User talk:Seethruspecks

=Wiki Exercise Portfolio=

Biography - A bit about me

I am currently studying at Stirling University and am in my second year of a Film and Media (BA Hons) degree. I am using Wikibooks in this spring semester for a class project revolving around Digital Media and Culture.
 * 1) Debates in Digital Culture 2019/Digital Culture and the Environment

=Wiki Exercise #2=

’To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?’

In day to day life I often find myself reaching for my phone to search my days contents with my online socials, for example if I’m doing something I consider interesting or ‘profile worthy’ I will take photos and post about it. Especially on platforms that are predominantly photo based like Instagram I find myself and the majority of users in my age demographic are filtering what they post to their feed, showing only desirable, materialistic items and experiences. I admit I am guilty of adapting what I post online in order to present my life as exciting and interesting as possible. I feel as though the persona I present on my social media platforms is often spontaneous and positive, than my ‘real life’ self.



However there are exceptions one being Twitter as it has a less pressured environment, therefore I feel more comfortable expressing my opinions. For example I participate in discussion about trending topics, political views etc. In comparison to Instagram I feel like there is not the same need to upkeep an online persona, taking away the pressure to impress people with your social media content. I would say the activity that occurs on Twitter is more spontaneous and causes people to be true to themselves and their views, although in turn this can cause controversy as people can get drawn into debates. I believe that since people are posting their thoughts from a device that they are more daring as they aren’t saying it face-to-face.



Over time I feel like the pressure of up keeping an online persona has increased, due to millennials and the majority of Generation Z being so involved with social media. When I was younger, I wasn’t concerned to the extent I am now about what I post. I would only use Instagram as an outlet to pursue my passion in photography. However in this day and age users are getting younger and increasingly more conscious about how people consume their online content. ‘The technologies are there to help us along and network us, but it is our stories that identify us, connect us, or the further tear us apart’ (Papacharissi, Z. (2018).[1] Social media has turned into a worldwide popularity contest, compared to the start of the world living with technology and apps, where social platforms were merely being used as a method to reconnect with old friends and find new ones with similar interests.

1 Papacharissi, Z. (2018). A networked self and platforms, stories, connections. Taylor and Francis.

This advance of how involved social media is in our everyday lives could be considered a danger, with the current overhaul of sponsored content and ‘impossible’ life goals. ‘Because of the overwhelming amount of participation on social media, it is not surprising at all that it often invokes insecurity and anxiety’ (Sampson, T., Maddison, S. and Ellis, D. (2018).[2] Young audiences are being influenced by celebrities advertising products and unattainable lifestyles, people viewing this are becoming unsatisfied and therefore are striving to have lives similar to those living in the Hollywood.

2 Sampson, T., Maddison, S. and Ellis, D. (2018). Affect and social media. Rowman and Littlefield International Ltd.

Overall, I think that social media feeds peoples need for acceptance and popularity, through receiving Instagram likes and getting retweets on Twitter. Furthermore I think the constant need to have a consistent online presence is unhealthy but also can sometimes be beneficial in advocating good politics and creating communities between people that would have never encountered each other out with the use of social media platforms.

Bibliography

- Papacharissi, Z. (2018). A networked self and platforms, stories, connections. Taylor and Francis.

- Sampson, T., Maddison, S. and Ellis, D. (2018). Affect and social media. Rowman and Littlefield International Ltd.

