User talk:Lauraanniegoodwin

Wiki Exercise #1
When it comes to online visibility, it is no secret that I am very active online. When you google my name your first hits will be for an actress with the same name and a TV presenter for STV News. If you add in my hometown not much will come up for me although if you scroll down far enough you'll see a link to an article about a show I did in Edinburgh and a link introducing me as one of the new youth advisors for a Scottish Government, Young Scot and Creative Scotland combined project called NYAAG. It is sometimes hard to control what people see about you online when you have things public and anyone can usually find out whatever they want if they dig deep enough. I had control over those two articles because I knew they would be posted and I gave my consent to it. When it comes to online platforms that I have a presence, there is a long list, for example; Google+, Linkdin, Tumblr, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, Archive of Our Own, Tinder and the list goes on. When it comes to a platform like YouTube, I never made an account to comment on our videos or anything, I made an account to make videos. Something I have been doing regularly for nine years across three separate YouTube accounts. When it comes to control within a platform like this control can be easy but also can be difficult. As much as you can private videos or delete them, they would’ve been live at some point or another so at least one person other than yourself would have seen it. If you post a video you never expect it to get a lot of views but when a video gets a lot of views that’s when you kind of loose control over that video because even if you make it private, it’s still on the system. It is easy to save YouTube videos too so even if you have deleted it or private it; someone could have a copy of it on their hard drive somewhere. These are things that should be thought about before posting or even commenting anything online. Future employers could take a look at your many platforms and it’s important to check these platforms regularly and do damage control where needed. This wouldn’t have been an issue ten years ago but now because social media is so prevalent in our everyday lives it’s important to be wary. With the amount of platforms, I use on a daily basis it’s clear that I find it hard to disconnect from the online world and therefore this links to ‘Always On’ which is something we are hoping to look into for our Collaborative Essay. When it comes to disconnecting from the internet, even if I’m not actively on my phone, I’m probably playing music from my Spotify or Apple Music account and reading Fan-Fiction on my laptop. Our other option was Transmediality and this is something I have a large interest in. As a member of the Harry Potter and Sherlock fandom; I have been known to use many of my platforms to interact with these fandoms. Back in 2014 it was something that got me more views than normal on my YouTube channel as I reviewed each season three episode and continued it three years later when season four was released. Within Harry Potter I’m trying new things with it on my YouTube but this shows just how important the fandoms are in bringing franchises to different medias and how the creators behind it utilize the fans engagement on these platforms. Lauraanniegoodwin (discuss • contribs) 09:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2
Hills, M (2012): ‘Torchwood’s trans-transmedia: Media tie-ins and brand ‘fanagement’’ in Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, 9 (2), 409-428

In this article Hills uses the BBC Doctor Who, spin off Torchwood as a case study when looking at ‘media tie-ins’ and if they happen to fit into Henry Jenkin’s definition of ‘transmedia storytelling’. He looks at the fact that the show, officially, has 28 televised tales, which run over 41 episodes, 17 novels, short stories, 7 radio plays and 10 original audio books. This is not counting the many fan-produced comic books, merchandise and fan-fiction; to challenge the fact that these tie-ins do not automatically give the fans what they want. He looks into Jenkin’s definition on the term ‘transmedia storytelling’ before he starts his breakdown and looking at Torchwood in full. This article is useful to my research as Hills looks into the intricate workings of this type of media and if it really gives the fans what they want. The main limitation of this article is that there is no fan-based research allowing us to know actual fans views apposed to what we get which is Hills own views. Hills concludes that trans-transmedia doesn’t just unite a fandom and the franchise associated with it, but; seeks to appropriate fan discourses in order to protect the ‘hub’ of a TV series and the brand value that comes along with it. This article will have a significant part to play in my research for my collaborative essay as it makes a rather large argument for transmediality and everything that comes along with that topic. It also allows us to see the limitations media-tie ins have with fans when they are already out there making their own fan videos and fan-fiction.

