User talk:Jeneds

Online Visiblity
The famous saying of what you put on the internet, stays forever is very appropriate when discussing online visibility. The internet allows us to be instantly accessible and we tend to put little thought into what we share about us without thinking of the consequences; under the impression that if the internet is so vast, who will obtain it?

Personally, I am very conscious about what personal information is available to the world. I don't want to over share as I enjoy my privacy and oversharing can be annoying for others to tolerate. I mainly use: Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook and Twitter. Each of them state my age and my hometown as I don't mind people knowing as it's a big city. Interesting, I know people who write 'Cheshire' instead- even though they don't technically live in the boundaries. This is an example of how we can control our online visibly to achieve a certain social status. I am careful with specifying where in Manchester I live as it's a suburban village, but on Instagram I will happily share the location on a picture as I control who follows me. My account only recently turned private; before, I would monitor who followed my account - if I didn't know them, they were blocked. I never used to have an issue with my Instagram being public however as I've grown up, I've become more private. I used to have spam and bot (accounts which promoted things I don't agree with) like my posts, and I wasn't comfortable with that. I'm conscious of what I share with other people too. When I go on a family holiday, I don't post pictures when I'm there as this advertises that we're away and insurance companies can void insurance if you're broken into.

The 'snahmaps' feature on Snapchat is a good contemporary example of issues relating to online visibility. It relates to Dana Boyd's 'always-on' theory as our visibility on the internet leads to the belief that we are 'always-on' and always available. Maya Chayko's 'super connected' idea is: ' the online, digital world isn't a separate entity from the offline physical world, it is part of it' (Chayko, 2017). The information we decide to put on the internet does close the gap between the two worlds as we share our personal information, friends and location. 'Snapmaps', allows your friends to track your every location. This has caused controversy and concern regarding ethical issues as it can encourage stalking. Personally, only my best friends and those I trust can see me on the map. However, I thoroughly believe our visibility has created the notion that we are constantly available. To prove this, recently, a friend told me she checks my location on snapmaps before she phones me; this did slightly unsettle me as I don't like people to think I'm constantly available. We are not obliged to be constantly accessible and our visibility online can determine this.


 * 1) Jeneds (discuss • contribs) 11:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography
du Plessis, C. (2018) ''Prosumer engagement through story-making in transmedia branding. International Journal of Cultural Studies'', Sage Journals. The presented article by Plessis, analyses and considers the role of the prosumer in relation to transmediality and exemplifies both transmedia storytelling and the role of the prosumer in a case study of the LEGO brand. The author of the article uses the LEGO case study to examine how major brands, such as LEGO, use and engage with their audience and prosumers. This particular article would be useful for my collaborative essay as it provides a recent and contemporary case study of a major corporation which uses multiple platforms for its products such as: toys, films, games, television programmes and more. Furthermore, it provides good explanation and context to the meaning of prosumer and transmediality, drawing from Henry Jenkins (who is massively influential in digital media and culture topics as well as transmediality) and other scholars. It also considers the ‘Ideas’ website by LEGO which asks fan what content they want to see which is a good example of the prosumer being an active involvement in the story world. However, the article could provide more statistical evidence into the way the prosumer works with the LEGO brand and it lacks specific examples of toys and how the company uses transmediality to sell their products. Overall, I can see this article being used in my collaborative essay to provide an example and case study.

