User talk:Vw428

Wiki Exercise Portfolio

Hello all, please leave a comment by clicking on the 'comments' heading from the specific exercise and click edit. Thanks for reading!

Exercise #1: Online Visibility?


There is now less information available about me online than there was this time last year. Recently I have had a look at all my online accounts/profiles and re-assessed the privacy settings as I am now aware of how easy it is to be searched and viewed online. My Facebook profile for example, wasn’t as private as I initially thought when I reviewed the settings. Some photos were available to the public as well some information in the ‘about’ section. All or most information on my Facebook page is now only available to those who I am ‘friends’ with which I think is very important in this day and age when considering employment, as often employers will ‘look you up’ on Facebook before going in further in the recruitment process. There is an option on Facebook which allows search engines outside of Facebook to include your profile in searches, I have turned this off to further secure my identity. The platform is an excellent example of media convergence whereby not only user profiles are available to view but it is also a melting pot for all media forms, one example being news. The mass media used to have the ultimate power in what was portrayed as ‘news’, however everyone becomes involved in the ‘newsmaking’ process on social media, where all media has the potential to go viral and to be visible to a large audience.

Facebook can be described as more of a colloquial medium in the sense that I mainly use it to stay in touch with friends and not for professional purposes. To help myself to prepare for future employment, I have created a LinkedIn account which means employers are able to view a more professional profile and see information which may be more relevant such as employment history, education and skills. I think it is important in an era where everyone is a Google search away to make sure you have control over what is directly visible to the public. This difference in online identity is representative of how different platforms serve different purposes and can be described as medium specific.

Those of use who have Facebook will most likely also use the Messenger app. Having the app downloaded on my mobile device means that as soon as I get a message I am notified instantaneously. This is what Turkle describes as always-on culture where we are “tethered to the internet” (p.153) by our mobile devices which are carried with us everywhere. This strongly relates to Marshall McLuhan’s idea of technology as an extension of the human body, which now seems more relevant than ever before. In terms of visibility, the Messenger app tells users when the last time friends were active. If, however I know I am going to away from the app for a longer period of time than usual, I will declare to my friends/family that I will be offline. This idea of declaring offline time is mentioned by danah boyd where she states that she “consciously and loudly proclaim[s] offline time through the declaration of e-mail sabbaticals” (p.71) in order to let contacts know she will not be replying instantly in an age where this is expected.

I also use Snapchat to keep in contact with friends, however my visibility on the application is minimal, due to the disabling of the feature ‘Snapmaps’. This feature is generated by the data received from user’s GPS signal, and allows users to view where their friends are situated on the map. Bunz and Meikle state that users are “turned into a resource that creates data” and “extends the surveillance business model” (p.29). This reinforces the idea that it is the data produced by users online that is the source of visibility, not the information individuals upload to their accounts voluntarily.

Comments
1. This was a really interesting read and I agree with many of the points. I also went back through my Facebook in the last year or so and made sure it was as private as it could possibly be and that my information and my photos weren't as public as they previously were. I think that the connection you have made between online visibility and convergence and always on culture are very interesting and you've tied them in really well. Discussing the different social media platforms you use and what you use them for (personal or professional) is also very interesting when it comes to online visibility. I know that I use different social media platforms to reach different groups of people in my life, however I have never had a LinkedIn account but am definitely going to look into it.

Bex.frew (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

2. Hey, I really liked the way in which you incorporated your own personal experiences to the academic work we have studied, it is both engaging and informative. I found your point about potential employers using social media to evaluate people interesting, as it is something I have previously discussed with friends, most of us shared the same view that the thought of being judged by your younger self for a job in the present and future worrying. I also liked how you separated social uses and accounts from professional, although I have heard of LinkedIn I had not previously thought about using part of my online presences to gain or further employment. Overall, it is a great read. Kab00094 (discuss • contribs) 20:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

3.

This was a super interesting read! I have always had a private facebook but I can 100% relate to the feeling of realizing you're not as private online as you once thought you were and finding out there is more information out there about you than you wish for there to be.

I enjoyed reading your post very much! I hope you are finding your way through the collaborative essay ok! I cannot wait until Thursday when I can finally stop working on it and then we have no more deadlines for this course until April!

