User talk:Size3feet

My name is Nicole, and as suggested, I have small feet. This page is for a university class project. Size3feet (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 2:
Our 'online identity' could be said to be a combination of our real, 'offline' identity and a more glamorised version of ourselves that we wish we were. The platform we are using determines the ratio between our real and glamorised self showing through. However, how many 'real' versions of ourselves are there? you could say several. Let's take Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. For a lot of people, right up to those in their late 20's/30's, their parents will have Facebook. Therefore Facebook tends to be a more toned down version of ourselves to avoid showing family the other side of ourselves; when with our parents/family we have more of an innocent, wholesome personality compared to our personality when with our friends which is usually more vibrant and with a lot less innocence (i.e. our parents certainly don't know the goings on of our nights out). This is the reason i personally don't use Facebook anywhere near as much as other platforms. Hence, I believe most probably show our normal self on Facebook more often than any other platform.



Instagram is image based therefore, (typically) without parents hovering over our accounts, we can post whatever we want. Society has a habit of visually contorting our realities to whatever we please through the use of captions, filters, stickers, careful choice of photos etc. on social media. Mendelson & Papacharissi write that "In everyday life, people consciously and unconsciously work to define the way they are perceived, hoping to engender positive impressions of themselves. The effort entails emphasising certain characteristics… while hiding or diminishing other characteristics perceived as flawed, depending on the context"(Mendelson & Papacharissi 2001: 252). Instagram is arguably the main culprit for this; on this site our pictures remain, unless we delete them, and become part of a kind of portfolio on our lives wherein we feel the need to impress and compensate for our less-exciting-than-it-seems lives; the general consensus seems to be making one’s social life seem impressive; add a bit of a filter and you’ve got a nice aesthetic too to complement your so-called ‘wild’ or ‘exciting’ lifestyle. Personally, my Instagram is not about boasting about my social life but simply making what i have to display look nice, however in itself makes my life appear more appealing so perhaps i am unknowingly trying to show off my experiences more than i think. Hence society is stuck in a cycle of editing and uploading in order to make their visual identity admirable both 'consciously and unconsciously' as stated above.

Lastly, Twitter is more opinion based due to the ability to Tweet words alone and not simply images, and its news-like status. Here we can express our views more freely than we may feel we could ever do face-to-face. It’s a way of explaining our personality, opinions and experiences without photographic evidence that we would feel the need to alter as proof, but without images we never truly know what is real anyway. Twitter is for our ramblings; for our opinionated, chatty side. Gackenbach & von Stackleberg would describe this as ‘disinhibition’: "The inability to control impulsive behaviours, thoughts or feelings and manifests online as people communicating in ways that they would not ordinarily do offline" (Gackenbach & von Stackleberg 2007:58). Therefore in real life way may appear reserved or shy but online we come alive with words. It could be said that Twitter is for our inner musings. Do our tweets represent the ‘real’ us? Only the individual will ever know. Personally, i haven't used Twitter to Tweet in a long time but my retweets are there to show off my interests and opinions nonetheless.

From platform to platform our identity can appear as though it is changing as we express ourselves slightly differently on each, or you could say that each brings out a different side of our overall identity. However, online it is pretty much impossible to locate the ‘real’ version of the individual; it could be all sides you see, or just one of them with the rest being manifestations of our dream selves and dream lives. Size3feet (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Resources:

Hey ! I have a really similar stance on this subject - I believe we are all trying to be a 'glamorized' version of ourselves online as well. I also like the parental dynamic you brought into your argument because that is not something I had thought about. The way I use Facebook compared to a platform like Instagram is definitely different because I have a lot of family members who watch what i do on Facebook and make comments about it. I feel like I'm constantly under surveillance on Facebook and in this respect could even begin to say I have different personalities on each different platform I use. On Facebook I am a much more tame, guarded version of myself whereas I feel a lot more free and less judged on Instagram - which is strange considering I would definitely class Instagram as being the platform you would get judged on the most. I definitely agree with your paragraph about Twitter being a lot more opinion based. Twitter is a way for people to express their potentially controversial views and opinions without having to be in the presence of another human being. You are able to delete tweets but you can never take back something you have already said out loud so in this sense Twitter is just a way to get opinions out there without really having to deal with the backlash. I guess you could say that we have one whole online identity but we only show specific parts or aspects of it on each different social media platform. All these separate identities merge to make up our entire offline one, but the one we display on the Internet is definitely a glamorized version. Overall, I really like the way you have looked at this assignment and the overall stance you have on the topic. Was a really interesting read! Lucybrowneyes (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Size3feet: Hi! I completely agree with what you've written, you touched on points that never even crossed my mind. I think Facebook is a good example to use as we really have to think about what we share and post on there due to the large amount of family that friend us on the site. I for one triple check everything I'm posting before I click share. Instagram is a little different for me as some of my family, including my mother, follow me. This means that although I tend to push the boundaries a little bit, I could never have the freedom of just posting what I wanted to. Twitter is different, my family don't follow me on there and so I can tweet or retweet whatever I want, usually it involves inside jokes with my friends or new 'memes' or funny videos which I think my friends would enjoy seeing. This is probably the social media where I feel the most comfortable as I have the freedom to not have to surveil everything I post, unlike other social media. Facebook is the most like myself in terms of being in public and taking care of my self image however, a mixture of Instagram and Twitter can reveal my true personality which only close friends will see. You've used good sources to back up your points and overall made a great argument! AbbyWaugh (discuss • contribs) 20:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Size3feet: I think you have made some really interesting points here. I agree that our online identity is a combination of our real life and a more glamourised version. You have put into words what I've taken for granted and never truly thought about. Facebook is absolutely the softest online identity for most people, myself included. This is, as you have said, due to the family connections. My Social Media identity only differs slightly from App to App. Instagram, for example, is mostly the same level as my Facebook identity. This is because my family follows me there too. I would fundamentally agree that for most Twitter is what I'm calling the "shoes off, feet up app". Look at almost any thread of tweets and it won't be long before you find controversial and sometimes scathing opinions. Twitter is where the gloves come off and people truly hide behind their keyboards. Look no further than the 45th President of the U.S. It is a little different for me on the other hand as I have family members that follow me on there too. So I guess for some there is only freedom to post if they don't mind any repercussions that may come their way. Very well written. I think you have put a great mini-essay together. ConnorB044 (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I really agree with the points you've made here. Your use of Facebook as an example was really good, because usually people tend to have more family members on there, so we have to be more careful about them seeing things we do not want them to, which doesn't usually apply to other platforms because older family members don't tend to use those. I thought your point about twitter being mainly for people to post opinions was interesting because I'd never really thought about how people genuinely only use it to post their thoughts or ideas on things that may be considered a little controversial, or things that are up for debate - out of all the social media platforms, I would say twitter is definitely the most brutal. I would definitely agree that people tend to have different personalities depending on the platform they are using and who they know are going to see the posts. For me, Instagram is for finding funny videos and memes to send to my friends, or to occasionally post a picture or two when I do something exciting, so I'd say it is the platform I feel the most comfortable. I think you have used some really good sources here, and made a lot of good points about online identities and how they differ from real life personalities that I totally agree with. I think this is well put together mini-essay! Speckynarwan (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 3: Annotated Bibliography part B