Jeneds (discuss • contribs) 13:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
This was a good article to discuss, and you brought up some really interesting points! Thinking about a brand like LEGO rather than the expected film or online media was a new perspective. This seems to also be heavily relevant to our essay as, like you noted, it is a contemporary and unique example of transmediality. I agree in that there could be more specific studies and explanations and the only improvement could be just a small explanation of what the case study actually was and how it was carried out. Other than that this was good and I look forward to looking more into this as part of our research! MillyZombie (discuss • contribs) 12:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a great article to discuss as it’s something different and it’s something not many of us would thought of. You tend to forget that toy brands such as LEGO and Mattel (Barbie) span more than just toys and games. You’ve made this very easy to follow and something that we should discuss in more detail in our group meetings in regards to our collaborative essay. I think it’s important that you noted the limitation of more statistical evidence as that is important in many research avenues and if there was more statistical evidence we would be able to have a further and more rounded understanding and allow that to feed into our essay. I think it’s also important that your article draws from Jenkin’s work as that is a crucial theorist when it comes to the field of transmediality. All in all I feel like this is an article that i’m looking forward to discussing and drawing from further in our group meetings. Lauraanniegoodwin (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The article is such a good article. It's extremely relevant to the transmedia story building world, as well as the collaborative essay and I feel it can tie in nicely with the look at merchandising and franchising. LEGO is such a huge contributor to any franchise these days, with new LEGO sets being brought out every time a major blockbuster is released, particular a superhero based one. LEGO is such a big company, it seems like this article attempted to draw on the whole brand, instead of focusing on the more popular areas, such as Star Wars or the Marvel Lego, which would provide a more detailed insight. I look forward to discussing this with you in greater detail in relation to our upcoming essay together! Rej00012 (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Rej00012 (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi rej00012, thank you for your contribution. I agree that this case study is very relevant to transmediality. Lego is interesting case study as it's a classic brand started off as a simple toy and it has developed to a massive franchise spanning over various platforms. Very true, do you think that perhaps there can be a cross over between different franchises then, as you correctly pointed out, LEGO and other franchises such as Marvel,DC, Disney other movie companies span their story-world to LEGO products. I completely agree with a detailed view on one specific product, perhaps we could mention the LEGO toy crossovers in out collaborative essay in relation to story-world and merchandising?? Jeneds (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
Hey Jen, how are you getting on with the Wiki assignments? I was going through your collaborative essay discussion page and it's looking really interesting. I like that you have decided on a topic that a lot of people would be interested in, as it shows how transmediality is a big part of our world today, even if people might not necessarily take this into consideration. I hope you are finding the Wiki platform easy to use, and good luck with the rest of your essay! Jfm00011 (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jess thanks for leaving a comment! It's going okay thanks, I'm enjoying the topic we've picked. I'm glad to hear that you find it interesting, it's a relief! It is really interesting to look into. I think I underestimated the scale and power of the DC world and Wonder Woman before I did this collaborative essay. I agree that we don't necessarily take it into consideration- most of us don't realise it and take it for granted! It's been interesting to see how much thought franchises and companies put into the branding and narratives of their stories for the fans, and essentially for their own profit. I've also looked at yours and it looks really good, it's so impressive! Thank you, good luck to you and the rest of your team. Jeneds (discuss • contribs) 19:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Collaborative Essay Reflective Essay
Wiki is an open-source site that allows user generated content to be created for free by anyone. This semester, I created a collaborative essay for my assignment. Previous to using Wikibooks, I only knew Wiki as Wikipedia, an online encyclopaedia that helped with many homework assignments and essays. Through using Wikibooks, I have expanded my knowledge on open-source websites and I have been able to practice and refine my teamwork skills through working collaboratively.

I found Wikibooks a difficult platform to understand as it's different to any I've used before. But through the beauty and nature of collaborative work, I was able to learn how to use mark-up by looking at other wiki pages and by consulting other users, which significantly helped! For our project researched the topic of transmedia storytelling and we used our discussion page to amass resources, discuss our topic and plan our essay. Wiki allows you to edit and contribute other users work and this feature helped as we could help each other out by leaving comments with suggestions or ideas to help our classmates with their work. I believe Wikibooks was useful for this because it allowed us to gather our ideas and thoughts in one place and it was easy to reflect on. Furthermore, thanks to the visiblity of the site, I was able to find other users and discuss with them. Whilst our opinions are visible on Wikibooks, we don't share much other personal information unless we want to, Therefore, only our opinions are visible and although these can be flagged as spam. Wiki offers the freedom for us to spread our knowledge.

Thanks to the open-source site that Wiki is, it creates a sense of community as it allows users to collaborate and share ideas and opinions with each other. It is incredibly easy to add comments, and I know with my project, we invited other groups in our discussions and this harboured a sense of community as we helped each other out.

However, i did have some issues with the platform and its format. As we collected more and more discussion logs, I found that it looked unorganised and I didn't like the format as I found it difficult to read through. Another difficulty was that I couldn't copy and paste into a post so I would have to retype my documents which I found time-consuming and not user-friendly. I also couldn't copy in websites, YouTube videos or other embedded content which I found slightly detrimental to my posts as this outside content could have strengthened my posts.

I believe Wiki does offer online emancipation as it allows anyone to create discussions and this inclusivity is liberating as anyone can share their knowledge. However, whilst social media doesn't offer the chance to edit other peoples posts, this can still be achieved via any other social media platform such as Facebook, Twitter or a blog site. These domains are popular meaning your ideas can reach a wider audience; other users can still contribute to conversation and discussion through comments and I believe it is more user-friendly without the coding of mark-up and the unanaesthetically pleasing interface.

To summarise, whilst it was useful to see how to use another platform and it was insightful to expand my awareness of knowledge-building websites, i prefer the community aspect, feel and use of blog sites to discuss and contribute.

