User talk:Springicon

Hello FMSU9A4 Springicon (discuss • contribs)Springicon

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


Many people attribute narcissism with the social media age. To think this not only lacks a general understanding of social media as a whole, but also the historical and societal roots of this phenomenon. Rosen (2007 : 15) notes that portraits were used by the wealthy and influential in order to grant themselves immortality and to be seen as they see themselves. Many of these portraits did not accurately represent the people in them because of this desire to look better - akin to the editing of today’s world. The most infamous example of this disconnect of identity in history is Hans Holbein's painting of Anne of Cleves, which prompted Henry VIII to propose and then promptly called off the wedding due to Anne not looking like her portrait. This was even touched on in the musical SIX in Anne of Cleaves' song 'Get Down' which directly likens this event to something that could happen in the social media age - said that I tricked ya ‘cause I didn’t look like my profile picture”.

Accessing my own social media identity I suppose I used to care more about upkeep. Nowadays, oversharing on private and public accounts is a normal thing to see - almost all my friends have a private Instagram account for venting or posting screenshots of racy conversations for their friends to laugh at without spoiling the aesthetics of their public accounts. This diversification of private and public image in this way is something rarely touched on despite the constant nihilistic comments that both me and my peers make on private accounts. Ibrahim (2019 : 260) touches on this need to overshare online, attributing it young people's need for expression and validation either from themselves for posting it or others for interacting. Reflecting on this made me look at my own motivations for posting existential 3am rants on my public Twitter page and I suppose it offers a relief. To post something publicly is to make it public knowledge to your peers, and to let everyone know how I'm doing feels cathartic at times where my mental health takes a dip. Many people reply with messages of support in these instances, even when I have presented it in a humorous way, which makes me feel less alone and allows me to vent in a way that feels more productive than keeping it in a diary or journal.

Despite this, I still partake in the inherent narcissism that comes with posting pictures of myself with friends. It feels like a communal feel-good session when a group picture gets posted and everybody comments on how much we love each other. Something about seeing your comment section riddled with emoticons and seeing your original post tagged and shared by those who are in it. This collective narcissism is probably best demonstrated by the change to my social media pages after getting into a relationship. This isn't something I thought about until it was mentioned in a chapter by Papacharissi & Mendelson (2010) where they state that relationships often become the focus of the photographic narrative, through both frequency and poses - physical closeness in group photos, holding hands, etc - which I have both noticed in my own feed as well as newly not-single friends.

Overall, looking at academic sources on identities on social media has made reflect on my own actions as well as others. I feel as if many articles and investigations lack the nuance needed to examine these topics but applying their frameworks is helpful if done thoughtfully with consideration of the constantly changing landscape in which we curate our online personas.

References:

 * Rosen, C. (2007). Virtual Friendship and the New Narcissism.
 * Jones, J. (2011) Did Holbein engineer a royal wedding?
 * Marlow, T & Moss, L. (2018) Lyrics to 'Get Down' from SIX: The Musical.
 * Ibrahim, Y. (2019) Production of the 'Self' in the Digital Age.
 * Mendelson, A L. & Papacharissi, Z. (2010) Look At Us: Collective Narcissism in College Student Facebook Photo Galleries.

User Comments - Wikibooks Exercise #2

 * I thought this was a really good entry! I thought the inclusion of the example of Anne of Cleaves was very helpful in understanding the topic as a whole. You illustrated your points very comprehensive in a clear and concise manner. I thought the inclusion of your own social media experience was great, as it gave a real insight into the topic. Eefa78 (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Eefa78


 * This was such an interesting read. Your references backed up your work and overall, really enjoyed reading this. Kay.Abbiey (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Great essay and a really intelligent link between portraiture and online identity. Great use of citations and very well constructed piece of writing. Well done!--MandrakeShepherd (discuss • contribs) 10:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The points you make are very well worded and you were very consise and direct. Your point about the mix between private and public profiles and the content posted on the both f them was very interesting and gave a clear insight on your knowledge on the topic as you were able to find an example from your life and use it effectively. Your referencing was very clean, showing your knowledge and skills in the wiki-book platform. Your images also fit in very well with what you were saying. Great piece overall. Daynawithadaisytattoo (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You take an interesting stand here on how you match Narcissism with our social media age. I strongly agree with you, in my piece I talk about how more and more people in our generation have become selfish for our obsession with ourselves and social media account. When it comes to public VS. Private account I think that all depends on the person. It is kind of overwhelming that all of your pictures and life can be exposed to anyone if you're public. I don't have any social media so my personal life is for my friends and family, not random people online. Maybe you should try getting rid of your social media page? I see why its fun and humorous to share pictures with your friends like you've mentioned. I know social media is all fun and games but it may be getting to a point of too much. Its about how we should manage it. Nice work mate. MrMojoDZ (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)MrMojoDZ

