User talk:Eam00024

Online Visibilty

Its hard to imagine a world without the internet, it is present in all areas of life from employment to leisure the internet has now gone from a leisure activity to a basic need. So in a world dominated by social media and online action just exactly how much control Do we have over our online information and is it possible to be offline?

The internet has developed over time and is now home to thousands of applications and media platforms, the most common of those being social media websites such as Facebook twitter and Instagram. From these sites we can document our every move either through written public posts or by using video or picture to update friends and fellow users. As a social media addict I understand just how hard it is to go offline this is because browsing through this websites is so easy and instant messaging puts pressure on you to be online at all times.

As Henry Jenkins explains media convergence has again changed the internet making it even more difficult to be offline, we now rely on the internet for almost everything and its all available on our mobile phones. So it is clear the internet has become a part of our daily lives and all in all we seem o enjoy it so its not unusual to wonder what the problem actually is?

The problem is that we trust this world with all our biggest secrets our finance and our plans without any guarantees that our information is safe. More and more it is becoming clear that our information isn't just held tight it is sold and becomes part of a huge scale marketing project. From which sites such as Facebook earn millions by selling our likes and interests to websites under the promise that the ad they have paid for will appear on our timeline. The ad will contain something we have previously searched ensuring that we are likely to visit the website being advertised' this technique is subtle and has proved effective, it is commonly known as suggestive browsing.

The scary part of techniques such as suggestive browsing is that we do not even realise we have been exploited. Personally I am aware that the information I share on social media may not be safe but my love of social media and the fear off missing out overrides any concerns I have. Hard to admit but I am certain am not alone, the amount of time we spend online will only continue to grow and I would reluctantly conclude that being completely offline may become impossible. As for social medias suggestive browsing it will continue so long as it continues to make money and with millions of people continuing to use facebook every day I would say the future of carefully planned ads is safe.

I really enjoyed you thoughts on how have become so engulfed in media with your comments like "We trust this world with all our biggest secrets our finance and our plans without any guarantees that our information is safe" and "I share on social media may not be safe but my love of social media and the fear off missing out overrides any concerns I have." I completely agree and it is strange to think these are issues we have no compared to issues 20 years ago. I do think you could expand more on your thoughts by using personal examples on how you, personally are visible online and reflect on the platforms that do not give full security of your information such as facebook and instagram.

Annotated Bibliography

Sullivan, A. (2012) Media Convergence of Newspapers. School of Communication, Liberty University. 1:1-19

In this article Sullivan looks at how media convergence has affected newspapers over time, highlighting the importance of media convergence to the future of news. The author makes use of academic sources, backing up her claims that newspapers still have a future but also using them to outline the changes media convergence has brought. She examines a wide range of debate arguing that print media will continue to have a place in news but also uses a variety of examples to illustrate the challenges being faced by newspapers attempting to adapt to media convergence. This article is useful for my research because my essay topic is media convergence and this article explains the impact of media convergence has in detail. It also looks at how it could transform print media using academic references to justify any claims. A limitation of this article is that in only explores the impact of media convergence within print media, a wider look at the topic would provide a better understanding. In conclusion this article explains the challenges media convergence has brought to print media before concluding that print media will continue to play an important role in the media. Finally, I will use this piece in my future work as it provides me with useful information on media convergence.Eam00024 (discuss • contribs) 11:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Eachainn, your study is very concise, showcasing a good knowledge of her main findings whilst showing how it could potentially correlate to our study of media convergence. I too agree that we could possibly use her work and findings in relation to our research on media convergence as a whole. Her study focuses on newspapers as you said, which may allow us to follow up on her research as it will grant us to cover all sources of media, and not just digital. Good post overall. Keep up the good work! JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 10:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a decent annotated bibliography that gives a very good broad summary of the piece of writing. However I would have liked to see at least a very basic outline of what Sullivan says specifically on the theme of media convergence and its effects on such a traditional outlet as the newspapers. I like the fact that you chose this piece at it may be incredibly useful on the theme of media convergence as it highlights the effects newspapers which were considered the go to for news however in recent times may have to spread even more or primarily online.Ekm00007 (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Eachainn, this is a very well written annotated bibliography and gets straight to the point. I always knew that newspapers were fading out. However, this research makes it very apparent why (media convergence). I hope this annotated bibliography has come in useful for your groups collaborative essay. MTxPrincipessa18 (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Collaborative Research Essay
1.