Digitalmediafiend (discuss • contribs) 12:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Exercise #2: Annotated Bibliography Exercise (ii)
Jensons, J.L., & Sørensen, A.S. (2013). Nobody has 257 Friends. NORDICOM Review, 34(1), 49-62. Accession Number: 89173923

In this article, Jensons and Sørensen test their hypothesis that Facebook friends have more of an explicit relationship than people do in “real life”. The research was carried out in Denmark between 2009-2011 and consisted of various qualitative and quantitative research methods including focus groups and profile observations. More than half of users agreed Facebook brings them closer to friends and family, and most participants agreed the notion of Facebook friendship is different than in “real life”. These findings are useful for the collaborative essay on Always-on Culture as it provides evidence both for and against the notion that online communication offers a replacement for “real life” friends. A limitation of the article is that the study focussed on the profile of users and their relationships with friends rather than the private messaging feature, which I think would have been the most interesting and relevant part to study. The authors conclude that it depends on everyone’s personal degree of closeness to their Facebook friends on whether the site can replace companionship. This article will not be the main basis of my research but will help to reinforce arguments regarding attitudes towards online interactions as replacement for face to face communication.

[Word Count: 200]

Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 10:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Reviews
1. Hi Vaila, as we are in the same group, I thought it would be worthwhile to leave a comment on your annotated bibliography. Your annotated bibliography provides a very detailed summary of the article, but still includes the relevant information only. In regards to the limitations of the text, I like how you expand on the limitations by explaining what information was missing that would’ve been useful for our collaborative essay. I think one of the limitations that you didn’t acknowledge was that the initial research was carried out from 2009-2011. I think our attitudes towards Facebook may have changed since 2011 as according to The Guardian, Facebook’s user profile is aging as young people begin to leave Facebook for other social networks while over-55s flock to the site. For this reason, the research may be somewhat out-of-date. However, another annotated bibliography which I commented on was also based on research from around the same time as yours, and it acknowledged that the findings should be consolidated with other research to confirm its relevancy in regards to our relationship with technology today. This article would be quite useful for our essay as we are looking into the illusion of companionship which social networks provide, and the study outlined in your annotated bibliography analyses how we can sometimes privilege online relationships over “real life” relationships. However, as you mentioned, a study which examines the private messaging feature would be more enlightening in demonstrating how social networks affect our relationships with others.

Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

2. Hi:) I just leave a comment because I think your annotated bibliography is really helpful. The topic 'Relationship in the Facebook' was really interesting and I want to search more information about it after I read this. :) This is because I did not think the facebook cannot help to find good friends. By allowing users to be connected easily whenever they are and wherever they came, I think people become to think to make friends more easily. Anyway, Thank you very much!! sok00011 (discuss • contribs)

