User talk:Funkyalex

Exercise #1 - Online Visibility?
In a society that is always on and connected, it is rarely difficult to track someone down. The internet is like a scaled down version of the high tech software that Edward Snowden showed us the government use. However now, we can just use our smartphones. Facebook tells us when we were last active online, Instagram shows us where you have been recently and Snapchat physically has GPS on us so you can see precise coordinates. These are all websites and apps that pretty much everyone in the 21st century society use at least one of.

Our privacy is being questioned daily as it is difficult to really know who can see what and about who. For example when someone creates a Facebook account everything is turned on and anyone in the world can find and see you and know what you’re doing and where you are doing it and so it is our responsibility to filter through the various settings to make ourselves unknown.

The downside to this is that we live in a deluded world where people can become famous from the number of followers they have, it is a place of judgement and prejudice. Finding out how many followers someone has and how many uploads they have is supposedly an indicator to the type of person they are. When someone first starts using the sites they want to gain followers and friends as quickly as possible, so naturally you accept every friend request you can, completely disregarding who the person is and what they can see of you. I too was one of these people, frantically accepting and following, hungry for social presence. However, over time I hit a period of what is the point of all this? Do I really care what this person is having for breakfast? Why do I want to scroll through photos of people having a better time than me? This, quite impressively for me, went on for a while however there is such a pressure now on having a presence on social media that I crumbled again and as a result of this pressure to have presence, I too have succumbed to this pressure and as a result for example I have started using hashtags and have changed my Instagram account from private to public, allowing anyone in the world to follow you without you being able to accept their request.

I for one, would not describe myself as having a large presence in the social media sphere, although I do have an account with all the aforementioned sites. I do not regularly post statuses or photos and I have unticked most of the relevant boxes regarding control over privacy. Although I am not creating much content on these sites, I am still engaging with it on a regular basis, enough time that the sites know what I'm looking at and are able to tailor adverts to me, enough time that I receive notifications telling me who is near me. I use Facebook mainly for the Messenger aspect of it, for contacting friends and for work purposes. Even this comes with an active notification so people know when you are using it and are therefore contactable. So, for example you have no excuse for responding to someone in their view if Facebook is telling them that you are ‘active’. Unfortunately we live in a world where, if you are online, it is very difficult to actually have total privacy, a disturbing fact, however with the amount of information readily available is there really a way of moderating this?

--Funkyalex (discuss • contribs) 00:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Alex! I hope you are doing very well.

I find it interesting that you feel as if you have "subcommed" to joining social media sites. As if this was just social complacence. I completely understand this feeling. And there sure is pressure to keep up with a never ending social life (especially at university) because of the never ending stream of photographs being posted by everybody you are friends with "online". The pressure feels more intense than ever.

I hate the tailored adverts also because I hate spending money and they know how to hit me where it hurts for sure.

Anyway, I hope you are having a good day. The weather looks rather good. I hope it stays this way. Also, consider joining the universities film making society next semester: AirTV - it is a bunch of fun, I promise. We meet on Wednesday's at 7pm in W1.

I enjoyed reading your post very much! I hope you are finding your way through the collaborative essay ok! I cannot wait until Thursday when I can finally stop working on it and then we have no more deadlines for this course until April!

Digitalmediafiend (discuss • contribs) 12:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you for your comments about my post, much appreciated. Yes I was looking to join the society next semester and get more hands on! Yes, I'm with you on that, I've never been so confused on a piece of work, bring on Thursday!

