User talk:Stuarta11

This is where I'll update my evidence and work for my project.

I was the last of my school friends to sign up to a social media account. I had been reluctant to embrace social media as I feared strangers would be able to access information that I would prefer kept private. When I was finally convinced to make a Facebook account I made sure to make as much information on my profile as private as possible and to only keep some information available to my friends. While my Facebook account is mainly private my friends are still able to see information from my political views to the football team I support. --Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 17:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC) After getting Facebook I gradually began to use more social media and now I have accounts on Twitter, Snapchat and Instagram. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 11:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Stuarta11:

This is a little late and minimal (but I think that you know this already). Going forward, clearly, you are beginning to engage on a much more positive level, so it’s good to see you’re already improving. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@GregXenon01:

Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I believe my online identity reflects fairly on my offline identity. The main difference is that I am probably more open offline about things such as my interests and hobbies, and my political views. I would like to be more open online about my interests and views and engage in conversations and debates with likeminded people. I am reluctant to share this information as I know I would not have shared and posted when I was younger because my views and interests have changed over the years. I feel that once something is posted online you become attached to that post whether your opinions have changed or not. Social media can be a record of cringeworthy moments in your life that you would prefer not to share. I have created a new twitter account because I feel that my previous account is no longer an accurate representation of myself.

While I may not be as open to sharing information on social media, I still believe that I am true to my offline identity. I don't think I try to act differently or mislead people by adopting a different identity online. In short, my online identity is a toned-down version of my offline-self. I believe that some people can be excessive when it comes to sharing information about themselves. In response to this, I try to make sure I am not bugging people with excessive information about myself such as where I ate for dinner, what music I am listening to and what I am doing at the weekend. This is likely a result of me trying to condense the way I share my life on social media as well as only sharing the highlights of my life- perhaps in a way that may make my life appear more interesting and to cut out the mundane parts.

Scholars such as John Suler and Reinis Udris argue that online communication can minimise authority and this can lead to people behaving in a negative manner towards each other online.^[1] Particularly Udris has written about the apparent lack of repercussions or at least immediate repercussions from misbehaving online which has resulted in cyberbullying.^[2]

Although my behaviour online is different because I see my online activity as a record of my actions which have consequences. Once something is posted it's there forever and therefore online disinhibition in the sense of the minimisation of authority does not impact my behaviour in a negative manner. If anything, I think I should allow the lack of authority to speak my mind and express my views more often.

Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Stuarta11, I think that this is a great piece of writing and response to the exercise given. I completely agree with your thoughts on identity and how online is still your identity however just a lesser version. I am the same in this regard, I do post photos and comments online however it is not my full personality shown. However I wish that I were more confident to do so. To combat this, I currently have an instagram and a 'finsta' which is a funny or fake instagram. My finsta is limited to my close friends from home and at uni, here is hare unfiltered, more true to myself photos. I think that this is a good first step in being able to show my true identity online. However like you said, I think that some people take to social media accounts and bombard people with information that really no one cares about. Having said that, I think that I would rather see these boring mundane things than see horrible comments which people feel the need to post and do so because of their anonymity and invisibility online. All in all I think that this essay highlights very important and key factors to identity and it is a very easy and good read. Tessanotyourseminar (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Stuarta11: Hi @Stuart11. Your essay was so interesting to read. I agree with all the points you made regarding our online vs offline identities. Yet, personally, I do find myself being a 'better' version of myself online. It's easier to transform into whoever you want on the web. A lot of our insecurities don't follow us through digital media, we get to be whoever we want with our online persona nowadays, yet I agree with the cringe-worthy moments in our lives that I'm sure everyone wants to get rid of. Yasi.sdt (discuss • contribs) 00:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Henderson, S., Gelding, M. (2004). ‘I’ve never clicked this much with anyone in my life’: trust and hyperpersonal communication in online friendships in New Media & Society 6(4) p.487-506 Henderson and Gelding observe hyperpersonal communication and trust on computer-mediated communication. It uses 17 interviewees to explain the growth of trust online. The article looks at four sources of online trust: reputation, performance (acting in a positive way to be liked), reciprocal self-disclosure and situational factors. The article is useful for our research as it discusses benign disinhibition through looking at factors such as asynchronicity as it allows time for self-reflection and to consider our actions. It suggests that the lack of social context cues online allow us to elaborate on our thoughts and thus suggests that we are more likely to be hyperpersonal online. The article also points out the negative aspects of hyperpersonal relationships like unrealistic self-presentation and expectations. Since none of the participants were not strictly anonymous the study does not explore the impact of reputation and anonymity on computer-mediated communication. The article is useful for looking at asynchronicity and social context cues in relation to online disinhibition but fails to explore factors such anonymity. This article can be used to show how trust and hyperpersonal relationships can be formed by asynchronicity and the lack of social context cues.

