User talk:JoshCoates12

Online Visibility
In the 21st Century, mobile phones, hand held devices and computer screens have merely become part of the human anatomy. However, in today’s day and age, do we really know how much of our information is kept secret? From ‘suggested browsing’ to junk email, how does our information become so available and visible to those who really want it? Firstly, social media holds all the appropriate tools necessary to legally access and attain our information we have wilfully installed onto their sites. This is due to the fact that we basically sign ourselves off as we walk through the front door. Terms and conditions are the one thing that all forms of social media hold between you and your information, and they are the only thing you need to do to log on and join the millions of others using the platform. Collecting data such as our religion, date of birth and even our location at this very moment, social media knows more about you than the person sitting next to you does in any given moment. We usually believe that no matter what, with the various security stages and privacy pages, our information will be kept sacred and available only to those that we have hand-picked it to be available to. For instance, on Facebook, you can change your privacy settings so that either your close friends can see you or the whole world can. However, once again Facebook holds the cards in this debate, no matter how secure your page, if you’re on their website, they have your information, and too follow so do all the other social media platforms like Instagram, twitter and snapchat. Personally, I have chosen to accept defeat from the outset. Knowing my information will be used and abused by every platform I subscribe to, I feel that in order to be able to access any of these websites, it’s almost impossible to be completely secure and to run completely incognito. For instance, last week I read a study on the difference between people who search the internet with a private browsing window to those that don’t, and that very second you can clearly see that there is obviously no such thing as ‘private browsing’ and that even the memes we look up on google can be traced back to us.

How this idea of information visibility can be connected to my collaborative essay topic of media convergence is as so. As Henry Jenkins (2006) in his book Convergence Culture briefly defines media convergence as ‘The flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behaviour of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want. We are able to come to the conclusion that; just as media convergence is the accumulation of every single form of content, creation and character so too is our visibility and information on social media. We seek each other’s information, just as much as the online retailer’s search engines and social media platforms do.

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 00:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Hi, Josh. You make very interesting points in this exercise. Your line: "Personally, I have chosen to accept defeat from the outset. Knowing my information will be used and abused by every platform I subscribe to, I feel that in order to be able to access any of these websites, it’s almost impossible to be completely secure and to run completely incognito" Makes me incredibly sad. But I think it is because, I too, am in the same state of mind. It's really worrying that our generation seems to be in this defeatist mindset when it comes to companies acquiring our data- what will we give up next? It really makes you think.

Anyway, I enjoyed reading your post very much! I hope you are finding your way through the collaborative essay ok! Also, you should 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. Digitalmediafiend (discuss • contribs) 17:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Digitalmediafiend, Thank you for your comments, good to know that some of what I;m saying makes senseǃ It is a bit mental to think about media like that, what really will happen next?

Really? Could you give me a bit more information about it? Obviously keen to get into filming properly next year. I', trying to get back into rising 'Pingittt' again, and have been announced as the social media officer for football, so could only help I supposeǃ Get back to me.

Cheers

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs)

For sure! AirTV is the university's filmmaking society. By joining the society and paying your membership you are granted to use the equipment we have in our media office- this includes DSLR's, Microphones, boom poles, tripods, shoulder rigs, lighting etc. It's a really good society to join to find people to help you make and produce your films whether they are fiction or non-fiction. At the end of every term we have the ATVAs (AirTv Awards) which is a short film screening of all entries competing to win awards (its structured like the Oscars, so there is best Screenplay, Best Film, Best Director, Best Cinematography etc). IT's a really good night, you can find the event page and details on Facebook- just search "ATVAS"!

If you want anymore information feel free to message the society on facebook! I just got voted in as president for next term so I can promise you it is going to be a good time!

The meetings cover film making tasks which help people to get used to using cameras/ other types of equipment and feel more comfortable doing so.

I'm glad you showed some interest!

Digitalmediafiend (discuss • contribs) 15:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds great, definitely keenǃ Really working on making myself as employable as possible for next and 4th year, so being part of AirTV would only help, and the access to equipment would honestly really help me as a creator.