Source: http://www.participations.org/Volume%209/Issue%202/23%20Hills.pdf

Lauraanniegoodwin (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Lauraanniegoodwin (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments/Wiki Exercise 3
This was a good analysis of the article. At first glance I wouldn't think this relevant only because of my own disposition to the subject matter, but your explanation of the study makes it clear how it can be relevant to our essay. I liked the criticism of no honest fan based research, because this can be a really interesting avenue when studying the relationship between media changes and fan engagement. You could possibly go more into the fan produced content and how available it is/how much interaction it receives. I'm looking forward to discussing this more in our group and using it as an addition to our essay research. MillyZombie (discuss • contribs) 12:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, I definitely will be looking more into the avenue of fan produced content and the availability of it and interaction of it specifically with Wonder Woman. I’m going to have to go back to basics on it when briefly looking at where she originated which i’m assuming is in the comics. I’m wondering what you think of comics and how integral they are now? Especially with the fact that we have fan-art readily available to us on Tumblr and DeviantArt. Do you find that more people are buying comics now that through the big Marvel and DC films are bringing a new audience to comic books or do you find that people aren’t as interested in that form of media now? Also would you consider comic books to be an example of ‘old’ media or do you think its a timeless type of media that will span the ages? Lauraanniegoodwin (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Comics are definitely something I have enjoyed for well over a decade now. On a completely personal level I think comic books are a really important part of media. In a general sense however, I think they truly are integral in 'geek' culture. In sociological terms, the audience of comic books is particularly interesting to me because there's a huge representation issue. In the beginning of comic book history, there was nearly an audience of 50% female. While this has lowered slightly, this graph goes into how there's still 20% young female audience in who buys comic books (That graph goes into other social factors too if you're interested!). Anyway, in regards to Wonder Woman, she first appeared in December 1941 in comic books. A quote that caught my eye about her inception is this: "Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don't want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women's strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman." (Which comes from Wonder Woman's Wikipedia Page). I think there's no denying an increase of fans reading comics for the first time after major movie releases, but whether the numbers stay consistent is another matter. While I'd like for comics to be as important to everyone as they are to me, I don't think it's even necessary to enjoy Marvel or DC characters, especially with the film and show franchises being large enough on their own. I think personally, comic books should be considered old media in their original format. Yet, it's worthy to note that they can fit in transmedia analysis by how they inspire films, tv shows and online content and they have lasted long enough, I can't imagine major superhero comics dying any time soon. How do you feel in relation to comics? Would you consider reading them regularly if you found one you liked, or would you prefer the idea of graphic novels (which if I'm honest, is also my preference)? Here are just a couple readings I also found interesting regarding Wonder Woman and comic books.

MillyZombie (discuss • contribs) 21:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I look forward to reading the material you’ve supplied me with, hopefully it’ll educate me more in the comic book world. I do agree with you that they are integral to ‘geek’ culture. Although ‘comic book geeks’ is a popular trope that carries through film and TV it is one of the first things you associate with geek culture. I’m especially intrigued by the female readership because I hate to say it, but I never would’ve expected that. You make an interesting point about the numbers staying consistent after a movie comes out; if you take a look at this article you’ll see that comic book sales were down 10% in 2017 from 2016 but marvel took the highest sales. Could this be because of the upcoming movies? Or is it because Marvel was always popular in the comic book world?

I 100% agree with you in how comic books fit into transmedia analysis in the sense that they have inspired the films and TV Shows. Although I am aware there was critism from Captain America: Civil War as the comic book that inspired it spoiled people and also those that loved that comic felt the film fell short. Do you think in cases like that it’s similar to movies based on novels and plays, you want to keep die-hard fans happy but also the director wants to stay true to their vision?

In response to your question; I used to read the spider-man comics when I was younger because I have always been a huge fan but I kinda grew out of them (if that’s even possible) I have considered dipping my toe back into the marvel universe and reading specifically the Doctor Strange comics. I bought my little brother a collection of them for Christmas 2016 and I was reluctant to wrap it up and give it to him. I don’t know what I prefer more, comic books feel like nostalgia to me but I always flick through the graphic novels when I’m in Waterstones but I can never bring myself to buy them.

Lauraanniegoodwin (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
This was an interesting read and article you put forward! I think Torchwood and the Doctor Who universe in general is a brilliant example of transmediality and transmedia story-telling, which is evident as you clearly recognise this as you note how this is achieved with it's numerous television episodes, books etc. I think Hill's argument that you point out is an interesting one. Perhaps we could discuss and research how the fans themselves interact with this content. This is a good example and case study that we can use in our essay. Overall, a good and concise piece! Jeneds (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4
Throughout this module we have used wikibooks as part of our assessments and group work. We used it as a way to communicate in our group-work on the collaborative essay; we also used it as a way to submit our assignments which allowed for easier and quicker access for the lecturers and tutors in the sense of marking but also allowed for the students to upload their work directly rather than typing in a document and then sending it through canvas. It also allowed for personal editing once it had been submitted to wikibooks and to sort formatting and typing that may have been missed when typing it up the first time; all before the submission date and time of course.

Wikibooks, as a whole can be seen as a successful platform as it allows quicker editing and it’s a way to see others works and although so could say that cheating could factor in sue to the plethora of work in the field you’re addressing; it also eliminates the cheating aspect as it is easy to see everyone’s work so you can easily spot what has been taken from another’s work. Describing wikibooks as a platform, I would call it a collaborative platform as it allows for you to comment and edit each other’s work which is good and can be seen as very constructive. On the other hand; I would never use it again in my personal life as I see no reason to unless I was specifically asked to for a project or university assessment as I see no real use for it in my everyday life.