Seethruspecks (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer reviews
hey hey ! I really enjoyed reading your work on this exercise and it made me reflect upon my own relationship with social media. Your point as to our usage of different social medias also sticks with me as I also use them with different intentions. Your point as to how reliance on social media can cause problems but that it is also a medium through which so many people are educated on many different political issues which otherwise they likely wouldn't really resonated with me, as I think that the internet has had major effects on our political landscape, and our knowledge that extends far beyond ourselves! I found your piece well laid our, hence it is easy to follow and I thought your writing was insightful, interesting and reflective. Ohmygoldfish (discuss • contribs) 20:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello! This piece was very refreshing to read as it provided arguments focusing on the detrimental effects that social media can cause, especially in regards to altering our profiles to fit an unrealistic standard. I related to this argument and explored this in my own essay. I think you are completely right with our engagement with social media turning sour and this relationship with social media becoming a problem mainly with Generation Z. Your structuring was easy to read, with interesting and appropriate sources. The use of images also provided a structure similar to other wikibooks and provided colour to your essay! I especially liked the 'social media addition' picture as I think this captures the struggles of the modern-day relationship with profiles and our true identities. I also agree with other comments that your writing is reflective and personal, providing a unique perspective on this discussion. Hysterichattie (discuss • contribs) 20:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

=Wiki Exercise #3=

Annotated Bibliography (Part B)

Berkhout, F. and Hertin, J. (2018). De-materialisingandre-materialising:digital technologies and the environment. [online] Research Gate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julia_Hertin/publication/240173973_De-materialising_and_re-materialising_Digital_technologies_and_the_environment/links/5a82de9845851504fb35b85b/De-materialising-and-re-materialising-Digital-technologies-and-the-environment.pdf [Accessed 21 Mar. 2019].

In this journal article Berkhout and Hertin discuss their findings about the impacts of communicative technology and the internet has on the environment. The research that was carried out was to display the indirect impacts caused to the environment by production of technological devices. Berkhout et al look at the positive and negative impacts ITC’s etc have on the environment. This article is useful to my research topic as it is very insightful and descriptive, also that it shows both sides of the argument. By discussing the value of the intangible and weightless use of technology to share media, however there are still negative impacts, often being referred to as unsustainable through the article. The main restriction of this journal article is that the tables used weren’t the most informative and efficient way of displaying their research. However, overall I think this article is very useful in relation to my research topic, it covers many different aspects revolving around the pros and cons of media and the production of the modern technology we are informed on. Thus to an extent this is a useful source but the amount of areas covered make the journal too broad, something more niche would be more relative.

Seethruspecks (discuss • contribs) 22:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

=Wiki Exercise #4=

'''What are Wikis? What kind of resource are they?'''

In an era dominated by information and the idea of a ‘Weightless Society’, we are constantly searching for new outlets to obtain and share information. One of these ways being Wikibooks, which I can give my opinion through personal experience. Wikibooks derives from its father company Wikipedia and is a free, universal informational website. The serves as an online outlet where anyone can add their knowledge by simply creating a page where you can upload information on infinite areas of research. A term used to describe the state of our world is the ‘Infoglut’ describing how society is fuelled by information and data. This is maybe one downside the use of websites like Wikibooks as the public are being overwhelmed by information. ‘Now an unimaginably unmanageable flow of mediated information is available to anyone with Internet access’ (Andrejevic, M, (2013)[1]. Wikibooks has many pros but also has some downsides, for example its database is vast in covering many areas of information. However, as stated previously any person can upload work, even thought the content may not necessarily be completely correct. Unlike any other modern day social media platform where the user has control over who sees what on their profile, Wikibooks is set apart as every contribution and post is visible to everyone.

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



Wikibooks is useful in aiding collaborative group work as gathered from my own personal experience it is effective in creating a collaborative piece of work as all members can contribute to the page. The only issue I encountered with this method was that unless you were constantly active on the page there was no way to receive notifications of additional posts and comments. So maybe a version where push notifications were an option would improve the use of the site. Wikibooks is an outlet where people from different academic levels and backgrounds can come together through there interests of certain topics and create pages for discussion, which they can confer and share their knowledge. It can be considered a community in the same sense when people from all over the world have contact over social media platforms. Where connections are made through common interests, that they wouldn’t have been able to do if it weren’t for the use of webpages like Wikibooks etc.