3. Hey Vaila, this is similar to the article I chose for my annotated bibliography. It would be interesting to see this study be conducted again today and maybe in different countries. I think to some extent that a few of my Facebook friends are closers than 'real friends'. At the same time, I do not because now we can easily become Facebook friends with complete strangers and mutual friends. Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Exercise #3: Collaborative Research Exercise
Hi Iana thanks for your feedback on my annotated bibliography. I found the article you embedded from the Guardian really interesting and relevant, and it brought to mind the concept of disconnectivity. As I mentioned in Wiki exercise #1, I have withdrawn myself considerably from Facebook and can say for certain my parents use the platform on a much regular basis than I do, and so found this article very relatable. Although I agree with the article that other social media sites such as Snapchat and Instagram have been attracting the attention of the younger generation, I personally have attempted to disconnect or distance myself from most apps I have on my phone and know of many other friends similar in age who have done the same. Recently I read an interesting journal article [] by Portwood-Stacer which explores the topic of disconnectivity and the issues which arise from it. The author describes the term “media refusal” as an act taken by individuals who are aware of the medium at hand but refuse to partake in it. The author continues to explain how this media refusal can be (1) used to “send a message” to other users about Facebook and its use of user’s data (2) can be used as a means to stand out from the crowd and effectively seem superior to their online friends. For me, I have chosen to partake in media refusal in several social platforms mainly because I had an unhealthy relationship with some sites. Whenever I had a moment by myself I would reach for my phone and automatically be scrolling through Instagram without second thought. I find this concept very topical to our collaborative essay on always-on culture and find that it almost exactly describes what Sherry Turkle is describing in her TedTalk in that it is the relationship we have with our mobile devices that should change, not necessarily the amount we use them. What is your take on media refusal? Have you disconnected from any social media platforms or have any friends who have, and what do you think are the reasons for this media refusal? Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vaila, I find the concept of media refusal to be really interesting. I see more and more, especially within younger generations, that people are choosing to stay away from social media because of its addictive quality. For me, I've managed to stay away from Facebook and Snapchat purely because I don't particularly feel like I have a necessity for them. However, I think this means I've transferred the time I would've spent on Facebook or Instagram to Twitter. I have a similar problem that you had in that I will automatically look at Twitter if I have a spare minute. To be honest, you've probably seen me do it at one of our group meetings! It's a really bad habit but I've managed to lessen it somewhat by reading. For me, books work as a great distraction from social media, which itself is also a distraction. I have a few friends who have chosen to delete their social media accounts because it took a toll on their mental health and caused them to suffer problems like depression and anxiety. In another discussion, someone talked about this article from The Guardian, which reported that Facebook has acknowledged that it poses a mental health risk. However, they recommended using the platform even more to improve well-being. I find it quite disturbing since that will only exacerbate the health problems people suffer from as a result of social media. I completely see where Portwood-Stacer is coming from when they talk about media refusal as a means to stand out from a crowd. I think I subconsciously feel somewhat superior when I tell people I don't use Facebook, to be completely honest. Do you think that would be something you may talk about in our collaborative essay? I think it's an example of the boundaries between the online and offline world becoming more blurred. Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 19:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Iana thanks for your reply, I am disappointed and surprised after reading the article you linked of the response Facebook gave to the findings that the site increases the risk of damaging mental health. Like you have said, engaging in the site further will evidently only deepen any issues that already exist. Findings distractions to prevent myself from going on my phone sounds a bit extreme at first, but I think it is important to learn to live without the “need” of connection. Dr Jim Taylor explains in his article how the thought process of connectivity has significantly changed within this past decade. He explains how not so long ago, being disconnected was the norm, however nowadays it is unusual to be disconnected for a prolonged time period and “any break from the norm feels like a loss”. Taylor goes as far as to say we are an era of “connectivity addicts” where the connection is our drug, and without it we get withdrawal symptoms. I completely agree with this concept and really do feel like I am missing out when I cannot connect. I am writing a section on disconnectivity in our collaborative essay on always-on culture and so the sources from this discussion will come in useful.

It is a shame that the internet is immediately linked with the banal use of social media and drives so many people to disconnectivity, when something which has the capability to be so powerful isn’t used to its full potential. This is the first time I have ever used Wikibooks and would never have thought to create an account if it weren’t for this module, but after watching Clay Shirky’s talk it has really hit home the difference between the communal value and civic value contributors make to the internet. For example, communal value being the pictures and posts we see daily on social media, and civic value being collaborative projects such as our essay we are creating here in Wikibooks. Although I know I need to make more of an effort to disconnect from social media, I want to connect more to the internet to add civic value such as blog writing in order to share ideas and inspire. We watched this Making is Connecting video in week 7 of the module and I think it is a really quick but informative source which offers an explanation for the need we have to express ourselves through the internet.Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vaila, I know it's past the deadline but I thought I'd continue the discussion anyway! The thought of being "connectivity addicts" is quite scary but I do agree that that's the case in our world today. I can't remember where I heard about this (maybe a documentary or a TV news report) but there are so-called 'Internet rehab facilities' where people go to treat their Internet addiction. The Guardian published an article last year about a facility in Washington called reSTART Life which uses a kind of Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step program to treat Internet addiction. This might be going slightly off-track to what we're studying but it makes you think about how essential disconnectivity is, and how important it is to know when to draw a limit.

There is absolutely a productive component to the Internet. I have really enjoyed the collaborative aspect of this module - I'm so used to working on my own that I've never really been exposed to how useful communicating with others can be. I have used the Internet to collaborate with others on occasion: I write for a blog about film and sometimes, the other writers and I will collaborate on a piece together, and I always find those quite exciting. It also brings to mind how useful a tool Google Docs has been because you can write a document with others in real time without using the same computer, or being in the same room!

Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 18:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Reflective Account
Wikibooks is a collection of open-content textbooks where users can collaborate and share information in an online, public environment. It is a sister platform to | Wikipedia, and is a non-profit organisation hosted and funded by the | Wikimedia Foundation.

Visibility is emphasised through Wikibooks as it allows users to share knowledge/information in any topic or interest which is then published for the public to find. Additionally, users can start discussions with other users in the discussion pages of books. Visibility is emphasised in this sense, arguably due to the online disinhibition effect which Suler describes as a concept where people “express themselves” and “loosen up” more in an online environment than they would in person. The option to ‘click’ into usernames to view user pages is available, and where the user has timestamped a contribution a date and time is then marked as well as the option to view all contributions the user has ever made.

Wikibooks was useful in facilitating collaborative research to the group essay. One of the reasons being that edits can be made at any time – meaning we could update discussion pages/the book from home and see each other’s suggestions and contributions instantaneously. As well as helpful in collaboration as a group, the platform was also useful in that other users could suggest readings and articles to improve our work, and likewise we could do the same to other groups.

Online collaboration represents a digital commons because spaces such as Wiki platforms allow knowledge and information to be shared and compiled. Jenkins uses the term “collective intelligence” to describe the “[…] ability to pool knowledge and compare notes with others toward a common goal”. This applies to our collaborative essay project on Wikibooks, where we all shared the book which we were contributing to, and all shared the common goal of improving the book. This also applies to the rest of the Wiki media – where all discussion pages and books (unless locked by administrators) can be contributed to and edited in order to make improvements.

Before my group met face-to-face, we found each other on social media and made a group chat. From there we were able to plan and decide of where to meet and help each other get to grips with Wikibooks. Although this was ideal initially to organise meetings, we soon realised using social media to communicate as an alternative to Wikibooks meant that we wouldn’t gather contribs which defeated the purpose of the essay. From that point on we used the discussion page as much as we could to plan, however, this meant we wouldn’t be notified straight to our mobile devices if there was a change of plan or decided to have a meeting last-minute. The platform does however facilitate a 'reply to' function, which notifies your account when your name is replied to. Once we got into a habit of using this function we frequently checked out accounts daily to keep posted. The face-to-face meetings were helpful and motivating as they encouraged us to talk through ideas and instigate further discussion. To sum up my Wikibooks experience, I am pleased with the effort we put into our collaborative essay as a group and happy with how it turned out and will leave the module with new skills and knowledge I might have never even thought to participate in.

[Character Count: 3,343]

[Word Count: 558]

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 (although it should be noted that this is at the uppermost point of this particular grade descriptor):
 * 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 during which the project was live. There is plenty of evidence from your contribs that your engagement was sustained, meaningful and consistent throughout this part of the project period. In the round, these were very well constructed entries in terms of moving the project forward, although a little more emphasis on discussion, and a little less on draft work would have benefitted the group collaboration.

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”, along with a couple that are “significant” to the project. This is sustained, dedicated engagement with the collaborative process. 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


 * You made certain aspects of the decision-making and discussion around ideas transparent, and encouraged others to comment/respond. There’s also plenty of evidence of reading, application and discussion of ideas. Your contributions to the book pages and discussion pages clearly stand out. Good.

•	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. You have also signed where necessary, 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) 13:25, 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.


 * An excellent set of responses to the wiki exercise briefs. Critically engaged and sustained work of high quality throughout the project period. This work is at the upper end of this grade band, but even so, a little improvement will go a some way to attaining a higher mark. For example, in making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have contributed to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. You do start using this kind of formatting fairly early on, though, and the pages you have worked on in general are quite well presented and organised.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good. I like that you have framed many of your responses as questions to solicit discussion. You prompt others to think about their own use, and to make connections between the practical elements of the wiki platform, and the modules themes and concerns. This is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about, and it is great that you have attempted to bring out critical thinking in others. This is evidence that you have grasped some of the civic elements of wiki activity that you ought to be thinking about, which you clearly are. Well done!

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. Perhaps the stongest aspect of your work.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)