User talk:Amm00137

=FMSU9A4: Wiki Exercises=

=Online Visibility=

Many of us tend to fall victim to the thrall that media hold over us. I usually rely a lot on my phone, whether it be for work purposes or pleasure, to get me through my day-to-day routine. In this modern society, it is pretty much impossible to avoid media at all costs as the majority of university and school work is posted online with no other way of accessing it. When it comes to online visibility, I tend to be the polar opposite of a closed book. When creating an account for any sort of media platform, we are swayed to enter our personal information to allow us to gain access to the site. The most obvious form of online visibility would be social media platforms such as Facebook. These sites make it incredibly easy to become a part of the platform following some easy steps. However, as we are sucked into the whirlpool of persuasion, we tend not to delve into the terms and conditions that are set out for us to read, but by doing this, we are ignorant to how these types of sites use our personal information and just how many people can attain our details. A less unlikely known form of online visibility that I would consider would be the access to web browser history. It has been proven that in various platforms, the adverts are commonly related to sites that we have previously visited on the same device. This can be seen as a smart marketing idea but is also viewed as a very intrusive use of our personal web surfing data. Most of my social media accounts have the privacy settings activated at the default - for example on Facebook, my posts are set up to be visible to those I have as friends on the platform but my profile picture is set up for anyone who wishes to visit my page to see - I agree with my profile picture being on display for the entirety of the world to view as it is just like seeing someone's face as your walk by them in public, you don't know anything about them besides their looks. However, if I choose to have someone on Facebook, I would class them as acquaintances to some extent and would share the sort of information that is available on my profile page with them in person. It is not specified completely who has access to the information we confide to these platforms. When we join one, we tend to have to accept terms and conditions on the privacy of our information, much of the time, it is unknown what power these platforms have over us and how they can use our information manipulatively. In this modern society, the idea of media convergence is extremely prominent with the evolvement of smartphones and the ongoing growth of advertisement within media platforms. Convergence has allowed increased visibility to the public. Companies have taken advantage of the technological progression to provide personalised and targeted adverts to each visitor, producing relevant content to whoever may stumble upon it. Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 00:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
1. Amy, your opening statement is a fantastic way to break into your conscious analysis of this subject, I too use my phone for ever day necessities and to simply get through the day. Particularly liked your point of terms and conditions and connection to web history on how our information can be accessed, I also drew on similar points in my analysis in how we seem to brush off the fact that when we sign these terms and conditions, facebook can really do what they please, cause no one would stop to read them anyways!? And if you did, your choice is simple, say yes and use the platform like billions of other people round the world, or say and don't, that simple.

Obviously being in the same group for this topic of discussion, I also further drew correlations to the relationship between the flow of media content and media convergence. Companies have really capitalised in the sense of adds and suggested browsing through, as you said, terms and conditions and web browsing data, allowing them to know what kind of person you are, and what you want/like to do or buy.

Great read! Keep up the good work JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 10:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

2. The focus on Facebook as a platform is perhaps the biggest strength in the whole statement. It is the most commonly used and arguably most influential platform of social media at our disposal. It is true that anything can be written in the terms and conditions account and I appreciate how you highlighted this as a potential danger and an unpredictable factor of Facebook as nobody wants to read page upon page of boring paperwork. I liked the personal touch you gave, as it provides a great deal of humanity to your thesis and puts things into perspective for those who may not understand what is being talked about. Overall, I thought this was smartly written, insightful and relatable. Great read.

User: frosorsmoth

3. I really enjoyed reading this article, it illuminated the issues that social media does bring about. I found your reliance on your phone for essentials really interesting, and it made me realise that I do too. Without my phone I do not have an alarm clock, a watch, a weather checker and quick access to important emails. It does astound me that we now live in a world in which phones are not so much a luxury anymore, but rather an necessity in order to function normally in our high tech society. I do also find it astonishing the terms and conditions for social media accounts when you really look at them. We allow so much access and invasion of our 'private' space (like what we search) with a swift click, often we don't even read them. I like how you illumniated the fact that we as consumers do not really have a choice in the modern age as everyone is so consumed by social media, that you are almost an outcast if you are not on it. Obviously it is all for coorporational purposes, but it is scary when you are looking at clothes on say asos and next thing you know they are being advertised to you. What else can they see?

