User talk:MillyZombie

Wiki Exercise 4
Wikibooks was not a foreign website to me before this module, but using it as a creator and contributor has been a new experience. As a platform it is designed to have a community of users that share their research and post subjects with the intent to gather more information or engage in useful discussion. It has many positives and negatives in general, such as being able to access it from all platforms versus anyone being able to edit something without notifications. But in terms of my own personal experience with it in the Digital Media module, I overall liked it as a form of ‘course work’.

The fact that the contributions we made are always noted made me more motivated to keep myself active on the platform. Being able to look through other wikibooks users’ contributions was a good way to navigate their discussions and comments on other posts, which led to other pages that aided my studies in general and the collaborative essay. The ease of being able to give and receive comments was also a major plus point for me too. It was really beneficial to be able to discuss my thoughts and opinions and hear others in realistic times that worked for us both physically. This collaborative element made for interesting points of views and topics to talk about both due to personal interest and relevancy to Digital Media. I think wikibooks encourage the collaborative element, because it makes for more in depth analysis and engagement with a topic.

In terms of our online discussions, wikibooks was a perfect environment for our conversations. With members of our group all either working, commuting from home or visiting home, it was great to have a platform that allowed us to have a lot of discussions without meeting in person as often as much. We did meet in person, which I’ll admit was easier when it came to physically writing our collaborative essay as we could instantly change things we weren’t happy with without having to put it out online. Sometimes it’s also hard to convey the right tone in text and on more personal levels opinions put forward can cause friction, but when I encountered that with other users we were mature and able to keep level headed. I didn’t find it when meeting in person because it’s much easier to express concerns or opinions as the conversation happens.

In terms of emancipation, wikibooks does allow for some freedom I believe. However it does have some limitations. While there are anti-plagiarism rules in place, other people’s work can still go unsourced. Without us as students disclosing on our pages that we were using the site for our module we wouldn’t be able to use it as new users are immediately flagged when trying to add links. Another downfall I found was some of the banned websites on wikibooks (such as buzzfeed or any and all youtube links) were sites that may have had relevant information to our studies academically or socially. When it comes to flipped content, I think the way wikibooks produces and retains media is a form. It provides information in modern and (after a little use) practical ways. Our collaborative essay has similar veins, as it focused on transmedia. I suppose wikibooks or the underlying Wikipedia aspect can be considered a form of transmedia itself, especially in the fandomwiki which gathers information to help build on a storyworld for a franchise.

Overall, I liked wikibooks as a platform for our module. While I understand the frustrations and limitations people find with it, I personally thought the collaborative online elements and it’s accessibility combined with the contribution logs enabled me to produce content in a motivated and educated way. I also really enjoyed the discussion parts, and look forward to incorporating this platform into possible further study. MillyZombie (discuss • contribs) 23ː19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 4 Comments
Milly I really enjoyed this report on wiki books and I feel you bring extremely valid points to the table here. Whilst I disagree with you on some points it is due to personal feelings on the website rather than not liking the website as a whole. You mentioned in your comment on my post about the HTML aspects and tutorial for first time users and I thought i would quickly answer that here before analysing your post further. I do completely agree with you that there should be a tutorial for first time users as I believe people that are unaware of the html aspect and don’t have a father that’s a computer programmer to ask for help would find it difficult but I did feel that when I got a hang of it that it was easy to use and i believe if there were a tutorial for first time users then less questions would’ve been posed to our module coordinator on it.

Now onto your post. I agree with you that as part of ‘course work’ it is very good and helps with the collaborative aspect. I also agree with you on the fact that it was a greta environment for our project as I myself was working from home to a large extent and I did find it easier to communicate and collaborate especially with the open group discussion on our page as although it was part of our essay it soon turned onto very interesting concepts and I dont know if you agree; but I felt like it was things I would forget to discuss with people in person like it was something that would not naturally come up in conversation and getting to interact with people you wouldn’t normally interact with. I also believe that seeing the people we worked with in the groups actual work for the other projects on this module was interesting as you were able to understand their writing style more before we all did our essay together.

I agree with you on the sense that people’s works can go unsourced which allows for problems later on but then again that could be their own fault as it’s something they have to psychically do but then again it’s not exactly clear about how to do it on the main page. I also 100% agree with you about the disclosing that they are a student because this was my third account that I had to make due to being flagged and ended up having a lot of trouble with it. I do think it is strange why YouTube and Buzzfeed links are not allowed as, especially YouTube, I believe there is a lot of information at there especially when talking about Transmedia and specific movies.