Wikis are websites that encourage collaboration between contributors. Wilkinson and Huberman have described the Wikipedia as an "example of a global collective intelligence at work".^[3] Wikis are knowledge-building communities but differ to social media platforms. Although they encourage communication between users, there is very little emphasis on user profiles compare to social media. Wikipedia, by far the most well-known wiki, acts as online encyclopaedia. However, it contrasts other encyclopaedias because it depends on contributions made by users who are not necessarily scholars and experts.^[4] Through acts of reciprocity, Wikipedia creates a sense of community. ^[5] When a user helps another when contributes to a page, they may feel more inclined to return the favour which benefits overall to the aims of Wikipedia. To create a free online encyclopaedia which relies on contribution from users, those are participate in the making it work become interdependent.^[5] Kuznetsov also suggests that the reputation of wiki contributors is reason for why users are motivated to make a positive input. By making a useful contribution to the project, users will become recognised for their good work.^[5] Weltevrede and Borra suggest that the aim of Wikipedia is to act as an encyclopaedia which gains its knowledge from all types of reliable sources.^[6] Wikis are also created by people who have a passion for an interest or topic. Wikis created by fans such as the Star Wars wiki, Wookieepedia, are a space for fans to discuss their knowledge and fandom. Fans can learn more about their passions from other users and this highlights the reciprocal behaviours of wiki users.

Wikis foster a community through collaboration and encouraging new users to contribute and share their knowledge to improve a page. Wikis are not commodified, so they are not created for profit and are entirely voluntary. The work created by users is communal. In other words, it is in the public domain and can be accessed by anybody who wishes to use it as a source of knowledge. Although there are benefits to having a wide range of contributors, wikis are also open to users who “deliberately delete valid information or enter incorrect facts in Wikipedia with a variety of playful or malicious purposes”.^[7]

Wikis use talk (or discussion) pages to discuss edits to pages which can be viewed by anyone. Wikis put an emphasis on visibility to allow users to view what changes have been made and why. It is important for edits to be visible so that changes can be approved and checked to see if they uphold the regulations and policies of Wikimedia. Talk pages allow coordinated decision-making to happen on a wiki.^[8] Talk pages facilitate for collaborative research on wiki projects. When working on a page the discussion page can be used by users to plan, assign tasks and peer-assess each other’s research. More experienced users can assist new users with using the tools and language of wikis. On a talk page, users may discuss why certain changes have been made and what can be added a wiki entry. The talk page is where the process of creating a section of a wiki page begins before it is published. It is the place where users can bring together their different backgrounds and expertise which is central to any wiki project.

Overall wikis are communities which rely on the voluntary contributions made by its users. By sharing a common goal of creating pages which inform and educate, contributors must bring their collective expertise together and work as an effective team. Talk pages are essential place for wiki users to discuss how a page will be formed and edited.

Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Stuart11: Hi there @Stuart11 I think that this is a very well refined and interesting take on the ‘What are wikis’ exercise. Your initial sentence describes what a wiki is and is very much what I believe it to be too. It is a large hub where contributors and the public can go to gain an insight into a certain topic of work or engage with this platform to make one. I think it is very interesting that you highlight that the use of the profile is comparatively low compared to that of social media and I think this is due to the fact that Wikipedia and Wikibooks is more focused on the actual content rather than learning about who it was that contributed the information. This is however a way that Wikibooks could encourage more engagement, with its contributors and users.

You mention ‘Wars wiki’ and ‘Wookieepedia’, where fans can discuss their Star Wars knowledge. I had no idea that this existed within Wikibooks and I think that this is amazing! It shows that not only are Wikibooks useful as a tool for teaching which ‘provides a collaborative and constructive learning environment’. ^[9] but also great for people to use in their spare time and to find like-minded people online to discuss their favourite films etc.

Your point about users who purposefully delete information for their own enjoyment is one which I failed to mention in my Wikibooks exercise but think that it is a very valuable piece of information to note, as it shows that although Wikibooks are great, like most things, there can be a down side.

Finally, you discuss the Wiki talk pages, highlighting how these pages are visible and how this is necessary in order for people to see what has been updated/changed and to see how other users are getting along. With my own experience of the Wiki talk pages I think that these were a crucial element in order to creating the group essay. However I also found them particularly overwhelming, due to the abundance of comments and questions posted on it daily. I would be interesting in seeing how you found the talk pages also as I think they have had mixed reviews from students partaking in the same wiki project.

Overall I think this is a well thought out piece and it shows that you clearly have a large sum of knowledge on Wikibooks and their purpose. This shows that the Wikibooks collaborative essay exercise has clearly had the desired effect on you, like many of the students, including myself.

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:

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.

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:

substantial

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

Good

Evidence of peer-review of others’ work

Good

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages

Clear delegation of tasks

Satisfactory

Clearly labelled sections and subsections

Good

Contributions are all signed

Good

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.

Excellent

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Stuarta11:

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 at the lower end of this grade band, and it would have been marked as excellent easily had you fully attended to the final wiki exercise (your peer-review omment on another student’s work seems to be missing). A little improvement especially in terms of detail would have made all the difference 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 especially in regards to this this, perhaps, the assessment brief) in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets.

You could have made more use of the wiki functionality and markup, which would have would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts.

Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good where you have completed this part of the specific tasks.

General:

Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials -yes; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material - yes

Argument and analysis: well-articulated and well-supported argument - yes; evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position) - yes; evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections) - yes; evidence of independent critical ability - yes

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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

1. ↑ Suler, John (2004). The Online Disinhibition Effect in Cyberpsychology & behaviour, 7(3), p.321-326 Online Disinhibition Effect
2. ↑ Udris, Reinis (2014). Cyberbullying among high school students in Japan: Development and validation of the Online Disinhibition Scale in Computers in Human Behavior, 41(0), p.253-261 Cyberbullying among high school students in Japan
3. ↑ Wilkinson, D., Huberman, B.A., (2007) the value of coooperation in Wikipedia
4. ↑ Myers, G. (2010). Discourse of blogs and wikis, London: Continuum. Discourse of blogs and wikis
5. ↑ ^{a b c} Kuznetsov, S. (2006). Motivations of contributors to Wikipedia in ACM SIGCAS computers and society, 36(2) Motivations
6. ↑ Weltevrede, E., Brora, E. (2016) "Platform affordances and data practices: The value of dispute on Wikipedia in Big Data & Society". 3(1), 1-16 Dispute on Wikipedia
7. ↑ Ballatore, A. (2014). Defacing the map: Cartographic vandalism in the digital commons in The Cartographic Journal 51(3), 214-224. Catrographic vandalism in the digital commons
8. ↑ Viegas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., Kriss, J., & Van Ham, F. (2007). Talk before you type: Coordination in Wikipedia. In 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Talk before you type
9. ↑ Kidd, J., O'Shea, P., Baker, P., Kaufman, J., & Allen, D. (2008, March). Student-authored Wikibooks: Textbooks of the Future?. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2644-2647). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).