User talk:Tessanotyourseminar

I will be using this to register contributions to a class project. Tessanotyourseminar (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

'Wiki Exercise #1: Online Visibility and Footprint'

In this day and age, technology is constantly changing and becoming more advanced. With this, social media is becoming more and more prevalent. People are now able to be online whenever, and wherever they want. The most used social media’s (by the amount of active users) include Facebook, Youtube and Instagram. These online platforms allow people to express their views, feelings, post photos, videos and thoughts to either their friends, or to all of the general public.

Social media accounts can share all kinds of information and can make you and your life extremely visible online, dependant on whether you choose to share it with the world or just with your friends and followers. My online visibility is limited to just my followers (who I know and am friends with). The social media I use include, twitter, instagram, snapchat and facebook.

On most of my social media I have a privacy setting on which means that my content is shared only with those who I let follow me. This means that most anyone who searches me or comes across a profile of mine will only be able to see just a small photo of me rather than all of the photos and information I upload. I predominately use these social media accounts for uploading and sharing photos with my friends. This allows them to see what I am up to whenever I am away from them. This is extremely useful especially with family who are far away in the city or in different countries. I have chosen to put a privacy setting on as I don’t want strangers being able to see my whereabouts and movements and personal content of mine.

However, although I have a privacy setting on, this doesn’t stop my data; such as likes, dislikes being shared with third parties and advertising companies, meaning that I get targeted ads. The terms and conditions official media are extensive and so unless you properly read them, not many people know exactly what happens with their data.

I think that social media is amazing for connecting with people and sharing content with friends and family, and the rest of the world. However, too much online visibility can become unnecessary and even scary when people you don’t know, know so much about you.

Tessanotyourseminar (discuss • contribs) 11:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply from BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 22:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC) I think you raise some really interesting points in your writing here. I too make a lot of my accounts private as I don't want strangers being able to access my information. However, even though I take these measures to try and stop my privacy being hacked, I feel it simply isn't possible anymore in the digital age. Even if I refrained from using social media completely, there is nothing to say that someone else I know won't post something about me. A lot of the time, things are posted on other people's profiles, on our behalf, without our consent. It is not deemed as necessary anymore to ask someone's permission. Of course, this is not true it all cases, however with the rise in social media usage it seems to become more and more common. Not only that, but when we delete a post or an image, what is to say that someone else doesn't have access to a copy of it elsewhere? The ability to screenshot content we see on our phones means that things can never be completely removed from the internet. What we post has an immortal power over us and this is a very scary thought. This lack of privacy can also be seen in the point you raise about third parties targeting you with things like ads every time we click on something. We are, it seems, oblivious to just how visible - and to some extent vulnerable - we are allowing ourselves to become in this online community. It is the new norm, and we don't really think anything of it until a project like this comes about which again is a scary thought! So I definitely agree with you when you say that too much is dangerous. It is of course, as you said, good for staying connected. But the more connected we are, it seems the less control we have over our privacy.

BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 22:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise #1

@Tessanotyourseminar:

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:

Good. Among other things, good entries 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 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. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.

This work is at the upper end of this grade band, so a little improvement will go a long way to attaining a higher mark. 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. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to this particular post, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long 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 considerable difference.

Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are good. I like that you have 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). Keep this up!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

'Wiki Exercise #2: Identity'

Social media is undoubtably a huge part in many peoples life in this day and age. Snapchat, Instagram and Facebook are only a few of the sites which are used by millions. With the growth in technology over the years, these social media sites have become easier to access and to use, sharing photos and updating our ‘pages’. With this, we are bombarded with seeing images of peoples ‘perfect’ lives, their ‘perfect’ holidays and their ‘perfect’ families. The reality however, I believe is different.

Facebook shown on an iPhone, showing the easy access to social media

I am an avid user of facebook and instagram and love to share photos of friends, family, events I have been at and holidays I have been on. The way I present my-self to my friends or ‘followers’ is very much an ideal. It is a snapshot into my everyday life and does not show the half of the reality. Yes, I do enjoy the moments where these photos have been taken however their is so much behind these photos. An image I post will be one of hundreds that I have taken, all just slightly different but allowing me to find the ‘perfect’ angle and the ‘perfect’ photo. Once this has been achieved, a caption will have to be thought of trying to seem natural however this too will have taken a long time to think of. I will only post an image once I am sure it is perfect and think that everyone else will enjoy seeing it. In reality, the crippling fear of not being good enough or not gaining enough likes to satisfy me will play on my mind as soon as the photo is on social media.

A coffee shown with multiple different filters

I have an instagram account and a ‘fintsa’ which is a fake, or funny instagram. Here I show my true silly personality to my closest friends and allow them to see the embarrassing or funny moments in my life which are unfiltered. This is a huge contrast to my normal instagram which is filled with a limited amount of thought out and filtered photos. Identity comes to mind when we think about this and whether we are showing our true identity. The definition of identity is ‘The fact of being who or what a person or thing is.’ “Identity is not what you are, but rather is something you do.” I believe that I show my true identity on my ‘Finsta’ but not on my real instagram. So what does that mean? Do I have two identities or is one just a small section of my Identity?