Wiki Exercise #3: Annotated Bibliography Entry part B
'''García-Rapp, F., & Roca-Cuberes, C. (2017). Being an online celebrity: Norms and expectations of YouTube’s beauty community. First Monday, 22(7). 10.5210/fm.v22i7.7788. Available at https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7788/6331#author. '''

This article investigates how online beauty gurus sustain their popularity through analysis of both content and community feedback. To do this, they gave particular attention to YouTube user ‘Bubzbeauty’ and conducted ethnographic research that took 22 months to complete. During this research, over 313 videos and 10000 comments were analysed in order to better understand the narrative of the user’s online persona. The analytic techniques used were coding, interoperation and systematic observation which they applied to a smaller sample of 50 videos and 700 comments in order to write the article due to the qualitative nature of these methods. In consolidating these results the researchers draw on a wide range of peer-reviewed sources in order place their results in context - focussing on impression management and how this impacts popularity due to the values already instilled in the online communities that beauty gurus align themselves with allows the research to stay grounded and relevant. The focus on YouTube celebrity is entirely relevant as García-Rapp and Roca-Cuberes remark that the academic literature already existing on the topic is sparse. Thus, the article is a sufficient look into impression management and how it is important for maintaining online celebrity status and community that I will be able to utilise when writing my collaborative essay.

Wiki Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation - What AREWikis?
Wikibooks is a highly collaborative platform which serves as a database for textbooks made free and available to the public. Wikibooks, like other Wiki platforms, relies on voluntary interaction and information sharing in order to create this database. The visibility created by such a model is most clearly talked about on Wikibooks’ own Help pages, where emphasis is put on the revolutionary implications of this free knowledge space - “That means that they are free as in freedom, forever. No one can stop you from using these materials, modifying them or distributing them.”

The edits come from a community of Wikipedians who work to share their knowledge for no monetary gain. The redistribution of intelligence online is the basis for the temporary communities built on the talk pages where discussion of the edits can be facilitated. However, from my own personal experience and research conducted by Lin et al (2004 : 336) it is clear that Wikibooks is not a social media page where people build lasting online relationships. It is simply a drive to educate that brings the collaborators closer together, and this community space is fleeting but the quality of the books brought forth rely on their cooperation. In my experience of Wikibooks I found a certain satisfaction in sharing knowledge no one else had yet mentioned, whether it be factual or to do with formatting, and this was a main driving force for me to consistently check and contribute to the platform. There is a certain encouragement that comes from the anonymous aspect of the collaboration. Other than the people in my group, the others I worked with were completely anonymous and my interactions with them were not based on any preconceived notions unlike my interactions on social media platforms. The anonymity of the platform allows people to work together without discrimination or fear of rejection due to factors out-with their control. The anonymous aspect allows for the most focussed and productive workspace, and in my opinion, this made the space both appealing and welcoming due to the fact that I could openly give constructive criticism to my peers without fear of this affecting their perception of me which I often worry about when speaking out in real life. Suler (2004 : 322) describes this as ‘dissociative anonymity’ which is a phenomenon where people can separate their interactions online from their real life. This renders much of the real life vulnerability that comes with speaking face-to-face null and allows people to act without fear of immediate consequence.

Online collaboration creates a digital commons where the ideas of others are used to determine the most effective ways of communication factual and unbiased information. In our talk page, everyone had something unique to their own understanding of the subject to add which overall enriched our project and allowed all of us to learn from each other. However, I must acknowledge that the classroom environment that these Wiki groups were born out of gave me an experience unique to simply making a Wiki account. As Lin et al (2011 : 337) finds, “private classroom Wikibook projects clearly provided motivation and heightened awareness of quality” that I believe would be lacking if I were to simply be on Wikibooks of my own volition.

Aside from the coding jargon that makes Wikibooks daunting, if I were to become a full time Wikibookian there are bigger concerns. On my Wikipedia account the first message on my talk page is a lovely welcome message from a more seasoned Wikipedian, which made me happy, but the thought of contributing to a Wikipedia or Books article is daunting due to several factors. An anecdote from one of my seminar classes not related to digital media where a girl had edited her rugby player dad’s Wikipedia page due to the information page without a valid source, which resulted in her getting banned from contributing at all for a set number of weeks. This hostility would put me off of the platform entirely if I had experienced it myself. As Lund (2017 : 138) says, the heavily monitored pages can reject edits and put newcomers off from the platform completely. This ruins the ‘fun’ of it all over ensuring quality, something that Wiki platforms must have in order to be reputable, which in my opinion would discourage me from contributing over fear of rejection despite my understanding of why the platform functions this way.