=Annotated Bibliography=

(1) Zelenkauskaite, A. (2017). Remediation, convergence, and big data: Conceptual limits of cross-platform social media. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 23(5), 512-527. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1354856516631519

(2) This article informs us of the restrictions that can be identified in connection with cross-platform media despite its ever-growing presence within society. This piece focuses specifically on the flaws of information architecture-based decisions made by media corporations as they have progressed through such concepts as media convergence, remediation and big data. (3) Zelenkauskaite highlights the idea of digitalization and the impact that the development of social media platforms and consumer goods had on the determining of terms such as media convergence and remediation. (4) His research highlights the critiques of social media and the production of such content in a way that has an impact on users. He speaks of the restraints that each social media platform's structure has in terms of social connection. He uses the example of content repository - i.e. in the idea that Facebook users are unable to connect with Twitter users - to further the constraints that information architecture decisions have on consumers. (5) This study is useful with correlation to my collaborative essay research on media convergence as Zelenkauskaite demonstrates an understanding of the flaws connected to this term. (6) The main limitation of this article would be the focus on the idealistic approach of how Zelenkauskaite believes cross-platform media should be utilised in this day and age without regarding the feasibility of putting these thoughts into effect. (7) Thus, he states that access still remains to be limited to consumers despite the modifications of "mass media." (8) This article will not form the basis of my collaborative essay research; however, it will be useful as additional material with regards to the limitations explored on the theme of media convergence.

Key: (1) Citation (2) Introduction (3) Aims & Research methods (4) Scope (5) Usefulness (6) Limitations (7) Conclusions (8) Reflection

Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
1. This bibliography is very detailed and has a lot of handy information. It's good being an article that dissects the flaws of something as it gives more insight in how varied and unstable the world of media convergence is. You raise a very good point on the limitations of the research, bringing up how loft the authors expectations are for a potential crossover between platforms without regarding what this could mean for other factors such as consumers. Excellent article.


 * 1) Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Fraser! Thank you for your comment with regards to my annotation, I too, find it interesting that this article explores the negative side of convergence as most articles you come across only focus on the positive presence that follows the term. How are you coming along with you research for the collaborative essay? Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 11:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The research I have undertook is very interesting. I am trying to theorize whether or not people in todays society trick themselves into thinking they are dependent on the Internet of Things, which means that everyday items in one way or another, carry a certain appliance or attachment that connects to the internet. I feel as if the situation is very ironic as in an attempt to simplify things and make life easier for them, people have ended up just over complicating everything by interconnecting their devices. In one way or another, objects are this way and it can be detrimental to someones life. It goes to show that a lot of happier people are more content in rural or countryside areas away from all forms of technology. #Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 11:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh that does sound very intriguing! I'd love to know what theorist's work you are looking at for conducting your research? I think the theme of the 'Internet of Things' can link very well with always-on culture as with your thesis of the majority carrying devices that are portable links into the idea of never being disconnected from their social media and online activity with the availability of such at the tap of a screen on the go. I would perhaps look into the claim of people being happier in rural or countryside locations, but personally, I would say that it is true and from personal experience, the internet doesn't always work out in your favour. Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I was looking through core readings for the topic and was intrigued by Jaron Lanier's passage entitled 'The most important thing about technology is how it changes you'. He explains how every gadget and device that we carry is an extension of ourselves and as we become more encased in the virtual world where we create this avatar for ourselves, we become more like a feeble attempt of our false identity. The fact that we live in this 'always on' culture only serves to emphasise the idea that we are slowly becoming our fictional avatar. The National Office of Statistics have claimed that on average, people who live in rural areas are happier due to a greater sense of community and more accessible to the countryside. Of course, there is evidence to suggest that technology could be a factor but we do need more evidence. #Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan you have there. I must admit that the reading you have looked into seems quite engaging and offers the perception of online identity in a negative light, due to the somewhat 'altering' of our self image to suit an audience of online followers and friends. It is the case of becoming a follower in the actions of others online and every social media platform becoming a competition of attention. I think it is good to highlight a locational side to it as you have the statistics to strengthen your argument in this case. Have you had any further development in your essay? Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

2. Amy, as you previously mentioned, we are in the same group for our collaborative essay on media convergence, thus allowing me to relate to a lot of your points on convergence in this post. Firstly, the piece is very clearly structure and flows from point to point very well. You clearly showcase your findings on Zelenkauskaite research, and have evidently understood and processed the information well to be able to implement it correctly into your research on convergence as a whole. I agree with your essay as a whole and find it very concise, but I would like to add that I think some of his research may be useful in our studies? Something to discuss with the group, but as you said, we will most likely use Jenkins to form the basis of our research, and not Zelenkauskaite.