I think that only choosing to show a select amount of images or parts of your life is not being secretive but is just showing part of your identity, however some people use social media in the opposite way to this, sharing thoughts and views they would simply never say or discuss in real life. Online disihinibition is where people don't feel restraint when commenting or posting on social media. It is where “People tend to do and say things that they would not ordinarily say or do in the face-to-face world” (Suler, 2016, pp 96). This is where social media can be disruptive, horrible and hurtful. This is where peoples true identities come to form however they can be hidden behind the screen and with anonymous pages or profiles. I think that not choosing to post certain images etc is much better than posting hurtful comments or saying things that you would not do in the 'real world'.

I think that over time we have been told by social media and by celebrities that we need to show only are best self, only our best photos and moments without letting people see the real us and our true identities. We are constantly shown images of skinny toned models and celebrities, and it begs the question as to whether we are seeing their true identities or whether it is a facade.

@Tessanotyourseminar: Hi, I think you brought up a lot of important and interesting questions and concerns about identity. I agree that Instagram seems to be the place where capturing perfection is expected – probably because, as you said, this is what appears to be expected of us from our exposure to celebrities on the platform the majority of the time. It caught my attention that you outlined that posting on your Instagram produces ‘crippling fear’, because I think many people share this feeling when sharing images of themselves on these platforms. It is intriguing that this appears to be the opposite of what online disinhibition represents, Suler commenting that cyberspace allows people to “loosen up, feel less restrained, and express themselves more openly” , yet, Instagram is actually causing more restraint and tension than offline, as instead of feeling free, it actually increases anxiety and more control over what is being posted. Whereas, your ‘finsta’ is where you explore online disinhibition effects of being able to show what you feel is your authentic self. With aspects of ‘true identity’ I think that the collection of identities you share with others are ‘all part of you’, as Grant Bollmer suggests, which is an interesting contrast to what you suggest with your identities authenticity. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 22:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tessanotyourseminar: Hello! I really agree with what you've stated here, i really like and agree with the points you made about the process you go through when posting photos on your Instagram compared to your finsta. I have also had experience with this and understand how this can effect identity online and this feeling of fear due to what will happen after i have posted the photo and wondering what people are thinking etc. I also think that this Finsta trend at the moment is actually beneficial for our online identity and our own mind, its a way of slowly starting to become our true selves online. Being able to open up to a few people we know and like online is very comforting and i think fintsa's is a positive way of doing this without the face-to-face discomfort i feel when talking about this that make me uncomfortable. All in all this is a very consise essay and you bring up many good points! Isabellathebull (discuss • contribs) 19:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Tessanotyourseminar: I think you've taken an interesting angle to look at our identities on social media. Instagram is especially interesting because it is a visually-based app which puts emphasise on appearance. Therefore, there is an added pressure for us to present ourselves in a particular way. I agree that Instagram only provides a snapshot of our lives and doesn't go as far as to present complete record of our lives. Instead, it is a collection of photos that shows the highlights of our lives. As you mentioned, having a second account for selected people to follow allows us to select who sees another side of us. Like you said about your main Instagram account, there is a pressure to get a certain amount of likes and to seem interesting to others. With an account which is only for a select few there is less of a worry about these factors when posting. I think your essay takes an interesting on how we present ourselves "publicly" and "privately" online. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 12:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

'Wiki Exercise #3: Annotated bibliography Exercise (Part B)'

Barak, A., Boniel-Nissim, M., & Suler, J. (2008). ‘Fostering empowerment in online support groups’. Computers In Human Behavior, 24(5), 1867-1883.

NAMI logo, an online awareness website with a discussion support group forum

• In this article Barak, Boniel-Nissim & Suler look at the effectiveness of online support groups and how online disinhibition affects this. They carry out a qualitative experimental investigation in order to deduct the effectiveness of these online support groups, along with looking at quantitative data from other sources. The experiment had participants engaging with an online support group (that suited their personal needs) on ‘eQuest’; a psycho-educational programme. Once engaged, participants noted their pros and cons with the online support groups. The research primarily focuses on the personal empowerment found from online disinhibition effects noticed within online support groups. The article is useful to my research topic as it explains the pros and cons of online disinhibition, in particular to my topic, invisibility online. The main limitation of the article is the lack of actual statistics in quantitate research. However within the article it is made clear the difficulty of finding out these types of information. The article will definitely be included in my research on invisibility in online disinhibition however will not form the basis of it.

Tessanotyourseminar (discuss • contribs) 10:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

'Wiki Exercise #4:Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation – What ARE Wikis?'