Definitely looking for some follow up information, so let me know who and where I can contact someoneǃ

Cheers

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 15:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Josh, you make very effective usage of reference and textual materials which gives your answers a lot of evidence to support your claims. You also add a very personal touch which gives your answer much relatability and humanizes the entire thesis. This is important as it makes a huge difference from just spouting exposition and unverified claims. Your biggest strength is your sentence structure. The writing is very slick and it goes with purpose and direction. It is fixed on the topic and never goes another path. Overall, an excellent piece. Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 20:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Fraser; thank you for your kind feedback on my post, it means a lot to know I'm writing in a reliability an accurate style. I too believe that within the weaker areas of my writing as a whole, my sentence structure usually excels, and overall pulls most of my pieces together, as it is the backbone of any good piece of writing.

Thanks again.

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Josh, yours seems to be very similar to my thought approach in the first paragraph. I completely agree with what you commented on mine, I too believe that no matter how secure your page is, someone can always get on. Your first assignment has got me to think, it is strange to think that the meme of Kermit the frog drinking a cup of tetley tea will find it's way back to me in twenty years! I like the way that you have linked all social media together, as I agree that they are all very similar (especially in their privacy agreement). Also, I am glad that you already have been able to link your essay topic it. I even think, your Jenkins quote will help my essay topic as it speaks of social media and how it links to character. I look forward to stealing your quote, what page did you find that on? Haha MTxPrincipessa18 (discuss • contribs) 20:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I concur, security is almost non existent in todays day and age in terms of social media. As Jenkins would say, developing media devices will coexist together, and popular forms of media will forever exist within the diameters of the flow of content. I thought it would be useful to my studies to begin my research on Jenkins as soon as possible, so thank you for noting my initiative. Haha, I hope you found the quote of some use, and have been successful in completion of your essay.

Thanks again

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Josh, just to let you (and your group) know, I put a tiny bit of information on my discussion page for the annotated bibliography!MTxPrincipessa18 (discuss • contribs) 19:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again MT, will be sure to check it outǃ

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography
Meikle, G., Young, S., 2011: ‘Media convergence: networked digital media in everyday life’ London, United Kingdom : Palgrave Macmillan, (2011) pp. 1-13

‘Media convergence: networked digital media in everyday life’ attempts to explore the very existence of media convergence in the 21st century and the impact it has on a wide society. Further to this, Miekle et al, use their definition of convergence to describe and explain the evolution of digital media from a form of broadcasting to that of a convergent environment. Miekle et al, form the basis of their research from reading and researching study’s published by a number of different authors, and theorists. Further, they aim to identify the wider significance of media convergence and how it fabricates itself in todays society. This introduction is particularly useful in connection to my research for my collaborative essay as it’s rich with research collated by a vast number of theorists, meaning I can receive a variety of different opinions and arguments, allowing me to form the most concise argument. Limiting this article would be that the information comes from 2011 and prior, meaning if my studies were to concern the impact or importance of media convergence in today’s society, I would need to re-evaluate my research to ensure my findings were both concise and up to date. This article may not completely form the basis of my research, but it will be useful in comparing information both new and old, providing a further depth to my final outcome. JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 10:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
1. Hi Josh, as we are in the same group for the collaborative essay, I found your annotation very appropriate to comment on. Your structure clearly follows the plan set out in the blog exercise of a similar nature. This article seems like it would be very useful in connection with our group work task as it describes the theme of our assignment in relation to the concept of digital media in the on-going evolution of technology. Miekle et al.'s way of conducting their research is very convenient as we have decided to follow suit with our research being centred around multiple theorists and their approach to the term of media convergence and how they view it both positively and negatively. The constraint of the article is a major fault with regards to our assignment. It is a helpful source to contribute to the basis of our research, however the fact that it is talking about media in everyday life from many years ago, it may not be as up-to-date on certain things that are relevant in modern day media. Nevertheless, your annotation of the source is concise and is detailed enough to make the article a worthwhile read. I like how you chose a piece of research that is relevant to our suggested research question as it is an extra source that we could find some use out of, great use of the task! I am interested to know, what did you make of Miekle et al. and the information provided by them in the article? Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 12:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

