Talk:Digital Media & Culture: Collaborative Essay Collection 2018/Convergence/Research Question 3:/RandomLabGroup

This is the discussion section for the collaborative essay of the group RandomLabGroup, consisting of the users: sophiestirlinguni, Jxck33, RossTheSnake, Marshallcam, and katielsg. We will plan, organise, write, edit and finalise our essay here before we publish it in the Digital Media & Culture Collaborative Essay Collection 2018. Contributions by anyone are more than welcome. If you are amending someone’s post or make suggestions please use the Reply to Template to notify the author about your post. Please always sign your contributions.

Comments
Hi team RandomLabGroup!

This is the discussion page for collaborative essay. Use this pages to edit in discussions, decision making, project planning, and information sharing. Invite other groups to add to the discussion, and contribute to others. Ask for advice from others and share your knowledge. This builds contribs considerably. Start off your discussion by recording your decision-making process re: your research question, email the lecturer to get approval/suggested amendments.bOnce that's done, you're away.

Also, please get your team mates not mentioned above to get their username sorted, and those team members whose names appear in red to get their pages and user discussion pages sorted - still showing up as red (means they haven't created the page!), and they should be sorted by now.

You can leave notifications for other users by using the reply to template (as I've used in this notice). You can also use your own and each other's discussion pages, as well as the main discussion page on the general theme page. All of this adds to contribs, which are essential to getting a pass mark for this assessment. Don't be tempted to use social media group chat or other platforms to do this. It won't be marked and really misses the entire point of the wiki.

Don't forget to use the four tildes (~) to sign and date your contribution. Every edit you make whilst signed in is still traceable, but a signature makes it much easier to track and respond, and much less likely that the edit will be mis-recognised as spam or vandalism. However: don't sign your edits on the essay page - it looks messy and is unnecessary.

Good Luck!
 * GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 09:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I notice that you've started to make a couple of sections on the essay page. BUT, where is your discussion guys? - we need to see lots of discussion recorded here for you to amass "contribs" which are used to evaluate engagement. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi guys, I was thinking the question could be “Henry Jenkins believes that Convergence allows for audiences to more actively participate with the media industry than ever before. To what extent do you believe this to be true?” the chapters could be something like Introduction Henry Jenkins Case studies prt 1 (maybe that subway example that Jenkins uses) Christian Fuchs Theories presented by other theorists? Case study prt 2 Conclusion rough guide for now. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 23:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So our plan for what we are to for this essay is as follows: research your individual topics once securely decided on. Then for every solid piece of research or essay written post it into this discussion so that whoever is doing the introduction and conclusion can plan that accordingly. Likewise people who are doing individual sections keep an eye on the introduction and conclusion to keep the essay coherent. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi    ! Your collaborative essay is really promising. It's really good how you have organised what needs to be covered and split it up between yourselves. Also the fact you have focused so heavily on academia and theorists makes this essay seem really strong and well supported. Good luck on completing the essay! --Stirsb00027 (discuss • contribs) 11:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Minor note: it may look like I'm adding to my information and reading in my Fuchs paragraph, but I am actually just consolidating it into paragraphs with my own opinion, much like you suggested earlier. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

'''Quick reminder: aim for 600 words each so that we end up with about 3000 words and do not have less or more. ''' Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 09:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

