User talk:Ekm00007

Annotated Bibliography
(1)Friedrichsen, M., & Kamalipour, Y. (2017). Introduction: Digital transformation in a global world. Digital transformation in journalism and news media (pp. 1-4). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

(2)In this introductory chapter to the book, Digital Transformation in Journalism and News Media, Friedrichsen and Kamalipour build on the concept of globalisation whilst relating it to the wide theme of convergence. They state that due to technology and the abundance of media platforms that we can all participate in; the world is becoming an increasingly small place. (3)The aim of the section is to establish the advantages and disadvantages of globalisation and convergence by giving the reader a good foundation of knowledge from which to build upon. This is done through real world examples which help the reader further absorb the theory and have it applied into a real life scenario. (4)The strengths of this piece are, as stated earlier, the relation to real life examples, in this case terror groups where they argue that while media convergence and globalisation is great for freedom of speech and democracy, it can also be used to help spread propaganda of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. (5)The section is limited by the fact that it does not give statistical evidence to support its arguments, however this could be explained by the reasoning of it being an introductory piece. (6)The piece will be useful for my research as it has helped to give further information on media convergence; even if only a basic grounding. (7)Thus piece will not form the basis of my research however it has helped at a very basic level to give me further knowledge on the theme of convergence.

Key: (1)Citation(2)Introduction(3)Aims and Research Methods(4)Strengths(5)limitations(6)Usefulness(7)Reflection

Comments
--Ekm00007 (discuss • contribs) 02:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I'm kind of interested in media convergence and its different uses, but I have never thought about it in this kind of use. But it´s understandable that it might be used for such bad goals, while it´s possible to reach everyone the world by using social media. Did the book writes about how it could be possible to stop an use like this? If we think about the changing use of media over the last hundred years, they always were kind of abused for a bad reason, like in the second world-war. Even if the world tries to stop it, it is hard, because they are so powerful and there seems to be always a way to use it. And additionally there are the freedom of speech, so even if they were used for the wrong reasons, there is always the law which makes it impossible to forbid the use of media. It´s kind of a devils circle. Akm00018 (discuss • contribs) 11:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Akm00018

--sok00011 (discuss • contribs)

Hi. I also have lots of interests in the media convergence and my collaborative essay's topic is also about it. I think It is reasonable that writers see globalisation has a relationship with convergence. Therefore, I will read it when I read my part of an essay. However, the fact that statistical evidence is not enough is what I need to remind my mind when I reference the book.

Hi, I found this annotated bibliography very useful, you have clearly met all the requirements of an annotated bibliography and provided a clear description of the article. I am surprised you do not want to use it in your research as I think I will, first because I have an interest in media convergence but also because it looks at globalisation in detail and could give me a better understanding. Eam00024 (discuss • contribs) 11:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ewan! Based on your annotated bibliography, it sounds like you found a perfect piece of work to use for you collaborative essay. It has many benefits: it explores both the positive and negative sides of media convergence and social platforms, as well as the way in which the world has become smaller due to convergence. It sounds like your essay is coming along well! Best of luck with writing it! Mom00107 (discuss • contribs) 18:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi this is a very well written and clear bibliography, the concentration on digital transformation is important from a reflective stance and how we can learn from our technological past. I will definitely give this a read as the way you have described the source the aims and objectives of the reading seem concise and to the point without bias as it cover the advantages and disadvantages, which is important when talking about technology as it's difficult to be particularly for or against technology. The fact that it uses examples again would make it clearer to understand and would be very useful, thank you !

Collaborative Research Exercise
1.