2. Hi Josh, I found that your annotated bibliography provides a very detailed summary of your chosen source, which demonstrates that you have a clear understanding of the text and the wider subject area. You follow the structure outlined by the previous blog exercise in which you provide a summary, the limitations of your chosen text, and the relevancy for your collaborative essay. As mentioned above, the research may not be relevant to your collaborative essay as it is not as up-to-date. Nevertheless, I think it would be worthwhile as a basis for your research, and you could always compare this article to others which have been published more recently to update any points made in the article that are not relevant anymore. This is a small nit-pick, but it might be worth proofreading to ensure that you use the correct grammar – I noticed that you wrote “study’s” instead of studies. However, this doesn’t detract from the high quality of your annotated bibliography. For my collaborative essay, I’m looking at always-on culture, but while reading your annotated bibliography, I thought about how convergence is closely related to research on always-on culture, in that these theories are interwoven into our everyday lives to the extent that we don’t notice it. You also mentioned that the introduction of the article provides a wealth of research from various theorists. Since your chosen text is not up-to-date, it might be worth looking into the research from these other theorists depending on their accessibility. Hopefully, these will provide you with more avenues to continue with your research. Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 12:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

3. Hi josh, this annotated bibliography is well written you meet all the criteria required and do so using concise language. The information itself appeals to me because my group are researching media convergence for the collaborative essay, from the description you provide I recognise that the information within the source may not be up to date, I think it is important that you highlight this because I now know already to be careful when using the information in relation to my collaborative essay. However, I would agree that while the information is not up to date it remains valuable and I will consider using it support my groups argument. Finally I would suggest that you continue to look at wide range of texts, using your steady approach I am sure you will continue to make good use of texts such as this one. Eam00024 (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

=Collaborative Research Exercise=

1.

Amy, I concur, only makes sense to work together on tasks like this when we can offer each other quality feedback, and thus make the end product of our collaborative essay that much better. I appreciate your feedback about my structure and content, and further agree that Miekle et al.'s research would be useful in correlation to our group study. You raise a good point about the validity of her research, noting that it is dated, however I do actually bring this up in the limitation section of my annotation. I do think their research really could provide us with a different angle to discuss convergence over the wider scale of modern day media, as it covers all areas. We could further go on to discuss the limitation of her report in the body of our essay or even the conclusion? However, it will provide as good comparison to Jenkins work. I personally found Miekle et al.'s research very interesting and concise, converging a number of areas of media convergence in modern day society. I really liked the fact they drew upon newspapers and journalism in their report on convergence as it is such a massive part of todays media flow. Moreover, the way that they clearly structured each section of their study from convergence to contestation and continuity allows not only the reader, but our group to clearly identify and dissolve their research, firstly making it easily understood, and secondly making it easier to apply to our essay. How do you think we could inject their research into our group study?

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 12ː23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Josh! Yeah it makes complete sense to discuss our annotated bibliographies together as it expands our knowledge on the collaborative essay essentially giving us more information to provide to the group about our findings from the sources which could have a positive impact on our research. I'm pretty sure that we have already spoken about using Meikle et al. in the group discussion so yeah I'd say that we could use their findings as supplementary information to help form our basis around Jenkins' approach. Their take on modern convergence could be beneficial as a contributing factor to the more old-fashioned view on convergence which would be handy to discuss in our essay. Have you looked into many of the theorists for our theme yet? Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, completely agree, and I feel Meikle et al. will provide as good resource for our report. As We discussed earlier I am going to be delving into looking at Jenkins in particular for the rest of our group to base their research off of. Have you decided your choice of theorist of discussion yet?

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 18ː33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah! As discussed on our group page, I will look specifically at Bolter and Grusin and their work particularly linking remediation with media convergence. I will be focusing on the correlation between Bolter and Grunion's approach to convergence with that of Jenkins' as well as highlighting the differences that are brought up. How is your research coming along? I am very excited to see our collaboration in practice! Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Good stuff Amy, I hope you are getting on well with your research and enjoying reading Bolter and Grusin's work? As mentioned, I will be looking into the core of the research, delving into Jenkins findings, so that we have something to base our studies off of. We will possibly need to confer my work with the rest of the groups to ensure the points that you all relate from your theorists to Jenkins, match up with those that I have mentioned in my section. I too am excited to see the end product of our groups work. Any problems so far?