'''Another reminder: Greg said: "However: don't sign your edits on the essay page - it looks messy and is unnecessary." ''' Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 10:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey team just wanted to say a big well done, I think we've all done massively well. Good luck to you all!MTxPrincipessa18 (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic and Essay Question
Convergence. Henry Jenkins believes that Convergence allows for audiences to more actively participate with the media industry than ever before. Drawing from studies on participatory audiences, and relevant examples, to what extent does this argument hold? RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Line of Argument
To create a coherent essay we should agree on a line of argument. My suggestion, based on mine and the reading that I have seen in this discussion from others is that the line of argument should be that Jenkins' view on media convergence and audience participation is agreeable to a minor extent, but ultimately many scholars have been able to point out his ideas' flaws. Does anyone have any thoughts on this or would like to wholly challenge this line of argument? RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 20:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I would agree to have the argument that we agree with him to a minor extent. Because we bring in other scholars for comparison to Jenkins this already gives the best opportunity and basis for that argument. Jensen somewhat agrees or sees it in a similar way as Jenkins and Fuchs basically disagrees. The case studies could be used on the one hand as support of Jenkins (as he already gave a good example) and if it is possible we could also take in a case study that challenges Jenkins argument. But I have a question for that then: as I only focus on Jenkins and his argument I don't think I should establish an opinion myself but rather just explain Jenkins' standpoint, and the paragraphs that you guys do would be used for the line of argument that we agree with him to a certain degree. What do you think? Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph about Jenkins should mainly be fr the purpose of setting up his argument for the strong and influential theory that it is. This is because Jenkins' notion that media convergence has lead to a new economy of knowledge within the web 2.0, and how people with power in major corporations and political positions are now at the mercy of bloggers and public internet users. However I am not sure if Jenkins' case study is actually that compelling. If you are going to discuss the example given by protesters by buying Subways it has been since argued by many that this was merely an extension of the power corporations have on the world at large, and not a great victory fr individual, ordinary internet users. However, I agree to that your paragraph should definitely be the most in favour of Jenkins, and all other should act almost as a rebuttal to the pints made in it. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea of the case study being in support of Jenkins, and then maybe we could do a smaller case study that challenges these points, or we could support Jenkins but also point out the more important challenges that face Jenkins work in the same case study, to save Sophie having to write out 2 separate case studies. Marshallcam (discuss • contribs) 13:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

What I have been working on now is only Jenkins' arguments of media convergence, as I suggested and as you agreed on. So that I establish the starting point and you guys go from there and establish our standpoint that we agree to some degree. I have not included any case studies now as I thought it would be beneficial if that really stays in 's part. Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 15:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It would probably be better for our line of argument if we do have a case study that challenges Jenkins because as also said, Jensen is more in favour of Jenkins and otherwise we would only have Fuchs for challenging Jenkins' notion of media convergence and the rest is in favour of Jenkins. That way our line of argument that we only agree with him to a certain point is not really supported. But it really depends on what included in her part. Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 16:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Klaus Bruhn Jensen is undoubtedly in favour of Jenkins yes. Also, i have elected to not include a case study in my paragraph either as I felt it may end up confusing the reader and/or becoming too similar to the designated case study portion of our essay. Jxck33 (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, Jensen's work overall is much akin to that of Jenkins at attempting to use Jensen's work as a rebuttal would be a poor attempt at twisting his words. he rarely challenges, or indeed mentions, Jenkins directly but his of theories and methodology are undoubtedly similar to Jenkins. Jxck33 (discuss • contribs) 18:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I have really only been focusing on Jenkins case studies, should I include a case study that challenges Jenkins? I figured any opposing studies would be mentioned in Fuch's paragraph but I guess there is no harm in touching on opposite arguments in my paragraph.Sophiestirlinguni (discuss • contribs) 18:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I have covered some case studies by Fuchs that go against Jenkins. However, I believe there are probably more that show Jenkins' research to be limited and his conclusions to be simplistic. Anything like that would help, as you have pointed out, but case studies in defence of Jenkins are also pivotal would say, as they give the rest of us something to discuss and a basis for argument. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. In that case it might actually be better in touching upon an opposing case study in your paragraph,, if that is still feasable for you.Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Brain Storming
I have a few suggestions on the outline. As a suggestion for other theorists talking about media convergence I think we should include Dwyer or Jensen (or both). Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 11:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

(Academic) Reading
Ytreberg, E. (2011). Convergence: Essentially Confused? New Media & Society, 13(3), 502-508. Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Navarro, V. (2010). Sites of convergence: An interview with henry jenkins. Contracampo, 21, 2-13. Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 16:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Christian Fuchs and Vincent Mosco, Marx and the Political Economy of Media, 2016 RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Second-screen theory : from the democratic surround to the digital enclosure - Hye Jin Lee, Mark Andrejevic RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Fish, A. (2013). Participatory Television: Convergence, Crowdsourcing, and Neoliberalism. Communication, Culture & Critique, 6(3), 372-395. Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Jenkins, H. (2006). Fans, bloggers, and gamers: Exploring participatory culture. NY/London: New York University Press. Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 16:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Jenkins, H. (2006, ). Welcome to convergence culture. Retrieved from http://henryjenkins.org/blog/2006/06/welcome_to_convergence_culture.html?rq=convergence Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 16:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Essay Outline
1. Introduction Marshallcam (discuss • contribs) 20:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