As usual keep up the good work!


 * 1) JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Josh, thank you for your comment towards my annotation. I also think that this piece could be useful to use parts of for our collaboration work. It allows us to bring in a theorist who disagrees with the norm approach to convergence and gives us more room to expand on the restrictions as well as the benefits. How is Jenkins' chapter helping with regards to the standard way in which convergence is viewed? Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 11:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Possibly a good idea, however I'm cautious to go outside the boundaries of our structure? How do you think we could incorporate another theorists work? My work and research on Jenkins' chapter is coming on well, I have posted my findings on my own discussion page and the groups collaborative essay page, so you can find them there. Look forward to hearing what you think about my findings, and your theorist could offer an alternative look at convergence.

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 14ː32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

3. This is a really well written and detailed annotated bibliography. My collaborative essay group is also doing media convergence so this was a really helpful post to read. It is interesting to see an article that is being critical of media convergence as all the ones I've read so far have only spoken about the positive attributes, so this is very useful for my further understanding of the topic. The way you have structured your post is really good as it is very concise and shows that you have good knowledge of the topic. So far from the discussions my collaborative essay group has had, we are most likely to go with Henry Jenkins as our basis of understanding for Media Convergence, and from reading the above comment I'm getting the understanding that is your plan as well. Although I find Jenkins' work so far easier to understand and more relevant from my groups topic of research I will definitely be looking more into Zelenkauskaite's work. (Bex.frew (discuss • contribs) 00:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC))

=Collaborative Research Exercise=

Hey! Thank you for your comment. It is interesting to know that you are also doing media convergence as your theme for the collaborative essay. I am curious to know what kind of research you individually or your group has already looked into? Also, where your main focus will be applied? We decided as a group to look into how Jenkins' approach to convergence has been adapted by other scholars and the way in which their views on the concept correlate with but also contrast with Jenkins. Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As a group we are also focusing on Henry Jenkins' approach to media convergence and that has been our main starting point for research. As far as our question goes we are looking at how convergence theory can be discussed in relation to Marvel. we were all interested in seeing how convergence is used within a franchise and Marvel seemed like the logical choice due to their impressive expanse of comics, films, television series and even theme parks. As Marvel is the focus point, I have been looking into them more as a company to try and find out more about the kinds of convergence that go on, that we as an audience don't necessarily see, such as how Marvel is now owned by Disney. Your groups idea and research sounds very interesting and I look forward to seeing what you come up with! (Bex.frew (discuss • contribs) 22:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC))

That sounds like a brilliant idea! Especially as we recently looked into the links between the concept of convergence and franchises in the podcasts that were published in an aim to expand our knowledge. It is a good use of the learning content, to relate what has been taught to the assignment. Marvel is a very good example to illustrate as it is one of the more renowned franchises therefore more information will be available to your group to develop your argument. It is a good starting point to explore the company in its entirety, learning such things that aren't obvious to the public eye without conducting further research to gain that knowledge. Your group seem to have taken a more specific approach to the research question as you are focusing on a particular theorist and a certain company that provides you with an idea of convergence which is great as you can expand on the different ways the company plays with convergence. My group have taken a more vague approach to the task and have decided that the research question should make us think more about Jenkins' approach in relation to other theorists rather than an example of convergence within a company's audience engagement. How is your group splitting up the research between you? Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

What you've said was pretty much our idea around why we picked a question that has a more specific focus as we are able to use the knowledge from the podcasts as well as our own independent research into Marvel and convergence as a whole. We believe Marvel is really at the forefront of convergence within a company and thus is a great example of how convergence is used in such corporations, and therefore how many companies are following on and doing similar things. Your groups question also seems very interesting and its also very interesting at how one concept can be discussed and researched in so many different ways. It will be also fascinating to see how one theory can be discussed and examined in so many ways by different theorists and how each of them have their own beliefs and definitions of a concept. As far as splitting the research up goes, each of us have taken a different aspect of the company: movies, fandom, television, comic books etc. From this we are each writing are own paragraphs about the section we've researched and will combine them altogether and like them all as much as possible through convergence. How is your group going about the research and how are you splitting it? (Bex.frew (discuss • contribs) 23:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC))