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 18ː33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven't came across any problems as far I know! I have actually found Belter and Grunion's work to be very interesting as they delve into new media terms such as hypermediacy and remediation and relate such concepts to the idea of media convergence. The highlight the presence of "push" technology and find a new way of looking at media convergence in terms of "always on" culture. Whether this is a connection I can work off of for the essay is in question but it gives us an option to relate our theme to another one that is being analysed. I do agree that the rest of the group and I need to see your notes on your main findings of your research so that we can bounce off of you to form a well structured essay. How are you finding looking into Jenkins? Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, I think our essay structure may change slightly, not to how theorists disagree, but rather how they offer a different look on to media convergence? My research on Jenkins has discovered that he prioritises three sub headings in his book on convergence; Media Convergence, Collective Intelligence and Particpatory culture and how they collectively affect and contribute to media convergence. Interesting, maybe try and find out more about the connection between always on culture and convergence and see if it could align to our essay. As said above, my research into Jenkins has begun, but if we could all add to the 'initial research'section of our group wiki, then that will be the best way to get the ball rolling, but I understand I need to feed my information out to you all so you have something to structure your sections off of. Keep goingǃ

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 14ː14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

2.

Iana, I appreciate your positive feedback about said areas of my annotation. I too agree that though the research may be limited due to its date, it still may prove to hold some validation in its theories. Not at all Iana, it always good to be aware of my grammatical areas so that when it comes to writing something really important, or trying to argue my case, I completely nail it, and dont stumble on my own words. Making simple mistakes like that will take away the credibility of an argument or essay very quickly. Always culture, as a topic, was very interesting for me to analyse and research, and was my topic of choice for the collaborative essay, so I'm sure you will enjoy studying it for your essay. I completely agree, and its actually what our collaborative essay question is based on - How does Henry Jenkins' theory of 'Media Convergence' correlate and contrast with alternative approaches to the term adapted by various other academic scholars? - drawing on Jenkins theories as a base, and then correlating his studies to many other theorists. Really appreciate the advice though, because it's obviously the road we've gone down. What type of question are you choosing to consider always on culture? I'd be interested to see the correlation between the media flow you mentioned with convergence in your essay.

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 15ː10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Your research question sounds really interesting, I'm eager to read what conclusions your group will be able to draw since convergence is such a diverse topic with many different interpretations. I hesitate to talk about my essay in question in relation to yours as they are very different, but also isn't that the point of convergence? That we are able to draw connections between mediums and ideas on various platforms? Maybe that's a bit far-fetched but just a thought! For our group's essay on Always On Culture, we will be looking at Sherry Turkle's research, more specifically at her argument that digital connections only offer an illusion of companionship. It's an interesting idea to think about as social media was ostensibly created to make friends or reconnect with old friends you may have lost touch with. Obviously, this is somewhat related to convergence culture because we use multiple platforms across mediums to make these digital connections. I'd love to know your thoughts!

Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 12ː37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I too am excited to see what comes from our group as a whole. Media convergence is so evident and present in todays media, so it will be a very interesting topic to study and to see how it relates to us all. No, you're completely right, Convergence considers the flow of media across everything essentially, so how separate our topics may seem, they will flow in segments (however small they be) as we said. Sounds very interesting, I've not personally read into Turkle's work, but have heard it to be of great relevance to always on culture, so will be excited to read your findings. You're absolutely right about the origins of social media, and the correlation to media convergence. I must say, 'ostensibly' is a fanatic word, and used spot on in this context. I think if you were going to mention convergence in your studies, I would do so when talking about the connection between the multiple platforms in todays' day and age. For instance, if you were covering more than one social media platform in one paragraph or point of argument, you could talk about the correlation of media convergence or how it affects the always on culture? This might actually boost your argument, as it would show a higher level of understanding for digital media as a whole? Something to definitely consider. Let me know what you thinkǃ

Just to add, is there anything you think we could talk about in relation to convergence that you think would make our report that little better? I'm looking into Jenkins studies on convergence, so if you have read any of his research, it would be great to hear how you perceived his findings, and what you think of his work as a whole.

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 18ː44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting that you say that about how media convergence incorporates into always on culture, as I met with my group yesterday and convergence was one of the concepts we discussed. Thank you for the help, that is something I will definitely consider! The fact that social media is accessible through multiple devices (computer, tablet, phone) means that you can access social media anywhere as long as you have an internet connection.

Henry Jenkins' research places an emphasis on participatory culture. I haven't looked into the research of other theorists, but participatory culture may be one aspect of convergence that other theorists haven't focused on in as much detail. Participatory culture moves away from the traditional notion that audiences are passive, and instead suggests that the consumer is as responsible for content as the producer. That might be something you want to consider!

For our collaborative essay, we are looking into the idea that digital connections only offer an illusion of companionship. If you have any thoughts on this idea, or have done any reading on always on culture which may be related to this question - I'd love to know!

Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Happy to help, the sole purpose of this task is to help each other make all this process that much easier, so I would go as far to say that we have made a small success hereǃ Its a bit crazy to think about how easy it is for the world population to access a world wide web full of information at the touch of a few buttons do you not think?

Patcipation culture could be a good way to start my talk on the digital media age and convergence (whilst not sole talking about 'digital' media as convergence covers all areas of media) as Jenkins is one of the only theorists to touch on it as you said, and the topic as a whole does sound interesting. However our essay is following the structure that we mention Jenkins research and findings, then compare it against the work of other theorists like Holt and Sanson, so researching work that Jenkins has completed that other theorists haven't may not be beneficial to our study, but definitely something to keep in mind.

Your collaborative essay sounds increasingly interesting every time you detail more of its contents to me. I believe that for people you have met in person, your relationship on line can be said to be a type of illusion as you said, but I believe if you have met someone online and then from that have become friends or companions with them in real life, the relationship is as tangible as a normal one. However to add to this, I believe that if your friendship with someone derives solely from online discussion and chat, your relationship could be argued to be a type of illusion. Although in today's day and age, as you will discover from researching 'always on culture' in more depth, so much of our communication is derived online. So many people in todays society will reach for a phone rather than speaking up or taking a chance to say something or have there voice heard, so why not consider an online relationship as just as tangible as a real one? Ask yourself, how many people have you met online, or maybe only talk to online? I know that you spend a lot of time on twitter and social media, so maybe you could correlate your part of your groups collaborative essay to your own personal experience? Just a thought.

My advice would firstly be to go and watch all the Ted Talks videos about 'Always on Culture' in the learning content of digital media. I found them very useful when understanding the topic as a whole. Secondly, I would say Make it personal, you are as active a contributor to always on culture as anyone else with a mobile phone in todays society. So grab some paper and a pencil and ask yourself, how much am I on or offline? Have I ever been offline completely? What do I use it for? All these questions will really help specify your study, and make it easier to connect to your essay and assist your group in completion of the task.

Hope this helps.

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 15ː15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Are you using Jenkins’ research as your basis for the collaborative essay? I think participation culture would be worth talking about if other theorists have explored other aspects of convergence that Jenkins doesn’t cover as much. That way, you could talk about the differing focuses of different theorists. Saying that, I don’t know what research other theorists have done, so what I’m suggesting might not even be relevant. Nevertheless, good lucky with your essay, I’m excited to read it!

Thank you for the advice Josh, this is all things I will definitely consider when it comes to writing our collaborative essay. This is something I touched on a little bit in my last reply, but we are looking at research and the concepts devised by other theorists which would support Turkle’s notion of online connectivity as an illusion of friendship. I didn’t really consider that our personal experiences could be valuable to our further understanding of always on culture, so thank you for that! To be honest, always on culture seems very relevant to my life, because I spend every free second I can find on social media – but you probably knew that already. That being said, our collaborative essays need a theoretical framework so I’m not sure how useful our personal experiences with always on culture will be ultimately, as we would need to find sources that back this. Also, Sherry Turkle’s Ted Talk has been very useful for our collaborative essay because she discusses a lot of the concepts she has carried out research on. I found it very helpful in gaining an understanding of always on culture.

Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 20:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey

As I have begun looking into Jenkins research in depth and with more scrutiny, it is clear that he has based his introductory research on convergence off three sub headings;

- Media Convergence - Particpatory Culture - Collective intelligence

So in reply to your comment, I will be looking at his work on all three of said topics in depth, which will then allow my group to have something to base their research off and allow us to come to a conclusion and end product. You make a good point at looking at other theorists work, and its something that's playing on my mind wether I have to do it or not. However, I believe our groups questioned is structured as so... How does Henry Jenkins' theory of 'Media Convergence' correlate and contrast with alternative approaches to the term adapted by various other academic scholars? meaning, my job in this collaborative essay is to convey the findings of Jenkins on Media convergence, so that my group can do the comparison between their chosen theorists in their individual section of the essay. Great advice though, and hopefully you think our structure is useful and correctǃ?

Glad I can be of helpǃ Noted Iana, and I was actually going to add that one's personal opinion or reflection on always on culture may not be relevant in such a formatted and professional framework as you've said, just thought it may get your brain working, allowing you to come up with some fresh ideas. Perfect, looks like we are both going in the correct directions, and are on course for a concise essay with our respective groups.

