User talk:Antisocialblonde

This is Felicia speaking. Felicia is my name. I am Felicia. This page is for a class project. Antisocialblonde (discuss • contribs) 17:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

WIKI EXERCISE #2: To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?

One’s self identity is not a stagnant concept because people are constantly changing. There also appears to be a difference in how one’s identity is constructed according to the resources available as well as how men and women are treated differently as a result of to societal standards. This essay will seek to compare and contrast how men and women create their online identities and whether these identities are representative of a person’s true authentic self.

The construction of online identity is a different process for everyone. However, for women the resources available to create an online identity can sometimes be restrictive as a result of social norms. Findings have shown that images produced by women are either consistent with western beauty ideals or they considered acclaims of resistance and rebellion (Mitchell, p. 247). These findings are not shocking considering that western beauty standards appear to prevail in most aspects of the everyday, and not just in the west itself but throughout the world. Therefore it could be argued that women’s formation of online identity is limited as their self expression is restricted. From personal experience I can confirm that western beauty standards has played a role in how I have presented myself online in both the past and the present but that does not necessarily mean that my online self is any less authentic than my offline persona. In fact, it could also be argued that one’s online identity is the most authentic one as this self does not necessarily need to reveal superficial information that could cause others to misjudge one’s character. That makes online interactions ‘purer’ because money and power are not involved (Miller et. al, p. 108). I find this explanation more plausible, at least from my own experience. I think the way I interact with interact with people online, the language I use especially, is more true to how I would speak to a friend. In real life I am much more formal.

Although western ideals arguably play a role in male identity, especially in relation to standards of masculinity, it is not as prominent online. In a study conducted on members of BlueSky, an online interactive text-based forum, the results revealed that participants felt that the way they presented themselves online sometimes diverged from typical hegemonic masculinity standards (Kendall, p. 271). I am not a male and I cannot speak on behalf of the male community but I have noted that men that present themselves in a way that is nontraditional to typical standards of masculinity appear to be more celebrated online than offline. This is for example especially prevalent in the male beauty community online. Therefore I believe that online communities may give men a chance to get in touch with their ‘true’ selves without the fear of being judged.

In conclusion it is difficult to say which self identity is the most authentic between the online and offline self but it may be the case that the online self is less restricted than the offline one. Antisocialblonde (discuss • contribs) 23:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

References

Miller, D., Costa, E., Haynes, N., McDonald, T., Nicolescu, R., Sinanan, J., . . . Wang, X. (2016). Online and offline relationships. In How the World Changed Social Media (pp. 100-113). London: UCL Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1g69z35.14

Morrison, C. (2016). Creating and Regulating Identity in Online Spaces: Girlhood, Social Networking, and Avatars. In Mitchell C. & Rentschler C. (Eds.), Girlhood and the Politics of Place (pp. 244-258). NEW YORK; OXFORD: Berghahn Books. doi:10.2307/j.ctt14jxn16.19

Kendall, L. (2000). "Oh No! I'm a Nerd!": Hegemonic Masculinity on an Online Forum. Gender and Society, 14(2), 256-274. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/190274 Antisocialblonde (discuss • contribs) 23:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I like your take on how the male and female online experience may differ on notions of superficiality. Especially in regards to beauty standards, as this is not something I myself fully reflect on. Your point on how the male beauty standards that diverge from the norms are more usually celebrated online, as they would not be in real life, I find very interesting. Because even though they themselves are not behaving as they would offline, in fear of derogatory or prejudice remarks, they can freely express themselves online. And I think this very much proves your point in how online identities are not less authentic just because they exist within the vacuum of the internet. Nice work pal! Bangingbese (discuss • contribs) 21:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Antisocialblonde: Nice piece here. I think you make a strong point of online identity and its role with who we are online. There are tons and tons of youtubers these days that make choices on how they want to represent themself to the public. I do think they are genuine with how they act online versus realife. I agree with you that the typical beauty standards in realife are more diverse online for how easy it is for people to express themselves online with pictures and videos for a large audience. Social media in a way has brought in a positive for these people to express one another online. I feel we are going to see more and more of this in the future where more people are coming to be themselves and who they are online. Nice Job! MrMojoDZ (discuss • contribs) 13:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Mr.MojoDZReply

Morrison, C. (2016). Creating and Regulating Identity in Online Spaces: Girlhood, Social Networking, and Avatars. In Mitchell C. & Rentschler C. (Eds.), Girlhood and the Politics of Place (pp. 244-258). NEW YORK; OXFORD: Berghahn Books. doi:10.2307/j.ctt14jxn16.19

In this chapter Morrison explores girlhood identity in relation to social networking. The author uses data gained through overt observation of ten girls from different parts of Canada recruited through Facebook to try to get a broader understanding of the politics of identity representation. Morrison make use of previous academics’ findings on how social relationships emerge as a result of collaborative engagement with popular culture, as well as the negation of notions of belonging, desire and fantasy in order to explore these concepts within the framework of how girls construct their self-image online. The focus of the text is to try to identify how socially constructed and commercially influenced the construction of girlhood is. This chapter is useful because it contextualises impression management in a real online setting. The main limitation of the text is that the research Morrison conducted was done on a small sample of participants which means that it is difficult to generalise the findings of the study. Morrison concludes that versions of girlhood are contrived, not only online, but offline as well as a result of pressures on girls related to representations weighted in the domain of emphasised femininity. This text is useful for my research because it has enriched my understanding of what factors are involved in the creation of girls’ online identities. Antisocialblonde (discuss • contribs) 00:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikis are the product of collaborative efforts to provide information to people that is easy and free to access. Anyone can sign up to Wikibooks and edit or create new pages, it is quick and easy and the site provide tutorials on how to effectively use the site. This essay will explore how Wikis can successfully provide information to a globalised society.