When reading your point on flipped content it was something i never even considered and I think you have made a very good point there. I would never have thought of it that way so thank you for bringing it to my attention. In conclusion I believe that you have made some very good points and that you have presented it in a very easy to understand manor and that you have definitely covered all points successfully so well done! Lauraanniegoodwin (discuss • contribs) 09:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@MillyZombie: I find this exercise extremely riveting and I agree with you on a lot of things.

I feel that the online aspect of the collaborative essay was a lot easier, especially with wikibooks and like you say, the fact it is easy to navigate between contributions and edits people have made. I found clicking on the 'watch this page' button helped as well, as it would notify me when someone I was interested in would edit their discussion. Did you try it?'

I have to admit, I did not consider wikibooks as a form of media in the sense that these 'veins' connect it all, nor did I consider transmediality being sinilisr to that. It makes me think of a tree l, in that it grows from the root or base of a story or media content and everything added is a new branch of that content. Its an interesting way of thinking and understanding how a lot of media works. Rej00012 (discuss • contribs) 09:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Edit: moved to the comment section Rej00012 (discuss • contribs) 18:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography
Hepp A., 2013 “The communicative figurations of mediatized worlds: Mediatization research in times of the ‘mediation of everything’, European Journal of Communication, 28(6), pp-615 - 629.

In her article, Andreas Hepp reflects upon how media has shaped social worlds. In doing so, she notes the importance of finding a suitable 'mediatization' approach to research this transmediality. She sets her ideas of mediaziation into two 'traditions'. The first being institutional which focuses on the traditional print and mass media, the second being 'social-construstivist' which looks more at the changing communications between society. Hepp draws on other work into this area by other writers to research her case and tries to indeed have a global scope. This is a personally interesting piece of work relevant to my topic, as it uses both sociology and film theory in practice. The limitations of this piece are mainly due to the fact that mediatization happens in all areas of life, not just our active social lives, it would be interesting to look at this notion in more ways. Hepp concludes that that there are other ways to look at research like this, but it is fundamental in a more changing digital society to include transmedial perspectives. While it may not be the main focus of my topic, it will definitely aid in researching and understanding transmedia approaches to data.

Source The communicative figurations of mediatized worlds: Mediatization research in times of the ‘mediation of everything’ MillyZombie (discuss • contribs) 10:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

comment
This is a very interesting piece and something I feel we can really benefit from using in our collaborative essay. I would like to know your opinion on if you feel it is effective to split media in 'traditional print and mass media' and 'social-construstivist' because to me, the two intertwine with each other and it is difficult to look at one without the other. It is interesting as it is on a global scope, which really relates to not only transmedia but also digital media and culture as a whole. Rej00012 (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey! I did reply to your comment (check the comment section below?) but you raise a really good point! I agree in that the two intertwine because of the massive shift in media production and the way we consume it. I do think looking at them individually does have some benefits though, in particular the traditional print media because we can directly link changes in technology to time. From a sociological perspective however, I definitely agree that looking at both of them together raises more points. While I agree with you on global perspectives, do you agree that sometimes smaller more specific groups would aid our studies more? I'm thinking along the lines of the fact that where you are in the world directly affects the media available. MillyZombie (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments/Wiki Assignment #3
This was a great analysis of Hepp’s article. Taking in the title it took me a few minutes to fully understand what that meant in the context of transmediality but as I read onwards, your annotated bibliography has given me a much better understanding of the article. It is clear and easy to understand, you’re able to put the article into your own words whilst still staying true to the basis of the argument. You are precise in what you have mentioned from the article. I personally feel like this is an article that would benefit the research for our essay and it is something we should all read and familiarise ourselves with. I particularly like that you mentioned the fact that Hepp tried to have a global scope by drawing on other work and I feel like this is something we should consider as a group when we are thinking about our own essay research. Lauraanniegoodwin (discuss • contribs) 12:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! If you're interested, I have a couple more articles on transmediality that seemed really helpful and interesting in regards to our assignment if you'd also like to talk about these! (Here and Here). I was wondering what your personal opinion toward mediatization occuring in all aspects of life? If you have any other readings to discuss in relation please add them too! MillyZombie (discuss • contribs) 19:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I also found some really good points to discuss in this chapter from this book. I feel it would definitely help build on your fan aspect of the essay. What are your personal views on fandom in relation to media? I think it's more and more valid as time moves forward, but look forward to seeing other viewpoints! MillyZombie (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your link to the ‘Three Waves of Fan Studies Revisited’ chapter, it’s a very interesting read and definitely something that i’m going to look into further. In response to your question; how much time do you have? I have many personal views on fandom in relation to media. As a fan of many franchises that are still largely active such as Harry Potter and Sherlock and also smaller fandoms that aren’t as active as they once were like Torchwood. I feel like the media paints fandoms in bad lights, specifically in the last week within the Sherlock fandom.