As for visibility within wikibooks I feel like it emphasises it in the sense that it’s accessible to all and people of all walks of like and areas can have access to it allowing those to contribute and work together. It allows for diversity and as long as you sign it; it will most likely not be taken down for spam. As I said before I believe as a platform for collaborative research it facilitales this very well and allows for easy and concise collaborations within your project or group. It is easy to assign headings and a comment section off your own back without having it done for you which allows more exploration. Personally, in my group, we made a considerable use of it and although a lot of our discussion was done on social media; for the proper in depth discussions the wikibooks page was very good. Once we all got a hang of it we found it easy to navigate and work through things. It’s not something you could just pick up off the bat and hope to get a hang of in mere seconds. It took me a couple of weeks and a few accounts to truly get a hang of it all but when I did; I found it easy to navigate and something I would use for group work in the future to come but maybe not for essay submission. I can see where this could be beneficial to some that you get to see each other’s work, edit it and comment on it but personally I find it slightly bothersome as once we each uploaded our sections we then had to go back and edit everything and because there was no dropbox or site like ‘Turnitin’ to submit it to; we had no way of knowing if our tutor and lecturers got our work. With Turnitin you get a message to acknowledge that your work has been handed in and received. Throughout this project although I can see my work has been posted; I have had to check with my friends within the module that my work is available to see but there has been no message from my tutor to tell me that they have received the work. I feel like this is something that could be looked into not in a wikibooks sense but more certainly in a University sense.

I feel like wikibooks fosters a community by once again focusing on the collaborative sense as it allows those with similar interests from all over the globe to contribute to what they are passionate about and in turn builds up an international community. I guess online collaboration represents a digital commons much in the way a physical meeting does. As you are able to comment on each other’s work instantly and timestamp it; it is just like you would do physically but allows for more of a contribution especially from those in different countries and people that are unable to leave their homes and such. Finally yes, I believe that wiki platforms offer potent ion all for online emancipation as it allows for free speech, a sense of community and being able to contribute and debate wherever you are in the world. Lauraanniegoodwin (discuss • contribs) 16:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Hi Laura! I thought this was a well thought out response to the questions posed to us. I thought you could have fleshed out what the main pros and cons are with wikibooks in comparison to canvas, but the description of it’s main functions you gave was succinct and descriptive.

In terms of calling wikibooks a successful platform, I mostly agree! I think the easy editing you mentioned is a very valid point, and I didn’t even consider the contribution tracking as a way to stop cheating! I think the way contributions are tracked it would be very naïve to cheat on wikibooks, as it’s easily traceable. I would also like to think I’d have uses for wikibooks outside of my educational sphere, but like you I cannot think of a reason, but maybe if I needed to compile some work for my future modules or had something I wanted to keep a lot of information on I would definitely consider wikibooks.

I feel like if we had had a proper introduction and explanation to the platform we would not have had the confusion we did as a group (and class). I think that the platform was fairly easy to navigate and use as both a visitor to the site and a contributor. I did wonder, do you agree with me in that maybe wikibooks should offer a tutorial for first time users? Like how you find in a new game, when you can get step by step guidance that shows you how to operate? I think that would help for all users, as I have no computer background so I found some of the HTML elements a little confusing.

In another vein of questions (I know you do not need to answer!), how did you find the platform as a place for collaborative discussion and projects? I felt our group utilised it so well and I really liked that there was more work being done online and via social media than there was in person. It definitely made for a less stressful group experience, knowing that our discussion was not dependant on us being physically there, especially when during the weather and other disruptions it meant some of us stuck being miles away at home. I would only disagree with you on the submission example so far, as I think it was an efficient method and I liked the way we could go back to edit and adjust things. That aspect added to our group work, on the introduction and conclusion, and meant all of us had instant access (alongside the facebook group) and instant forms of communication to each other. However, I do understand your frustrations, as I know plenty of people were concerned with their work being published and not submitted.

I liked your view of what constitutes a ‘digital commons’ and I think I would have to agree! I think it definitely intends to foster and encourage a community of sharing knowledge. I think free speech can be contested but I think that Wikipedia and all it’s platforms try to keep an unbiased way of presenting the information, especially if it’s for education and information purposes.

Overall I agree with most of your points, you only could have improved by maybe clarifying what aspects you found more difficult and how we as a group used it more specifically, and a way to relate it to our collaborative essay. Other than this though, this was a good description of your views and experience of wikibooks! Thank youǃ  MillyZombie (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 15 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, as the evidence shows that you only logged contribs for 7 of the days that the project was live. However, there 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 from other groups. 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. In addition, some of your discussions are a little conversational, and you do need to work on bringing the two sides of this work – research and observation – together i.e. apply the theory to the text(s).

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


 * Nearly all contribs registered as being over 1000 characters, with a mix of “significant”, “substantial” or “considerable” to the project. The quality of these is quite good, but really, 9 contribs in total is hardly representative of a few weeks’ worth of project work at this level. There’s obvious room for improvement here.

•	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


 * You pushed your 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, and of observational discussion, but as previously stated, you need to be bringing these elements together more, and from what I can gather, this is well within your ability to do so.

•	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 exceptionally well.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:36, 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 fairly well written, and an excellent choice to review. 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. The other general point to make is that you make some strange assertions in the reflective exercise concerning “no way of knowing” if lecturers have received work done on wikibooks – when of course, wikibooks is a publicly-viewable forum, so it is actually very easy to check. If you have submitted changes to an edit, it is there, right?


 * 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. 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, generally. 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 as well as some evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material particularly through the annotated bibliography.


 * Argument and analysis: Some good work in this regard, fairly well written generally, although 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) 11:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)