2. Henry Jenkins Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 16:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

3. Case Study - I'll cover this Sophiestirlinguni (discuss • contribs) 20:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

4. Dwyer / Jensen  I will do Jensen for this part of the essay Jxck33 (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

5. Fuchs - I would quite like to cover this bit RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

6. Conclusion Marshallcam (discuss • contribs) 20:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess that leaves you,, for introduction and conclusion. Is that alright with you? Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm happy with that :) Marshallcam (discuss • contribs) 20:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Just sign your name next to whatever you want to do.

Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 11:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph suggestions
Post your draft paragraphs here for peer review, proofreading etc. Indicate where it fits into the essay roughly (i.e. introduction, main body, conclusion), by referring to the essay outline. Do not forget your references in APA (including page numbers).

Introduction
I was wondering how the introduction is going. Now that others have drawn together sources and are hopefully forming a coherent idea of the essay are you able to introduce the topic and then conclude in a way that is coherent with the rest of the essay? RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 15:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

yeah the introduction is going good, I'm just finishing up a brief summary of the main topic convergence, as well as a bit of summary about the more specific issues we'll be discussing in our work, such as audience participation. Also, for the conclusion, I have basically re-iterated our main arguments and also mentioned the critical opposing thoughts, I found the work your brainstormed to be very well put together and a very sound argument! Marshallcam (discuss • contribs) 19:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Henry Jenkins
Jenkins’ arguments and overview of content of paragraph Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

''Media convergence is a complex concept that many scholars have been trying to explain. The discussion around convergence and the term itself is often seen as not very precise (Ytreberg, 2011). After analysing several different definitions Ytreberg (2011) draws the conclusion that scholars do not come to an agreement. Nevertheless there is one very popular definition that makes its way into many works: Henry Jenkins’ notion of convergence culture.'' Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 21:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Convergence culture
•	Flow of content across multiple media platforms, cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behaviour of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want •	Old media – what dies are the tools we use to access media content •	Old media not being displaced, old media were forced to coexist with the emerging media •	All devices converge into one central •	Challenges notion of passive consumers •	Convergence resulting in increased creative interaction between consumers and media industries •	Convergence encourages participation and collective intelligence •	New forms •	A move from medium-specific content towards content that flows across multiple media channels, toward increased interdependence of communication systems, toward multiple ways of accessing media content, toward ever more complex relations between top-down corporate media ad bottom-up participatory culture •	Where old and new media collide, where grassroots and corporate media intersect, where the power of the media producer and the power of the media consumer interact in unpredictable ways •	Convergence alters the relationship between existing technologies, industries, markets, genres and audiences Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 16:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC) •	Rich possibilities but also loss of some skills •	How to balance the new skills with the old •	Greater fluidity on the level of culture than on the level of commerce Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 19:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC) •	Not primarily technological process but shift in cultural logic Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

''Jenkins (2006a) describes convergence as “the flow of content across multiple media platforms” (p.3). The term encompasses “technological, industrial, cultural and social changes” (ibid., p.4). Many scholars take different standpoints on this. Jenkins (2006a) acknowledges advancements in technology by saying that convergence is “where old and new media collide” (p.259). For him new media does not displace the old but together they build new forms that allow for engagement with media content. Furthermore other scholars (like Fuchs) argue more in terms of industrial changes. That means corporations influence media content more than consumers through for example commercialising. However Jenkins takes the view that convergence is not mainly a technological process or primarily based on commerce but that convergence has more to do with culture (Jenkins, 2006b).'' Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 00:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Participatory culture & participation gap
•	People tend to seek out people they know – blunts the potential of a participatory culture to diversify our experiences and knowledge •	Participatory culture cannot grow without the capacity to archive, appropriate and recirculate media content •	Cannot sustain itself long term without an expanding notion of fair use and a reduction on the capacity of corporate media to exert a monopoly control over our culture •	Implicit participation •	Expecting greater influence over the media they consume •	Participation gap: uneven access to technology/digital media (skills and knowledge) – teacher and students •	Uneven opportunities to participate •	Cultural factors (race, class, language differences) amplify these inequalities in opportunities for participation Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 20:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC) •	 Consumers will be more powerful within convergence culture – but only if they recognize and use that power as both consumers and citizens, as full participants in our culture •	Circulation of media content depends on active participation •	Look at ways consumers are influencing the production and distribution of media content •	Actively shaping the flow of media content Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

