User talk:Speckynarwan

I enjoy films and driving in my spare time. Speckynarwan (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

=Wiki Exercise #2: To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?=

The debate surrounding ‘online identities’ has been rife since the rise of social media began. Users and spectators have taken note of the fact that when using social media, users often tend to construct an identity specifically for the face of their social media account that does not entirely align with their real-life personality. There are many reasons why this may be. It could come down to people being self-conscious, only wanting themselves to be perceived a certain way, or wanting to project a more socially acceptable version of themselves online, or possibly wanting to seem that they are living a particular kind of lifestyle which is otherwise not true to reality.

Currently in my own personal experience, I rarely post anything on social media, and when I do post, it is usually the aftermath of a big event or experience (i.e. a concert, someone’s birthday, a holiday) and it is usually on Instagram. Other platforms, such as Facebook or Twitter, I only use to browse or see what other users or friends are talking about or posting. This was not always the case, however, as at a younger age, I was totally unafraid to post things on social media. My Facebook status would be updated at least 3 times a day and I would nearly always have something irrelevant to tweet about. In retrospect, I feel my thirteen year-old self was much less conscious of what the wider circle of my friends or acquaintances would think or how they would judge my online posts. Therefore, the way I use social media has quite definitely changed; as I have gotten older I have most likely become more aware of the idea of judgement from my peers for the way I use social media, and possibly social media has lost the novelty that it once had, back when I was a preteen, thus I end up posting little to nothing.

Daily, people are both consciously and unconsciously making an effort to be perceived a certain way by others and hope to instil a positive or good image to the outside. We try desperately to emphasise what is desirable about ourselves while simultaneously trying to diminish what may be seen as a negative aspect. New media, social media platforms especially have allowed people to pose various versions of themselves to others while remaining at a distance – these versions tend to be constructed very carefully by selecting only certain attributes to put on display (Papacharissi, 2010).

To conclude, it is apparent that they way in which we exhibit ourselves online does not match up entirely with who we are offline. “The term ‘online identity’ implies that there is a distinction between how people present themselves online and how they do offline.” (Marwick, 2013, p.358). Identities on social media, and identities in general and how we present our own can evolve and change over time as our thoughts, opinions and experiences change. Personally, I feel due to the fact that I do not post on my social media accounts very much, I do not have a good sense or any kind of connection to an online identity as such, but posting on social media when something happens in my life has almost become a kind of habitual instinct.Speckynarwan (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Goodings, L. (2012). Understanding social networking sites: Lessons from MySpace. [Visual Communication] 11(4), 485. doi:10.1177/1470357212454098
In this article Goodings looks into the history of MySpace in an attempt to take a closer look at issues surrounding online communication. The aim of the article is to explore the use of social networking sites and how they relate to issues of the self, community and the human experience. Goodings carries out this research by analyzing 100 my space profiles that are open for anybody to access. The research focuses on why the number of MySpace users diminished, and how that relates to issues of communication. Also, the author speaks of ideas of reality, representation and the social and psychological aspects of online communication. The article is useful to my research as it looks at how MySpace degenerated, with users moving to other social media platforms; this links closely to my research topic of how social media platforms evolve and die. The limitation of this article is that it is relatively old, and things in terms of MySpace and the popularity of Facebook has changed drastically in years since the article was published, thus some of the authors ideas and statistics may be out of date. This article will be helpful in my research, despite it not being the entire basis of my work, it will definitely help me in building my understanding. Speckynarwan (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

=Wiki Exercise #4:Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation - What ARE Wikis?=

At this current point in time technology has made its way into nearly every sector of our lives. Regardless of what we are doing, some form of technology is usually involved (cooking, healthcare, navigation, entertainment). A particular realm that technology has helped progress leaps and bounds is education, as it has aided us in bettering our knowledge in a wide array of areas and will continue to do so. A prime example of how technology has changed the way in which we learn are Wikis.

The question may rise, however, what exactly are Wikis and how are they beneficial in terms of learning and collaborating? To put it concisely: “Wikis are knowledge-building communities that maximize collective intelligence through dynamic knowledge-sharing and creating using web technologies.”  Wikis, generally speaking, gifts users with an open platform or space to share information publicly with ease online. A type of wiki that I have some experience with is Wikibooks, which is “a free collection of open-content textbooks that multiple users can develop and edit on the Internet,”. The WikiBooks in themselves can be seen as a huge collaborative effort between users to build an informative page on a topic or issue that they are most passionate about. Wikibooks makes you can keep track of not only your own contributions to a page, but also the contributions that fellow users make as well – making it clear to see the history of ones inputs, edits and additions to different pages and books. The pages are overseen by the webmaster who is responsible for passing and approving edits made to a page, therefore meaning that the pages are always being monitored and watched in case of someone posting inappropriate or unhelpful content to a page.

