User talk:Calumthomson1

Exercise #1: Online Visibility

When thinking about my own online visibility, I had to consider the different forms of online platforms I use which allow others to get an idea of who I am. The most obvious platform that first popped into my head was Facebook. I think this was so obvious to me because of the fact that Facebook seems to be the online platform that almost everyone I know uses, no matter how big or small of a presence they have online. On top of this, it seems to be the first platform everyone jumps to if they intend to find out who someone is, what someone looks like, where someone works, where they study and so on. Facebook gives users the option to make their life completely visible through the questions it asks you when setting up. However, a lot of these are just optional of course. In terms of my own visibility with Facebook, I tend to keep mine fairly minimal. I have a profile picture of myself and my friend and information about where I’m studying and where I am from. When it comes to making my day-to-day life visible to other users, I would only really do this on other social media platforms, such as Snapchat.

I find that on Snapchat I am more prone to letting others know what I am up to, who I am with, where I am etc. I think the reason for this is that I am only really friends with people on Snapchat who I would consider actual friends in real life; therefore I am more than happy to be visible. When it comes to Facebook, I have a ridiculous amount of friends. There are people on that list who I might not have even interacted with in the real world, and it is my understanding that most people have friend lists on Facebook like that.

Snapchat, more recently than ever, as made online visibility an even bigger presence within users’ social media, most notably because of the introduction of Snap Maps and being able to locate your friends. Although the thought of having your location visible for everyone to see seems to be quite a daunting one, a lot of people still choose to have their location on show. It may be the case that online visibility is becoming more and more important to users these days because of the constant evolutions of apps such as Snapchat. However, it may be that people just want to keep up with the trends that Snapchat release and want to remain in the loop, therefore will conform to changes that the app owners make because, much like Facebook, users don’t have to remain this visible. Snapchat does allow users to go into ‘Ghost mode’ which means their location cannot be seen.

I personally have my location visible on Snapchat. Although a lot of people may feel uncomfortable doing this on their own Snapchat, I feel this service can in fact bring a lot of benefits. The fact Snapchat allows you to turn it off reassures me that privacy is still something social media platforms do in fact keep in mind.

Exercise 2: Annotated Bibliography
Evans, E. (2011). ‘Transmedia Texts: Defining Transmedia Storytelling’, Transmedia Television: Audiences, New Media and Daily Life pp. 19-20

In this chapter, Evans talks about transmediality and its role within transmedia storytelling. Mentioning Henry Jenkins as a key theorist, she discusses how transmedia storytelling is central to the understanding of how new media technologies are creating new forms of narrative content and engagement with audiences. When discussing transmedia storytelling, she refers mainly to its presence within television, and describes the concept as a way of expanding current, traditional tropes found in television. Evans refers to Geoffrey Long to further define transmedia storytelling. He indicates that transmedia storytelling has taken on a specific meaning linked to the creation of a wider, coherent fictional world that is delivered to audiences in many formats. Evans seems to be defining transmedia story as a way of allowing different narrative forms, styles and genres to crossover into each other and create something entirely new.

Comments

Hello! First of all, I would like to say that you have done an excellent job on your annotated bibliography, and it seems as though you have selected an excellent text to use when furthering your research for your group's collaborative essay. I personally had never considered how transmedia storytelling could impact common tropes in television, as you briefly discuss in your annotated bibliography. Does the author give specific examples of this in the article? The fact that that the author refers to two different scholars in her work to discuss transmedia storytelling, I think again, makes this article a strong source for you moving into your collaborative essay, as the author encompasses a wide range of perspectives in her work. You have done a very good job with your annotated bibliography, and I wish your group good luck with your collaborative essay! Mom00107 (discuss • contribs) 23:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4 - Collaborative Essay Reflective Account
Whilst working on our group’s collaborative essay, I experienced for the first time what it was like to use Wikibooks. After using it, it seemed to me that the website was a great way of networking and sharing ideas with my fellow students. According to Wikipedia’s description of what Wikibook’s actually is, it’s described as a “Wikimedia Foundation for the creation of free content e-book textbooks and annotated texts that anyone can edit.” The fact that the website allows you to edit texts made by anyone allows for you as the user to feel more connected by others. It feels more like you are engaged with those in your class and this definitely is a reason why the site emphasises visibility, as well. Every action made by users can be viewed which means nothing can be hidden. Overall, the visibility of Wikibooks allows for a more well-rounded experience; literally all details can be seen.

It’s important to also talk about how useful Wikibooks was in helping facilitate collaborative research when reflecting upon my experience. To me, the way in which the site allowed organisation of notes and discussions was incredibly helpful in making collaborative work all that easier. Within our own group, each of us would leave useful articles into each of the particular sections we had created in relation to our essay. We would also have a general discussion section on our group’s page which was a great way for us to just check up on each other’s progress and give guidance to one another.

I think that Wikibooks is definitely a resourceful and helpful tool that can be used for these types of projects and I would gladly use it once again for future assignments. The ability to be connected to those with similar interests and thoughts created a great feeling of community within our learning at university. I felt more engaged and part of something.

Wikibooks fosters a community also by allowing users to comment on one another's work to allow for the creation of debate and discussion. This is incredibly important when it comes to learning as users will receive a vast array of information and ideas which can allow for a greater understanding of Digital Media as a subject. I certainly found the feeling of community as a benefit as I could learn from my peers as well as receive constructive criticism from them. Overall, the collection of ideas that was created by our class's Wikibooks page was crucial in allowing me to gain a better understanding of my coursework and I am certain other users will have felt this way.

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. Contributions 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.


 * This was clearly not the case here – only 2 contribs registered (1 on the 20th March, another on the 4th April). Appropriate level of engagement is not in evidence: your contribs to discussion pages seem to be mere draft work for the essay page and do not evidence discussion of the ideas, justifications for contributions nor any exchange of ideas for the essay. You cannot be marked twice for the same work.

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


 * 2 single contribs to discussion pages, both largish, but consisting of draft work rather than engagement with the group and discussion of ideas.

•	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


 * Very weak – your contribs consist almost entirely of draft work rather than discussion.

•	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 – see above.

•	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.


 * Impossible to tell given the lack of evidence.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:14, 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.

Very Poor. Often, entries of this standard are quite brief, are structured poorly and are not spell-checked. Comments are often extremely brief or missing They are often irrelevant, and offer little engagement with the concerns of the module or the assignment brief. The wiki markup formatting will be of a very poor standard and as a result it will be difficult for the reader to engage with the discussion.


 * This work is at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s 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. As it stands, although you engaged with the exercises, these were incomplerte, as you neglected to comment on other people’s work (as part of the peer-review requirement for most of the posts). You did this for the #3 exercise, but only because all of the marks for this entry hung on comment exchange. More effort should be exerted at this level really.


 * Additionally. 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 – only one undertaken. This would effectively halve your mark for much of the portfolio.

General:
 * Reading and research: some evidence via the annotated bibliography


 * Argument and analysis: See above point – much more could have been done in this respect.


 * Presentation: fair, but again see above comment on markup.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)