Thanks again Iana.

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 20ː25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

3.

Eachainn, I really appreciate your positive feedback on the entirety of my annotation. I completely agree with the comments and points you have raised about the opportunity to use Miekle et al.'s research and findings in our collaborative essay, and to further use a number of different theorists to strengthen our final outcome. Are there any theorists in particular that you would like to include, or think could aid in our research on media convergence?

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 16ː38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi josh, glad you are happy with my feedback as I did feel you provided an accurate and useful annotated bibliography. I agree more theorists will help us to have a more accurate essay, in relation to your particular research I would suggest you take a closer look at holt and Samson and mark Andrejevic because as pointed in your annotated bibliography some of the information you gained was old and could be recognised as outdated. These two readings offer more updated information. I hope thisis helpful and I will continue to look for more theorists to strengthen our argument.Eam00024 (discuss • contribs) 13:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Prefect Idea Eachinn, This will hopefully allow my information to be more up to date and concise. What theorists shall you be looking at in particular?

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 14ː24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Collaborative Conclusion
As a whole, Wikibooks has been an eye-opening experience to find out how exactly a platform of its extent works. In my perception of the platform, Wiki is a vast information sharing platform, where you can post, and create theoretical, factual content in the hope to teach and educate millions of others round the world using the platform and thus posting on the database. At first, I was unaware that Wikipedia was a separate platform to that of Wikibooks (whilst still being owned by the same company of course) until I began this project. I had no idea there was a separate engine that Wikipedia operated from in the form of Wikibooks.

In terms of my personal collaborative experience, in sharing and designing our main body of our research, I’ve found the platform to be neither beneficial or disadvantageous in terms of discussion, because it works in the same demeanour as any popular messaging platform that we know too well of today. For instance, to compare Facebook, you send a message, your message is logged by Facebook, the receiver gets a notification and so on so forth; the same happens with Wikibooks. However, in the beginning, when initially getting to grips with implementing messages and typography onto wiki books, a lot of time is wasted in the first part of research, just figuring out how to use the platform (if you’ve used wiki books you will know). Whereas a platform like Facebook, or a face to face discussion that is not logged, does not only save a lot of time, but further is usually more beneficial as the quick-fire form of discussion allows ideas to be passed and built upon concisely and quickly with the least amount of confusion. For that reason, I found the platform - for discussion purposes - both tedious, and unnecessary.

I would say that Wikibooks fosters a community in the sense that it provides a platform and data base where people can post and communicate their knowledge on subjects of common interest as previously discussed. It enables both theorists and non-theoretical people to sign on and either comment their opinions on the subject chosen, or possibly even edit their own advice or knowledge into the document. I personally feel like Wiki books has fostered my small group of four over this past month, further enabling us to complete our collaborative task on Wiki.

Online collaboration represents digital commons as throughout the creation of my group essay, we have all been collectively contributing to a final piece of work and have all taken collective ownership of said piece. I believe Wiki platforms - Wikibooks specifically do emphasis online visibility as they are platforms where you can communicate with a wider community in search of solving your problems or to find something out. For instance, though personal experience, I found when our group faced a lot of problems, we simply voiced these problems within the discussion section of our wiki page, and after some discussion or use of other wiki page (Wiki commons etc.) we usually sorted our problem. Further to that, as mentioned, when we weren’t able to solve a collaborative essay issue, or issue to do with working Wiki as a platform, we ventured to other Wiki help sites such as Wiki commons where we were able to access what we were looking for thereby solving the problem. In terms of Wikibooks and Wikipedia operating and/or offering a sense or form of online emancipation, it does so by enabling all of its users to both edit and contribute on each other pages freely and further, create a Wiki page on any topic they wish, there are no restrictions in terms of content creation.

To conclude, my time on Wikibooks has been both beneficial, and tasking. In terms of digital media, it has taken all of us out of our comfort zones, not previously having used the platform, we all took time to find our feet. However, now - as we firmly stand on both of our feet with a finished collaborative essay, we have taken a lot from the process, and will be able to implement the skills we have learned as both a group and in terms of Wiki in our future Digital Media careers.

JoshCoates12 (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Hello Much like you I found my experience with creating a Wikibook eye opening. I too had no idea that Wikibooks as a platform existed, I was only familiar with Wikipedia, though I feel the two looking as similar as they do yet offering very different experiences is a little bit of a design flaw though. Have you noticed that now if you go onto Wikipedia you are logged in but not registered? I do not think I will ever fully understand this platform.

