User talk:Web9999

This is an account for my university assignment 2019 Web9999 (discuss • contribs) 17:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome. Do you need help with editing? --Wargo (discuss • contribs) 15:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Wargo, I am trying to read the guides online, I believe I will be fine, thanks anyway • Web9999 (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 2: To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
I have started to use the internet since I was 10, playing online games and that’s all of what I am doing with the internet. Until I get in touch with Facebook which is shared by my classmate and we created an account in computer class. I was told by my friends that Facebook is something trendy and cool, most of my friends updates their status every day, and with all the peer pressure, I did the same things, posting daily thoughts and uploading photos, and in those time I think that I still appears to be the real me on the social media, as everything I posted is just daily life. Before the coming of collage, I started to care about my own image ,and of course my image on social media, I no longer upload photos that seems to be raw, but some images that I look pretty and cool to gain more followers and “friends” on Facebook or Instagram.

Instagram is a social media platform where people share image or video, allows personal account has a choice of sharing public or keeping it private. People will then follow each other’s account to see his/her profile. There is always some user posting some beautify photos of themselves in order to gain more followers, I believe this action is done to earn more recognition from people. However, there are people who love to meet friends on Instagram by sending message, as Suler (2015)said “Some people see the computer as human while viewing other people online as something less than human, resulting in a disinhibition of sexual and aggressive drives.”, people are using online anonymity to present themselves as a better people with better appearance and image is like cheating on internet and telling lies to everyone. There are also companies looked into Instagram profile to find Key opinion leader promoting their products, meaning that with the false image of an individual from Instagram may cause harm to the other users (the company may have bad image just because they found a instagram KOL having poor image in real life).

I believe that in a society where most of the people looked into social media account to determine a person, for example in my country, there are news report talking about companies look into job interviewers facebook account before giving them job offer,this leads to a common culture that people beautify themselves on the internet, just as Papacharissi(2010) saying, “People are able to post only that information which presents a desired image. While people are purportedly presenting themselves, they are presenting a highly selective version of themselves”. Therefore, I think that most of the people have multiple image. For me, I think it is alright to show the world a better side of ourselves, as long as we do not fake a new persona that we ain’t to be is fine. Web9999 (discuss • contribs) 23:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Oliver! I really like your writing and the resources you used are very interesting to read. I started using social media since a very young age too and at that time what was trending was a real thing. I used to post what everybody posted, or shared what everyone thought it was funny or relevant. Although I don’t do that anymore, social media has made our generation two-faced. It has definitely benefits and pros, however, it also has the ability in creating a culture of self-comparison that in some senses are based on false perceptions. It is too easy to make our life look one way on social media and fall into the trap of portraying. It is a very powerful force and can be used for good being true to ourselves, because not one of us have a perfect life, and these platforms should be a place where we can express and share with family and friends anything we want without the fear of judgement. Emiliarosselli (discuss • contribs) 18:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Annotated Bibliography Exercise (Part B)
'Amanda C. Kooser (2007, February 1).What Can Web 2.0 Do for Your Business?''. Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/173496'''

In this online magazine, Kooser explained what is Web 2.0 and how is has gone into success. She talks about different web tool and computing platform helps the business model for the entrepreneur. Even though this article isn’t a very long text, it still gave some example telling us how the company works with the web 2.0 and help pushing the business model. This article is useful for our research as the business model of Web 2.0 also relates to the participatory culture that we are working on, as Kooser gave an example that how the web is getting interactive for example, Social networking can be used to communicate with customers, gather feedback, allow users to help each other and get input into new product developments, this also shows the role of Web 2.0. The limitation of this text is that it only provides a small parts of impact of Web 2.0, and so further research will be required.To summarise, this article provides a strong starting point for research into the impact of Web 2.0 on business model, but further research will certainly be required before any conclusions are drawn.

Wiki Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation – What ARE Wikis?
Wikibooks is just like an online textbook, but the major differnet from wikibooks and textbook, is that the former one is free and have thousands and thousands of authors contribute to it. And as the texts are mainly for an educational purpose, authors have to back up their text by sources and citations. Any author of Wikibooks can create their own books or edit the content of other books. However, Wikibooks also has some drawbacks which is its open feature, as people can simply register online, so any registered user can change any content that exists. This also means that any content may be destroyed by malicious people, or it may be spoiled by people who are kind, but scribble.



The above helps us get to the second point that how do wikibooks emphasis visibility, as we know that workbooks have the fuction of letting us check a user’s contributions implies that everyone can monitored each other’s engagement, which also shows the visibility of the operation of wikibooks is actually high, as from the contribution page of a user we can read all the history of his/her editing to check whether the information provided by the user is reliable or not. However, there is still a barrier that someone would use false information to create anonymous username.

From my experience, I found out that the platform with separate section for discussion and collaboration really useful, unlike the other school project we usually do, meeting groupmates and have meetings to think and split the work, we have got everything done by just communicating on the discussion page. To be honest, I don’t even know or meet all the groupmate that we are working together, I believe that’s the amazing part that how Wikibooks works, as it fosters a community by gathering authors from around the world joining in as the editors, and that the plan will eventually contain thousands of books or references.However,as Ayers,Matthews and Ben mentioned, A large, diverse, and thriving group of volunteers produces encyclopedia articles and administers Wikipedia. Over time, members of the Wikipedia community have developed conventions for interacting with each other, processes for managing content, and policies for minimizing disruptions and maximizing useful work. As this is the first time for us to work on a collaboration, so we might not be familiar with the progress and communication, with more practice of the editing, I believe we could also contribute to the database.

Online collaboration represents a digital common as the traditional academic publishing process is very slow. It takes a lot of time to publish things through a bunch of censorship programs. As the concept of Workbooks becomes more and more popular, we will see a lot of knowledge that has already appeared on the Internet and start to gather on this platform.

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:
 * Very Poor. Often, contributions of this standard are quite brief, are structured poorly and are not spell-checked. They are often irrelevant, and offer little engagement with the concerns of the module or the assignment brief. Contributions of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be of a very poor standard and as a result it will be difficult for the reader or fellow collaborators to engage with the discussion.

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:
 * The two substantial contribs saved you here. Otherwise, very little evidence of engaging in discussion or with the process.

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

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

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) 16:01, 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:


 * 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.


 * This work is at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s clearly room for improvement here. 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. Also, closer attention to the details in the assessment briefs is essential – there seem to be some peer-review elements missing (required for Ex4) and there is a habit of submitting late at various points. In addition, the article for Ex3 is not a peer-reviewed piece.


 * 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.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these a little brief, but ok. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work.

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


 * 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 needs improvement, and also work needed on articulating your argument effectively.


 * Presentation: fair use of wiki markup and organisational skills, but lots of room for improvement.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)