User talk:Alan Chalmers

This is the user discussion page for Alan Chalmers (discuss • contribs) 21:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: Educational Assignment
'Half in the Bag' is an online movie review show written and starring Mike Stoklasa and Jay Bauman from RedLetterMedia. The show is different to any other review show I've seen as it introduces aspects of narrative and comedy into it's formula. You don't just tune in to find out what Mike and Jay think of a particular movie, but you tune in to find out what trouble the two 'heroes' have found themselves in on any particular week.

The show itself depicts Mike and Jay as inept VCR repairmen who have a long term client in Mr. Plinkett (who has appeared in previous RedletterMedia programmes). Mr. Plinkett is both legally blind and borderline psychotic and each week he asks for his VCR to be fixed so that he can watch old recordings of the 80s sitcom 'Night Court'. The only problem for Mike and Jay is that Plinkett keeps moving his house to more and more extreme places - i.e. The bottom of a lake, on top of Mount Everest, over a nuclear waste dump.

The comedy is derived from the rudimentary special effects and imaginative set design they use to display these complex locations and scenarios to the audience. They use the same internal set for every episode so it has to be dressed up for the occasion. While they were at the bottom of the lake they had to tape up the windows to watertight the space. While they were on top of Everest they used fake snow and frost effects on the doors and windows. What's funny is that at the start of an episode they may immediately make reference to how stupid the whole situation is by poking plot holes in their own narratives or even completely disregard the story and pull out a six pack of beer and watch a movie.

I think the show highlights some key concepts explained in the module really well, the main one being online and offline persona. Mike and Jay play themselves in Half in the Bag, but its a warped sense of self - they exaggerate certain personality traits for the sake of comedy and entertainment value and ultimately views on vimeo or youtube (much like what youtube 'celebrities' to do gain views and followers). In their real-life show 'The Best of the Worst' they exhibit a more real persona and conversational review style in which they collaborate with other RedLetterMedia members to review awful straight-to-VHS movies. Half in the Bag distils certain feelings toward films in a way which resembles a cartoon. In their response video to Ridley Scott's Prometheus they display what can only be described as childish bewilderment and nihilistic dread - and it is hilarious.

Feel free to check out other RedLetterMedia stuff here.

Alan Chalmers (discuss • contribs) 11:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
It's good to see you have made some links to themes in the module when discussing 'Half in the Bag' although this can be confusing to follow at times as you switch between different shows by RedLetterMedia in the final paragraph. Your writing would benefit from a greater integration of wiki markup for further relevant links. You link to a single show at the end, but it would have been useful to include further links to other episodes where appropriate. Also make sure to follow all parts of the exercise: you have not posted comments on colleague's pages. Engagement is an important part of the portfolio, so make sure to do this in future.

A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor: Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse). The wiki markup formatting will need some work. Sprowberry (discuss • contribs) 10:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Online Visibility
How visible am I online? This is an interesting question as the answer is simply – I don’t know.

I say this because although I am fairly active on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat, there is really no way to keep track of the personal information that I’ve given over the years to now obsolete networking sites. Things like Myspace, Bebo, and even the embarrassing Habbo Hotel have faded into obscurity, but they still have my personal information even though I have long forgotten my usernames and passwords.

This in itself I don’t mind. What I find uncomfortable about this situation is that in the years since these services were popular not only have I matured as a person, but my own tastes and interests have changed dramatically. I don’t want anybody I encounter nowadays to delve into the countless pages of a google search in order to see what I was like in my early teens. It’s got nothing to do with how I present myself now and them knowing only serves to embarrass me. This is problematic as it somewhat damages my own carefully curated profile pages on the social networks I actually use.

The construction of self is something that we all do, but is it a fruitless endeavour in the face of our own online histories? If someone was determined enough they could see all the dumb posts that I’ve left on hundreds of message boards on a hundred different topics. I’m pretty sure this is the case for most so-called digital natives too. Therefore, why do we even bother mediating our own narratives on the trendy social media sites when a quick search will find a more truthful representation of oneself? Not that I think there ever can be a truthful representation of a person, since even in 'real-life' people always change their own persona to suit whichever circumstances and group that they find themselves in.

It's a troublesome situation to be in. Should we all just be honest about who we believe ourselves to be online or should we construct our ideals selves using online avatars even though there is information online that undermines that ideal self? The answer is probably the former just for simplicity's sake, but thats not going to stop anyone from trying the latter.

Alan Chalmers (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
At all times we are bombarded by too much information. This is especially true for students and then doubly true for media students.

In our quest to understand media conventions, most of us probably subscribe to more than a few social media networks, video subscription services and online news sites. Furthermore, when assigned any particular piece of coursework there is an obligation to understand and research a breadth of academic sources from (often digitised) articles and books. As a group, we have become reliant on our laptops and smartphones just as the media has become more and more reliant on technology in order to function. However, as a result of our constant connection to the internet it is impossible not to consume information whether it is relevant or irrelevant.

The problem is how do we limit and differentiate the amount of irrelevant information we absorb from the important information that we are interested in? There are many tools in place which help us with dilemma, the easiest of which to use is a search engine like Google. Search engines allow us to look for webpages based on keywords and them immediately curates them based on a set algorithm. This may seem obvious, but there are over 60 trillion individual web pages, and without a reliable search engine the internet would become unwieldy and useless.

Another tool which helps us separate good and bad information is the way in which programs curate suggested content for the user. Take Facebook as an example, they have ‘suggested posts’ and also ‘pages you might like’. Content like this eliminates the need for the user to go out and find information for themselves and is curated by looking at trends within the user’s browsing history. If we actively help these programmes by telling it the things that we like and dislike it can eventually hide or promote content which in turn makes the browsing experience more enjoyable. How do I personally deal with too much information online though? I couldn’t function online without personalised web browsers. Google Chrome allows me to add my own extensions which all perform different functions to augment my consumption of information. The best of which is Adblock. I couldn’t use video streaming sites like Youtube without it as it gets rid of any advertisements that play either at the start or during video content. It effectively lets me watch twice as much content in the time someone would watch a single video and as a student I value my time highly.

Alan Chalmers (discuss • contribs) 19:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
There's insufficient material to assess in your contributions. For instance, you have not engaged in developing the chapter, and there is only one message in the talk page, but no further engagement. This means it only possible to mark 50% of the assessment. Unfortunately, the wiki exercise portfolio has not been completed: there is one missing exercise, and responses to colleagues are limited. The little traces of content available demonstrate a superficial discussion of prompts which could be tied more clearly to module themes and secondary reading.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page fails to give an overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is little familiarity in evidence with concepts associated with your subject, and the grasp of conceptual, factual and analytical issues is tenuous and limited at best. You did not find any appreciable primary and secondary sources about the chapter’s themes.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * no evidence of critical engagement with set materials;
 * no evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * no evidence of argument;
 * no evidence of critical thinking or discussion
 * no evidence of relational thinking or discussion
 * no evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * No evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * No engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Little or no use of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)