User talk:Whitejohntickle?

Using for uni, "Digital Media" module.

Whitejohntickle? (discuss • contribs) 10:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Whitejohntickle?: could you please let me know who you are asap so that I can finalise the spreadsheet for names, teams and essay assignments? Thanks GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The way I present myself online is essentially an exaggerated version of myself. I post mainly on the hobbies and interest that I have a passion for and that makes up 80% of what I post online. Travel, rugby and history post are all I share, and I very rarely actually compose my own Facebook posts. I keep a lot of my personal life off my online platforms due to the issues with privacy etc. Although in person I am quite a chatty individual, online I find it hard to keep chats going via messages as I try to avoid spending too much time on my Phone as I feel that it is a problem that too many people my age have.

Over time my identity has changed, I used to only really post photos that didn’t have me in them, due to low self-confidence but in the last year or so I have started to post more photos on Instagram that I am actually in. I have also started to post photos of nights out which is something I used to never want to do as I felt uncomfortable having those photos out on the internet.

Our online identities change in relation to our offline identities but not in the same way. As I start to develop more self-confidence my posts on social media will change but not necessarily making it obvious that I now have more self-confidence. As we experience more of life both on and offline we learn, adapt and evolve into different people. The person I was a year ago is very different to the person that I am now as in the last year I have had some amazing times and some hard times and have learnt many life lessons from these experiences.

Other people are key to shaping our identities, as what we see as “cool” etc will be judged by others and this can change how we express those parts of ourselves. If people laugh at my clothes that I wear I am either more likely to wear those clothes or less likely to depending on how secure I am. This applies to every part of our identity and if society isn’t too accepting of parts of us then often we with try to hide or repress them.

We are each one person, and each have one identity. When we are with different people we show different parts of that identity and therefore different people will have a different ideas of our identity. This is also true for our online identity as we will only show certain parts of it to different social media platforms.

Whitejohntickle? (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Swan, M. (2013). The Quantified Self: Fundamental Disruption in Big Data Science and Biological Discovery. Big Data, Vol.1, No.2.

In this article Melanie Swan is looking at the potential next generation of quantified self-devices and what the long term aims for this tech could be with reference to the big data scientists. Swan also covers the limitations and future potential of quantified self-activity. The article also gave an overview of the history of the quantified self in a very through way. Analysis was done by comparing data (through secondary data analysis) from people who have implemented the quantified self into their lives and compare this to data from people who haven’t. This article is useful because it gives a good and in-depth definition of the key terminology as well as exploring future issues that the quantified self will be a part of. However, the main limitations of this article is that the author Swan is affiliated with two health organisations as well as she relies solely on secondary data as there is a lack of primary data. Over all this article was effective in developing ideas that have been touched on by other articles, and it explains some complex terms in very understandable ways. I will use this article as it helped me to better understand some complex terms which I struggled with before as well as it is a well written and relevant article.

Whitejohntickle? (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikibooks is a informatic-social platform with the aim to inform people on as many topics as possible by drawing on the collective knowledge on those who have an understanding on each individual topic. Each topic is researched, discussed and debated by the writers of the book before the final draft is published for the Wikibooks is a good way to help facilitate collaborative research as it has a simple yet effective way of communicating with others. It also allows users to edit and add to others works so that multiple ideas on one topic and be converged rather than layered. This, coupled with user discussion pages, allows for users to discuss the information which is being written on and for the best bits of each person views to be easily heard and utilised. Wikibooks also fosters a community by creating access to all other wiki users easily as well as access to topics which interest the individual user. By having the discussion pages attached to the books it means its easy for user to meet and intersect and get a good idea of what is going on behind the scenes. Wiki books can be considered to be a digital common as it fits the description almost perfectly.