I totally agree with using Marvel because of the influence they have had on other franchises and the efforts they have went to, to produce the fan base that has been built up through multiple media platforms and different forms of media expression - exhibitions such as Comic Con allowing the fans to be in their element involving themselves in the brilliance of a film's culture. I suppose you could even look at this within the fandom part of your research and the idea of digital media playing its part in bringing together these people that share the same interests and how they form online relationships from such across media platforms? Looking at social media but also the idea of film blogs? My group are also working on our own paragraphs before bringing it all together to redraft the final piece. We have decided that it would be best to split the work between us in terms of each of us focusing more specifically on a theorist of our choice and ultimately linking how they express the idea of media convergence in relation to Jenkins' approach whether they agree or argue with his view. We also have found the podcasts a helpful source to allow us to gain knowledge on certain theorists that we could look into. Personally, for my paragraph, I am looking into Bolter and Grusin who highlight the idea of convergence with a connection to remediation and how new digital media has allowed this to be as dominant as it is. I am interested to know if you have read any sources throughout your research that argue with Jenkins' approach to convergence? Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 17:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That all sounds really interesting! I agree the fan culture of big franchises such as Marvel are now a hugely important part of the franchise in general as the fans are so important in the continued success of the company. I also agree that looking at events like Comic Con would be interesting in terms of convergence as it is almost as though the fans are bringing the films/tv shows etc. to life in a new medium. So far a lot of my research has related to mainly Henry Jenkins' as I have found on his website many articles he has written in connection to Marvel which have been very useful. I do need to do a little more research to find different approaches to the theory of Convergence to get a more rounded argument. How have you found the ideas of Bolter & Grusin, are they different from Henry Jenkins in many ways? (Bex.frew (discuss • contribs) 16:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC))

That is really quite helpful that he has those available as they are a perfect read for your essay by the sounds of it! Are you planning on venturing further a field and looking at different theorists? I personally find Bolter and Grunion's work very intriguing and extremely interesting to read. They elaborate on the term of convergence by furthering the concept to relate to new media terms of remediation and hypermediacy. They also use the example of Disney World being a case of visual remediation which is what made me think of the link to your essay question and the idea of exhibitions having a huge impact on audience culture. So I think the term remediation might be a great one for you guys to look into! I wouldn't say that they differ that much from Jenkins' approach, rather expand it to apply to different concepts. I really hope you guys are getting on well with your research and I look forward to seeing how it all turns out. In the meantime, if you have any other queries or want to speak about anything else with regards to the essay don't hesitate to reach out! Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

=Collaborative Essay Reflective Account=

Wikibooks appears to be a platform that is accessible to anyone that wishes to use it, just as that of social media and the idea of connectivity. It plays off of the notion of collaborative work, allowing people to join together over their desired subject choice and work in groups over the Internet to create digital textbooks within the given subject area. It is usually used for academic purposes but can sometimes be seen to be used in other respects. When first using the platform, it is difficult to get to grips with how it functions if you have never used anything within the "wikisphere" - any of the sites associated with wiki, however it is easy to adjust to the way in which it works after spending some time on it.



Wikibooks can be seen to emphasis visibility within its online community with the function of the user's 'contributions' page. This page allows anyone who accesses the site to view whatever miniscule detail that you post or edit within the site; eliminating any possibility for the information that you post to not be visible to the public eye (Kennedy, 2006, p. 860). The website does however allow a sense of anonymity in terms of personal information, although the 'user' content is not invisible, the website does not ask for you to upload any sort of profile picture and does not ask for personal details, it does not even ask for your real name, the username can be whatever you wish it to be which allows this sense of hiding behind what you publish.

With regards to the practicality of the website for collaborative research purposes, I found it somewhat useful as it allows for a discussion page to communicate with fellow group members and it permits a sense of unity to really enhance the collaborative element of the website. However, it does have its limitations. The website does have a discussion page, but it does not allow for members of the group to speak on the page at the same time which can be frustrating as if two people are editing it at the same time, you can lose what you had written. It also proves to be very time consuming waiting for a reply.

