User talk:Katielsg

Online Visibility? How much can others find out about you?
Every time you go online and post a picture, share a website with your friends or like something you share information with other people. How far does this information go, is it really just your friends that get the information or are you far more visible than you think? How aware are we about this visibility?

What has an important effect on visibility now is being able to be online all the time and everywhere. It’s always around “the corner” and it makes it easier to quickly post something new or share something that you have just found. So the act of posting, liking or sharing something is more accessible than it was before. This also influences how intense you think about it before sharing it with several people; you are more likely to share something if you can just do it quickly over your phone instead of getting out your laptop, maybe you even have to wait until you are home, log onto a platform, search for a picture and then decide if you even want to share it. Therefore I would argue that an always-on culture makes us more visible online.

I like to think that I am very aware of what I post and share, I am trying to only share information with friends and people close to me, choosing all my privacy settings to be as private as possible. What I share with others also depends on the platform, which probably is similar for other people as well. I only share certain things on one platform and other information on another, also sharing different degrees of private and intimate things. So for example, on Facebook I share pictures of myself and with others with friends, on Tumblr I show the fandoms I am in and communicate with others in the same fandoms but I do not share personal information about how old I am or what I look like for example, on Instagram I share photos of landscapes etc. I took from places I have visited. Even though I am trying to not give too many information about myself on each of the platforms themselves, taking the information I share on all platforms together I am probably more visible than I would like to be.

Of course our information online is not only visible for us and our friends, but it is automatically (we agree to this when we have an account for most platforms as they have this in their terms and conditions) visible for companies to analyse our data. The databases are used in order to create social identities for advertising the right things to us. Platforms do give a few options to limit your visibility; however there is still a great deal that is in the open. In the end you are the one that decides what to share and consequently also how visible you are.

'' Edit: was posted on the wrong page. Original post from 5 March 2018, at 9:59. ''

--Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 10:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2
Ytreberg, E. (2011). Convergence: Essentially Confused? New Media & Society, 13(3), 502-508. --Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 15:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

In his review article Ytreberg comments on three books (by Dwyer, Jensen, and Staiger and Hake) dealing with media convergence. Ytreberg aims to speak about the definition of convergence, because the term is often looked at as vague and not very precise. In the article Ytreberg summarises the books’ content and the limitations of them. He determines that the authors focus on different aspects: Dwyer talks about the media-industrial aspect of convergence, Staiger and Hake deal with media history and Jensen offers a similar viewpoint as Jenkins. The article is useful for my work on the collaborative essay, as Ytreberg gives a good short overview of the three sources, giving an idea whether they might be interesting for further studying. Ytreberg offers the limitation that the works do not come to an agreement, thus Ytreberg concludes that it leaves the question of convergence still open. The limitation of the article itself is that it is only a short review without much depth. This article is useful for my work because of its overview, however it will not be my main focus as it only superficially deals with convergence.

--Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Nicely structured piece that follows the annotated bibliography guidelines to almost perfection. The fact that you choose a writer that covers three different books is a good choice as it gives plenty of options and perspective to talk about. The fact that they don't come to an agreement is obviously a limitation but it goes to show the complicated sides of media convergence and it shows that there is no clear answer regardless of what you research. Overall, it is a well structured bibliography with some interesting pieces of research that would be a compelling read.


 * 1) Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 12:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading your annotated bibliography, it is well structured and easy to refer to when considering your collaborative essay. There is plenty to discuss and research as you have a lot of information to study. You have included limitations swell as useful parts which allows you to dig further when writing your essay. however overall I think you followed the guidelines well and made me want to read the article! Erin.mcnamara (discuss • contribs) 18:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your annotated bibliography is incredibly well written; it is concise, to the point, and a good summation of the main points of the article that your read. It sounds like you have found a good piece to utilize as you continue working on your collaborative essay topic and final product. In particular, I think the fact that this article aims to define convergence by utilizing so many different scholars works will prove to be incredibly useful for you and your group as you continue to research, although I can understand frustration that the author of the article does not end up providing a solid definition in the end. All together, you have done a wonderful job on your annotated bibliography. Good luck to you and your group as you continue working on your collaborative essay! Mom00107 (discuss • contribs) 00:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3
Hey I saw that you did an annotated bibliography about the Internet of Things and I wanted to discuss a few things about it with you. I was wondering if you are interested in products connected to the web in order for them to be used for statistics and analysis (in whatever way, for example for the environment) and if you think they are a good thing or not? I think the idea behind certain products is very good, however there might be some issues with the actual execution of those products. I would like to hear your point of view on this. Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello there. You know, I am keen to learn more about these devices as I see them used more and more for events that I didn't think they are useful for. For example, a lot of professional football and rugby players have pieces of technology on their kit that tallies how many passes, tackles etc, that they complete? I find that fascinating. Many people will look at it and think that it is rather pointless but as a sportsperson myself I know how valuable remembering your statistics are as well as rewatching your performance via video analysis. This gives every player a chance to identify their strengths and weaknesses in a match and plan to rectify it in training. However I do reckon that it comes at a cost, where the game ends up being so accurate and technically detailed that it loses its rawness. I suppose you are interested in these statistical devices in a different way? #Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 13:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, that is very fascinating. I did not know that these devices are used for that, although it makes perfect sense to use it for your own performance in order to improve yourself. But I also believe that it has its issues. I can understand the need and desire to improve oneself as best as one can but I also don't know how to feel about this perfectionism. If you are able to monitor your every step I feel like at some point it might become way too important and makes it sound like a robot. I know sports involve a lot of technique but if you are good at the sport you do I think a bit of instinct is important which allows you to ignore technique for a second. As you said it loses its rawness. I actually have not engaged that much with these kinds of devices but I am getting more and more interested in them. So there is no specific area that I focus on yet but I enjoy finding out about all different kinds. Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 15:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