I share your views on Wikibooks as a discussion forum. It felt highly unnecessary to present discussion in this way, almost as if it was development for a graded art piece. Due to the clunky and unintuitive nature of the site I found myself not wanting to engage with the task at hand. Contributing and writing felt like an uphill struggle at times. Coming onto the site to check for notifications and replies sometimes felt like a genuine undertaking. I do understand the purpose of using Wikibooks, however, and feel as if it has presented me with the opportunity to use a digital media and communication platform that I possibly never would have encountered otherwise. By getting used to the commands that we have had to learn to create posts I feel more confident in myself that if a similar task was ever to arise that I could navigate the wiki-platform with relative comfort and ease and as a result feel as if I have somewhat gained a new skill.

Although I did not feel that discussion was necessarily necessary for grading I do feel as if it is one of the strongest feature on Wikibooks. You reference the fact that anyone can log into it and I think that it is brilliant that that is the case. The freedom on offer by the platform means that the discussion is open to absolutely everybody, even if that discussion is questioning how the platform itself works. This collaborative world on offer in theory means that information is constantly refreshed and instructions never go out of date or stagnant. In theory I feel as if Wikibooks is a great educational tool but the interface issues you have highlighted definitely do affect its effectiveness as an academic platform.

The help on offer all around the wiki community also makes it a greatly beneficial platform, although the information is not necessarily the most concise so it takes some digging and, as you put it, venturing into other areas of the site. This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing but it does, once again, take up a lot of time when it comes to writing, making it convoluted when it really does not feel that it has to be. Your take on the site as a digital commons has opened my eyes to a different way in which the platform could be used in that way – I had believed that the idea of the digital commons came from the fact that the platform is moderated and edited by multiple users, not only ensuring that posts created are accurate but also that they are continuously being peer reviewed by experts, or simply those with great interest in respective fields.

Overall I agree with much of what you have put forward in your comments on the platform. LeKinibb (discuss • contribs) 15:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi josh, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your review of the platform. It is clear that you had a similar experience to me, highlighting the weaknesses of the platform as well as recognising the benefits of the experience. I too at times found the platform difficult to use, particular at the beginning where I felt more support was needed to help us understand how to use it. The simplicity of other discussion platforms such as facebook made t difficult to adjust, I feel that my expectations were very high because of my previous experiences. Having read your review I wondered if you also felt that the simplicity of alternative platforms made wiki books seem inferior?

From your review it is clear that the platform grew on you over time, you cite a major positive when you mention the success of our groups collaborative essay. I agree with you here also, the platform provided us a great place to share and critique ideas helping us to organise and problem solve throughout the task. Also the platform ensured that we were all able to contribute, a major positive of wiki books is the freedom it gives users. That freedom ensures that the user can contribute as much as they please without feeling pressure to did so.

Overall, I think you provide a detailed review of the platform. While I recognise that the fact I agree with you on many of the points raised made it much easier to comment, I do genuinely believe you had a mixed experience, the many exaples of positive and negatives you provide, helped me to understand why you felt this way and allowed me to relate to some of the problems you experienced. To conclude, wiki books has its problems but we were able to muddle through and create something special.Eam00024 (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 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:
 * Good. Among other things, good contributions 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 formatting, 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, discussing this in a transparent way with fellow researchers on the Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.

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, although as the evidence shows that you logged contribs for a number of the days that the project was live. tthere is evidence from your contribs that your engagement was consistent in terms of willingness to contribute to the discussion, over that time. 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, including engagement with users. 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 an additional mix of “significant”, “substantial” or “considerable” contribsto the project. The quality of these is quite good.

•	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


 * There’s plenty of evidence of reading, and of observational 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


 * You were clearly collaborating on the discussion pages.

•	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 very well.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 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 some 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. 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 especially good. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion. This is, after all, what discussion pages are ultimately for. You also engage in discussion 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 - arguably the civic element of wiki that you ought to be thinking about, which you clearly are). However, I think that your work would in general benefit from a wider reading habit, as this would give you a more rounded theoretical grounding and context for the current debates.

General:
 * Reading and research: some evidence of critical engagement with set materials; more evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material would improve your work significantly.


 * Argument and analysis: some well-articulated and well-supported arguments in evidence


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)