--Funkyalex (discuss • contribs) 13:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
In terms of online privacy, you are spot on, it is very easy to discover people's locations due to the location services within social medias such as Snapchat. The way in which privacy settings are automatically set to as public as possible and how they are hidden away means a lot of users will not interfere with them and remain very public whether they want to or not. I also liked the way you discussed how important online followers are deemed to be and the lengths people will go to to gain more. I believe many social media users try to appear as a different person on social media in order to get more attention, they post content to make themselves look better as many people are obsessed with how other people see them. (Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 01:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC))

Comments
I am rather intrigued with your description of social media usage as we see it today. I would agree with the apparent social media culture that revolves around getting as many followers as possible and the social implication of an elite status that a high follower count imbues on the user. This highlights the element of online visibility that is choice; as you mention, privacy online can be controlled but only to an extent, and making oneself entirely visible to the general public is a personal choice. Your ending question on moderating privacy points as well to agency on the internet, although I think that the level of one's online visiblity is still not entirely up to them: by signing terms and conditions to each social platform, we give away a bit of our right to our privacy, which essentially equates to agreeing to differing levels of uneasiness at how much of our information is available to the public. Auj00003 (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
This was a really interesting account to read. I too started to use more and more hashtags, particularly on Instagram. There is definitely a social judgement their which reflects onto our self esteem. If I post a photo and it gets only a few likes, I feel rubbish and have sometimes deleted the post because of the lack of public approval which is really crazy when you think about it. We sometimes put stuff out their just for people's judgement. When I have a photo that gets even twenty likes, I am so happy and feel good in myself and in my skills.

There is a scary sense to how much of our activity is being watch and used by friends, strangers and companies, with and without our knowledge.

Overall, a well-written and thought-provoking post.

--Stirsb00027 (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Exercise #2 - Annotated Bibliography
[1] Jenkins, H. (2008) Searching for the Origami Unicorn: The Matrix and Transmedia Storytelling, chapter 3, pages 93{130. New York University Press, New York and London.

[2] In this article Henry Jenkins explores the impact of the film The Matrix on the theories of Transmediality and Transmedia Storytelling and how the story unfolds across multiple mediums. He also uses this to reflect upon our society as a whole. [3] The author aims to discover why The Matrix was so successful through his own experiences and in comparison with other franchises. [4] Jenkins researches the different mediums in which the franchise is channelled and also compares this to other examples. [5] This article is extremely useful to my research as it tackles the fundamentals of Transmedia Storytelling and just how successful it can be towards a franchise,[6] however Jenkins does acknowledge that there might be a generation gap in this method of storytelling and that it wouldn't work for every franchise. [7] He concludes that although this precise method may not necessarily work for all franchises, the concept must be explored deeper. [8] This article is extremely useful for my topic however I shall also be using research from other scholars and theorists to better strengthen my research.

[1]Citation [2] Introduction [3] Aims [4] Scope [5] Usefulness [6] Limitations [7] Conclusion [8] Reflection