In the pursuit of perfection, people seem to have forgotten that none of us can ever be perfect. Even when you're the best in the world at something, you are still going to have your bad days. This cry out for refinement can lead to obsessive behaviors and narcissism. To err is human and we are beginning to lose our touch by relying more and more on these technological appliances. #Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 13:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey you commented on my annotated bibliography and I saw that you also have convergence as topic for your collaborative essay, which is why you also did an annotated bibliography about media convergence. I am looking forward to have a discussion about it with you. I enjoyed reading your bibliography and it gave me another source to maybe read for a better understanding of media convergence because it is a really broad topic that is according to a few scholars really hard to define (as also talked about in my source). And because it is so vague there is a lot of sources that try to understand the concept. In the collaborative essay I deal with Henry Jenkins’ perspective of media convergence. I was wondering what your point of view on Jenkins is? So what do you think about his argument of the partipatory culture? Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey thanks for reading my annotated Bibliography! I think Henry Jenkins gives a really good insight into media convergence, I have used him as a source in my collaborative essay. I am particularly focussing on collective intelligence, which I find interesting. The power of people on media is overwhelming but Im struggling to find other sources apart from Jenkins as it would be good to get another opinion and view on it. What are you covering in your essay?? and have you found other sources?? do you find it easy to write or are you struggling with it? I think its important to hear everyones views on it as it helps me understand it!Erin.mcnamara (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

In our essay we discuss Jenkins’ view on convergence and partipatory culture and whether we agree with it or not. We do talk about about other scholars and what they think of it so that we have something to compare it with. I am strictly writing about Jenkins’ definitions and his ideas. It is good to read through other sources and opinions though, as it gives it a bit of a perspective. I’m struggling to focus solely on one side as I like to put arguments against each other. Collective intelligence is interesting and it is easy to use arguments that Jenkins makes for it! For the rest of the collaborative essay we thought it would be a good idea to bring other scholars and their arguments in it as well. So there will be a paragraph about Jensen, who has quite a similar view on media convergence as Jenkins. Christian Fuchs has another view on it though. He argues that the internet is dominated by corporations which makes it hard, or even impossible, for it to be partipatory. Maybe this is a source that could also help you? I agree with Jenkins that everyone participates by creating and sharing content, however I do find the argument Fuchs makes quite interesting because there are a lot of corporations that have a lot of influence on the content etc. For example if someone on Instagram is sponsored by a company for certain posts then how much of it is still participatory and how much is because of the influence of the corporation? Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your source, I will have a look on what I can find on Christian Fuchs, it would be good to include a different point of view. I do agree that Instagram adverts do dominate the main page of what we see however I think people influence online society more than adverts. This is how trends etc start. increasingly over the years I think corporations have had an effect due to sponsored posts. Its interesting to see the change in advertising that has occurred throughout the years. Hope your getting through your essay okay!Erin.mcnamara (discuss • contribs) 12:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that people still influence more than adverts. But I think it is very interesting how the corporations turned this whole online community to their own advantage and use it in the way they do. On the one hand it is very impressive but on the other hand I believe it is rather annoying and it shows how capitalistic this society is and how important money and the sale and spread of products is. How are you getting on with the essay? Did you end up using something from Christian Fuchs? Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4
The collaborative essay assessment consisted of both using the Wikibooks platform and face-to-face interaction. Wikibooks was first established for educational purposes. The platform is used for the creation of educational e-books and texts which can be edited by everyone using the platform. The way in which the platform is used reminds of Pierre Lévy’s notion of collective intelligence, that no one possesses the power of knowing everything but everyone knows something. By offering the possibility for everyone to be part of the platform, engaging on it, challenging arguments and adding their input, gives the opportunity to bring together as much knowledge and information as possible. This also allows and supports for a lot of participation in convergence culture that Henry Jenkins describes. Wikibooks emphasises visibility because it tracks and saves everything a user does on the platform. And this data is open for everyone and users can follow the participation of the other users. For the assessment this is mandatory as it is graded by contribution. For the platform it simplifies the reconstruction of the engagement of users for other users. The most obvious way in which Wikibooks can be used to help facilitate collaborative research is that happens in real-time. Using Wikibooks helps everyone participating on their own conditions: whenever and wherever one wants to. Furthermore the notion of it being online helps to get feedback for an idea or suggestion earlier than for example waiting a week for the next meeting. Again, as mentioned above this brings together the knowledge and research of several people increasing the potential for a good and variegated discussion. Also even though you are not directly part of a collaborative research group it is possible to add to different discussion and offer suggestions for the other groups and works. By creating a space where everyone can engage with the content equally and is able to upload their intake gives Wikibooks a knowledge-building community. Together the community creates e-books and texts which can then be reused and improved by the community itself. That is why the online collaboration represents a digital commons. It is a platform offering the distribution of information through a community that creates these informational resources themselves through collaborative research. Because of the nature of the assessment the meetings in person felt almost less important than the engagement on the platform. After a few difficulties with the platform in the beginning and getting used to it, the first meetings of the group were really useful for everyone to understand and get a hold of the platform. Nevertheless, contributing to the essay and sharing information was easier and throughout time was more normal through Wikibooks than in person which was different from anticipated. As it was the first assessment that I have done in this format it took getting used to and was a very mixed experience. On the one hand the assessment came with a lot of difficulties; however it still has very rich learning potential and outcomes. Group assessments usually bring a lot of difficulties with them, but with the Wikibooks platform the interaction of the group was made easier. Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 09:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Characters: 3262