Hi, thanks for the comment Eam00024, I definitely see where you are coming from when you say that this piece will be very useful however I am only stating that the lack of statistical evidence and the fact that it is only an introductory piece will not be enough to give a substantial grounding on the subject thus I may have to delve deeper to get anything with further information that will give me a decent grounding on the subject. Ekm00007 (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ewan, yes absolutely it really is just an introduction to the subject providing vital background on the importance of media convergence within print media. I would agree in order to better your understanding of the topic further reading is essential. I would suggest reading henry Jenkins' work he provides a more detailed account of media convergence and should further your understanding. Have you found any other academic readings helpful that I too could use? Eam00024 (discuss • contribs) 14:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think reading up on Henry Jenkins would be highly beneficial for my research into media convergence and convergence culture as he has done some fine work in the field. I agree with you that I will need more reading as the theme of media convergence is one that is extremely complex and has caused a huge amount of debate amongst scholars. Consequently I would say that using Jenkins, as you stated, and perhaps finding an argumentative scholars view as well will help to give me a more well rounded base of research. In terms of authors we could both have a further look at I would perhaps suggest Andrejevic or even Fuchs as they provide counter arguments to what Jenkins has to say on the theme of media convergence and convergence culture.Ekm00007 (discuss • contribs) 14:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah absolutely, he makes some very good points. Yes as will I, the topic has so many different areas to be explored and each one is affected differently be the emergence of media convergence. yeah that's a good point, I will look to find opposing views also as it will allow me to contribute more to the collaborative essay. Thank you I will take that on board and id suggest you take a look at holt and Samson also as they provide more insight to the topic.Eam00024 (discuss • contribs) 14:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah will be very useful to the that theme and the collaborative essay. Also thanks for the suggestion of Holt ad Samson, any relevant readings into the topic will be highly valuable and I shall try and cover them as well as I can in the collaborative essay whilst also comparing them to other academic sources. All in all I think this will provide more than a solid foundation from which to build upon.Ekm00007 (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like an interesting read! It doesn't really relate to what I'm doing for my collaborative essay but if I ever have time in the future I'd maybe give it a read. I bet they'd have more statistics further in the book, otherwise the book as a whole would be pretty useless if it couldn't prove the points it made. The outline for what it chooses to discuss in the following chapters does sound endearing though! I've only ever read and discussed about media convergence being a tool for good and so seeing this side of it is definitely interesting and eye opening. The real-life example make the piece hit home and make us able to relate the concept to our everyday lives and so I am grateful for that! Thank you for your post, I enjoyed reading it. I hope your collaborative essay is going well and you are finding it easy enough to get on with. Cannot wait for Thursday to be over with and breathe again! (Until the next deadline comes at me)

Digitalmediafiend (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC

Collaborative Essay Reflective Account
Wikibooks is an online platform that has allowed many individuals to share and disseminate information online and ultimately establish an online community. One f the most influential features of the platform from my point of view is the ability to share ideas between students undertaking the Digital Media and Culture module. This was extremely helpful in gaining guidance from fellow students in the collaborative essay as they were able to provide constructive criticism from which to build upon. Another feature of the platform that proved very helpful for our group was the interactivity with Wikimedia commons which allowed us to obtain copyright free images which ultimately allowed us to satisfy the criteria of using various forms of media. I feel the use of this feature elevated our collaborative essay as we were able to provide further stimulus for the reader and include images that related to media convergence and convergence culture.

One essential feature of Wikibooks is the notion of visibility, which is demonstrated through the user’s ability to share information, edit information, and engage in meaningful debate around information via the platform. Essentially visibility allowed us to learn from other groups and for us to review others also, which enables a more effective learning experience. The participation of the 'audience' as it were is a large factor, however, in ensuring that this learning environment and community can thrive. For example, if only a few were to participate and not reciprocate others engagement then the community would not exist. Though our group, Digital Dancers, only met on three occasions in person, it was essential that we did. In our first meeting we finalised our question and area of research as well as dividing up the work from which to go away with. From this point we continued our interaction via our discussion page where we helped each other out by providing our findings and attempting to finalise a structure for our essay.

Our second meet up took place during one of the slots for the computer labs. This face to face meet up also proved essential to the completion of our essay as we were able to establish a logical flow to our essay after all the individual research we had undertaken. Establishing a logical flow to our essay was essential in producing an effective piece of work that would inform the reader, thus, the second meet up was essential as it could not be compensated for via the discussion page.

Our final meet up was essential in finalising our essay. It proved to be extremely worthwhile in that we were able to help each other out in working out the wiki mark-up way of citing references as well as adding in our final images to the piece. To conclude, I felt that whole the discussion page of our essay is where most of our collaboration took place, it was also essential to meet in person for reassurance and personal guidance. Consequently, I felt that as a team we were a success.Ekm00007 (discuss • contribs) 01:06, 13 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:
 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory contributions may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse) and will have little justification for ideas offered on Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will need some work.

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. Most contribs registered towards the final days of the project. The largest tend to be draft work, and as this is largely cut and paste work for your essay page, so I’ve discounted it (I am not able to assess the same work twice). Had you actually discussed the work over a sustained period as instructed, this would have made things much, much easier for yourself and for your group work. However, when you did engage, these were sometimes significant entries in terms of moving the project forward.

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 couple that could be regarded as “considerable” contribution to the project, although see above comment.

•	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


 * This was the weakest element of your contribution, for the reasons stated above. More evidence of this would have gone a long way.

•	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


 * You were collaborating on the discussion page. 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.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:39, 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.


 * Although this work is at the lower end of this grade band, you write fairly well in an accessible style, and in various posts and comments you make an effort to engage with some of the underlying issues. So there’s clearly room for improvement here, and higher marks are, based on this work, achievable in the future. 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.


 * 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 – these are fairly good, if a little brief and you could have increased this activity a little more to engage other users. 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: some evidence of critical engagement with set materials. I would have liked to have seen ore evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material


 * Argument and analysis: you have submitted some well-articulated arguments; and there is some evidence of critical thinking, although with further activity, this could have been substantially improved.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)