Hi Josh, thank you for your positive feedback I appreciate it. I'm glad you agree that the piece is relevant to our essay and agree that it offers an alternative angle on media convergence looking at it from a newspapers point of view. We agree that it is valuable to our research but I feel its greatest weakness is that it only tackles one aspect of media convergence, that's why I found your comment so useful, when you suggested the piece be used as a starting point from which I could construct a more detailed argument. Finally I wondered if you had found any other theorists discussing media convergence within newspapers as I would be keen to compare? I feel this would give me an even better understanding. Eam00024 (discuss • contribs) 13:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all Eachainn, I will give credit where credit is due. Exactly, looking at a larger number of academical sources is only going to aid our group during our research. I've turned my focus this week to looking deeper into Jenkins views and findings on convergence as I'll be covering his section in the collaborative essay, so as of right now, I can only suggest you read my annotated bibliography on Meikle and Young's work on convergence as they cover newspapers and other forms of media. Why don't you look into your part of the collaborative essay, focusing on Holt and Samson, and research to see if their findings cover media convergence in the newspapers? Just a suggestion. Let me know how you get on.

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 13ː52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

2.

Hi Ewan, thank you for your feedback, having read your constructive criticism I took another look at my annotated bibliography to see if I agreed with your criticisms. I now recognise that my piece is very broad and that in the future I will need to be specific on why the piece is useful however I feel as though I do make clear the purpose of Sullivan's work, highlighting that the piece aims to explain the impact of media convergence on newspapers and the ways in which convergence has changed print media. Eam00024 (discuss • contribs) 11:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, on reflection I think that you have made a good effort here and I think I was poor in reflecting that. You have made it clear what the piece is about. All I was saying was that I think you could have gone into more specifics in terms of what the piece was about in detail. Not so much that you have to over complicate the annotated bibliography but enough so that the reader (i.e. me) can get much more of an insight into the piece itself. However I do think that you have chosen a good piece here that is relevant and will be very useful in your study of convergence culture and ultimately the collaborative essay itself.Ekm00007 (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, I will in the future you look to go into more detail on the piece itself so that the reader is under no doubts about what the piece is focusing on and why I feel it useful. I am glad you recognise its relevance and I would suggest that you now look at other readings such as Henry Jenkins to provide you with a more detailed understanding, I recently read holt and Samson and I would suggest you do the same. Eam00024 (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Holt and Samson is a good suggestion which I will look into myself. Overall I think you have a good basis from which to move forward from now and the collaborative essay should be a little clearer.Ekm00007 (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 4

This module has been my first experience of the information sharing platform wiki books. In the past I have used messaging platforms such as social media outlets Facebook and WhatsApp to share information, but wiki books offers a different experience. As a platform, wiki books supports the creation of e book textbooks which have free content and annotated texts which can be edited by anyone. It has an objective of visibility in order to make users aware of the aims of those contributing and therefore strengthen transparency. The platform allows users to share their findings to a wider audience ensuring that the discussion that follows is well-rounded and I found that the comments I received to my posts were more useful than ones I am used to receiving from peers through other platforms. This may be because the platform does not restrict the number of times you can comment or the fact that unlike other platforms the information is not restricted to certain chosen peers but open to all to critique.

Due to this high quality discussion and feedback, wiki books facilitated the collaborative research my group was involved in and the platform to enabled us to successfully design and create our research. However, we did have some difficulty with it. At the beginning I personally found it much harder to set up then a standard messaging outlet and this may put off future users. In addition, the process of editing on wiki books was also slow and my group had to use Facebook at times to discuss changes before adding to the page. This was largely because it was much quicker to discuss the changes on Facebook than on the page and this saved us a lot of time working out certain aspects of our plan. Therefore, the site is not without its weaknesses and ideally the use of other methods of discussion would not have been needed.

I would say that wiki books does foster a community. The key features of the platform allow people to connect with people with similar interests and, although the information found will not always be written by academics, it will always help you to challenge your own opinions and findings. The community I was part of through wiki books was a hugely helpful one. The freedom of the site allows everyone to voice their opinions and I feel this the main reason why it is a success in building capacity in online communities - it encourages collaboration at every opportunity. This freedom I have just highlighted is a key aspect of the platform and is why I feel the site does offer online emancipation, allowing users discuss and adapt as much as they like.

Online collaboration was the main aim of this essay and I would argue that this collaboration represents a digital commons as it involved not only the dissemination of online information but it’s communal ownership. By working communally, problems were solved faster and, through discussion rather than personal preference, we solved the problems we faced through online discussion - by taking into account everyone’s views, we made important decisions collaboratively within our research group. We are combined owners of our finished piece having all contributed to its creation the strong group ownership gives this online collaboration a strong indication of representing digital commons.