Furthermore similarly to any other group project, where they divide up responsibilities and topics and confer on progress, Wikibooks allows this to happen all in one online space. In Kim, A., J’s book: Community Building on the Web (2000) they discuss the strategies to create a successful online community ‘are a form of commons involving the distribution and communal ownership of informational resources and technology’ (Kim, A., J. (2000) [2]. After experiencing Wikibooks for myself I would say it fits perfectly with this description. Similar to other outlets where you can post content you’re passionate about, webpages such as Wikibooks are great for creating connections with people from all around the globe. Also giving everyone with access to the internet the opportunity to get information for free and give those the liberty of being able to output their own contributions.

2Kim, A., J. (2000). Community Building on the Web: Secret Strategies for Successful Online Communities. Web Techniques

Bibliography

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

- Kim, A., J. (2000). Community Building on the Web: Secret Strategies for Successful Online Communities. Web Techniques

Peer Reviews
I really enjoyed reading your essay, I feel like it answered the question of, 'what are wikis? What kind of resources are they?'. The description of Wikipedia was a concise and informative summary and I liked how you also included a description of Wikibooks that was equally concise and informative. It was great to see you incorporate concepts from the course such as 'infoglut' as it was very fitting in this context and you explained it clearly. The quote, ‘Now an unimaginably unmanageable flow of mediated information is available to anyone with Internet access’ used to explain your point was also very fitting as Wikipedia and Wikibooks provides an enormous amount of information to those with internet access and this, on top of numerous other sources of information on the internet, can be or even is too much for us to comprehend.

I like how you included criticisms of Wikibooks as it adds depth to your essay. Your point about not being able to receive notifications is accurate and relatable. I had the same experience (and I'm sure many others did) where you would either be waiting a while for a reply or you would miss an important message. Your idea of having push notifications is great and I think it would definitely improve the Wikibook experience as it would ensure people are kept informed and quicker progress could be made.

The part on online communities is interesting and I agree that Wikibooks can create communities as you are able to communicate with people from around the world who have common interests. However, relationships may not be formed, while working with others on content the discussion page allows you to communicate with individuals just as you would on other platforms that allow you to create online communities. However, this communication is usually related to the topic of the article they are collaboratively writing rather than getting to know each other and having 'normal' conversations and usually when the article is finished the collaborators will no longer be in contact or very rarely communicate. Your point on how you can connect with other people from around the world is an obvious yet easy to forget point as it is something I never really thought about until you mentioned it in your essay. As users are kept anonymous you may not even realise you could be speaking to someone in the same town as you or from the other end of the world, unless they tell you, which is an exciting and unique factor to Wikipedia and Wikibooks.

Finally, the captioned image you included was fitting of the content and was nicely spaced. The essay was clearly written and included a lot of useful and interesting information for the limited character count you had. You communicated concepts effectively and demonstrated a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns. It was a great piece and I feel I have learned from it. NatashaRcurly (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello again! I really enjoyed reading your piece on wikibooks and defining 'what are wikis'. I think you have some really insightful arguments about community building online, the source you referenced in regards to this really struck a cord with my own thoughts. I agree that wikibooks does aid in community-building which I think is becoming niche in today's online world. Your essay is also well structured and I appreciated your personal input on how you found your experience, pros and cons included! Overall, a great piece of work and definitely appropriate in our final input on wikibooks (unless this is just the beginning!) Hysterichattie (discuss • contribs) 22:40, 6 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:
 * Very inconsistent engagement in evidence here. There could have been much more daily or frequent contribution, and these ought to have been more in the order of slightly larger elements in terms of volume and quantity. Quality could have been better too – and noting in the way of contribs that could be deemed as substantial by the above criteria.

Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages
 * Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration
 * Poor
 * 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
 * Poor
 * Contributions are all signed
 * Poor

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) 15:47, 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.


 * This work is at the very lower end of this particular grade band, so there’s clearly 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. In particular, paying attention to detail of the assessment briefs would make a big difference – your peer-review elements are rather weak, and in the case of Ex4 seem to be missing altogether. Having said this, you have produced work of fairly good quality overall, and show real potential.


 * 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 a little inconsistent (see above comments). 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 fair.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)