Wikibooks fosters a community as it allows users to communicate with each other in ways that they haven't experienced before and with people they likely wouldn't have spoken to offline. This can be seen in relation to the term convergence as Henry Jenkins explores the notion of participatory culture (Jenkins, 2006, p. 2-3). Wikibooks is the perfect example of participatory culture as it is a platform that allows the collision between the producer and the consumer wherein the consumer has a sense of control with the information that they publish which is a good example of how new media has evolved.

This also highlights how Wikibooks is a platform of online collaboration that represents a digital commons. This refers to a somewhat shared ownership of informational resources and technology which a platform such as Wikibooks allows for this to happen as it is a website that is designed to be utilised by the same community that created and developed it. All wiki platforms allow for a sense of online emancipation as it gives users the ability to edit, contribute and publish their own work as well as being free to post or change work that they view on other users' pages. Furthermore, there isn't many restrictions that the site has when it comes to what content can be distributed.

Overall, Wikibooks has proven to be both advantageous as well as challenging during the time I spent using it. I can see now why it was used for our work with regards to experimenting with a site that I know many have never heard of before never mind used. It allowed us to put our theoretical study of digital media into practice and allowed us to do both individual work as well as finishing off with a collaborative group assignment. Furthermore, I think that the skills I have gained from this experience will prove beneficial in a future career path.

 References 

1. Jenkins, H. (2006). Introduction. Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide (1st ed., pp. 1-24) NYU Press.

2. Kennedy, H. (2006). Beyond anonymity, or future directions for internet identity research. New Media & Society, 8(6), 859-876. doi:http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1461444806069641

Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 12:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Amy, I completely agree with your opening statement in that Wikibooks as a platform is accessible to everyone that wishes to use it. As a digital commons, the site offers online emancipation as it works like any other social media networking site, allowing millions to connect and collaborate freely with each other, about their chosen and specific topic as you have mentioned. I think, collaborative work, as you've mentioned, acts as the 'kindling to the fire' for Wikibooks, in the sense that just as kindling enables fire to burn, so too does collaborative work enable the site to run, and further without it, the platform simply wouldn't work or be as successful as it is. Theoretical or not, the site really does capitalize on the collaborative front and aim to aid its users in any group work or sharing of work they wish to do. Moreover, as I said in my collaborative essay reflection, I too found the site to be tedious and hard to get the hang off, whereas a face to face discussion or chat on a platform that we are originally familiar with would have both acted in the same way and saved a heap load of time.

Moving onto Wikibooks emphasis of visibility; I think we have come at this part of the debate from two different angles. I have argued Wikibooks to empathizes visibility as one; everyone can see the work you post as it is a free all accessible site, and two, as anyone can edit it, so you can really find out just how the platform works and how to write and edit Wiki articles. However, you have argued the point that the site 'ensures' that your work is never, ever hidden, and forever visible, rather than the platform just being easily editable and accessible. I think here, where you've mentioned the platform to allow a sense of anonymity really sets them apart from any of the other 'social' platforms available to the 21st centaury being. It doesn't ask you to 'post a pic' or comment a status, or your location, or date of birth or any personal information, it just wants to harvest your knowledge and enable to you to communicate and work together with people all over the world - this exact point is where Wiki as a platform excels.

In terms of 'practicality' of the platform, I agree with the point that 'it could' act as a great site for a group like ours to contribute, but I think when the site was originally designed, its collaborative element was created to enable users from across the continents to work together, not four university students like ourselves, noting as I previously mentioned that a face to face discussions, and/or a social media platform we are all to familiar with, would have been much more concise and time efficient. I completely agree that the site should change the idea that only one person can edit the page at once, as we have experience difficulties with this aspect, and our group is only four strong. A page that calls upon many contributors must experience this problem in a large scale? However, there are obviously benefits to this as it ensures no ones work is ever incorrectly formatted, or deleted by mistake.

I agree with the consensus of your point that wiki allows lots of people to communicate under the same roof, but I understand the term in a different sense that rather than bringing together 'different' people, it calls upon people that represent or have interest in the same topic, allowing them to come together and successfully contribute on something they are passionate about. Rather than just providing a platform, they physically make it possible and ensure that those that use the platform have all the tools and help necessary, and thus 'foster' them towards their completion. A great comparison to participatory culture, but I would further understand it as collective intelligence as Jenkins furthers. Rather than just lots of different scholars sharing their ideas, every wiki page is formatted and corrected between right and wrong to come to a 'collective' result to show case the most concise and relevant findings. Further why I would correlate wiki as a platform showcasing collective intelligence, rather than solely participatory culture.