In summary, having never previously held a wiki account of any kind I did take time to become comfortable with the wiki books format. However, having worked through this collaborative research project, I did began to appreciate it's defining features. The platform provides freedom and informative feedback to it’s users as well as an interactive platform for discussion. I benefited from these features and played my part in creating what I belief is a well-balanced research essay which can now be used as a valid source of information. To conclude, wiki books has its restrictions but can be a powerful platform for collaborative research.Eam00024 (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Hey there @Eam00024, I think this is a fantastic review of the wiki books exercise and how you found it. I very much agree with the sentiment that wikibooks offers a much different experience from other platforms which have a social feature, I see it as more of an educatory platform than a social tool. Facebook and Twitter for me are places for users to communicate to each other about more general issues. Throughout my groups attempt at this collaborative project I found that we often would talk on Facebook to plan for the project just like yourselves. Did you ever meet in person or was this just largely over wikibooks and Facebook? We found a problem in meeting up to discuss what we would do on the wikipage, because we would do most of our discussion in person, we wouldn’t communicate our thoughts as effectively online as we did in these meetings. Leading to our group discussion page initially looking bare as a result.Did you encounter this problem at all?

The communal aspect is by far one of the best things about the platform itself, getting insightful feedback from other users and giving feedback, gives us a better understanding on what we are trying to do here. Its open accessibility lends itself to this, we can all look at each other’s projects, discussion pages and contributions, learning from each other in a fairly accountable ecosystem. Speaking on your point about connecting to people with similar interests and even speaking to those who challenge your thoughts and opinions this is vital to growing as an academic and as an individual going through life. We all like our echo chambers to voice opinions without being told we are wrong but I find that since we are all working towards a common goal and show respect for each other we give leniency. Once on the platform I find myself changing mindset in how I approach people on the site, finding all users I have encountered friendly and helpful I would actively engage in conversation and be equally respectable and polite towards them. I agree it encourages collaboration at every opportunity, I feel though that this open and somewhat anonymous format could have downsides. I.e. users editing without permission and not being able to hold them accountable for there changes. Glady this has not been encountered by myself or anyone I know of on this module, but I have encountered this on other platforms. Perhaps this is just based on the context of the platform, though it is food for thought, for use in the future.

I note that you found setting up the wiki to be challenging at first, which would imply that you overcame that. I felt like this throughout a large portion of the project, however after doing the reading, looking through guides I eventually came to grasps with it, I would say I am particularly tech savvy but still found difficulty with it. I still find the UI quite unflattering for first time users, but I am possibly in the minority, I may be a slight stickler when it comes to Design interfaces as I spend a lot of time designing myself, but I remember having to write my responses within word at first because that felt more comfortable.

Thankfully I think we both have learned a lot from this experience and have had a small amount of issues with the project, once we discovered how useful it could be. I for one had done quite a bit of group work prior to this but mostly in person, the dynamic changes quite a bit when put online for all to see, but I too think it refines and directs your attention to the project at hand, as long as you are not procrastinating by looking at other websites of course!, I hope that your essay assignment goes well and that you enjoyed my response towards your work, good luck.

Jackaodha (discuss • contribs) 21:00, 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 (although it ought to be noted that this work is at the higher end of the descriptor):
 * Poor. Among other things, poor contributions may just offer links without real comment or apparent point. They may offer nothing more than poor-quality synopsis or description of material of dubious relevance. They may have serious clarity problems (including dead links, random graphics) which affect comprehension (or even worse, admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement). They might be off-topic, private trivia, or of unclear relevance. The wiki markup formatting will be of a poor standard.

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 a handful days registered as having logged a contrib. However, when you did engage, these were often useful entries in terms of moving the project forward. Additionally though, appropriate level of engagement is not in evidence: your largest contrib to discussion pages by far consisted of mere draft work for the essay page and di not evidence discussion of the ideas.

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


 * A number of contribs registered as being under 1000 characters, and a couple that could be regarded as larger contributions to the project. However, as pointed out above, some of this is draft work (with only 1 larger discursive contrib of around 1300 so there doesn’t seem to be much contribution in aggregate).

•	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


 * Possibly the weakest element – with the notable exception of on contrib which was really useful in the discussion, and I note one or two on user discussion pages which are fed in to the collaboration.

•	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


 * Not too much of this in evidence.

•	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.

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:


 * Good. Among other things, good 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 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. More generally, your posts evidence a real effort to engage others. Undoubtedly, this engagement would have been significantly more in-depth had you engaged in further and wider independent study around the subject matter.


 * In addition, it is reasonable to suggest that 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, if a little brief or functional at times. 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. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion. This is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about. I also note that you are beginning to discuss 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: although there is some evidence of critical engagement with set materials, more evidence required for independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material


 * Argument and analysis: generally fairly well articulated. Whereas there is evidence of critical thinking and relational thinking, this would almost certainly have been improved through wider reading habit. This is something that you can take forward into future years.


 * Presentation: see above comment on use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

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