--Funkyalex (discuss • contribs) 13:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Hi, this is a succinct and well written annotated bibliography citation. Henry Jenkins is a significant and prolific researcher in the field of media convergence and trans-media storytelling so this was a great source to look at and find other sources to build around it. Providing the key at the bottom was also a good idea as it clearly showed you had explored each of the necessary citation points. I think the idea of a potential generation gap is important as many franchises may not be subject to trans-media storytelling simply due to their time of creation. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC) Hello fellow wiki user. I appreciate your input to my discussion page and your agreement on the generation gap that appears in franchise transmedia storytelling. It is something that will definitely have to be incorporated into modern storytelling as a whole in our technological advanced society. If you liked this article you should have a read through this other article by Henry Jenkins (Jenkins, Henry (2004), “The cultural logic of media convergence”, International journal of Cultural studies, 7(1) pp. 33-43 London: SAGE Publications) here on my blog post. --Funkyalex (discuss • contribs) 01:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with the previous comment, this is a very well put together annotated bibliography that keeps only the essentials in which helps to give a very concise and effective summary of the piece. I also like the fact that you have chosen to cover a piece form Jenkins which as we all know is one of the foremost voices in this field. As a result I think you are giving yourself a solid foundation from which to build upon. You have also highlighted the limitations of the piece well also but concede that you will have to use other sources to verify or diminish Jenkins claims.Ekm00007 (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC) Hi there, thank you for your comments on my annotated bibliography. I find that the key that I follow is a major help in writing out a bibliography as it allows you to put all the essential information in, as you said yourself. I would be interested to know the topic that you were researching and if you too had come across Henry Jenkins in your findings? I gather from your comment you have been researching him yourself as has many of us on the course. I find he explains his points and backs them up with examples that are both relevant to the time and available to most people. If you are looking to research Jenkins any more then check out this other annotated bibliography of mine and read this article of his (Jenkins, Henry (2004), “The cultural logic of media convergence”, International journal of Cultural studies, 7(1) pp. 33-43 London: SAGE Publications). It is a very interesting article that explains media convergence and transmediality and he relates it to cultural studies. Hope that helps and I look forward to discussing this further with you. --Funkyalex (discuss • contribs) 01:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, you clearly make great use of the ideal structure for an annotated bibliography - really helps to segment each point within such a tight wordlimit. From your interpretations it's clear that you have a good grasp on Jenkins, which is essential for discussing transmediality - as he is certainly the authority on the topic. In regards to your critique, I had similar thoughts when reading Jenkins' article - luckily the fact that he calls for more research and insight into the storytelling generational gap speaks volumes for his academic integrity, one man can only contribute so much! In closing, solid insights, delivered briefly and informatively - kudos and keep up the good work! JamesFDTD99 (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Thank you for your input on my user discussion page James. Much appreciated and thanks for the comments on my annotated bibliography. I see that you are too a fan of Henry Jenkins (I reference him in almost all my work now), the man is a genius. It is an interesting topic, the generational gap in transmedia storytelling and one that I hadn't come across or really thought about until reading this article, the fact that it has become the norm nowadays to spread the narrative across multiple mediums. I really appreciate Jenkins in enlightening me with this topic and glad to hear that you appreciate him yourself. If your are interested in this then, as mentioned in another comment, have a read over this article by Jenkins (Jenkins, Henry (2004), “The cultural logic of media convergence”, International journal of Cultural studies, 7(1) pp. 33-43 London: SAGE Publications). Once again thank you for your comments and look forward to discussing this further. --Funkyalex (discuss • contribs) 01:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alex, your annotated bibliography is very interesting. I didn't know storytelling would be a prominent factor in advertising the Matrix franchise. Great find, best of luck. MTxPrincipessa18 (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Exercise 4 - Collaborative Essay Reflective Account
What kind of platform is Wikibooks?

From my experience of using Wikibooks, I have learned that it is a platform for projects and education. It includes textbooks, guides, handbooks, annotated bibliographies and texts. These can all be used for the purpose of learning in classrooms and for modules on a university course. Unlike Wikipedia you can’t simply add anything to a page. It allows users to add content quickly and edit any page on the site allowing a community to support, edit and give feedback on other users. You have your own discussion page where only instructional texts can be posted under moderation.

In what ways does it emphasis visibility, and why?

Wikibooks uses ‘contribs’ as a way of showing your input on the site. You gain positive contribs for texts added and negative contribs for text taken away. This means when searching for a user you are able to see what they have contributed to the site. Like any social media site you can gain a greater following by the more presence and content you have.

In what ways can it be used to help facilitate collaborative research?

For our collaborative essay on Wikibooks we were discussing the topic of Transmediality. This allowed for us to create discussion and brainstorm on the discussion page for next steps on forming our essay. We were able to upload the sections that we were working on and then discuss and give feedback about each section on our discussion page. It allowed us to work in our own time and then meet on a virtual page and share responsibilities. It was also a platform that allowed us to prrofread each others work so we can improve our collective intelligence.

In what ways does Wikibooks foster a community?

Wikibooks definitely does, in my opinion, foster a community. The fact that it is not run by a administration but rather by community discussion and contributions allows its users to be in control and call the shots for the website. The commited volunteer community is why the website is so successful and that it hasn’t imploded on itself. It shows that people don’t need a head figure to administer but rather if people are given the power to aid each other it allows for a platform of collective intelligence, where everyone is equal.

In what ways does online collaboration represent a digital commons?

As previously discuss the way online represents a digital commons is that it allows for the distribution and communal ownership of informational resources and technology. Everything is created by the community and shared by the community. So as it acts as a basis for shared resources this represents a digital commons.

Do wiki platforms offer potential for online emancipation? Why/not?

