User talk:Dmedia14

I am going to use this platform for a class assignment. Dmedia14 (discuss • contribs) 11:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Screen Time Survey
The results of an exercise we recently conducted in class revealed a number of things about not only the different ways in which we choose to use our screen time but also how we choose to categorise this time. For example, one of the most striking elements to arise from the class discussion was how some students decided to include time spent on their mobile phone, however futile, as screen time, while others did not. This is likely due to the ubiquitous and pervasive nature of mobile phones which has rendered them a mere extension of our physical self; a cyborg technology that, almost paradoxically, extends and enhances our connection with the “real” world. Philosopher and media theorist Marshall McLuhan also referenced this when describing how media functions as a sort of prothesis (Hayles, 2012).

Another element that stood out to me was how time spent on our laptops or computers doing academic work or research was omitted from our personal definitions of screen time. This medium holds connotations of entertainment and leisure despite media scholars and Papacharissi (2013) in particular having written extensively on the recent blurring of the boundary between the private and public sphere and that whilst the citizen may be physically alone during this time, they are certainly not lonely or isolated. Each group also decided to categorise screen time by device as opposed to the nature of the activity and this reinforces the aforementioned concept of associating different devices with different behaviours. For example, the results concluded that the mobile phone was used mainly as a means of connecting with others through instant messaging platforms such as Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp and constituted around 50% of our collective screen time, the laptop or computer was used for the same purpose and represented around 40% of our screen time but on a larger scale (e.g. Skype and Netflix) whilst the television was used solely for watching television shows or movies although this medium was rarely cited by various groups, if at all, with a mere 10% of our combined screen time dedicated to this.

Many students, including myself, were also shocked to discover just how many hours they spent behind a screen or online during an average weekend or perhaps rather how little time they spent away from a screen during this time. This relates to the concept of Always-On or the notion of never being truly shut off from technology or social media as connectivity or being connected to others has become assumed and somewhat implicit to us as modern human beings living in the Digital Age. In today’s media landscape, a social media presence is not only commonplace but expected and even, as some may argue, necessary as a means of maintaining relationships with friends, family and colleagues. But whilst recent technological advances may have resulted in us feeling more connected than we ever have before, Hall (2002) notes that this has, coincidentally or not, coincided with a rapid decline in face-to-face communication in the UK in the past fifty years (as cited in Papacharissi, 2013).

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise 1

 * Posts of this standard roughly correspond 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:

Merit. Among other things, merit entries 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 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. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.


 * This work is in the middle 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 take a closer look at the assessment brief to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets.


 * Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup is one way to improve fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this will make a considerable difference.

Detail:
 * You write extremely well in a clear, accessible, fluid style.
 * You draw from a small number of very useful and relevant readings. I suspect that, as time goes on in this module, you will have amassed a substantially greater knowledge of this subject matter and will be able to built very strong arguments.
 * With this in mind, please do continue with your reading of the set materials, as well as being guided to material that suits your own interests.

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


 * '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. Merit/Pass/.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 14:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 2: Annotated Bibliography
Myers, G. (2010). Genre: What is a Blog? What is a Wiki? In Discourse of Blogs and Wikis (pp. 15-27) London: Continuum.

In this chapter, Myers analyses the somewhat brief history of blogs and wikis by discussing how these texts are not defined by their content but rather how they are utilised and how this has influenced virtual communities and, therefore, social hierarchies. The author asks a series of questions based on Carol Berkenkotter and Tom Huckin's Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power (1995) in order to determine how these genres have been employed by different social groups since their inception in the late 1990s. This chapter is useful to me in that it stimulates my personal interest in the history of the internet and, in particular, how it has evolved over time in conjunction with societal trends and technological advancements (e-commerce, blogging, social networking etc.). The main limitation, however, is that, due to the evolution of information technology, the sources and examples cited in this chapter are perhaps a little dated with the author indicating that further research on the progression of blogs and wikis as well as the emergence of contemporary genres may be necessary in order to apply these arguments to new media. Overall, this chapter is unlikely form the basis of my academic research but it may be useful during the initial planning stage of my dissertation in due course.

Wiki Exercise 3: Social Movement Case Study


In recent years, social movements have undergone a digital facelift. They no longer rely solely on the physical efforts of organised groups actively lobbying for social change but are now also able to reap the rewards of technological intervention. Doerr et al. (2013) analyse the dynamic nature of social movements and, in particular, the importance of visual aids during demonstrations in an attempt to 'bypass the gatekeepers of mainstream media and/or counter-spin their representations, as well as to provide visual evidence of police brutality'. (p. 110) This argument is exemplified by the environmental movement; a scientific, social and political organisation centred, above all and in the simplest of terms, on the prolonged preservation and conservation of the natural environment. Often characterised by rallies and protests, the movement spearheaded marches, voter registration drives and vigils all over the United States in September 2017 ahead of a climate change summit in San Francisco as part of a collective effort to oppose the 'dangerously regressive politics of Donald Trump's administration' (The Guardian, 2017). It will come as no surprise then that images and videos captured during these events became available online almost instantaneously, prompting support and encouragement from fellow advocates all over the world and rendering the movement international.