The Sherlock we know today obviously originated back in the 1800’s by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle; specifically 1887 in The Beeton’s Christmas Annual and from then until the last book was published in 1927; it garnered a fan-base to the point where Doyle tried to kill him off only to have to bring him back in 1905 because the fan’s hounded him enough. That fan-base has grown, expanded and been passed on down the generations. The modern Sherlock series that premiered in 2010 on BBC One brought Sherlock Holmes and Doctor John Watson to modern day Britain.. and from the offset, fanart and fan fiction surrounding the characters blew up.

Contrary to popular belief, ‘Johnlock’; the characters ship name, did not come into being with the BBC One TV Shows but way back when Doyle first published his books. Martin Freeman, who plays John Watson in the show, has come under fire within the fandom for being heavy handed with the concept of Johnlock in a recent interview where he denied the existence of Johnlock and how it will never be that. He’s been known to go between being impressed by fan-fiction and fan-art and disgusted by it over the years. People who make these fan-fictions and arts are perceived as young females who don’t have much else to do with their days.

Sherlock as a show is very heavy within transmediality in the sense that old media and new media converging. Instead of writing fan fictions about two characters on paper and sharing it with friends in person back in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s; there’s now a way to do it online that has a worldwide reach.

But when it comes to a fandom like Marvel or DC, you don’t hear as much criticsm on the fan-art or fan-fiction that the fandom provides. It could be that I don’t notice it because i’m not as far into the marvel fandom as going far enough to interact with the fan-art and fan-fiction and with DC i’m not in that fandom at all. It would be something to take a look at deeper in response to our essay.

What do you think makes people so critical on the works that fandoms bring to the franchises and what do you think this means for the future of transmedia as a whole? Lauraanniegoodwin (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the examples you put forward make really compelling cases! I do think however that your views are more knowledgeable in fandoms you participate in as I do hear a lot of discourse within Marvel, but again this is only from my own exposure. I think it's important to analyse our own involvement with fandoms and how we personally interact with fan made content. Your insight of the Sherlock fandom may be pushed aside by others but I think that's usually because that person isn't into it. I feel far too many people quash excitement and discussion when it's not relevant to their interests, and that can lead to an echo-chamber of sorts. I think it's important to keep an open mind to fandom, especially as a media student! But don't be ashamed of your passion for something, it's nice to see!

In response to the fanart criticism, I think it's mainly due to people's disinterest. People are willing to mock or attack something they find immature or not interesting, but I'd bet they consume fan content on their own interests. When being critical of fan work, if the criticisms are valid there's nothing wrong with opening that discussion. Yet I think personally too many people let their own feelings toward a franchise dictate how much they engage with or accept other fan produced material. Do you find that too? Also, would you agree that in a franchise that has 'died' or ended, that fan material is key to keeping the franchise relevant?

Transmedia can only grow more with the technological advances and I'm really interested in seeing how it develops in regards to virtual reality and social media in particular! MillyZombie (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree completely with you on people’s disinterest, I believe it’s down to taste levels and how involved in fandoms you are. I think sometimes if you’re heavily involved in fandoms even with making your own content you have an understanding for other fandoms you aren’t a part of. I don’t actively watch the walking dead but if I happen across some art that a fan has made I can appreciate it and will like it or reblog it but that could be because i’m heavily involved as a creator within the Harry Potter fandom so I have a high respect for that. I think people need to learn to respect creators because we don’t get paid for it (although some may well do) and we do it in between everything going on in our own lives. On the contrary I do agree with the fact of people consuming fan content in their own way. I can guarantee they are quick to judge it on social media yet they probably do that because they might seem ‘uncool’ if they like or reblog something fan related.