''This is where participatory culture comes in. Jenkins challenges the traditional notion of passive consumers and argues consumers actively participate in the convergence culture (Navarro, 2010). Participants actively shape the flow of media content through sharing and creating content (Jenkins, 2004). ''Moreover Jenkins acknowledges that there is a ‘participation gap’ (Navarro, 2010; Jenkins, 2006a). This ‘participation gap’ occurs due to unequal opportunities for participation. By this Jenkins means that cultural factors such as race, class, language differences and age influence the access participants have to digital media. Jenkins offers an example in educational institutions where the skills of teachers and students differ and while new media is usually discouraged in these institutions it is something that would benefit learning outcomes for students (Navarro, 2010). ''Jenkins points out that participatory culture “cannot sustain itself […] without an expanding notion of fair use and a reduction on the capacity of corporate media to exert a monopoly control over our culture” (Navarro, 2010, p.9). By this he means that participatory culture depends on active participation in order for media content to circulate. Therefore, Henry Jenkins hopes that consumers recognise their power within convergence culture and execute this power as participants (Jenkins, 2006a).'' Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 00:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Fan culture
•	Fascination and frustration •	Reject idea of a definite version produced, authorized and regulated by some media conglomerate •	Other example of shaping the flow of content: blogging, anti-war movement Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

''Fan culture and fandom is something that Jenkins shows great interest in as a fan himself and has written a lot about in the last view years after Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. For Jenkins fan culture explains participatory culture very well. He argues that fan culture is incited by fascination and frustration at the same time. On the one hand fans engage with media content that is offered to them and shape the flow of content through participating within their fandom. On the other hand fans reject the idea of a finished product. Thus, frustration and dissatisfaction about the offered content brings them to create their own content (e.g. fanfiction). This way they are an active part of the convergence culture.'' Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 11:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Case studies
In researching and putting together my paragraph of case studies I focused mostly on Henry Jenkins.

Jenkins wrote lots on participatory culture and really draws on how convergence has allowed for this to grow. His book Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture has given me lots of information and ideas on what I should base my paragraph around, there is potential for finding a case study that supports our argument. A perfect source to cite Jenkin’s argument that convergence has developed how we participate in media.

Useful Notes: In the book mentioned, Jenkins mentions a case study by Pew Internet, ‘According to a 2005 study conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life project, more than half of all American teens—and 57 percent of teens who use the Internet—could be considered media creators.’ He then critiques this case study. 'If anything, the Pew study undercounts the number of American young people who are embracing the new participatory culture. The Pew study did not consider newer forms of expression, such as podcasting, game modding, or machinima. Nor did it count other forms of creative expression and appropria- tion, such as music sampling in the hip-hop community. These activities are highly technological, but they use tools and tap production and distribution networks neglected in the Pew study. The study also does not include even more widespread practices, such as computer or video gaming, that can require an extensive focus on constructing and performing as fictional personas. Our focus here is not on individual accomplishment but rather the emergence of a cultural context that supports widespread participation in the production and distribution of media.' (page 4) This is noteworthy as it serves to explain exactly how Jenkins views the interaction created due to media convergence and the growing participatory culture. It shows this argument has been considered before but Jenkins seeks to develop the argument and show just how much a role media convergence has in participatory culture. Sophiestirlinguni (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I also found in Klaus Jensen's book on media convergence some useful supporting quotes and examples on how new media has created a platform for more participation and sharing of views. Also supporting Jenkins view that the user and their contributions online are seriously valued. Sophiestirlinguni (discuss • contribs) 10:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Jensen
Jensen’s pragmatist take on media and communication studies is a highly sophisticated one, attuned both to pragmatism’s traditions, to recent theory debates, and to important discussions on the uses of research to society