Postigo (2012) also discusses social movements in relation to technology and communication by introducing the digital rights movement. Although still relatively unknown in comparison to antiglobalisation, for example, it is relevant to today's media landscape in that it is 'dependent on technology at least in part to implement some of its collective-action goals and to realise the kinds of social change it seeks'. (p. 4) Another prominent player in the proliferation of social movements is social media with Jamali (2014) alluding to a period of time in which citizens of Arab countries, in particular, were 'replying mainly on the social media to find out about public demonstrations, gathering places and information about corrupt leaders' at the height of the countries' public movements. (p. 31) So perhaps Howard H. Frederick was correct in his assumption of new communications technologies as not only beneficial in the formation and development of social movements but also in their ability to inspire a group of like-minded individuals to 'rise above personal, even national self-interest and aspire to common good solutions to problems that plague the entire planet' (Bob, 2014, p. 325).

Wiki Exercise 4: What Are Wikis?
Although usually associated with the world’s largest online collaborative encyclopaedia, Wiki is the collective name given to websites that specialise in allowing their readers the opportunity to contribute to and modify information relating to a variety of subjects through simplified user interfaces. This open-ended process, first coined by Ward Cunningham in his application of the WikiWikiWeb in 1995, eliminates the need for specialised knowledge and training in HTML and CSS with unprecedented levels of accessibility perhaps the fundamental driving force behind this somewhat revolutionary sub-genre of website.



The dominant narrative behind the collaborative power of Wikis appears to be the immediacy of the platform with the word 'Wiki' stemming from the Hawaiian word for 'quick' or 'fast', somewhat unsurprising given that 'quick and easy' editing was one of WikiWikiWeb's chief founding principles. This then goes some way to explain why Wikis are utilised and relied upon so heavily in academic environments and particularly in primary education despite underlying and long-established concerns correlating the use of Wikis with 'plagiarism, shoddy research, and lack of originality and oversight it fears will occur with those who look online for help in writing their papers and completing other assignments.' These fears, however, appear to have subsided in recent years with the organisational and communicative benefits of Wikis finally recognised and consequently implemented within professional as well as academic spheres for a variety of functions relating to the daily functioning of these environments.

Through navigating this platform for my own educational purposes, I have learned, amongst other things, the basic technical elements of Wikis (editing, citing, commenting etc.), but perhaps most importantly, the basic social elements of Wiki culture and the collaborative power of convergence. With a population of over 27 million active users, Wikipedia has not only built the world's largest online repository available in over 300 different languages but a community of like-minded individuals connected by a common goal to ensure free, universal access to a seemingly unlimited volume of up-to-date information at the mere click of a mouse. One could even argue that Wikis correspond to what Howard Rheingold defines as 'virtual communities', that is ‘social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace.’ But despite a general sense of affability, disputes are still present within the Wiki universe with so-called 'edit wars' (heated discussions between contributors relating to specific, often controversial, topics) perhaps the most extreme method of disagreement that tends to arise, though these arguments are often resolved fairly quickly with fellow editors acknowledging hostility and interfering with possible solutions in order to maintain the highest possible degree of harmony and respect between users who are, after all, as some may argue, virtual colleagues.

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts of this standard roughly correspond 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.

Detail:
 * Ex#2: this annotated bibliography is well written, useful, and reflective. Very good!
 * Ex#3: you have chosen some good examples to illustrate social movements both on social media and reflecting upon pre-social media contexts. You demonstrate a fairly sophisticated understanding of social movements as civic activities, and a critical eye for making connections between arguments related to civic engagement. You write in a very straightforward and very accessible manner, and your style is nonetheless appropriately academic in tone – this is a challenge, and your style manages to walk this line. Some excellent use of independently-sourced secondary sources here to support your argument. Useful image as an illustration, and to frame the text.
 * Ex#4: This is an excellent, reflective and critically-astute response to the brief. You clearly have understood the underlying learning opportunities in relaying your own experiences of working with wiki environments for assessment purposes, but also draw some very clear connections between different relevant approaches to wikis as a concept, using a range of set reading. The image used here are useful and give nice context to the points you make and again, help to frame and break the blocks of text up. Well done!

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


 * '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. Excellent.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on your contribs to Essay Discussion Page
Contributions to discussion of this standard roughly correspond 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:


 * 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.

In addition, you were asked in the brief to address the following guidelines in terms of contribution, engagement and conduct, Here is an evaluation of those elements of your activity on the Essay Discussion Pages: •	Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.

•	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 o	It is expected that you will make at least one contrib per day, for the duration of the project


 * Pass. (Upper end of the grade band). Fairly consistent engagement throughout the duration of the project. A large number of smaller, but very important edits made on both your own pages and on the main essay discussion page. This is crucial: it allowed you to engage with the other students as more of a community and to take what you learned to a wider audience. Unfortunately, there are no contribs that could be considered substantial, significant or considerable: although it’s important to acknowledge that this is about quality of engagement much more than quantity, one would expect at least one or two of these more weighty contribs in there which would have made a positive difference to the essay and to the project overall.

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

•	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 	Merit.

•	Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. For further information about this in a Wikimedia context, please go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated. 	Excellent. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)