Mayo Fuster Morell suggests that the definition of a digital commons is “information and knowledge resources that are collectively created and owned or shared between or among a community and that tend to be non-exclusivedible, that is, be (generally freely) available to third parties. Thus, they are oriented to favour use and reuse, rather than to exchange as a commodity. Additionally, the community of people building them can intervene in the governing of their interaction processes and of their shared resources.” Wikibooks and other wiki sites appear to have these values at their centre – putting information out there for all to see and learn from and also to influence and teach others as a community. Wiki platforms give us online freedom as they allow us to find out information on any given topic. They support our interests and make it extremely easy to move from one topic to another at any time. An example of this is the “Hitler Game”, where you have to try and get to the page of Adolf Hitler in as few pages as possible starting from a randomised page. This game highlights the depth and variety that wiki platforms have as no matter what page you start on there is normally away to find Hitler’s page in 5 or less goes, and this goes for many other pages that have world changing events/people. Wiki gives us the freedom to learn and follow knowledge in what ever way we want and allows us to choose what we want to look at freely and easily.

Whitejohntickle? (discuss • contribs) 23:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Whitejohntickle?: Hello! I Think you have formulated a well versed and consistent essay here, I think you make some very good and interesting points throughout the duration of this mini-essay. The way that you have described and detailed wiki as a platform is very informative and factually correct. It shows that you have a real understanding of Wikibooks and how wiki as a platform works and how this idea of collaboration is extremely prevalent within the wiki platforms. You highlight this importance of collaboration by explaining this idea of discussion pages within wiki and how this creates interaction between the users. You very briefly mention how wiki is a digital commons, this could be explained a little more but you do very vaguely explain why. You mention Mayo Fuster Morell and very clearly link her research and findings to correlate with how wiki runs as a platform, you mention that “information and knowledge resources that are collectively created and owned or shared between or among a community and that tend to be non-exclusivedible, that is, be (generally freely) available to third parties. Thus, they are oriented to favour use and reuse, rather than to exchange as a commodity. Additionally, the community of people building them can intervene in the governing of their interaction processes and of their shared resources.” This is a very relevant piece of information to include in this essay as not only is Morell a very reliable author, but she also makes a very clear and concise statement about wiki as a whole. You interpenetrate this source every well as well, you make the conclusion that these are the values at the core of wiki and that they are valued highly by the platform and therefore you create a very clear conclusion about how you believe wiki is valued as a platform. Moving on from this, you mention how wiki is a collaborative and exciting platform by mentioning a game. I personally have never heard or played this game before, so it was very interesting to read about it and see how it links in with what wiki is as a platform. This is a very unique and different way to showcase how wiki has “variety and depth” as you mention and showcases how diverse the uses of wiki are as it shows that it is more than just an informational platform for everyone, it creates its own fun obscurities. I believe that this mini-essay is very well done and that we share some common conclusions for example we both mention how wiki is a platform for everything and all people ^[1] and I believe mentioning this is a core value of wiki and thus must be noted. I also believe you have used very good example from both academic sources and your own knowledge, the game being a very interesting addition to this question of what a Wiki is. Overall this is a clear and well calculated mini-essay and I believe you have made some very good points in terms of wiki as a platform across all wiki platforms including Wikibooks and Wikipedia.

Isabellathebull (discuss • contribs) 13:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Grade descriptors for Engagement:

Poor. Among other things, poor contributions may just offer links without real comment or apparent point. They may offer nothing more than poor-quality synopsis or description of material of dubious relevance. They may have serious clarity problems (including dead links, random graphics) which affect comprehension (or even worse, admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement). They might be off-topic, private trivia, or of unclear relevance. The wiki markup formatting will be of a poor standard.

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:

some substantialand other contribs, coming in rather late in the project period to make much difference, which is a shame

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

Excellent

Evidence of peer-review of others’ work

Poor

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages

Clear delegation of tasks

Poor

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.

Satisfactory

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Whitejohntickle?:

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, so there’s clearly room for improvement here. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might have been 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, and also get a little more precision on the deadlines. The reason I say this is that, for each of your posts, you were a touch late (a matter of minutes in Ex2 and 3 case)

Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts – particularly Ex4.

Re: responses to other people’s posts – none undertaken. This would effectively halve your mark for those posts for which peer-review was a requirement. A shame, then, because the quality of your work is rather good overall.

General:

Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – all good, bar peer-review (see above).

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, all good.

Presentation: fair use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

1. ↑ Myers, G. (2010). Genre: What is a Blog? What is a Wiki? Discourse of blogs and wikis. London: Continuum