User talk:Silversophie97

Wiki Exercise #2: To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
The extent to which a persons online and offline identities align is different for every single person. For me personally, I believe that my online and offline identities are aligned to a small extent as I very rarely use social media to express myself personally. When I do use social media, I would consider it to be in the form of 'benign disinhibition' which is a concept discussed by Suler (2005). Benign disinhibition can be explained as partaking in harmless behaviours online that you normally would not do in person, such as commenting on someone you barely know's selfie telling them that their hair looks good or wishing a distant relative Happy Birthday on Facebook. In a face to face scenario, I likely would not comment on somebody's appearance if I barely knew them and I would not send a distant relative a birthday card. There is something comforting in the idea of not having to communicate with certain people face to face but still having the opportunity to be pleasant to them. In this case, my own personal online and offline identities are only slightly aligned.

In terms of the alignment of online and offline identities of social media users in general, it is probably safe to say that a lot of people act in negative ways that they would not in real life. This can be better understood through Suler's (2005) discussion of the concept of 'toxic disinhibition'. Toxic disinhibition is the opposite of benign disinhibition. One of the main ways in which toxic disinhibition is shown online is through cyber bullying and harrassment. Many celebrities seem to be on the receiving end of toxic disinhibition more often than anyone else. Through social media such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter thousands of people bully celebrities every single day. An example of this would be Chloe Ferry's Instagram page. Chloe Ferry is a member of Geordie Shore and is also a social media influencer. Ferry has had many different cosmetic surgeries such as lip fillers and breast implants and she is very open about this. She often receives hundreds of comments on her photos bullying her for having had these surgeries. People can freely voice their most hateful and nasty comments on celebrities photos since the consequences of doing so online are far less severe than doing it face to face. The likelihood is that the online and offline identities of people who bully celebrities online do not align at all as they would likely never say these hateful things in person.

To conclude, the extent to which my online and offline identities align is relatively small as I only use it to communicate with others rather than express my identity.

Comments
In terms of social media presence, I believe you're right in that despite the problems that members of public have trying to post on social media, the fallout that can occur due to a celebrity sharing their personal experiences and trying to communicate with a person on social media can be disastrous and in some cases even cost them their career. It makes the internet a presence that can quickly make or break a career. (Aceventura hairdetective (discuss • contribs) 11:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC))

Wiki Exercise #3: Annotated Bibliography Exercise (Part B)
Cadmus-Bertram, L.A., Marcus, B.H., Patterson, R.E., Parker, B.A. and Morey, B.L., 2015. Randomized trial of a Fitbit-based physical activity intervention for women. American journal of preventive medicine, 49(3), pp.414-418.

This journal article reports on the findings of a study of postmenopausal women who were inactive and did not do the recommended amount of exercise. The aim of this study was to use the Fitbit as a physical activity intervention for these women and to evaluate the feasibility of this. The desired result is that the women would enjoy using the Fitbit and increase the amount of physical activity they take part in weekly. 51 postmenopausal women were either put into a web-based tracking group and received a Fitbit for the study or they were put into a standard comparison group and given a standard pedometer, the groups were created at random. 150 minutes of moderate to intense exercise every week. The results of the study are that the women using the Fitbit showed a significant increase in weekly physical activity whereas the women with the standard pedometer showed non-significant changes. This experiment is relevant to my studies as it gives a useful insight into how using wearable technologies, such as a Fitbit, has an impact on people which is a topic I am currently researching. A limitation of this particular study is that it was published in 2015 however the results are from 2014 and wearable technology has significantly changed since then. This is not an issue to my research however, as I am not researching the specific things that wearable technologies do, I am researching the concept of wearable technologies in relation to the quantified self. Silversophie97 (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation – What ARE Wikis?
In the words of the Wikibooks page of Wikipedia, ‘Wikibooks (previously called Wikimedia Free Textbook Project and Wikimedia-Textbooks) is a wiki-based Wikimedia project hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation for the creation of free content e-book textbooks and annotated texts that anyone can edit.’. The key word within this definition is the word ‘creation’. In my experience of Wikibooks, this platform allows endless opportunities to learn new online skills whilst having the opportunity to be very creative. Simply placing different combinations of letters and/or symbols before, after or surrounding a text on Wikibooks can create anything from making the text bold to creating an entire image on the page. So, from this point of view, wikis are a very creative tool and a very engaging way to learn.

