User talk:Jxck33

1)Bum Soo Chon, Junho H. Choi , George A. Barnett , James A. Danowski & Sung-Hee Joo (2003) A Structural Analysis of Media Convergence: Cross-Industry Mergers and Acquisitions in the Information Industries, The Journal of Media Economics, 16:3, 141-157, DOI: 10.1207/S15327736ME1603_1

2) This article Chon et al. seek to provide a coherent analysis on structural changes in the information industries including publishing, broadcasting, film, cable, telephony, software and data processing, and the Internet in the context of media convergence.

3) The author used various research methods in their work. The cross-industry network structure was mapped using annual data on mergers and acquisitions among formation industry firms obtained from the Journal of Mergers and Acquisitions. A comparative network analysis of these ownership transactions was what led them to their final conclusion.

4) The scope of their research is wide and varied. They look at all factors in the publishing world and cross check all the data from all the different avenues of information that they gathered.

5) This article will undoubtedly be extremely useful to my further research and writings on media convergence. Throughout the article the authors highlight a plethora of reasons to suggest that the media landscape undoubtedly changed due to convergence.

6) The article is primarily limited by the admission of some figures for key areas in some tables.

7) Besides this, the article provides extensive research and analysis on the different information industries and their relations with convergence.

8) This article gives a great deal of in-depth information and coupled with its excellent analysis this article may well form the basis of my further research and writings on convergence.

Jxck33 (discuss • contribs) 21:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
This is a fairly well structured and well written annotated bibliography that seems to follow the template and advice given in the module handbook fairly acutely, seemingly going as far as numbering the different steps in analysis. The chosen piece seems to be an interesting study that covers a wide range of issues with some depth, something that you convey rather well in this exercise in your analysis of the methods used by the authors to come to their conclusions. However I find that there's a slight lack of discussion over whether or not you feel the conclusions in this text to be right and how they compare to your further research into convergence. In fact, you focus so much on the text's methods that you leave their conclusions and ideas vague with little mention of specifics or case studies. I am interested in what you have to say about the conclusions and arguments presented by Chon et al, which have been derived from their research into the cross-industry network structure. The understanding of the text's methodology of research is clearly understood and eloquently explained, and i would also like to see more of your opinions as well as the authors, on how the media landscape undoubtedly changed due to convergence. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback it is very much appreciated Ross! Yes, you are indeed correct, I followed the template given to us for the annotated bibliography as I felt it was ideal for the source. I say this as when I read the source it almost seemed to follow to pattern of this template. I chose to number the steps as it simply gives a clear and concise outline, my first draft was somewhat of an over analysed piece of work. Therefore, reverting back to using the numbers gave me a clearer template to attach my work onto throughout the writing process and indeed my final published draft. After reading your response I read my own annotated bibliography back and I agree with your point that, I have lacked showing any strong conclusions that I’ve drawn from the article in terms of the article’s own conclusions. Also, I agree that there is a gaping lack of an reflection or discussion on any ways in which these said conclusions can be compared to my further research into the field of convergence in media studies. Furthermore, after I read back my own annotated bibliography on the article ‘A Structural Analysis of Media Convergence: Cross-Industry Mergers and Acquisitions in the Information Industries’ I am also in agreement with this point that you made, “you focus so much on the text's methods that you leave their conclusions and ideas vague with little mention of specifics or case studies”. This is undoubtedly something I would like to work at in further research of this nature for sure. Furthermore, I agree with your critique that there isn’t a whole lot of my own personal thoughts and my own possible criticisms of this piece. I obviously didn’t take enough time to properly reflect and summarise my findings with this article. If I were doing this exercise again I would be sure to include more of my own personal personal thoughts and my own possible criticisms of this piece. 139.153.60.201 (discuss) 23:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Reflective Account

As a platform Wikibooks is new to me. In all honesty, I hadn’t even known about it or heard of it until I began browsing through the material surrounding this module when it first was made available on canvas. The platform as a whole is aimed at education, that is, through the prism of textbooks, annotated texts and manuals. It encourages collaboration amongst users through the use of discussion pages and contributions to the texts themselves. The Wikibooks model also emphasises the idea of visibility to a great extent too. If a post is signed off with four tide marks (Jxck33 (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)), then the user’s contributions is dated and time stamped. This is undoubtedly an invaluable resource when it comes to collaborative work. For my groups collaborative essay project, we focussed on the question of ‘Henry Jenkins believes that Convergence allows for audiences to more actively participate with the media industry than ever before. Drawing from studies on participatory audiences, and relevant examples, to what extent does this argument hold?’. At first I was admittedly sceptical about the idea of Wikibooks and in particular just how populated our page would become. However, it did not take long for contributions to start being added and a lengthy discussion began to form. The contributions being signed off each and every time someone added another one was a great feature and also a great help to see who was doing what part of the essay and how their research was taking shape. Furthermore, our page on Wikibooks soon began to shape up much like a page on Wikipedia itself; by this I mean there were headings, sub topics and a bibliography. This approach to the collaborative essay project undoubtedly made it a lot easier to comprehend. The flow of the page coupled with the ease of access the page gives you to the various headings is a key advantage in making the research for the collaborative essay a lot more concise and easy to look back on and also elaborate on. Wikibooks also helps to foster some sense of a community. Compared to previous methods I’ve used and been a part of for collaborative work – Facebook Messenger – it is far superior. The messenger merely puts you in contact with your other group members whereas Wikibooks gives you a communal platform to express your ideas and come together to research and carry out a task, ergo, forming an online, research driven community.