Jxck33 (discuss • contribs) 00:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Fuchs
I'm brain storming my core argument and conclusion here, revolving around the paragraph for Christian Fuchs' views and how they relate to the essay question. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Part 1
Fuchs on the real definition of “active” in terms of media convergence. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC) •	Fuchs also argues that class plays a large part in the “active” nature of media convergence culture, stating that only those better off can afford to be truly active in media. •	Henry Jenkins’ argument that thanks to innovations from Apple and Microsoft technology that used to be only workable and affordable to young, tech savvy affluent people, have lead to people of all ages and classes being able to have devices from the forefront of the convergence revolution. •	However what Jenkins means by this is actually means that people from all classes merely have the power to use devices to communicate and consume. They are participating in the democratic sphere of information spreading, but as Fuchs rightly points out the are just tools in the wave of commodity culture – people compelled to buy the latest gadgets in order to give the leaders of such massive corporation’s advances on their own personal businesses. •	Fuchs talks about Marxism within the context of media meaning that there must be a participatory democracy in society rather than a liberal democracy in order for audiences to have an active roll in the technological revolution. •	In the democracy currently in place in Western society people are able and encouraged to participate in certain political affairs and have many liberal rights that we have come to associate with democracy. However, Fuchs feels that this has not nearly gone far enough and that for countries such as America and Britain, where media convergence is so much a part of people’s lives, there needs to be a democracy where every person can have a say in factors like the running of major companies, the way in which technology is used, and the treatment of all classes and ethnicities. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

''One of the leading theorists and rivals of Henry Jenkins in the realms of media theory is Christian Fuchs, who places a firm emphasis on the importance of class divisions and social aspects when examining the effects of the convergence revolution. The main difference in opinion between these two figures is whether a democracy needs only to be participatory, with audiences enables to hold opinions, or whether the democracy needs to be fully integrated into the economy – thus giving the audience power. Henry Jenkins argues now, as he did in 2004, that media convergence benefits all classes and demographics, as phones, computers and a multitude of handheld devices with the power to communicate messages and spread information are in the pockets of men and women from all demographics in the west and in the east. Fuchs refutes this entirely by stating that having the power to consume and send information on devices born in the convergence revolution is not enough for users to be empowered and to be considered an “active” audiencehttp://fuchs.uti.at/tag/spreadable-media/.RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Since the spread of knowledge and opinion from consumers is less of a power determinate than corporatism is there must be participation from consumers at every level of companies such as Apple and Facebook in order for consumers to truly have power.'' RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 14:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Part 2
Fuchs and his reasons believing Marxist theory RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 18:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

•	Fuchs believes in Marxist theory rather strongly and wishes for there to be a serious shift in power both in politics and capital within society. •	He applies this to media convergence by the examination of media and technology’s relationship with the current political climate and states that he finds capitalism decaying. •	Fuchs states that Marxism is the most marginalised and criticised political position to take in modern times, as he presents studies from 1977 until the last few years showing how young academics feel least secure taking an explicitly Marxist view. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 22:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC) •	However, Fuchs also believes that Marxist theory is on the rise, and uses a study taken from June 2014 into the use of the words “Marx, Marxist, or Marxism” in academic studies to showcase this. Sure enough the study’s results show that studies referencing Marx in academia have declined in popularity from 1978 to 2007 but did in fact rise significantly from 2007-2013. •	The theorist puts this down to the fact that from 1978 to 2007 there was a major growth in the actual out put of academic journals, as well as the expansion of neo-liberalism. It is true that in this time period capitalism, individualism and post-modernism became the forefront of mainstream politics – beginning in the west with Thatcher and Raegan. A bit later in the period from 1978 to 2007 technological progress and the digital age become pivotal to the expansion of commodity making, with media convergence and its effect on culture making knowledge, information, media and technology a massive market at this point. •	This is where Fuchs argues that media convergence prompts an increase in global capitalism, with companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and Google doing nothing but manipulating markets, gaining money and making culture into a commodity. •	From this it can be taken that Fuchs feels that convergence leads only to an increase in the amount of passive, apathetic users to the world. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 22:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