Some questions I’d like to ask of whoever responds to this: If you were pursue Wikibooks past this project for fun, what is the most worrying thing you think you would encounter? How did anonymity affect your contributions to the platform?

User Discussion - Wikibooks Exercise #4
Hello there ! I really enjoyed reading this piece, I think its interesting hearing your own personal perspective of Wikibooks. I see a lot of myself in this actually! As I, like you, also got somewhat of a kick out of mentioning ideas not yet thought of, or helping others with coding issues. Simple additions, such as formatting changes to make the talk page more aesthetically pleasing or easier to navigate, often resulted in replies from other users thanking you for your work, and exclaiming that it made their work a lot easier. This is one of the main factors that drove me to progress in my contributions, as you can see the impact your work and findings are making to others in your group.

Overall, I found the collaborative aspect of Wikibooks to be a largely positive one in my experience. This is due to, as you mentioned, being able to share ideas and literature with others in your group, which I feel massively helped in my learning. I would, however, agree with you that the collaborative aspect holds several negatives. For example, as we were tasked with creating a collaborative essay, it grew to be very frustrating at times when others did not put in as much effort as you were hoping.

As you mentioned, the anonymity feature of Wikibooks is also something I encountered. Similarly to you, I really enjoyed being anonymous to others, as it took away the fear of rejection and/or judgement from my peers, as this is something I am conscious of in face-to-face interactions. Everyone appearing to be anonymous also helped me remain impartial, as it allowed me to not favour my friends, or others that I would perhaps know offline. Being anonymous also enabled me to be more independent in my thoughts, as again the fear of being judged by my peers was removed.

As for your questions, I definitely would consider remaining active on Wikibooks. This is because I feel as though it has enabled me to understand information and educational resources in a much simpler manner, with the help of annotated bibliography's being posted on our talk page. In a more general sense, I did just enjoy reading and posting information in another way, as this is not something I have previously done before. However, as you mentioned, I perhaps would be slightly intimidated by more seasoned Wiki* users, as I by no means know everything about the world of Wiki yet!! If my experience going forward was similar to what I have already experienced, I would have no issue with continuing with Wikibooks as a source of educational content in the future.

Thanks so much for this entry, really thought provoking! Eefa78 (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Eefa78

Hey there! Just read your piece and I thought it was very interesting, as usual. Your view on Wikibooks is very interesting and after working alongside you in a group, I have had the pleasure of seeing your dedication in motivating and allowing expressive thoughts within the group project. As you have mentioned, anon users are a thing on Wikibooks and I think sometimes it does encourage freedom of speech without a second thought, however, do you not think this is more pressurising? Good point though. As for your question at the end, I do not think that I will be going on Wikibooks again in the future, for one reason only and that is the judgement that can be allowed. As it is a public space for anyone to contribute in, it terrifies me that someones opinion could make me question my own, also the project really stressed me out and I would not recommend that project to anyone haha! Truly going to miss reading your work however on Wikibooks so if you do pursue in writing more on here, please do let me know! Kay.Abbiey (discuss • contribs) 18:41, 3 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:
 * Excellent. Among other things, contributions will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including formatting, links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful and transparent way on the Discussion Pages. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts, justifying decision-making with transparency. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader as well as for fellow researchers collaborating. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.

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:
 * a fairly large number of smaller contribs quite consistently added throughout project period, as well as a small number of slightly larger and one or two that would be described as significant, and substantial. Activity revolving around annotated reading, and commenting on others’ work through discussion is especially excellent and evidences quite a lot of learning here. Well done!

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

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Excellent
 * Clearly labelled sections and subsections
 * Good
 * Contributions are all signed
 * Excellent

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) 15:40, 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:


 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.


 * This work is at the lower end of this (albeit high!) grade band, so there’s perhaps a little room for improvement here. Although you are doing a lot already in this regard, a little more signposting to wider reading always helps.


 * You have made some really good use of the wiki functionality and markup, which has 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 further difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good. I like that you have framed some of your own posts as well as peer-review responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!). You have also engaged in discussion in an open and critical way (that is to say, you've responded to what other people are saying and are contributing meaningfully to discussion - arguably the civic element of wiki that you ought to be thinking about, which you clearly are). Very, very good work.

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


 * 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 excellent.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)