Wikibooks is unquestionably a great tool to use for research. However, there is one to match it – real life interaction. Our group held two group meetings, I was unable to attend the first but I was present at the second. These group meetings were of great help particularly before the Wikibooks page was in full effect. We used the second meeting to delegate and choose our topics we wished to do. This was helpful as the people at the meeting could choose their topics, update their selection on Wikibooks and then leave the other tasks to be picked by the remaining members. This meant there was no time wasted in getting started. However, once this was all done the Wikibooks page was the greatest tool to use for collaborative research.

Overall, it is undoubted that Wikibooks is, in no uncertain terms, an incredibly valuable – if not the most valuable – collaborative research tool available. This conclusion is drawn due to the afore mentioned reasoning but also due to its versatility. Group meetings are great but it is extremely difficult to get a time when everyone is available. However, with Wikibooks this isn’t needed. People can upload and add more contributions in their own time. It also allows for a vast amount of research to be stored and not just scribbled down on pieces of paper hastily in meetings. The use of group meetings prior to the full Wikibooks page being up and running and then the collaborative research taking place solely on the Wikibooks page through discussion and user contributions is feasible and was undoubtedly an incredibly effective way to compile our research for our collaborative essay. Jxck33 (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments
This was an interesting read, as you clearly have many fully formed and valid opinions on the uses and limitations of the Wikibooks platform. I had also not heard of Wikibooks, before taking this module, but do find the fact that the platform takes the form of a collaborative textbook rather interesting. In many ways any Wiki platform is like a slightly less academic version of Encyclopaedia Britannica. That is not to put down the Wikibooks platform, as its accessibility for other users across any field from anywhere make it a more rounded and input-heavy platform that benefits from a wide variety of sources. I also believed that the platform was a great resource for groupwork, but I would not go as far as to say it was invaluable when tackling the same question you tackled: ‘Henry Jenkins believes that Convergence allows for audiences to more actively participate with the media industry than ever before. Drawing from studies on participatory audiences, and relevant examples, to what extent does this argument hold?”. I found that was tended to happen was people would pass on vast amounts of information through their own personal research and this information would either be unutilised or lost in a sea of misdirection. “Direction” really is the key word here, as I found this was the most difficult aspect to control in the Wiki platforms. Communicating about serious decisions such as the essay question, the line of argument and the plan of action where all things that we opted to use face-to-face meetings to discuss prior to entering them into ten Wikibooks discussion page. Therefore, you do well in describing the benefits of face-to-face meetings over Wikibooks as a platform. I also felt that the two discussion meetings we had were turning points in the progress of our collaborative essay, and that we could not have achieved what we did on the discussion page alone. However, since the communication of messages such as “what is the line of argument going to be?” and “what is our essay question?” is all part of the larger strategy from us in order to gain direction I would also argue that Facebook messenger is a more valuable source than Wikibooks for this aspect. The fact that Wikibooks is in fact online and therefore it is easier to access on a day-to-day basis than a group meeting is a compelling argument for your notion that Wikibooks ultimately trumps other methods of contact. I feel like the accessibility of Wikibooks not only makes the groupwork more focused, but also more professional, as the ability for people to look at your work presses people to act and conduct in professional, presentable and interesting ways in order to make content ripe for public consumption. Group meetings do act as a basis for the essays to take place on the Wikibooks platform. I merely think that you downplay the directional aspect of the group meetings and personal messages on Facebook. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 10:33, 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:
 * 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.


 * This was clearly not the case here – only 4 days registered as having logged a contrib, and 5 logged in total for the entire project period.

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


 * All 5 contribs registered as being under 1000 characters, this simply doesn’t constitute several weeks’ worth of evidence of discussion. Simply too little, too late.

•	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.

•	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.

•	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.


 * Too little material in evidence to make an assessment.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:49, 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.

Posts of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. They offer little to no engagement with the concerns of the module. They are poorly written and comments are often extremely brief or missing. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.


 * As suggested by the above descriptor, there appear to be some elements missing from the portfolio (ex 3 in this case). Despite this, this work is at the upper end of this grade band because you have engaged with most of the processes, and what is available for assessment is fairly good.


 * I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it would have been useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Additionally, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, where evident, but there are some required that are missing from your portfolio. In addition, you fail to log I on one or two occasions, and so there are elements that do not appear in your contribs lists which you may or may not have authored. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work

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


 * Argument and analysis: A little more attention to detail needed.


 * Presentation: same as above comment.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)