Wikis can be created by anyone anywhere, it is easy, some would even argue that it is too easy ^[1] . Students are told from a young age that Wikis are not an acceptable source to obtain information from, but is that actually the case? The way Wikis work allows for information from different sources to be transformed into one piece of text which makes it easier for people to get an overview of a topic while also receiving multiple perspectives on it. Because anyone can contribute to Wikis it also allows for new information to be added at any time which ensures that the information on the page is always up to date. Not only can information be added but because Wikis are edited, information which is not relevant anymore can be deleted which ensures accuracy regardless of when the information has been accessed.

When people say that Wikis are not a credible source they refer to how easy they are to edit. However, by considering the argument from this standpoint, it fails to mention what measurements are taken to ensure that Wikis are factually accurate. “The power of collaborative technologies depends on their users’ contributions” ^[2] , and Wikibooks provide pages on their site for collaborators to discuss the information published. This ensures that the information in Wikis is not just published by chance, there are actually discussions behind it. Wikibooks are also frequently checked for accuracy and if any edits have been made that seem suspicious the edits are deleted and accounts that have made the edits can even be suspended. Since Wikibooks is under the Wikimedia foundation which is a nonprofit, it means that there is no capitalisation of information put on Wikipedia which ensures that there is no agenda behind what information that is allowed on the site. Although it is true that people with ulterior motives could technically edit information on Wikis for their own agenda it is also just as likely that this information will be edited out since Wikis are a collaborative effort.

In conclusion, Wikis are accessible because the information stored is free to read. Because Wikis can be edited by anyone some argue that the source is not credible. However, taking this argument into consideration it appears that it is because Wikis can be edited by anyone at any time that makes the source as accurate as it can be regardless of when a Wiki is accessed. From my own experience with using Wikibooks for this class I have had firsthand experience in the process of editing Wikis. Through this experience I can confidently state that Wikis are not put together in a whim, everything put in or edited out in a Wiki has a purpose and if it does not someone will point it out and correct it. Antisocialblonde (discuss • contribs) 22:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you would like to add a comment you can do it here.

Yo! I think this viewpoint is very interesting! I like what you said about how Wikipedia's are usually off limits to students, and how you try to give some opposing thought to that common belief. Very rad! Is it not interesting how much we rely on wikipedia's for simple knowledge queries? You know kinda like how when you're scrolling through twitter and you see someone say that Narnia overhyped turkish delight's because they are just disgusting jelly covered in cheap chocolate, and you're bamboozled because you grew up in a middle eastern household and turkish delights (or as I grew up calling it, lokum) have nothing to do with chocolate. So you're confused right, and you got no idea what this random tweet is even talking about so you do a quick wiki search and you find out that the UK has bastardised lokum, and made a weird Cadbury's version of what is usually a sweet sweet delicacy. Now this is just a very banal and simple example but it made me think of how much of the general population relies on the information that is uploaded on wikis and how that isn't questioned because the system behind wikis, not only ensures that the information isn't unreliable as there are sources for most of the information on wikis, but that anyone who may edit wrong information onto a wiki will face consequences for it. And I think this is a very important point you mentioned, because why is it wrong for students to source wikis when they aren't as unreliable as teachers may claim? I thought this was a good and interesting angle to tackle this essay with!

As for how you talked about how wikis are non-profit so therefore there isn’t really an agenda behind the information that is uploaded on them, I thought was quite thought provoking. Does no profit automatically mean no one has an agenda? What does that say about the society that we live in, as I believe this is a reflection of the culture of achieving and attaining maximum capitalisation that we live in today. And is it not so interesting to think about how such an online community like wikis reflect the real life world? Idk man I just think this is quite a dope essay, your structure is easy to follow and all your points make sense and are very coherent. I like how you include your own experience in using wikis I think that’s very cool and gives a certain perspective that kinda solidifies your points about how wiki as a collaborative project is what makes it so credible and why peoples should perhaps reject the idea that the information put on wikis ain’t reliable. Nice work dude! Bangingbese (discuss • contribs) 22:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

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:

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:

the engagement in evidence here is quite inconsistent, mainly concentrated in the final day or two of the project period. This meant that you weren’t left in a position to build significant or substantial contributions over time, although there is one substantial one. That said, there are a couple of good additions to discussion in here, and there is some evidence that you have made some effort to engage overall.

Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages

Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration

Poor

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

Satisfactory

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) 15:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Antisocialblonde:

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 well written, critical, and very well informed. It lies at the upper end of this particular grade band, but even so perhaps a little improvement would go some way to attaining a higher mark – something that is clearly achievable for you. 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. 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 are especially good. I like that you have framed some of your responses to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) and also 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).

General:

Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – all v. 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 excellent.

Presentation: good use of wiki markup and organisational skills, aside from one or two typos.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

1. ↑ Barton, Matt (2008). Is There a Wiki in This Class?: Wikibooks and the Future of Higher Education. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. p. 178. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |book= ignored (help)
2. ↑ Gilbert, Dan; Chen, Helen; Sabol, Jeremy (2008). Building Learning Communities with Wikis. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. p. 77. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |book= ignored (help)