User talk:Snapshotscan

This is my page for a research project I am conducting Snapshotscan (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
Online identities are very fickle things, behind a screen anybody can be anything or anyone they want to be. As a result of this, the way a person presents themselves online and the way they present themselves offline can be very different from each other. Through the use of social media platforms such as Facebook or Instagram, people are able to manipulate their image to suit their needs by making things seem a particular way even when it may not be the case. As Judith Howard writes: "The more positive, and more personally important, aspects of self are like to be the bases on which a person locates her or himself . . . this points towards more successful attainment of positive social identity." Personally, I believe in being as authentic as possible online when it comes to personal use such as through social media platforms. However, I also don't like to use much social media and those that I do use are often, mostly Tumblr, are accompanied with usernames and I keep any personal details off of the site. That, in turn, defines my online identity when it comes to multi-user platforms and social media. I prefer to be more anonymous online, only interacting a little - if at all - with other users on the sites that I use. However, that isn't to say that my online identity is the same across every piece of social media that I use. Whilst I prefer to be more anonymous on Tumblr, on Instagram I am more selective of what I post and what I chose for people to see. This is very attuned to what is expected of Instagram particularly, most users will carefully curate their posts, making sure that each one fits in with the theme that they set up for themselves. This, as a result, forms the basis of multiple identities online. Somebody may have a minimalistic, pastel aesthetic Instagram account or a Tumblr account dedicated to a specific fandom - but their real life is not necessarily going to reflect that. Behind a screen it is very easy to create an identity - even if it is a little fake. Nobody, when they have the opportunity to present themselves in a different or better light, is going to be entirely truthful. As Yasmin Ibrahim writes: "The desire to curate a digital self, which is immersed in and acknowledged through the gaze and validation of others, invariably crafts an age of anxiety where we are vulnerable and sensitive to this consumption economy."

In general online identities are very complicated things, so many aspects can influence the way a person presents themselves online - everything from the type of platform that is being used, the expectations of that platform from other users as well as the expectations of the user themselves to present themselves in a specific manner.

Wiki Exercise #3: Annotated Bibliography
Liebler, R. (2015) Copyright and ownership of fan created works: fanfiction and beyond. New York, SAGE Publications.

In this article, Raizel Liebler broadly covers what it means to be a creator of fan content in a modern age. The article focuses largely on what it means to be a fan creator as well as how fan works affects the owners of the original content as well as others in the fandom. Liebler draws from other research into the effects of fan made content to supplement their argument as well as highlight key points throughout the article. It also looks at whether fan made content should be looked at as free labour or as a part of a gift economy rather than an economic economy. Liebler also touches on how parody and satire works are not as heavily policed as other types of fan made content, despite often using copyrighted material rather than reworking it though mediums such as fan fiction or fan art. The benefits of this article is that is covers a wide array of content in a concise but understandable manner by connecting all aspects of fan made content together with how they are affected by the original content owner as well as their place regarding fan made contents legal status. However, as this article does try to connect all aspects of fan made content together, less time is spent on the connection between fan content and its place within the law and what that means for content creators.

Wiki Exercise #4: What are wikis?
Wikibooks is a collaborative writing platform that allows for many users to contribute to posts to aid in research projects. It is set apart by the fact that it is not only an information based site, but also instead features articles supporting or opposing certain arguments, as well as being fact based in the same way wikipedia is. Wikibooks places a large emphasis on the visibility of the works - no article is hidden by account requirements or paywalls, everything is free and open to be viewed by anybody visiting the site. Furthermore, as it is a free to use and edit service, the moderated nature of the site helps promote a non-biased, civil approach to the works posted, emphasising the desire to share knowledge. Wikibooks is particularly useful for collaborative projects as it allows any user to edit and add to their pages. This means that not only one person is editing a project or undertaking most of the research - wikibooks allows for the work to be dispersed between a group with edits being able to take place at any time of the day without any issue. It is also an inherintly social way of working as Jageer Singh writes: "Wikispaces promotes a variety of interactions . . . and dynamics of activies involves . . . provide a safe and comfortable environment for social interaction and add possibility of asynchronous communications to happen through discussion forum and personal messaging".

Wikibooks particularly helps to foster online communities as it promotes a collaberative work ethic within its userbase as it is a free to edit resource. Therefore, it is likely to attract many people wanting to share free knowledge with the general public as well as inviting in others to help source and write their own pages. This allows a community to be built around mutual interests and those wanting to help others. Wikibooks greatly represents a digital commons as the information does not belong to any one person - instead, it is intended to be shared and distributed freely for whoever wants to use it. Wikis are created to share knowledge and foster interest, therefore adhering to the idea that digital commons are created the way they want to be used and in the case with wikibooks - and wiki's in general - it is to freely share information. This is further emphasised by how all wikis are created with volunteers - users are not paid to write their articles, they do it through their own volition with the intent to help others.

Wikis offer a different type of social interaction; they collect the knowledge of many thousands of people to share that with the general public. A knowledge that is available in the same space for free without limitations that other websites may have (such as registration requirements). Wikis have the potential of being the future for online spaces of knowledge, changing the way that information is provided and consumed by the public as well as those who provide the knowledge in spaces such as wikis.

