User talk:Thegirlwiththebluehair

This is my wikibooks discussion page this is for an educational project, I will be exploring wikibooks so feel free to add comments in order to help me expand my knowledge and contribute to my project Thegirlwiththebluehair (discuss • contribs)

Assignment 1
Hello, my name is Thegirlwiththebluehair (discuss • contribs) and I'm addicted to social media. But seriously, how long do you go without checking any of your social media? I bet you have a tab open right now.

I have a love hate relationship with most social medias however I can't imagine doing anything without them. Online identity however is a very important aspect to note when talking about this. How people act online may not be the same way you expect they would in person. That could be for many reasons. For example, I personally work with promoting a lot of bands: helping them set up interviews, making sure they have a street team on nights of gigs promoting them and help them work out the best way to help move their career forward. By doing this I have learned to have a slightly more professional identity online as I need people (e.g band members, managers, fans) to see that I'm capable of working with them and see what types of strengths I can help them with.

That is only one way an online identity can change. Let's take another example- tinder. You may not have a tinder yourself (you may have a Grindr) but if you don't know what it is, it's an online dating app. You swipe on someone based on their looks and the short bio they choose to write about themselves. Somehow with that you are able to decide if you like someone enough to talk to them and see how it goes. I can hear my mum yelling in the back of my head that technology has taken over and there is an app for everything now. Which is true really but my mum being the lovely 56 year old she is, has an iPad to play solitaire on. Can you blame people being a little sceptical for online dating? How are you really suppose to show your personality through a few photos and a couple of lines? Or do you not even show your true self.

There is a simple way to ensure you get matched (with me anyway). Male: have a dog (it helps), maybe a funny one liner in your description and don't use all your photos as group ones- I'd like to know who you are. Female: dog would also be nice, smile I love a pretty smile, all round girls are easier to sipe right for. So say you wanted to match with me (which why wouldn't you? I'm great) would you tailor your tinder profile in the slight chance you come across me? Ideally no but if you think of it in the bigger picture people tailor what photos they put up and what they say in order to be desirable to whoever they are attracted too. Just remember though if you change who you are online people in real life or when they meet you in real life might not be as interested in the "real" you. Always try and be the best version of yourself.

Thegirlwiththebluehair (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I found this very fascinating! I agree with you and personally I think some people are different online to how they act face to face. Some people are more confident behind a screen I think which brings in the whole debate surrounding "keyboard gangsters". Some of the comments people leave on Twitter and Facebook are disgusting and I think people would be too afraid to say those things face to face. It was also discussed in my seminar that people have different profiles for different audiences. For example, say you supported a particular band some people were saying that they have accounts based on that band and their audience would be other fans. So on that profile you may act different to your personal one, but that's just my opinion. Also, the comments about your mum and technology made my laugh because my mum is exactly the same, always saying can't you just put you're phone down for 5 minutes- and the embarrassing thing is I can't! It is quite sad how our generation is so technology based. My gran is always saying why don't you go outside and explore- but why go exploring when you can sit on Facebook and watch Netlix.

--Amy Wardle (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I find it quite interesting what you have chosen to write about. I like how you've commented that social media is ubiquitous and to a home truth that a lot of people probably do have a tab open fro social media. I also like the idea that people can convey a separate identity online than they can in person. This of course can be due to them 'self selecting' the images and info that get shown on apps like tinder but also on social media like Facebook. All to create the 'perfect' image of themselves and the best narrative to showcase their lives. But it's an interesting point you make of how you are close to bands so you can see how they actually are and then can help them put across their 'best self' for promotion and for their fans to create their unique image. I further like the idea of how people's online identity can differ from how they actually are. It's true how can you covey yourself truly on something like Tinder in such a small space? I found this idea though to be true when I moved to University and friended my flatmates on Facebook before I physically met them. I made assumptions about them based on what their profiles on said about them. However, when I actually met them most if not all my assumptions were in some sense wrong about them and I was surprised just how much they could differ. Maybe I'm just a bad judge of character but I guess I just find it an intriguing idea just how much we can differ online from ourselves which we think we are being when we're online.

