't believe you will have any problems. You have also included a captioned image as asked by the assignment which is quite positive. You could have linked to some wiki articles by using the appropriate format, but that is not really important. I wanted to let you know that on a few words there are some characters missing but I wouldn't worry much about it, it is something easily fixed. Also, I have noticed that you have linked to the sources that you cited in your work which I am not sure if it is totally correct as you may have to add the full reference list. Again I am not quite sure about that, so I could be wrong.

I think that you adequately manage to define what wikis are but you could possibly have gone in a little more depth on the definition (maybe talk about the Neutral Point Of View [NPOV], etc). I really like what you said about visibility on the platform in regards with who gets awarded as they can be identifiable and I believe this can be connected to your later statement: "everyone is able to get their word in no matter what". I say this because there is also the factor of anonymity's unidentifiability, which is not connected to whether you can be traced online, but to the fact that your characteristics such as gender, nationality, sexual preference are concealed. But also as you said "nobody will be left out based on how much money each person has". This way Wikipedia does not leave any open space for discriminations and everyone is equally treated.

What is very interesting in your essay is the part where you mention the possibility of not having access to the internet. This is something that I never thought of before and it would certainly be a huge drawback for any of the group members. I hope no one had to face such a situation. I also noticed that you haven't mentioned Wikis in regards to digital commons and online emancipation which might be a drawback for you essay as it was a part of the question. But generally I would like to say that you have done a good job and I have also learned more about wikis from your work. This project was very beneficial for me too, as I learned more information on how to use Wikibooks and that collaborative work is possible online. And as you said without going through this experience we wouldn't have learned nearly as much as we did. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: ENGAGEMENT ON DISCUSSION PAGES & CONTRIBS
Grade descriptors for Engagement:
 * Very Poor. Often, contributions of this standard are quite brief, are structured poorly and are not spell-checked. They are often irrelevant, and offer little engagement with the concerns of the module or the assignment brief. Contributions of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be of a very poor standard and as a result it will be difficult for the reader or fellow collaborators to engage with the discussion.

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:
 * apart from a fairly late annotated entry, there is far too little here to make a sound assessment of your contribution to the project.

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
 * Very 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) 15:43, 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.


 * The quality of this work is actually rather good, if a little descriptive at times, and so sits at the lower end of this particular grade band, so there’s some room for improvement here. 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, and additionally, to pay a little more attention to the detail in the briefs. There were one or two minor elements of the portfolio that came in a little later than expected, and I would have liked a little more critical coverage rather than focus on description. There are also one or two factual errors in relation to wikis as platforms, but these are minor infractions.


 * 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.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, if again a little descriptive. They are quite reflective though, and evidence that you are beginning to engage with the more complex aspects of inline community. 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 quite 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 ok.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)