Wikipedia bouncing logo

Wikibooks is an online platform which allows the general public and volunteers to come together to form an online community. It can be seen as a sort of online textbook, differing from your usual textbook as it is available to access for free by whoever, wherever ‘The project is working towards completion of textbooks on numerous subjects’. They are used for the collaboration of ideas, thoughts and reflections which can be written by anyone interested. They ‘express a high point in the attention to the connection between community and content.’ Wikibooks are great for expressing your opinions and sharing knowledge, creating an abundance of information all in one nifty site.

Wikibooks can be seen by anyone who access the site, meaning the visibility is extremely noticeable. Each contribution by a volunteer or participant is noted and tracked within the site, allowing for the viewing of a single persons contribution throughout their time editing pages on the site. This means that their work is incredibility visible, allowing anyone to see exactly the edits and contributions they have made to a page or several pages. This is just one of the reasons that ‘The use of the wiki as a teaching tool provides a collaborative and constructive learning environment’. As it allows us to monitor each others work and provide constructive criticism or feedback on this, directly after where they have contributed. However, each person who joins Wikibooks creates a username and their user page but it is not unusual to have the username as the only defining factor of a user page. This means being able to know who specifically wrote a certain piece of information can be difficult to pin point.

Wikibooks logo

From my own experience with Wikibooks I can agree that it is an excellent platform for the collaborations of many partners to contribute to a larger group discussion. Collaborating with the other members of my group was an extremely necessary part of our assignment in order to achieve the best possible outcome for our essay we were tasked with. This was made easier by use of tagging peoples names and time stamping your own contributions. We were able to track each other contributions and reply within seconds to each others comments. There is also the ability to add photos which means that ‘Articles and other sources could move seamlessly in and out of video as well as virtual worlds and visual databases.’ This allows for a more visually pleasing page rather than a mundane article or page. However, although Wikibooks is clearly a useful tool, like most platforms it does have its downfalls. In this case I believe the downfall was the talk/discussion pages. It is incredibly difficult to manage and to keep track of all of the edits and changes made by many people on the one page all at once. In my case, I found it difficult to interact everyday due to my busy schedule. This meant that if I missed one day then I was already extremely far behind, which meant it was very difficult to engage with the ongoing discussions.

@Tessanotyourseminar: I agree with your definition of Wikibooks as an online community. The free access of the Wikibooks, that you mentioned, along with the use of the platform as a teaching tool, are some of the examples that I also see as the platform’s best features. Ravid et al made a suggestion in their work, that these aspects of the platform actually empower the Wiki users in their contribution to the platform. I think this is a theory that is true, as in my experience, knowing that others relied on my feedback of their work, and that my responses to what they had written was wanted, created a sense of feeling valued. Additionally, the fact that the platform allows anyone, anywhere, to access information for free also made the contributing process seem more worthwhile - knowing that the information could potentially inform someone else. The idea of all of this linking to Clay Shirky’s notion of 'Cognitive Surplus'”, in that we’re creating a public good, without asking for anything in return.

You make an interesting point about how visibility is extremely noticeable, but also mention that it may not always be possible to know who is actually contributing to the work. I think this is an idea that perhaps connects a lot with many platforms currently online. However, with Wikibooks I did notice the surveillance aspect a lot more, as it is made very clear with the platform that anyone can see exactly what you contribute and when, which I think alters the behaviour within the platform. For example, I saw a lot more civility in discussions, than I have anywhere else in online communications. The conversations also seemed formal, probably because of the visibility levels you mention. In regards to not knowing who the contributor is all the time, I personally don’t think anonymity in this context is that worrisome, as inappropriate behaviour, that sometimes comes with anonymity of online disinhibition, cannot be performed on this platform because of how heavily it is monitored by other users, admin and robots.

I have to disagree about the talk/discussion pages as being a downfall. Personally, I don’t believe the essay could have been half as successful without them, as the resource of the page itself offers a space for planning, but also for sharing the research we individually learned with the entire group. That being said, the page was difficult to follow, and looking at it as a finished whole for the essay, it is overwhelming, and I can understand why you feel this way about it. I think that this was down to how the organisation of the page was, as if we had worked to make it more manageable with date headings for discussions etc. it would have made the discussion page easier to follow, and perhaps made the contributions from other members also easier to engage with. It is definitely an aspect that I would consider a top priority to address if ever contributing to the Wikis again, especially as it seems that it was an aspect that perhaps tainted your experience of the platform. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 23:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

References

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:

Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory contributions 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) and will have little justification for ideas offered on Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will need some work.

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:

mainly smaller contribs, with a handful of slightly larger ones – a little inconsistent through the project period however

Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages

Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration

Satisfactory

Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay

Satisfactory

Evidence of peer-review of others’ work

Satisfactory

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages

Clear delegation of tasks

Satisfactory

Clearly labelled sections and subsections

Good

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.

Good

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio

@Tessanotyourseminar:

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:

Good. Among other things, good entries 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 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. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.

This work is generally of good quality, although it is at the lower end of this particular grade band, so there’s some 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.

Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone some way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts, although there are clear oindicators that you had some familiarity with wiki markup skills. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, this would make a difference.

Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, if a little brief. 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- all good.

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 fairly good.

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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)