User talk:Jademanning

Wiki Exercise 2: Annotate Bibliography

Dal Zotto, Cinzia & Lugmayr, Arthur. Media Convergence Handbook. Vol. 2. Media Convergence as Evolutionary Process Pp.3- 16. Springer, 2016.

Dal Zotto et al. provides an overview by highlighting important issues and insights regarding media convergence processes, as well as the cause and effect of media convergence trends. The chapter discusses how media is used across different platforms and gradually becoming more and more digitalised. There is a common assumption that new media is replacing old media. However, the authors claim that it is rather an interplay between the two, which leads to distribution, hence divergence, which also highlights the advantages and disadvantages that go along with it. The chapter offers insight on the process of convergence, which will lend itself to my own independent research as it aids to better understand the ins and outs of media convergence to help me with my further research. Dal Zotto’s chapter is quite general which is limiting. This chapter has helped better my understanding of media convergence, thus I can use it as a backbone for more specific articles for my own research.

Jademanning (discuss • contribs) 16:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

COMMENTS
Hey, real solid writing here - you've delivered a well-constructed piece and clearly represented the content and goals of your source material, so that's certainly a plus. I'll admit that I was once of the assumption that new media would entirely replace older, more conventional media - however paper journalism and radio still holding relevancy in our era is testament against that idea. There certainly is a great deal of overlap and convergence between new/'old' media - what examples spring to mind for you? And secondly, how would you rather Dal Zotto to have structured/re-focused their chapter? I do understand that mild frustration whenever a good source speaks too broadly - nothing wrong with a bit of niche theory to support further research! Whilst convergence might not be my main area of research on this project, it does have notable ties to ideas surrounding transmediality (and TS), hence why I sought out your work. If this short piece is any indicator of your research to come, then I look forward to seeing it in the future - keep up the good work!

JamesFDTD99 (discuss • contribs) 17:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I am glad to see you take interest in my piece about media convergence. Despite Dal Zotto’s work being quite general to my own research, it does provide a good backbone for my collaborative essay. The collaborative essay will be investigating how the concept of media convergence can be discussed in relation to Marvel. The chapter has helped me better understand the ins and outs of media convergence and lead me be able to conduct further research on my collaborative essay topic with more confidence. Regarding your question about the interplay with old and new media, Marvel is the perfect example. Marvel’s success depends heavily on its comics, which I would consider old media as its printed. The success rate of the films that Marvel produces, relies heavily on the storyline and the characters of those in the comics because this is how it appeals so much towards its fan base. Which makes the relationship between the Marvel comics, films, videogames, TV show…etc. a great example of the media convergence, more specifically the interplay between old and media. I do agree with you, in terms of media convergence and transmediality having some overlap. Continuing with my example of Marvel, the franchise has managed to curate different storyboards that spread across multiple media platforms which I feel like is type of transmedia storytelling. I hope this is helpful to you and your own independent research and thank you for your comment!

Jademanning (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Jade hows things? Andrew Keen has the same perspective except he is convinced that old media is more or less been completely taken over by new media. He brings up ideas that the digitalization of everything makes the physical market disappear. Only having online downloads effects the income of the artist and the fewer CD they sell the more reliable they are on concerts and festivals. You also have to consider illegal downloads and other means of getting music. But i could see that there is a combined version of old and new but i think this might change in the future and the old will diminish and and the new will take over. But the topic of convergence is interesting as it isn't a definite yet. I would definitely use it as a source of information for research purposes in your collaborative essay. Hope thats going well and good luck to you and your group. Chrisalwayson (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Chris, Thank you for you response. You certainly bring up an interesting point regarding online downloads affecting the music industry. While I see the point you make with CD sales not being what it used to due do illegal downloading and this effecting the income of artists. However, a good example of old media still having its place in today's society is Vinyls. The popularity of vinyls is rising in the modern day, which in my opinion are considered an old media. Media very much markets the 'retro' aspect of collecting vinyls and the appeal of having limited edition versions of songs. Being able to listen to a limited edition version online, does not elicit the same satisfaction as owning it onesself. However, I do see your point, the music industry is certainly a controversial one and I'm excited to read more about your topic!

Jademanning (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Collaborative Essay Reflective Account
Wikibooks is an open knowledge platform that is part of the Wikimedia projects. It is part of a knowledge building community that provides open content textbooks that can be edited by anyone. The Wikibooks platform helps emphasise visibility by helping like-minded individuals who are interested in investigating similar fields of research to engage with one another. You can provide tips and critics to further their research by engaging in their posts with comments and links to useful supplementary material. By being able to engage with other users on the Wikibooks platform it enables more free flowing discussion that can stimulate ideas and provide information to those who seek it. It also helps with facilitating collaborative research. For example, my peers have commented on the content that I put up on wikibooks through the discussion page. This helps with my independent work. Through the feedback I get I am able to use it to my benefit to try and work on areas of my work that may be lacking or need clarifying. Through the use of discussion pages my group was able to post their ideas and own research so the entire group can have an overview on their progress for their individual part of the essay. This enables us to see how the work is flowing and assist one another to create a well-developed essay, through posting links, progress, ideas, comments…etc. With the editing tools we are able to change and add to our mutual forum in our own time to help with the collaborative nature of the project. Every student works in their own way, the tools that Wikibooks provides helps to facilitate those needs. online collaboration is a great representation of digital commons. It is a good way to access other peoples work and provide feedback for one another as well as source existing material on one’s own independent research. By being able to comment on each others publications it provides helpful insight to what an individuals research or writing is lack. Through collaboration peers can help with each others strengths and weaknesses and have potential to create a better piece of academic work than one could do so independently. While wiki platforms serve as an efficient way of attaining information and aids in sourcing and understanding information, there is a reason wiki platforms cannot be used as academic resources. The fact that anyone can access and edit wiki documents is a great way to engage in resources. However, this also means it cannot be served as academic material as the information found can be false due to the fact that anyone can change the information provided and no one fact checking the information available.

For my own independent project that I participated in on the Wikibooks platform considered of a collaboratory essay wherein we decided to investigate to what extent Marvel is a good example of media convergence on various media platforms. The Wikibooks platform served as a great tool for my group to post the progress we had made in terms of coming up with our research question and identifying the aspects we wanted to tackle within the essay. It also gave peers the opportunity to comment on our discussion page viewing the inputs we had made. This both benefits my group aswell as other groups that may be writing essays on similar fields to give feedback and gain insight on how other people choose to tackle similar topics. When we would meet offline, discussing who would like to contribute what to what part. I believe we divided up the work very fairly, listening to each other’s inputs in order to have as balanced of an essay as possible. I do believe that when working in a group persons need to gauge other people’s work ethics to work more effectively. However, overall I believe we tackled the essay very effectively by working on compromises and having open communication.

Jademanning (discuss • contribs) 20:12, 9 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:
 * Clear Fail. Assignment responses receiving marks below 30% tend to not contain any merit or relevance to the module. Contrinbutions 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.


 * None.

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


 * None.

•	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


 * None.

•	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.

•	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.


 * None.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:01, 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 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. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to these particular sets of posts, you tended to engage rather sporadically, and only just enough to hit the assignment targets. A more organic and open approach to the platform would have seen through better results. This is all described in your reflective account, but you didn’t seem to put the theory into practice in a convincing way.


 * In addition, 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. 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 here, in your annotated bibliography, but little evidenced in the remainder of the portfolio of exercises.


 * Argument and analysis: Clearly in evidence, yet somehow disconnected from the practical aspects of peer-review and discussion.


 * Presentation: much more could have been done in this regard.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)