User The one behind the pillar (discuss • contribs) 22:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, this is a really interesting piece of work... I find it so cool that you promote bands as music is such a big passion of mines. Facebook is a great place for advertisements and to get people noticed which makes it a useful social network in many ways. I was wondering as there was no mention of privatisation of profiles, is your Facebook open for everyone due to the importance of promoting bands/artists? Kyra Paterson (discuss • contribs) 20:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I do not have tinder myself however I do find it fascinating how people are 'Match' on looks and a little bit of info about them isn't that a bit self centred of us as a generation? My Mum us always screaming at me to get off my phone ad I feel like it is almost just an addiction even when I am not texting or talking to anyone it is constantly in my hand. It is almost like it is part of me and I feel lost without it, but isn't that a little sad? that we went from playing in the mud to the generation after us having iPhones and all the latest technology. My 5 year old niece has my old phone just to play with and she asked me if it has Facebook so she could go on and talk to her friends... Surely that's enough for anyone to get a little worried that the next generation are going to be technology MAD! Tellegee (discuss • contribs) 17:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
This post engages with the brief, but on a superficial level. It would benefit from critical evaluation rather than using rhetorical questions without attempting to answer them. Your responses are thoughtful and engage with your colleague’s initial comments, demonstrating a level of engagement. Bear in mind that while Wikibooks is an online platform rather than a formal essay, style and typographic errors still count. Parts of your discussion were overly colloquial, and the whole post would have benefit from proofreading prior to submission.

A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor: Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries 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). The wiki markup formatting will need some work. Sprowberry (discuss • contribs) 10:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Reflective
It's all fun and games until you are handed a wikibook exercise. I can genuinely admit that it was the most frustrating thing I have ever had to do yet in my life.

It seems like a simple enough task to do, you are faced with a task that involves you working in harmony with other people in order to create an informative chapter on a topic. Seems simple? Well when you have between 15-20 (⅔ groups) people total working on one chapter it can get confusing and frustrating. Communication is key but what happens when you start to lose communication? Things go a little haywire and you can tell what to do next.

Although communication through social media (such as Facebook messenger) was easy to talk to the smaller group you were a part of it would have been easier to meet in person. However with everyone having their own idea of what the wikibooks task included causing a breakdown in plans cancelling the meetings and splitting up communications. This then led for everyone to be unsure in who is doing what. However when there was a chance for 3 out of the group to meet up during class it was the one time we all felt comfortable and confident in what we could do with our chapter.

I feel like in order to combat this negativity there could be a few things that are done better. Don't run wiki tasks as well as the wiki books mainly because it confuses the idea of what's happening with wikibooks. Another thing could be longer time on the project to help give better results. As students we have so many tasks to do at once and with deadlines going on around it's hard to focus on building up what we need to do for the wiki project. Finally give clearer instructions. Explain how long it should be, what exactly you are looking for. Keeping the groups limited to have maybe 10 people as a whole (2 groups of 5) might be easier also as it wouldn't cause confusion on who is doing what and people wouldn't have their topics stolen.

I understand that the reason this was a group project (therefore why I'm not suggesting individual work) comes from cognitive surplus. This explains that groups of people make more of a difference to an activity than what one individual could do on their own. Especially a group of of young adults who often are willing to contribute to making the internet a more helpful and friendly place.

Overall although there was a feeling of more negative aspects to this project but I can't help but feel a sense of pride now that it's over. Being able to say that I have contributed to something such as a whole wikibooks chapter so early on in my degree is amazing. It isn't a perfect project but it definitely opens your eyes a bit better to the world of Wikipedia. Thegirlwiththebluehair (discuss • contribs) 10:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Thegirlwiththebluehair (discuss • contribs) 10:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments

I really liked what you had to say about this project. I agree with you on the communication aspect and how when it was lost at certain points on the project people did not know what to do and even ended up taking over other people's sections due to the, at some points, extreme lack of communication. I also really how you have made suggestions on how to improve the project on the whole. I would definitely agree that more time should be dedicated to the project as we do have other pressing commitments and more explanation is needed but I think with the time given we have done a stellar job and have all contributed well. I can see what you mean by having smaller groups and how that can be beneficial, but I would say that by having a larger group it demonstrated collective intelligence. In saying that though there is a fine line between having the right volume of contributors and then having 'too many cooks spoiling the broth'. But I think it should be something to be played and experimented with in the future. I also like your wider thinking to cognitive surplus so having your own opinion which I agree with but then also understanding why the decision was made. But overall I really like your find reflection on the project. User : The one behind the pillar (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
Your contributions show a last minute flurry of activity with only some evidence of engagement towards the end that focuses on a relatively small pool of colleagues rather than engaging with the whole group. There's a superficial level of understanding, demonstrated through exercises which are more journalistic in style than academic. Make sure to mark where material has come from as it is hard to judge understanding without this.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a satisfactory brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a fair range of concepts associated with your subject, and an effort to deliver critical definitions. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a variable depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a somewhat circumscribed range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of limited critical engagement with set material, although most ideas and procedures insecurely grasped
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material limited, displaying a qualified familiarity with a minimally sufficient range of relevant materials
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poorly articulated and supported argument;
 * lack of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * lack of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of independent critical ability limited, due to the fact that your grasp of the analytical issues and concepts, although generally reasonable, is somewhat insecure.

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests minimally sufficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Acceptable engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Limited reflexivity and creativity, and a somewhat insecure management of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)