Comments
Hey!

I agree with many of your points about the Wikibooks format. Because of the digital nature of the platform, meeting up in person with my group felt almost less natural and the group were far more productive when left to our own devices on the discussion pages. I completely agree that the collaborative essay project may have been the most efficient piece of group work I have engaged with so far in my academic studies. The usual stress surrounding group meet ups did not apply as the vast majority of collaboration happened over a digital platform. This was unexpected as the Wikibooks format seemed somewhat intimidating at first because I had never had very limited experience with it prior to this module. That being said, the Wikibooks user interface would likely benefit from being streamlined in some way. At first, the formatting and editing seemed overly complicated, and while I certainly got to grips with it eventually, I still find it to be a somewhat overly complex interface. This may be because I am used to more technologically streamlined online communities, such as Facebook. Wikibooks is about learning and is aimed at an academically-minded community, so expecting it to operate like Facebook messenger may be slightly unfair.

The greatest benefit that can be derived from Wikibooks is the fact that it facilitates knowledge-building in a shared and equal way. The collaborative essay groups, and the wider cohort, felt like a friendly and functional community. It allowed me to learn from other students who were each focusing on a different aspect of this module, and the ability to engage with the wider Wikibooks community only added to the sense of shared knowledge-building. Collaborative research is clearly encouraged by the Wikibooks format. It even allows you to amend the structure of and comment on other users' contributions to build upon and refine the work of others in real time, maximizing the opportunity for collaborative knowledge building.

I'm glad you managed to take away something positive from the Wikibooks experience! Best of luck with your future studies! MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 05:36, 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:
 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory contributions 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) and will have little justification for ideas offered on Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will need some work.

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


 * You have managed to create an evidence trail for a fairly sustained, meaningful engagement over a period of time. Although by no means every day, certainly for a percentage of the duration of the project.

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. A small number (4) classed as “substantial”, although some of this material is draft work, and really ought not to be counted twice.

•	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 is evidence of peer-assistance and peer-review.

•	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 seem to be the instigator of much of the 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.


 * Very well conducted.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 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.

Excellent. Among other things, these entries 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 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 way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. 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. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.


 * Whilst this work is at the lower end of this grade band, and there’s clearly room for improvement, I think that you engage with the wiki exercises in a highly reflective, articulate manner. There are some exchanges with other users that suggest you have listened to what other people are saying and are contributing meaningfully to discussion. This is arguably the civic element of wiki that you are thinking about. Very, very good work generally.


 * You could have made more use of the wiki functionality and markup. This would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. You start off in earlier posts by using more embedded links and illustrations – it would have been great to sustain that level of functionality.


 * 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, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) and also that you have engaged in discussion in an open and critical way.

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


 * Argument and analysis: posts show well-articulated and well-supported argument; evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position); evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections); evidence of independent critical ability


 * Presentation: see above comment on wiki markup and organisational skills. This is really good in place.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)