User talk:Stirsb00027

Wiki Exercise 1: Online Visibility
Today with technology becoming such an essential part of people's everyday life, there is a likely chance that we are, to some extent, all visible online in one way or another. Whether it is on social media where your profile can be looked up through name, phone number or email, or whether it is logging into a network or a website, we are visible to others.

Personally, I see myself as very visible online. I have multiple accounts on shopping websites, multiple social media accounts and accounts on websites such as WordPress and here on Wikibooks. There is therefore an array of information about myself as a person and as a consumer available. For example, private information such as where I live, who I am in a relationship with, when my birthday is, where I am from, what I am studying, where my university is and what things I like and dislike including films and music. This information is all on my Facebook profile although not all this information is available publicly as I have a privacy setting that only my friends can see the full profile I have created. I have this privacy setting because I am aware of the dangers that are possible if a stranger has too much information. For example someone could take my details and try to hack into my account or other social media accounts. Although unlikely, the possibility of something bad happening to us online keeps myself and many other social media users cautious of how much information we provide online.

On my other social media sites, I have little personal information shared. I actively do not mention where I live or what university I attend on my Youtube channel and I only state that I am interested in art and am a student on my Twitter and Instagram profile. This information is under my control.

However, websites often will collect and sell information about individuals which helps determine what advertisements an individual will see (Meikle, 2016, p.29). For example, if I search for cat toys on amazon or google, there is an increased chance that I will see advertisements relating to cat products on my Facebook feed. It is out of the public’s control what information is given to third party sources that use this marketing strategy to target consumers.

Online visibility highlights how we are defined as a user and as a consumer of a product. Our control over our personal information, particularly on social media sites, helps us to protect our identity as well as helps us to define who we are. For example, we can like bands, films or other media pages which can be seen on our Facebook profile and we categorize ourselves into categories (single or in a relationship, age, working or unemployed). As a consumer, companies can construct an idea about who we are based on what we search for and like. This is a part of our identity as a consumer. I have bought gothic and alternative clothing and ended up with advertisements for other gothic brands and other alternative websites. Our advertisements can therefore also give a picture about who we are and what we are interested in as a person.

In conclusion, there are numerous ways we are visible online and numerous settings that can help us to limit our public visibility. However, often the public are unaware about how personal information is used to sell products to us. We are unaware how much information various companies and social media sites have about us and what they do with that information. Although our online visibility can help individuals to define who they are, there is a dangerous uncertainty about how much information is out of our control.

References:

Meikle, G. (2016). The Sharing Industry. IN Social media: communication, sharing and communication (pp. 24-47). New York: Routledge.

Wiki Exercise 2: Annotated Bibliography
Thomas, L., Briggs, P., Hart, A., Kerrigan, F. (2017). Understanding social media and identity work In young people transitioning to university. Computers in Human Behaviour, 76, 541-553. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.021

This article explores the use of social media and how interactions online can help build and maintain young people’s identity during transitional phases. Thomas et al. identify a gap in research surrounding social media activity and the consequences that social media has on new students. In their aim to fill this gap, the researchers took a sample of twenty-five first-year university students and made them track their social media interactions on Pinterest. The students had to setup five Pinterest boards from the week before going to university till the fourth week of classes, then were interviewed about their experience. The article refers to numerous other academic texts which will be useful in conducting further research. However, there is a small sample size which disproportionately features six men and nineteen women making the study results unbalanced. The findings highlight how participants often edited their posts to be portrayed in a favourable light. I can easily use this article in my research as it clearly displays that people do put on an online facade that is different to their everyday identity.