In her piece, 'Not a Twitter Revolution: Anti-neoliberal and Antiracist Resistance in the Ferguson Movement' Christina Mislan focuses on the role social media played in the 2014/15 Ferguson Movement which was organised action against police violence in America which links to the #BlackLivesMatter campaign. The article consists of the study of 21 unstructured interviews, placing these interviews within the context of Twitter discussion. The article utilises a mixed-methods approach, showing how local activists repositioned themselves which is/was not always captured via social media - especially in the early stages of the movement. This is useful as a specific example of activism via social media. However, as stated by the writer herself, this piece could be said to be limited by it's lack of detailed Intel into the relationship between #BlackLivesMatter and #Ferguson, which could have been especially helpful to this essay. One of my class mates or I will perhaps use this for my section of the essay which focuses on political and social activism and this is an apt example which is direct to Twitter, a very influential and important social media platform. Size3feet (discuss • contribs) 21:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Resources:

Wiki Exercise 4: What ARE Wikis?
Wikibooks is many things: it's collaborative and community-based, it's educational, it's a place to demonstrate knowledge and analytical skills. When comparing it to it's sister website, Wikipedia, the main difference is that Wikipedia is competitive rather than collaborative making them almost opposites. People compete to be right and have the best explanation/definition etc. on Wikipedia on any topic they desire. Wikipedia is also more popular culture based than academically educational like Wikibooks. Wikibooks is a collaborative educational platform. Scott Millard defines it as 'collection of open-source or open-content textbooks'... which 'given the nature of Web 2.0 technologies and beliefs and the inherent problems of print textbooks, Wikibooks has grown'. In a digital age, Wikibooks fits perfectly. Wikibooks emphasises visibility in the sense that anyone can access anything your write or edit. Wiki in general is user-based which is a known fact explained on the websites to ensure safety in terms of personal information - it's not a social media where you decide who can follow you and post personal stories as everyone can access your writing, therefore a degree of censorship is necessary and expected, these make it a collaborative, educational (rather than leisurely) platform. Wikibooks is apt for collaborative research as the discussion page for a particular page isn't limited to who can access or edit it like a group Facebook page is, there's no permission needed which allows for worldwide collaboration, whether the individual who set up the page likes it or not. Some may say this is a disadvantage and allows foul play and vandalism but this is all part of the platform which is made known. You could also say that there is a degree of anonymity as you can make your user name whatever you wish, therefore it is impossible to know who is considered an 'expert' and who is novice which is all part of what makes it user-based. When people with the same interests find one another's pages they can work together with their plethora of knowledge and resources from around the globe to make the piece better than if it were individual or limited to people you know which creates a sense of community amongst people who would never know of each other otherwise. Digital Commons such as Wikis allow for learning amongst those who are educating thanks to newly shared knowledge and resources etc. Wiki platforms allow for leeway in terms of what you can upload (more so Wikipedia) but not full emancipation as there are still guidelines and chance of being banned as well as moral social restrictions, such as racism or any kind of disrespect. Size3feet (discuss • contribs) 18:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Resources

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:
 * Good. Among other things, good contributions 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 formatting, 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, discussing this in a transparent way with fellow researchers on the Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.

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:
 * Fairly good record of engagement during the project period, mainly a larger number of smaller contribs, as well as a smaller number of contribs that could be deemed substantial. I would have liked to have seen a little more consistency and frequency, as well as some larger elements of contribution. That said, what is here is of very good quality, sometimes excellent.

Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages
 * Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration
 * Good
 * Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay
 * Good


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

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Good
 * 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) 15:48, 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 well written and organised, also there is some room 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. Most specifically, you need to be mindful of the requirements of the assessment brief in relation to the peer-review elements of Ex4 (here your submission is a on the light side).


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, although Ex4 is a little too brief. 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.


 * 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.

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


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)