As it allows users to post what they want anonymously on the site one could argue that it does, however as it has to be related to the topic and be instructional towards learning what you post can be limited to a certain extent. So this means that there are both reasons for and against Wiki platforms offering potential for online emancipation.

--Funkyalex (discuss • contribs) 11:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

comments
1. I find your take on Wikibooks interesting. It has been a great tool for recording and posting information, the way it works allows for a greater interaction between peers creating an almost "learn together". While it does have a slight moderation, it still allows for freedom of posting and collaborating in order to learn and grow in the knowledge of social and digital media in the new age. In regards to your comment about learning in classrooms, I wonder if you found wikibooks useful to your experience in seminars. I feel as if seminars helped wikibooks, and that the website allowed for more of an individual growth. When it comes to contribs, I never knew what the plus and negatives meant. Thanks for elaborating, it does help track ones progress on the site and makes it easier to view updates and changes. I found your take on the meaning of visibility very interesting, I guess it does attract more of a following although I do not think it has the same attraction as many blog sites such as wordpress, and it seems harder to actually "follow" someone on this account. For our topic, we also studied transmedialty so I can understand your feelings towards the topic. We found WikiBooks very useful in our collaborative research, it allows a conversation to grow and for us as individuals to elaborate in our specific area of study. I agree with your idea of collective intelligence as portraying an academic idea as a unit rather than individuals, which I found different but very interesting and coincidentally related nicely to our topic. Being almost community led, for instance our tutors being able to set up a page that all of our essays and personal pages were on, made wikibooks very close to fostering a community. While it does this, the anonymity and lack of style makes it harder to make people stick to the website and they turn to sites like Tumblr, Twitter and reddit. However, users certainly keep this platform alive by modifying, editing and improving each others work in order to push the idea of a collective intelligence. This is good because it makes information on the website, a large quantity of people pushing an area of knowledge- this can go wrong, hence why it is not an academic source. Ownership is an issue on wikibooks, as you can only use images you own or that are certified by Wikicommons. However, I do feel that the provision of this facility allows for a shared ownership of the wikibook community- further pushing the idea of collective intelligence through a collective ownership of imagery and ideas that push or promote and idea. Online emancipation is an important topic and you touched on it well, anonymous accounts allow for emancipation to both the growth and limitations of a platform. All in all, I thought your reflection on the collaborative essay research is informed and to the point. I would have liked to see your opinion on how the site is run and how you experienced it yourself. I know that it can be quite a tricky formula to get used to, therefor seeing your opinion could elaborate in your thoughts and view on the site of WikiBooks itself. Great read, I hope the course has treated you well. Good Luck! KaYuI (discuss • contribs) 16:13, 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:
 * Very Poor. Often, contributions of this standard are quite brief, are structured poorly and are not spell-checked. They are often irrelevant, and offer little engagement with the concerns of the module or the assignment brief. Contributions of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be of a very poor standard and as a result it will be difficult for the reader or fellow collaborators to engage with the discussion.

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 4 days registered as having logged a contrib, and the vast majority of these occur in 2 x 1hr periods on 4th and 5th April.

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, one that could be regarded as “substantial”, and another that that could be regarded as “considerable” contribution to the project, in quantitative terms. These two contribs are merely drafts of essay page content rather than 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


 * Not much in the way of this at all. Perhaps one or two contribs in the Brainstorming section, but these were small and limited to 28th March.

•	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) 12:13, 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.

Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries 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). The wiki markup formatting will need some work.


 * This work shows evidence of some engagement with the tasks, but some improvement especially considering further reading and study will go a long way to attaining a higher mark. 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. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to your work, some of the reflection is a little too descriptive, and could have been more informed through further reading and independent study. There are some indications that you have grasped the purpose and potential of wikibooks, however.


 * 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 – you have one or two that you have driven yourself, but mostly through responses to what other people have said. There is a willingness to engage, but it feels as though you never quite pushed your full potential here. 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: See above comment – more could have been done in this regard.


 * Argument and analysis: Some evidence of this.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)