--Stirsb00027 (discuss • contribs) 22:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Hi, I think this is a great source to cite in relation to the topic of social media. The source is valuable because it identifies a gap in social media research and analyses a very specific sample in order to explore this. I found this annotated bibliography citation to be very well written and concise; conveying the key aims, scope and value of the source in relation to your topic. Also, I agree with you that a sample size which disproportionately features six men and nineteen women may be a potential limitation as gender may have an impact on social media behaviour and usage. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the comment and sorry for my late reply. i think it's great how researchers and academics look to fill in academic gaps in research. Through research on my collaborative essay, I have found similar studies. For example, there was a study in Hong Kong looking at communication between students and in America, research looked into how social media was used by transnational migrants to New York City to help affirm their 'home' identity through communication with family and friends. It's great for research can work together to help highlight a key point and gap in research. I don't understand why exactly the researchers would would to disproportion of woman compared to men. You would think they would make sure there was a balance to help affirm the result and not make it focused around gender. Thank you for the positive feedback! --Stirsb00027 (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Sophie, I won't make this too long because I've already done two comments- people will be sick of seeing my name. However, I definitely think this is such an interesting study. I particularly like the way they have conducted their own research to fill in the gaps that was missing from previous academics. This will be extremely useful when it comes to our collaborative essay. I think we should both put our citation and the main points into our group page on wikibooks. I also like the way you have identified that their study was unbalance. I was just wondering, did the authors say this, or was it your own thoughts? I do agree, the findings will be able to contribute in helping to contribute with our question. It is somewhat similar to my anotated bibliography, as both agree that people edit to be portrayed in a favourable light. MTxPrincipessa18 (discuss • contribs) 20:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll definitely continue to add to the group page about this study more in detail, been exceptionally stressed and busy but now more to concentrating on our collaborative essay. The authors didn't mention the inequality of men to women in the study. I found it really strange why they would recruit more women than men, especially if the results could be different if there was an equal split of gender. It makes it suddenly a question of intersectionality and whether gender has disrupted the results which may be interesting if the did a different study on the gender differences in behavior on social media. However for this study it just makes things seem unbalanced. Will discuss more on the group discussion page. --Stirsb00027 (discuss • contribs) 23:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Sophie, it seams I may be missing people when replying; as it didn't give me a notification to say you had replied. Hope you aren't feeling as stressed, I know you must be, but remember to just mail me on Facebook if this is getting too much, and we can meet up one-to-one, if the other members of the group can't. I too, find it strange that they recruited an unequal number of male/female. I tried to find researched that were equal, and have mentioned two in the collaborative essay. Speaking of the collaborative essay, I wrote some information regarding what we should do for the remainder. Just to let you know, we are doing a fist draft, you will see it near the bottom of our discussion page. Then, tomorrow, we will transfer it from there to the book. Good luck.

MTxPrincipessa18 (discuss • contribs) 19:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 4: Collaborative Essay Reflective Account
Wikibooks is an open interactive platform that provides information on many topics. This can be accessed freely, and users can comment and edit information to keep pages up-to-date and for users to improve their work through feedback. In this sense, members of the community can interact with each other. This helps user’s ability to carry out collaborative research and projects where one of more users can build a page on a topic, expanding the depth and range of content and research, improving the usefulness of pages for other users (Gilbert et al., 2008). Generally, you can create a page on any topic within Wikibook Guidelines. As a user creates content and provides edits, comments and feedback on other pages, they amount contributions. The more positive activity on Wikibooks, the more ‘points’ you gain. If you delete words, you lose points. You can see any user contributions through clicking ‘contribs’ next to their user name, meaning that the user’s activity is visible not only to Wikibooks as a platform but also to other users (Wang, 2016).

Through undergoing a collaborative research essay with a group of fellow students, the reply feature was extremely useful when receiving feedback and interacting with other members of my group due to getting an alert when tagged. The openness of the platform, how you can go to other pages and comment back and forth with users, is helpful to build up ideas and arguments that will improve collective information (Gilbert et al., 2008; Wang, 2016). This highlights the interactivity that the platform has, which helps to build a conversation between users and therefore create a supportive and active community. As well as this, the ability to insert multimedia such as pictures from WikiCommons and be able to create subheadings helps to organise information in an easy-to-read, organised fashion. Through my own experience through the collaborative essay task, it is clear how the community is essential to Wikibooks as an open platform. Feedback and comments helped my group and I to improve our work.

Wiki platforms offers the potential for online emancipation to a certain point. In general, a user can post anything onto Wiki platforms and share any information or multimedia. However, Wiki platforms have policies and guidelines that have to be abided by. For example, it is a policy not to infringe on copyrighted properties and you have to be respectful to other users. This means there is a limitation to the amount of freedom a user has. The ability of free speech is limited, so you cannot say absolutely anything you want. It must be respectful and constructive not hateful and unjustified. Therefore, the platform does have potential for online emancipation but free speech and complete freedom is still restricted within certain measures.

As with any new website, it was challenging at first to understand how to work on Wikibooks. The need for basic coding was difficult to pick-up at first. However, through looking at other user pages, I was able to study what code they used to get a desired look and transferred these skills into my own work. Understanding how contributions worked was also another learning curve, although, through experience, i understood that my activity on the website was logged here to make my online visibility on the platform easy-to-see. A final challenge was during the final stages of publishing my group's collaborative essay. I found it difficult to add in photos and didn't understand how the Wiki referencing system worked. A user from another group commented on our group discussion page, helping me to add in multimedia and captions as well as be able to understand how to correctly use the referencing system. This highlights how essential the community is on Wikibooks in improving content and supporting others to congregate information from many sources (Wang,2016).