''Fuchs uses this power struggle dynamic when studying media and technology’s relationship with the current political climate and uses the surge in neo-liberalism coinciding with the technological revolution as grounds for the coming of Marxism and capitalism’s decay. As extreme and removed from Jenkins’ worldview as this seems, Fuchs brings forward some firm evidence for it. Using a study from June 2014 into academic pieces of writing in America in which the words “Marx, Marxist, or Marxism” appear he demonstrates that studies referencing Marx declined from 1978 to 2007 but rose significantly from 2007 to 2013.http://fuchs.uti.at/wp-content/uploads/Fuchs_Mosco_01.pdf --RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)This can be put down to a few factors. From 1978 to the early 21st century there was a great rise in individualism, post-modernism, capitalism and anti-socialism within mainstream Western politics spearheaded by Thatcher and Raegan. Following and relating to this, from the mid-1990s onwards there was a technological revolution that pushed the production of academic journals, but also prompted the culture of consumerism in the west. This is where Fuchs argues that media convergence in fact lead to Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and other such corporations becoming able to make culture into commodity, with apathetic users willing to share, download and consume information without the need for participation.'' RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Part 3
In defence of Jenkins' arguments against Fuchs - this is where Jenkins’ response to Fuchs should come in and the main area I need to cut down and make succinct. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 18:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC) •	In Fuchs’ 2011 blog post “Against Henry Jenkins. Remarks on Henry Jenkins’ ICA talk “Spreadable Media”” he takes Jenkins apart for overlooking the massive commercial value of Facebook and other similar entities which play a crucial role in media convergence. •	Jenkins’ refute to Christian Fuchs, and one of the cornerstones of his studies is that media scholars should focus more on the “pleasure and agency” side of the convergence debates surrounding audiences rather than the exploitation and structure sides. •	Through examining these cultural and sociological impacts concerning media convergence Jenkins gives us an idea of why he believes audiences’ psychological determinism and their reactions to media are pivotally important in the production of media products. •	It is true that there is indeed a demand from all people for products, and in some, possibly rather surprising ways, the poor treatment of workers by Apple and the West’s complacency backs up Jenkins’ theories that the capitalist world will not stand for anything less than the most advanced and convenient piece of technology. •	BBC studies, as well as fly-on-the-wall documentaries by people who have infiltrated Apple’s factories in China, have uncovered that in 2010 over 20 people attempted to commit suicide due to the brand’s horrendous working conditions and following this incident the company failed to act, with workers still being exposed to dangerous chemicals and unfairly long hours. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 10:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC) •	As far back as 2004 Jenkins has pointed out that media convergence makes sense from a cultural stand point and dispels the idea that all media is now controlled by major corporations. •	“Convergence is more than a corporate branding opportunity; it represents a reconfiguration of media power and a reshaping of media aesthetics and economics” •	Jenkins believes that the economy and structure of power in society now relies on knowledge and idea. This has some weight to it, as in political power we can see ideas and groups who form to collect, and exchange knowledge have a major impact on the way in which election results swing. This is why politicians since the early 2000s have been collecting information on such forming groups and desperately try to infiltrate them and create knowledge and idea based groups that circulate their own ideas and values. •	Jenkins cites French cyber theorist Pierre Levy, who states that people are pushed towards their own goals thanks to media convergence, and are empowered by such mass media platforms to voice any radical opinions they hold. Therefore in this way the balance of power from previously suppressed to not so suppressed is evident. •	It is even possible that this is the reason for the rise in theoretical essays on Marxism in academia, as I believe the freedom of the internet may well be the reason for the newfound openness rather than Fuchs’ contrived explanation that Marxism has been pushed by the expansion of neo-liberalism and convergence. In other words, correlation does not equal causation. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 11:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