Jeneds (discuss • contribs) 10:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there,

This is a good piece of work that I think that you have put a lot of thought into. I agree with you that the platform of wikibooks, which I was not familiar with either at first, does help to garner a sense of community. I especially like the fact that you mentioned how the platform has helped your teamwork skills as it forces the user to collaborate with others in this community as you put it.

I would also concur with your statement that it is easy to add comments on the discussion page. However, I would also be curious as to if you ran into any problems when trying to use wiki mark-up to cite sources etc because I know that many groups experienced problems when attempting to use this feature of wikibooks.

Furthermore, I would have liked to see a little information about how you got on with adding the multimedia element to your essay in terms of pictures that are copyright free etc. Although I do understand that we perhaps would have had less problems had the computer labs gone ahead.

However, I like how you have mentioned some draw backs to the platform that your group felt fit to include. Specifically the discussion page that you stated became unorganised and cluttered. This was a problem that our group experienced as well, eventually getting to the point where it was a hassle in locating previous relevant parts that we wanted to go back to. I felt you could have related this to why other platforms may have had to be used to avoid the build up of this clutter, i.e. messenger etc.

I also believe that a huge benefit to the platform, however, is the notion of visibility. Though we also experienced problems like yourself, we were able to overcome them through the help that we got from other classmates in regard to the aforementioned wiki mark-up and multimedia problems that we experienced. These were resolved through, in no small part, visibility, which enabled fellow classmates to help with our problems. Thus, I feel that your inclusion of this is relevant and well written speaking from first hand experience.

I would have liked you to elaborate on your criticism of the platform being not user friendly. Though I agree with the point you made in regard to the inability to copy and paste, link websites etc, I think you could have developed your point further as there is much more of a case to make the platform more user friendly. Overall, you covered the point well I just feel as though you could have elaborated slightly more.

The point made in regard to emancipation and social media platforms enabling the same type of discussion is also a very interesting one. I like the fact that you point out that while you can't edit other peoples posts on social media platforms it still enables the same type of free discussion and collaboration that wikibooks does.

Overall, I think this is a fairly comprehensive reflective account on your wikibooks and collaborative essay experience. You have outlined a lot of the elements of the project well however I would have liked to have seen more of a focus on you and your group and how you approached the task together. Overall, well done though.Ekm00007 (discuss • contribs) 01:29, 16 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:
 * Excellent. Among other things, contributions 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 formatting, 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 and transparent way on the Discussion Pages. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts, justifying decision-making with transparency. 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 as well as for fellow researchers collaborating. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * The evidence from your contribs shows that you engaged with the collaborative process for a few of the days that the project was live. There is evidence from your contribs that your engagement was meaningful and consistent throughout that percentage of the project period. In the round, these were very useful entries in terms of moving the project forward, and an appropriate level of engagement with the community is in evidence. Where you could have improved significantly, was in contributing to discussion with other groups on their group pages – which would suggest that you were at least starting to see the value in the way that the book’s themes overlap significantly.

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, with a mix of some others that are “significant”, “substantial” and one or two regarded as “considerable” to the project. Good work.

•	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


 * Again, quite clear. You pushed your arguments and the findings you made through your independent research and encouraged others to comment/respond, occasionally helped others in their work. There’s plenty of evidence of reading, application and discussion of ideas. Your contributions to the book page and discussion page stand out.

•	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 clearly collaborating on the discussion pages. Overall the discussion is easy to follow, and this is partly down to your organisation of the structure of the discussion page where you seemed to play a lead role (wiki projects are a challenge to keep in focus, so you managed to pull off a reasonable job here). This proactive attitude proved very useful indeed for the group as a whole. 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 exceptionally well, showing generosity by sharing what you know with others, especially in the annotated bibliographies you posted – it is great to see that you were finding ways to apply the exercise to fresh examples and yto make use of that process. Your activities on the discussion page seem crucial to the success of the group.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 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, there are several contribs and edits in the course of the portfolio where you are starting to think critically and engage with the underlying issues. This was especially the case with your annotated bibliography entry, which was excellent, well chosen and executed with some style. Having said all of this, 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.


 * Of particular note here is that you should have been making more use of the wiki functionality and markup, as this would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. In fact, you mention explicitly in your reflective piece that you couldn’t paste in text, nor websites – these functions are fairly straightforward in the wiki, and a simple look up of the editing functionality in the intro tutorials (or indeed, just asking about editing tips in the tearoom/reading room) would have helped. I suspect that, if you became more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, if sometimes a little brief (with the exception of one particularly lengthy comment on another user’s ex #4). 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: clear evidence of critical engagement with set materials as well as some evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material


 * Argument and analysis: Some really good work in this regard - well-articulated and well-supported argument; some evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position). I would have liked a little more evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections).


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)