Wiki Exercise #2 Responses
(In regards to your Wiki #2 post) First of all, I enjoyed reading your post. The thing I keep thinking about is the Yasmin Ibrahim quote you included. The pressures of social media are fairly often discussed or referred to, but the categorization of an age of anxiety, I feel, is such an accurate way to define how social media has come to define a large portion of many of our lives. I know people who impulsively post things with little to no care in the moment, only to regret them later; and on the other side, I spend far too long compiling any sort of post due to the fear that what I am posting isn’t important or interesting enough for others to engage with (or even that something will receive some negative engagement). It is an interesting aspect of online identities. Even though we can edit and manipulate our posts online to appear as we want them to, they also maintain longer lasting depictions of us whether we would like them to define us or not, due to the longevity of online content. If somebody says something they regret offline, eventually it will either fade completely, or fade enough to the state of plausible deniability. Where are the receipts? Without evidence for others to repost, screenshot, and so on and so forth, we have the ability to continually renew and redesign our identities offline in ways that are somewhat more difficult online, especially with any substantial following. However, online identities, again especially for those with large followings, affect how people perceive us in our offline lives. We often feel as though we know somebody deeply through closely following their lives online, even people that we have or will never meet. So online identities help to shape how we view one another, especially in an age where the majority of people spend time online every day. So while someone’s online identity will not completely parallel their offline identity, external parties compile information on people mentally, and will probably even forget whether some aspects were learned on or offline. These worlds are no longer complimentary, but have become fairly overlapped. So at the very least, from the perspective of others, our online identities are related to if not a part of our offline identities right? OutOfBoundsHeather (discuss • contribs) 20:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4 Responses
I find that we shared a lot of perspectives on the collaborative side of wikis, which I do find quite interesting since we did collaborate for this project. There is definitely a beneficial aspect to the lack of registration requirements and such on wiki media. I feel that one of the reasons Wikipedia/Wikimedia is often criticized is the fact that anyone can contribute, which of course is a power that can be misused, however Wikipedia does have what seem to be sufficient countermeasures involved to maintain impressive accuracy in spite of freedom. Also, I feel there is often an urge to discredit individual knowledge if it is not an area of academic study and achievement that one has a formal degree to back up. Therefore, a lot of knowledge goes unappreciated due to a lack of technical scholar, which I think is quite a shame. I think that is part of what makes Wikimedia so important, it appreciates knowledge through hobby and personal curiosity as well, encouraging users to be thoughtful beyond education for simply the sake of career and financial stability. Wikis allow users to pursue knowledge for their own sake and for the sake of others who desire to expand their minds. Knowledge without a degree is still valuable, and the knowledge of the many can be significantly more thorough than the knowledge of the individual. There is also a lot to be said for the value of Wikibooks allowing more argument-based content, though of course still requiring an extent of objectivity. It allows for much more in depth conversations beyond just facts, encouraging poignant conversation and debate. Of course the ability to directly contact users is very beneficial for information seekers, making it easy to contact someone who has posted a wealth of content another user might be interested in. In the past I have been tempted to contact some users on Wikibooks, but have never been confident enough to. I feel that this project has made me somewhat more comfortable on the forum and I may actually have the nerve now to reach out to users to continue the growth of content and of my own knowledge. Finally I wanted to comment on your reference to civility, as I think it makes a lot of Wikimedia what it is. I know during our project, there was a lot of concern for me personally as to whether or not my words would come across as too aggressive or controlling, and while it may have slowed me down slightly, I think it is very beneficial that the rules make users stop and think to consider how other users may interpret their comments. Especially because it can be very difficult to convey tone and inflection through simple text, so it is quite simple to misconstrue a basic comment as being rude. I believe I had said something along these lines in regards to how people present themselves on and offline, and I think that, while it may not be impulsively authentic to one’s offline self, this time to reflect before posting can act more or less as practice for patience and awareness of others in offline life. OutOfBoundsHeather (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It is an interesting point that you bring up about wikis as a volunteer-based knowledge platform. When I unpack this, it makes me think about the question of knowledge, whether or not knowledge is democratic. I think one aspect of Wikipedia that is really good is that a lot of contributors are professionals in their field. This means to some degree in the offline world they are technically paid for their knowledge, so providing expertise on certain topics is a form of free labour. This definitely has a benefit to society in that knowledge should be accessible to all, and in a sense wikibooks provide this as it is a free service. In reality, access to higher education or even basic education for a lot of people is unattainable. Wikibooks provides a potential source of democratising education. For me the caveat is relying on the goodwill of academics to contribute to the platform. When Clay Shirky discusses online communities and collaboration, he tends to portray wikis as a kind of utopia of knowledge. In my opinion, I agree more with Jaron Lanier’s approach. If it was one academic writing one article, I believe it could potentially have a greater affect than the collaboration of a bunch of contributors with varying levels of knowledge. I do see the potential of wikis to create a kind of super intelligence, but there is that risk of all the knowledge melting into ‘mush’. If everyone knows a little bit about everything it means that nobody knows a lot about anything. With constant access to smart phones, it could be argued that we retain less information. Referring to Marshall McLuhan’s concept that ‘technology is the extension of man’, smartphones and websites like wikis could be seen as an extension of the brain. I would argue that wikis provide little room for creativity as the individual voice can be lost among so many others. The online environment for me has a danger of becoming too many voices shouting into the void. The quality of content can often be forgotten when this becomes a game of who can shout the loudest. Mmm00044 (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)