One of the drawbacks to Wikibooks is that it is a live platform. This means that content on it can change by being edited at any time and almost anyone can interfere with your work on this platform, and that you are completely visible. Since the purpose of my time spent on Wikibooks was part of a collaborative effort for an assessment at University, every single person was able to view my work at any time. This observation that ‘Students must be able to overcome their reluctance to allow others to see their unfinished working documents, and must be willing to let others contribute changes’ made me realise why this assessment caused a level of uneasiness throughout. Throughout this assessment, I was always aware that anyone from my course or outside my course could view my work and judge it. I was also slightly paranoid that someone could accidentally, or intentionally, tamper with my work or delete it altogether.

Although you are completely visible when using Wikibooks, this is not necessarily a drawback when it comes to doing collaborative research. In order for a research project to be successful, it is very important that those involved are transparent with each other regarding their parts in the research. Wikibooks allows this as there is a whole page dedicated to having discussions. Another key feature to the collaborative aspect of using Wikibooks is that you can leave and receive comments on the discussion pages of the people on your course. This allows for constructive criticism which is very important when carrying out this type of assessment. It can be very useful to see what work your research group have been doing to make sure that you are all on the same page without even having to reach out to them. Wikibooks makes collaborating with people on course work much easier than a traditional collaborative essay would be.

Comments
Response to Wiki Exercise 4

Your perspective on Wikibooks was very refreshing, especially when you mentioned how editing on Wikibooks was a creative way of editing our texts. Before this assignment, I personally never got the chance to use platforms similar to this, so It was incredibly interesting and a new system to try out for the first time. Due to Wikipedia’s status, previously I never thought that it would be reliable to use this site for further research till after our project where I think it could actually be very useful as further readings and to find sources to help with our essays or just things, we are curious about. I personally look forward to using these new skills that we have acquired in this assignment, it seems very old school and fun to edit, especially since blogs nowadays are very simple and doesn’t take much time and effort to edit their texts.

Your idea on the live content was also very agreeable. I personally found it hard to publish my essays knowing that my work was going to be visible to a lot of people but also soon after It didn’t bother me as much, and I was glad when team members would help me with editing my pieces and making it better than I could’ve. Although I think it overall made me more anxious too in case someone deleted my part or ruined it by accident. The group I worked with really helped with this though because of our discussions beforehand so it was easy to glide through the assessment with each other’s help.

I agree with your argument that having our work being visible isn’t entirely a negative thing. The contributions were also a good thing to have so everyone knew they were being watched in terms of cooperating so it pushed everyone to work harder and guaranteed that everyone would try to contribute as much as possible, especially with the main article. I also think the idea with different groups contributing to one topic was a new way of doing a group assignment, especially since we all went under different user names and we’d have no idea whom the other people in the groups were, giving us a challenge in terms of discussing with strangers. I also agree that it made the course work easier to do than a traditional essay would’ve especially since physical meetings weren’t necessary (and it would’ve been far too messy especially with arrangements to meet up physically since everyone has other things to do and all our timetables are different and some people live off campus or out of the city) It was also nice to have all our discussions in one area, making it easy to look back and remembering certain things we agreed on, also all our discussions are present to be judged for the final grade. It was an incredibly unique assessment especially since we are going to be graded on it, which is something very unusual for me but I enjoyed it nonetheless. Yasi.sdt (discuss • contribs) 19:37, 11 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:
 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory contributions 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) and will have little justification for ideas offered on Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will need some work.

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:
 * one or two substantial – but not nearly the frequency or volume needed to evidence engagement level required

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
 * Good
 * 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.
 * Satisfactory

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 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.


 * Although this work is at the upper end of this grade band, you could have easily bumped this into the “excellent” category, through diligence and extra attention to detail, especially as far as the peer-review elements of the portfolio are concerned. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might have been useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets.


 * Very good use of the wiki functionality and markup. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would improve.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, although as stated above, one of the Ex2 posts is a little late, and the Ex4 element is missing altogether, which is a crucial oversight on your part. A shame, as this is really good portfolio work. 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 - yes; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – yes.


 * Argument and analysis: well-articulated and well-supported argument - yes; 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; evidence of independent critical ability – yes.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)