Overall, your report is; concise, personal and reflective, noting both the disadvantageous and advantageous of the platform as a whole. You draw upon our experience in a group very well to explain your argument, and document your findings. At the ending, you correctly compare your findings and experience to relevant theorists such as Henry Jenkins, which lastly makes your account of the platform both more credible, and further easier to undertsnad.

Good work.

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 15:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the statement could not be more accurate. You won't believe the amount of people who have said the same thing to me and faced the same issues as well. I think it is unanimous in the consensus that on paper, the wikibooks format is one of the most accessible and useful method of putting together a collaborative assignment yet also carries with it some huge drawbacks, most notably how difficult it is to first get a grips with it. I think we've all faced our own setbacks on this challenge, some the same and some completely different.

Anonymity is possibly one of the biggest strengths the platform has, bringing about a theme of consensual information sharing that I explored in one of my first wiki assignments. It is a close knit community that we share our information with and I'm glad the majority of the helpers and contributors are people with common goals and who legitimately want each other to do well. The information displayed is accurate enough but I feel sometimes we can riff off each other a little too much and begin to repeat ourselves, almost like we are some sort of hive mind at this point thanks to the Wikibooks.

My experiences trying to communicate via Wikibooks with my group members have been rather sordid. Lack of feedback and miscommunication was present as well as one of the members dropping out and another providing little to no understanding of what it was he was supposed to do. Did you experience any such setbacks? I'd imagine that the influx of information sent by your group members may have been overwhelming and a few points could have gotten lost in translation, which again goes with the theme of overexposure to data that I explored in one of the blog posts. It tells us how every moment of our work is a response to a wave of information that heads our way thanks to the technological marvels at our disposal. You are also right in saying it part of participatory culture. I'd go as far as saying it is a prime example of it, due to the necessity of teamwork and the emphasis on everyone's voice.

Would you suggest that this is perhaps the best way to commit to a collaborative essay? I would argue in theory yes it is however the drawbacks are obvious. Mainly being the difficult start we all experience due to not knowing any of the features and functions. There is also the prospect of the lack of understanding dealt by the different typings. While it is useful in the sense that everyone gets a fair share and a chance to speak, what is said out loud doesn't always translate well to what is told vocally so I reckon people need to be very careful and get straight to the point. Overall Amy, I would say this is a very clear and concise evaluation of everything that has been done, with very useful sources applied to your theorizing. It seems that I agree with you on pretty much everything and would really like to know more about your own experience with this collaborative essay and what setbacks you faced, seeing as I faced so many and want to explore what is different with everyone's journey. In conclusion, an enjoyable and insightful piece of analysis that I am sure will help anyone wishing to start up a Wikibooks account. Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 12:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Amy, I appreciate you taking the time to comment on my reflective account, so I thought I would return the favour - especially because enlightened me on the drawbacks of the platform that I didn't consider at the time when I was writing my account.

I agree with your opening paragraph about the notion of connectivity and collaboration within Wikibooks. Much like other online platforms such as Google Docs, Wikibooks allows people to work together on collaborative projects regardless of distance; the platform constructs a space for collaborative work without time and geographic constraints like an office, school, or university. I also found the platform rather challenging in regards to understanding how everything works. It almost feels like you need a basic understanding of coding as there were many different elements we were required to juggle to create a well-structured page for the essay. One example was inserting references which I found especially difficult as one mistake or accidental omission would ruin the entire reference. The discussion pages were quite useful in that respect as I often utilised them to ask others for tips on how to insert a certain item or achieve some kind of page formatting.

It’s rather interesting that we have taken different approaches to looking at visibility on Wikibooks. In my account, I said Wikibooks increases visibility to an extent because everyone is able to see the contributions and edits you make so in that way, Wikibooks is based on transparency. Whereas, you have emphasised the anonymity that Wikibooks affords users. This is not to say that one of us is wrong, because both of these arguments are features that are evident on the platform. I agree that users are granted a greater sense of anonymity on the platform; much more than social media websites like Facebook or Twitter that promote connectivity and individuality. On a related note, I think therefore that Wikibooks puts its users on a level playing field compared to other social networks because you are not required to provide personal information or a profile picture, and you are only judged on the contributions and content you make.