--Stirsb00027 (discuss • contribs) 06:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC) --Stirsb00027 (discuss • contribs) 06:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

References:

Gilbert, D., Chen, H., & Sabol, J. (2008). Building Learning Communities with Wikis. In R. Cummings & M. Barton, Wiki Writing: Collaborative Learning in the College Classroom (pp. 71-89). University of Michigan Press.

Wang, L. (2016). Employing Wikibook project in a linguistics course to promote peer teaching and learning. Education And Information Technologies, 21(2), 453-470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9332-x

--Stirsb00027 (discuss • contribs) 07:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments
From reading your reflection on how you found Wikibooks it sounds like we are on the same page on how we found this assignment. The reply feature for me was the most useful part of the whole process as I was able to communicate with not only my group but also people from other groups who were also studying the same topic. This was so beneficial as it allowed way more discussion and a deeper understanding of the topic as a whole as I was getting lots of different opinions form lots of different people. I haven’t thought much about the policies and guidelines of Wikibooks passed copyright really so reading your take on the potential for online emancipation is very interesting and makes perfect sense that to a degree the users have freedom but there are outlines in place to make sure the sight is harmonious and respectful throughout.

I also found initially using Wikibooks quite challenging at is it like no other website I’ve ever used and I’ve never really used coding before so this was a whole new thing for me. I probably didn’t use the site to its full capacity as I am still very unsure with many aspects of it such as embedding content. I did start to understand it better though through more practice and as you said studying others use of the site and think by the end of the collaborative essay I was much more comfortable with using the site.

I didn’t even know until I read your piece that user contributions could lose or gain points. This is very interesting however I’m not sure what gaining points is useful? I understand for our class that our contributions are important for our work to be assessed as it allows the tutors to see the work we have done but as a site in general I don’t think that contributions are so important. I understand that it may be useful for Wikibooks to see any work created and deleted by users to monitor what they are publishing and making sure it stays within the policies of the site, however I don’t think that it is an important feature for other users to view contributions. Overall, I agree with your analysis and understanding of Wikibooks and its usefulness for the collaborative essay. (Bex.frew (discuss • contribs) 20:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC))

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this 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.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * The evidence from your contribs shows that you engaged with the collaborative process for a few of the days that the project was live. There is evidence from your contribs that your engagement was meaningful and consistent. Not only were you engaging with your own group’s work, but you also did make contributions to discussion with another group on one occasion – which suggests that you were at least beginning to see the value in the way that the book’s themes overlap significantly. In the round, these were very well constructed entries in terms of moving the project forward.

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: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	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


 * Several contribs registered as being under 1000 characters throughout the period, with a mix of others that are “substantial” and “significant”, and one or two treated as as “considerable” to the project. This is sustained, dedicated engagement with the collaborative process. There are one or two much larger contribs that are drafts so effectively copied into the essay page so I’ve ignored these as you can’t get marked for the same work twice. Good work.

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


 * Bizarrely enough, at one point on the essay’s discussion page you state that: “I know this isn't the place but hoping to get some last minute tips from you guys”. In fact, this is *exactly* the place, and is what discussion pages are for! See the above criteria on engagement as laid out in the assessment documentation published in January. You can see that sharing information, peer-review and peer-assistance is high on the agenda for discussion pages, and this is the place to document this material and process. Overall you managed to make a lot of the decision-making and discussion around ideas transparent, and encouraged others to comment/respond.

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


 * You were clearly collaborating on the discussion pages. It is true that some of the organisation here is a little haphazard (which is half-expected, as wiki management is a challenge!), but overall the discussion is easy to follow. You have also signed where necessary in most cases, so it’s easy to see where your contribs fit into the overall discussion.

•	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.


 * You conducted yourself very well. Good work!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds 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 represents an effort to engage critically and thoughtfully with the exercise briefs. Perhaps making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have perhaps 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 have made a difference. You do start to build this up towards the end of the project period, culminating in a very nice reflective piece as part of the portfolio of exercises. This shows that you have gained confidence in both the platform, and in your own contributions to the project more generally. Good work!


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good, and build up nicely over a period of time. You have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion. This is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about, and you have understood all too well the potential and power of the format. You have engaged in discussion with other users 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. You therefore show evidence of a pretty solid understanding of the notion of wiki as community. Arguably, you also understand some of the civic elements of wiki technology.

General:
 * Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – this is especially clear, particularly towards the end of the project period.


 * 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. Again, builds up nicely through time. This is all especially evident in the reflective exercise at the end.


 * Presentation: see above comment on use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)