''It is clear that Jenkins believes, unlike Fuchs, that it merely takes an effect on the public’s psyche to explain why convergence leads to an active audience. Jenkins argues that media theorists focus a lot on the exploitation and structure sides of the convergence debate and largely overlook the idea of “pleasure and agency”. By this he means that audiences gaining something from the products created for their convenience is pivotal in the shaping of the new media world. The way that convergence has led to massive companies coming under criticism for certain things but ultimately being forgiven by consumers definitely gives this theory weight. BBC studies, as well as fly-on-the-wall documentaries by people who have infiltrated Apple’s factories in China, have uncovered that in 2010 over 20 people attempted to commit suicide due to the brand’s horrendous working conditions and following this incident the company failed to act, with workers still being exposed to dangerous chemicals and unfairly long hours. The fact remains that stories such as this still seep into the public’s imagination, and yet the public still crave the machine of pleasure and convenience; leading to them, in Jenkins’ view, having a great power over the direction of media convergence. This newfound power in Jenkins’ view is conceived through the shift to a society where groups of people sharing ideas has become pivotal to political and media power shifts. Indeed, it would be difficult to argue that the constant spread of information, made possible through apps on multiple devices did not play a role in modern elections and it is plain to see that politicians are increasingly attempting to utilise this power to their advantage. Citing French cyber theorist Pierre Levy, Jenkins states that the rise in freedom of speech and circulating opinions on the internet has led to a rise in bloggers and independent journalists voicing their own previously marginalised views to their likeminded piers. This could even possibly account for the rise in Marxist essays in the age of convergence, as opposed the near contrived explanation given by Fuchs. In other words, correlation does not equal causation.'' RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 23:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Part 4
Where I conclude that Fuchs is right about audience participation in convergence. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 19:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC) •	In Henry Jenkins’ view a participatory culture is merely one where people are able to voice their opinions on a large network. From this standpoint there is a case to be made that media convergence is the way towards this, and blogging and independent news outlets have become vastly more popular due to the expansion of the internet. •	However, as Fuchs points out, there are two main points that combat even this definition of participatory democracy not being fully realised thanks to media convergence. •	Firstly, the expansion of social media applications over multiple platforms has indeed allowed information from select groups to be viewed by everyone, at every time, anywhere. The fallacy is to suggest that this means that all content is produced by bloggers or independent journalists, that these two sources of information widely successful, or that the individuals using Facebook, YouTube and others are the main source of content that gets widely viewed. •	In actuality, like in most other spheres, the biggest media outlets with the most money are the ones who are most widely shared and viewed, most of whom have deals with Facebook to work their content into the algorithms in order to be displayed first on people’s feed. •	Secondly the fact remans that the majority of users of these social media platforms do not share information, opinions and thereby contribute to the participatory democracy in Jenkins’ own sense. •	In the technologically advanced lands of Sweden studies show that only 6% of the population own their own blog, only 8% of internet users blog occasionally, and only 16% of all internet users upload video clips to YouTube (Findahl 2010). •	This statistic directly opposes Jenkins’ main argument about participatory culture and therefore backs up Fuchs’ notion that media convergence within capitalism is not enough to push a society to actively participate. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC) •	Fuchs can in fact be credited with modernising Marxist theory and bringing it into the digital media sphere. He states that Media is as material as the workers and working conditions of the past. However consumers such as Henry Jenkins do not take this into account. This is where the real conflict of beliefs starts, and the basis for Christian Fuchs’ 2016 works Marx and the Political Economy of media. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 21:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