I agree with you about the limitations of the site as a place for group discussions. I briefly spoke about this but worded it as a positive aspect – often our group would talk on a group chat or face-to-face, and we would write what we said on the discussion page because we felt obligated to increase our number of contributions rather than feeling that the platform was a practical tool for group discussion. Did you have a similar experience, or did your group communicate entirely through the discussion pages?

Overall, I think you provide a very clear evaluation of Wikibooks, giving a fair balance between the advantages and disadvantages of the platform. You have also backed up your argument well using theory outlined by Henry Jenkins, especially how you connect your experience and understanding of Wikibooks with participatory culture and convergence. I agree with all of the arguments you have made and ultimately, your account is very insightful in highlighting how Wikibooks encourages collaboration and connectivity.

Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 20:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

1.

Hi Josh! Thank you for taking the time to read and review my evaluation of Wikibooks, it is much appreciated. Also, I'd like to say thank you for enlightening me about relevance of collective intelligence with regards to the platform, as I hadn't really taken that into consideration when discussing the elements of media convergence and focused primarily on the most obvious link to the platform - participatory culture. I had a skim over your piece but as I had already reviewed someone else's work I thought it would be best not to but I can say that I enjoyed your work as it formed a well structured analysis and was very precise and to the point on the subject matter. It has been a pleasure working with you for the collaborative essay and I wish you the best of luck for the remainder of the semester!

Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 22:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

2.

Hey, thank you for taking the time to read and comment your opinion on my account of using this platform. It is awful to hear that you had a bad experience of the collaboration process and that really does highlight the restrictions that the platform obtains. Myself, I never really experienced many problems with the collaborative element as my group all done their parts and we really engaged in a lot of teamwork on the page and out with. I just think it is a big inconvenience that we weren't able to all edit the page at the same time resulting in a lengthy ordeal, which was one of the biggest criticisms that I could give the site as it is very time-consuming. However, it is like any technological advancement in how it does have its pros and cons. I wish you good luck for the remainder of the semester!

Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

3.

Hey again! I am thrilled that you liked my feedback on your review and I thank you for taking the time to return the favour. I think the way you have described the functions of the website is perfect by expressing it in terms of coding as it feels more like an IT skills course that would be taught in computing degrees, nevertheless, I can comprehend how it also links in with our module. I agree that there are multiple ways in which the concept of visibility could be approached and it is intriguing more than anything to see people note it in various ways which would never have even crossed my mind. I guess it is all about perception which is why I think the reflective account was a good task for us to complete, as it lets us see what others thought of the site. Again, I appreciate your feedback and I wish you the best of luck for the remainder of the semester!

Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 22:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. 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, good contributions 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 formatting, 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, discussing this in a transparent way with fellow researchers on the Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * Although everyday engagement may not have been the case here – you did engage regularly across the period of the collaboration, and when you did engage, these were significant entries in terms of moving the project forward, and an appropriate level of engagement is in evidence. It is also worth pointing out that you made the effort to make a contribution to discussion with another group on one occasion – which suggests that you were at least beginning to see the value in the way that the book’s themes overlap significantly.

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: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	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


 * Several contribs registered as being under 1000 characters, and a mix of “substantial” and “significant”, and one or two that could be regarded as “considerable” contribution to the project. It ought to be noted that a couple of these were drafts presumably pasted into the essay page as they are fairly well developed already, but the vast majority of contribs were discursive and of good quality.

•	Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages o	Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration o	Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay o	Evidence of peer-review of others’ work


 * See above. This was the strongest element of your contribution. You clearly pushed your arguments and encouraged others to comment/respond, helped others in their work, and there’s plenty of evidence of reading, application and discussion of ideas.

•	Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages o	Clear delegation of tasks o	Clearly labelled sections and subsections o	Contributions are all signed


 * Again, you were clearly collaborating on the discussion page. Some of the organisation here is a little haphazard (as tends to be with wiki projects), but overall the discussion is easy to follow, thanks in part to your organisational work fairly early on. You have also signed where necessary, so it’s easy to see where your contribs fit into the overall discussion.

•	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.


 * You conducted yourself well. Good work!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds 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:


 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.


 * This is really good work. Your contribs to user discussion are fairly extensive, sustained throughout the project period, and attempt to solicit engagement from other users. Your responses to other people’s posts are especially good. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion. This is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about. You have also 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.

General:
 * Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material


 * 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


 * Presentation: good use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)