From my own observations and experiences through working with others on a particular Wikibook essay I saw that the way in which users conduct and interact with one another is vastly different from how one would usually behave on an online platform. Comments and replies to someone’s work or suggestion was done so politely and every comment made was full of detail and helpful ideas in an effort to better the quality of information of the main page. I feel the reasoning for this is that users are very aware that these conversations and discussions are open for anyone to view or comment on, especially the webmaster, hence why contributors tend to edit the way they speak to something more polite and civil.

Another behaviour that I saw from other users and myself was a better sense of motivation to post and to be helpful. Wikibooks allows a better sense of community between users who genuinely want to share their intelligence on a certain topic. It felt as though due to the fact that we were all working toward a similar goal, we were more motivated to match the amount of work other users were putting in, wanting to delegate the workload equally among each other which truly made it feel like a collaboration.

To conclude, wikis, and wikibooks, are platforms and online spaces that makes it possible for its users to collaborate with one another, share and grow their knowledge on an endless array of issues and topics. The platforms are opportune in providing users with an endless amount of creativity and freedom with knowledge-sharing, and manages to foster a sense of community and collaboration between users as they share a similar objective and can therefore act as motivation to put in an more active effort to participate in contributing.


 * Hi there!, I really like the way you have thought through all of this. Firstly, I absolutely agree with your opening statement. Technology is something that has really taken over many different aspects of our lives. Basically everyone I know, including myself, would find it very difficult to navigate day to day life without the use of technology or to be more specific, mobile phones. My phone is used as a search engine, a map, a communication device and I would be very lost if I was not able to get access to things so easily. I also love to use technology as an easy tool for learning and I think Wikis really have helped this. The internet is used for any type of learning now-a-days and it has been this way for quite some time but there is something about the Wiki platform that makes everything a bit more interesting. The dynamic of being able to add your own contributions and help others along while they help you is one I have not experienced much prior to this assignment. Obviously, previously, had I needed help I would have asked a tutor or another student I was friends with but having this space that is so easily accessible and has so many helpful users always willing to lend a hand really created a special sense of community.


 * Wikibooks are so easily accessible and I have found this entire project really quite fascinating! We were in the same group for the final wiki page on social media movements so we have experienced the same types of communication happening. I absolutely agree with your point about people being generally more polite and courteous on the wiki page. We all had a separate group chat for everyone working on the page where we would tell each other when we had updated the page so others could reply to it and this chat was a lot more informal than the page. I love your point about this formal attitude people adopt on Wikibooks meaning they are more inclined to help others when they ask questions because it is very true! Having such an open platform that anyone could access is a daunting thought because it makes you want to put in the best effort you possibly can for fear of being judged by other students or users. I know a few students, myself included, were afraid to post in such an open space, especially with the knowledge that these were going to be marked by our peers, but seeing how helpful, kind and courteous every user was, made me feel very relaxed about everything.


 * We were all working to try and create the same final page and as the final page is given a group mark, everyone was trying to help as much as they possibly could to make sure everyone’s sections and points made sense so we could all get the best mark possible. There was a real sense of community between us all on the Wikibooks and when we were nicer to each other on the page, it brought us all closer outside of the page even though some of us had never spoken to one another in real life! I also like the point you have made about us all working towards a similar goal and wanting to match other users in terms of contributions. I remember when I did not check our Wikibook page for a few days and when I logged back on there was so much I had missed and so much work put in by others I felt I had to keep up. It was easy to catch up when I really put the time and effort into it and I think we all did a great job! Everything about the project and Wikibooks in general is a real collaboration between us all and being able to help others along and get different opinions from other people is something that is not usually a part of assignments so it was a very cool dynamic to add in. As you stated, the Wikibook platform is providing us a safe space to be endlessly creative and contribute to something special. The sense of community and friendship was built purely from the helpful nature every person on the page was providing us with. Overall, Wikibooks are a great platform in terms of education and knowledge. Lucybrowneyes (discuss • contribs) 11:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

References

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:
 * Fairly inconsistent record of engagement during the project period, but you did start to engage a bit more towards the end of the project. What is there is of fairly good quality, so I think that had you engaged throughout you would have made a much more clear difference. That said, there two contrib that could be deemed substantial (mainly annotation notes) as well as a couple of useful contribs and exchanges towards the end.

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

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Satisfactory
 * Clearly labelled sections and subsections
 * Satisfactory
 * 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) 15:48, 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:


 * Poor. Among other things, poor entries 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.


 * The quality of content produced for the wiki is actually rather good. Hoever, as you have been persistently late with every submission, this has affected your resulting grade. 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 also paying closer attention to assessment briefs regarding deadlines would have helped.


 * 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.

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