''However, despite the rise in media content thanks to convergence being an unescapable factor, Fuchs argues against Jenkins’ notion of this truly empowering audiences into taking an active roll through some simple statistics. In actuality the media outlets with the most money and brand recognition are the ones that are displayed more commonly on people’s walls due to Facebook’s algorithms. Furthermore the majority of internet users in general do not contribute to creating content, and in Sweden only 6% of the population own their own blog, only 8% of internet users blog occasionally, and only 16% of all internet users upload video clips to YouTube (Findahl 2010). This directly opposes Jenkins’ theory of media convergence creating a participatory sphere, as it is clear that the audience is not as active as the theorist would like to think. Such oversights point out the crucial holes in Jenkins’ argument and undermine the notion that convergence leads to audience participation, thus proving Fuchs’ theory that Marxism and social studies need to come into play to truly decipher how audiences are manipulated or propelled by media convergence.'' RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 18:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This looks already really good and very full with information. Is this all the information you have collected so far? It is quite much and you will have to cut some things out of it because of the word count but looks good so far! I'll add more input on the content later. Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is the information I have gathered and the line of argument for the essay that I am forming. It is a lot, because there needs to be a lot of content behind my points and behind my reasoning for swaying more towards Fuchs' arguements, although I may balance this by including some more of Jenkins' rebuttals to Fuchs. You're right, I will make the essay concise with this information and reasoning at hand. Thank you for replying. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

If the first part does not lose too much content or argument then I think it would be a very good idea to include Jenkins' response to Fuchs. That way you would definitely bring it back to Jenkins' arguments and the essay might have a clearer line of argument in general. Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 17:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments again. I have split my research into parts and categories the paragraph so that I can begin to really cut it down to in order to get the detail and from then I can bring Jenkins' argument against Fuchs in particular into part three of the paragraph. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 19:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

the amount of content and academic sources you've garnered here is very impressive indeed. The structuring of your argument here, albeit it a 'brainstorm' as you call it, is well thought out and you relate it all well to the question. This research will undoubtedly be incredibly valuable to our collaborative essay. Jxck33 (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I am glad you can take something from the information I have gathered and I hope that the essay benefits from the set line of argument we have agreed on. Since you agreed to write about Dwyer and Jensen I was wondering how they compared to Jenkins in their views. I am aware that they sway more towards Jenkins' ideas than Fuchs' which in a way contradicts our essay's line of argument. The information and statistics that show a lack of engagement in general in the internet from the general public and a sense if disgruntlement from academics towards the exploitation and power of massive media companies gives more fuel for Fuchs' stance. As someone studying Dwyer and Jensen I would like to know whether or not the conclusion is much the same for you? RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Multimedia suggestions
This section can be used to share media such as images, videos, podcasts (etc.) that could be useful for audio-visual contributions to the essay. Please do not forget to include sources here too.

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK
General Feedback
 * Essays of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for the collaborative essay. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this 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, work of this standard will make a clear point in a clear way. It will relate concepts to original examples in a straightforward fashion. It 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). It may also demonstrate a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns, and is likely to show evidence of reading and thinking about the subject material. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.

Specific Feedback:


 * Although the essay is written in a fairly accessible style, the problem that I had was a difficulty in reading off the page as the essay is made up of large chunks of undifferentiated text. Some embedded links, images (from wikicommons) and interwiki links to other parts of the wikibook would help break this up, and an eye on formatting and presentation would have been worth the effort. But the work is generally referenced in detail, and your citation method is fairly robust. V. good research question, that opens up the opportunities to really engage with the work.


 * In your essay you outline a number of arguments that specifically address the theme of convergence (mainly from a technology perspective, which is fine) and participatory media forms. Your discussion of the research evidences a very good working knowledge of a wide range of relevant scholarship on your chosen topic. The examples and case that you have chosen to discuss your theme are well-chosen. Your argument is carefully structured for the most part, is critically engaged, and you have demonstrated awareness of the contradictions inherent in the theme itself. This is good work. However, as an important note – signatures and timestamps are found all on your essay page, but they do not belong there. Discussion pages fine, but it isn’t conventional for the book pages to include these, and this leaves an impression that the essay is not so much collaborative, and rather it reads a little disjointed from theme to theme, in the final analysis.


 * It was noted that the Introduction and Conclusion sections were added after the deadline had passed (last entry 12:23 7th April), so I’ve taken this into consideration and applied the 9% penalty for late submission. The alternative was to consider a substantially shorter essay with no Introduction or Conclusion, which would have substantially further affected the mark to your disadvantage.


 * N.B.:Feedback for your Discussion, engagement and contribs elements for the assessment will be given on your individual User Discussion Pages. Grades for all work will communicated confidentially via Canvas.’’’

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)