User talk:CRAIG STEWART95

Annotated Bibliography: Digital Convergence and Modes of Viewing
(1) Bury R and Li J, (2015),: ‘Is it live or is it timeshifted, streamed or downloaded? Watching television in the era of multiple screens.’ Chapter: digital convergence and modes of viewing, 592-610. Access

(2) This article by Bury and Li (2015) aims to research and analyse the different ways in which modern day viewing of television has evolved with digital convergence. (3) The chapter starts by introducing the topic and discussing their methods and results and drawing on other similar research findings. The article also makes reference to Henry Jenkins and his ideas, as well as other scholars to discuss media convergence and how it’s relevant to the viewing culture Bury and Li research. (5) This article could have potential use in discussing the concept of media convergence for several reasons. The data provided from the studies is statistical evidence of the growing culture of media convergence and shows how our viewing has changed as new and old media has converged. (6) There are a few limitations, the participants within their research could have been younger to give a reflection of teenagers as their practice of digital convergence could be seen as higher than many over 18 year olds. As digital natives, growing in the age of the rise of convergence and huge technological advancements. The research was conducted in 2010-2011, can be seen as outdated considering the continuing technological changes.(7) This article gives a good analysis of how the culture changed and the considerable nature of the digital convergence, (8) this study will aid my research when completing my future project as it provides a good source of statistical data related to convergence.

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

(CRAIG STEWART95 (discuss • contribs) 10:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC))

Collaborative Essay Reflective Account
Wikibooks is part of a wiki-based Wikimedia project encouraging a global online community to produce, contribute and collaborate on information on anything and everything accessible to the worldwide online community. The platform allows for the creation of e-book textbooks, annotated texts, instructional guides and manuals with the purpose of informing people on various areas they may be interested in whether it be for research, academic studies or just self-learning. The platform describes itself as a ‘collection of open-content textbooks’, meaning anyone can openly edit and discuss the content (the information provided on electronic mediums) to enhance the quality and understanding of information contributed.

Online visibility is an important part of Wikibooks purpose as it encourages all users and viewers to engage with texts and enhance their own learning as well as to help others. The visibility on the site is similar to social-media sites such as Facebook or Twitter, Wikibooks allows users to have a personalised account with their own user and discussion page although differs in many ways. Mainstream social networking sites such as Twitter allow any content from news to gossip in a free informal environment whereas Wikibooks is a free platform which maintains a directive of creating information in a textbook form to help others and is usually more formal and academic. Visibility creates a way in which other users can discuss your own contributions directly and a user can comment, edit and/or add to other user’s contributions.

Collaborative research is very much encouraged on the platform as it facilitates projects through its openly editable and sharing-focussed ethos. During my own project, when creating a textbook on our chosen subject, we were able to converse on a discussion page linked to our main wiki textbook project. This supported our project as the discussion within the page led us to make changes to the structure and comment on each other’s contributions - identifiable by each user’s online signature after each entry – to make any constructive remarks to develop and refine our work. WIkibooks fosters a community as it is structured to promote people from all walks of life to engage and collaborate in a massive variety of projects. The content produced must come from thousands of users for the wikibooks platform to be deemed successful when providing a vast amount of accurate and relevant information. It can be described as an online community as each user has a part to play whether that is to use the information other users contribute or to contribute themselves and from my own use of the platform it is a helpful and supportive environment.

Online collaboration represents digital commons as it which provides easily accessible information that can be managed and changed by everyone who participates and not necessarily just the person who publishes their contribution. Having information accumulated into a collective doesn’t just serve the people within a collaborative essay group or a class of media students participating in a project but could be helpful to anyone who is searching the web and interested in researching the same topic.

Wiki platforms offer online emancipation to an extent as with many social platforms it gives you a freedom to publish, discuss and edit although it is monitored to maintain rules set out by the platform. These rules pertain to such things as deletion rules to protection rules which are deemed hard rules. The platform maintains a foundation of rules from the wiki-process to wikipedia’s neutral point of view.

First of all, I had no idea that wikibooks hosted manuals (I guess for technology?) to inform people on how to get the best use out of their products! As someone who buys a lot of old cameras and such off ebay and at auctions that have usually lost their manuals by the time they have made it to these selling platforms I will definitely have to take a look on Wikibooks next time I’m looking for a copy of a products manual online! This for sure shows Wikibooks sheer magnitude of information!

I also never saw the comparison between Facebook/Twitter and Wikibooks before. I suppose with the edit function and the ability to discuss openly with other users it does, in fact, make the site much more personal than I had previously thought it to be. This was a very interesting comparison which I enjoyed greatly.

I also found the discussion page on my own groups wikipage to be very useful. The space given to allow our group to discuss changes and modifications to our collaborative essay was a very helpful addition to the wikibook itself. In our discussion page we not only discussed the changes we could make to our essay content but we also used it as a space to discuss when the members of our group would be available to meet in person to discuss the essay more in depth and clearly. I found discussing these subjects on the wikibooks discussion page useful as it was an easy way to find my fellow essay contributors and discuss the essay on the same platform we would be writing it- this therefore made us feel more comfortable on the platform itself and even furthur, with each other.

Digitalmediafiend (discuss • contribs) 06:49, 16 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:
 * Clear Fail. Assignment responses receiving marks below 30% tend to not contain any merit or relevance to the module. Contrinbutions are one-liners, sometimes made up of text-speak, if there are any contributions at all. Often they are indicative of failure to comment on other students’ ideas, and therefore do not engage with the crucial peer-review element. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement, or the user has been blocked for vandalism or other contraventions of wiki T&C. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.

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


 * None.

•	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


 * None.

•	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


 * None.

•	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


 * None.

•	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.


 * None.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

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.

Posts of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. They offer little to no engagement with the concerns of the module. They are poorly written and comments are often extremely brief or missing. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.


 * There is clearly room for improvement here. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Basically, there seem to be some elements of the portfolio missing, and you didn’t really engage until the last possible moments of the project period. This is a shame, and amounts to too little, too late.


 * Although you do get the hang of embedding links, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, when there, but are too few. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work.

General:
 * Reading and research: A little evidence here especially in your annotated bibliography, and some evidence of this in the reflective account, which attempts to address the brief.
 * Argument and analysis: some evidence of this, but I would have liked to have seen a sustained engagement throughout the project period.
 * Presentation: good use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)