Talk:Matthew Wolfgram

This is a really unique piece due to the nature of the online identity you have. Being different from most other entries made it quite enjoyable to see how you would be able to express your online identity. I also enjoyed the well timed references which helped make the piece an even easier read. I do, however, have a few suggestions. First, I believe it would be beneficial for you to take a bit more time explaining the idea of how what we consume online shapes who we are. You introduced this idea in the first paragraph but did next to nothing with it for the entirety of the Facebook section and most of the Twitter section. Expanding on this idea could help back the claims made in the first section even more. Additionally, I was left wanting to know more about your online identity by the end of the entry. I know there's not much about yourself but at least give your online persona a bit of personality in addition to just being an observer. A few other suggestions I have include naming your sections better as they are very bland and generic at the moment, using wiki syntax to create a proper references section (see the "Help" tab at the top of the edit box), and try moving a photo to the top and making it larger to better draw in the reader with a more visual first impression. Overall this was a really interesting piece that will only become greater with some revision.

-- Luke Justice

Mathew,

I like your broader analysis of how social media and its content has shaped how people think and interact in the online space and out of it as well. It brings up the point that people’s identities are shaped not only by what they post, but also by what they consume. While this leads nicely into your point about how your online identify is not defined by what you post, (due to a lack of content) I do not think that this long of an analysis should be the introduction. It is somewhat unclear until the end of the first two paragraphs what point you were trying to come to and how this analysis leads to your identify. I think it would benefit your point if you introduce something more personal at the beginning. Possibly shortening this introduction or leading with the question “what defines online identity?” and answering it as you defined it would be a good start. Additionally, I think it would be more stimulating at the beginning if you included started with statements about your personal online behavior. State how you posted occasionally, but it was the things you consumed (give examples) that defined who you were. If you make these edits, the introduction will be more clear and give the reader a better understanding as to what is to come.

I enjoyed the Facebook section of your wiki. It went into further detail regarding the briefing in your introduction. Your flow and use of language was easy to understand yet sophisticated and logical in word choice. This section showed your engagement with the assignment and depicted a genuine picture of your online self.

In the twitter section I think it would be beneficial to say how you got on twitter and how its different structure led to a similar, yet more involved use than Facebook (as you mention). Overall it was a good portrayal of your twitter presence. Maybe go into some of the specific account that you follow and thus get a look more specifically into the content that you consume. This would not only show more of your identity but would also relate back to the point you make in your introduction.

One last suggestion I have would be to develop and introduce the quotes that you reference. It would show a better understanding of the topics and tie into your point better. Also if possible I would lengthen the conclusion and try to hit on all the main points made throughout. Additionally, I think playing with the format of the wiki and adding more pictures would make the article better.

Sorry for being to meticulous on your piece. I thought it was well written, had good grammar and good flow. Just wanted to make the comments that would supplement you already strong base. Good job. Looking forward to the finished wiki.

--Jacob Kreinik

Corina

Great job, Matthew!

Solid throughout. For revision, your colleagues’ comments above are spot on. Please consider them fully.

Best,

Corina