In response to your point on franchises that have ‘died’ is very true. If we look at Torchwood for example, that hasn’t been on the air for 7 years now and if you want to get particular about it the last series of it was in 2008 before they came out with a 5 part series in 2009 and a ten part series in 2011. After they killed off a well loved character in 2009 who also happened to be the leading man’s love interest the fans kept that character alive and his character was mentioned in the 2011 series (his character also has a fan made shrine in Wales where people still, 9 years on, post messages and such to the point where it actually has an official plaque to commemorate it). When it ended fan’s posted ‘fix-it’ fics, fan-art and videos to keep the fandom alive and through that they brought the loved character back in 2014/2015 in audio books and recently they’ve just finished a audio book series under Big Finish which has almost re-invented the fandom as people who maybe missed it before have a chance to be a part of it again but it’s all down to the fans. If there wasn’t still a large fan interest in Torchwood then there wouldn’t be audiobooks being released. I think as long as the fans keep producing material and interacting within their respective franchise’s community then that franchise will continue to go.

Do you agree that in mainstream media fan-fiction is still seen as slightly taboo and a bit ‘cringey’? And what do you think of the word ‘fan’ itself. Can one be a fan if they don’t own any merchandise from the franchise or interact with the fandoms online? Or does it in turn make you a bigger ‘fan’ if you interact with the fandom, create your own content, own the merchandise and attend the conventions?

Lauraanniegoodwin (discuss • contribs) 20:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I do think many people discredit fanart as 'not real art', even though on many occasions I've come across fan art that is absolutely beautiful. I think fan art is a great testament to how much a show has affected someone. I know it's cliche, but media like comics, TV series and movies can really shape a persons identity and can sometimes dictate how they act and who they interact with.

Your comments about Torchwood were really interesting and I wondered if there were any other fictional characters some adored so much. In a different vein, I guess you could consider the cultural phenomenon of James Bond. James Bond has transcended through many types of media and remains a very well known name. People of all ages are aware of James Bond and as a British character, it's interesting how much attention he receives worldwide too.

To your first question on fan-fiction, I think once again that's a very subjective matter. Personally, I see no shame in partaking or enjoying in fan-fiction as it not only encourages writers, it gives fans more content. I do think there can be downsides, I have known people to become encapsulated by fan-fiction, and obsessive fans can give a bad name to the work. Cringey fan-fiction has become a kind of meme across social media, though and I can see how this would discourage beginners. I think in all honesty being a fan is only determined by the person calling themselves that. If you enjoy something enough to call yourself a fan, I don't see any reason why you should not be considered one. There is definitely a culture of competition between fans, where people will battle by gloating about their knowledge of the media or pressuring others to name details and if they couldn't they're 'not a real fan'. This is a pretty toxic attitude to have in my opinion and I wonder why someone would rather make competition than enjoy and share an interest with someone. Have you had any experience with 'real' fans?

I would also be interested in hearing your experiences either positive or negative in fan culture. Has any fandom/particular fan put you off a certain media? or even made you more willing to get into one? MillyZombie (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, there is so much beautiful fan art out there and it’s not just drawings and digital art anymore; there’s now insta aesthetics and mood boards for characters and I feel like that’s a true expression because it allows fans to interpret characters how they want to. There’s some brilliant ones for characters like Marlene McKinnon from the Harry Potter franchise who is mentioned briefly as she died before Harry’s parents but went to school with the ‘marauders’. There’s not much known about her apart from he fact she was blonde but fans have taken it in their stride and made fan art that makes you forget she wasn’t a well established character with an arc.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that if you enjoy something enough to call yourself a fan then you are one. As someone heavy in fandoms it is very competitive because there is so much content floating around that you really need to push yourself to be heard. People take their time out to make this and I guess they become so competitive because they want to stay relevant within the fandom and have their hard work shown. I have had many experiences with ‘real’ fans; especially early on in my fandom days on Tumblr when people who were in the role playing community refused to RP with OC’s (original characters) and would get particularly nasty about it. That seems to have changed over the years but it did take the fun out of something that I was using as stress reliever and something I just had fun doing.

To answer you questions on certain media; I guess i’ve never really been put off by a fandom or fan. I think if I find myself becoming a fan of a certain fandom I wont stop being a fan but I might stop interacting with the fandom on Tumblr. It’s more likely the franchise itself that would put me off it; for example Sherlock Season 4 which premiered in January 2017 put me off the fandom as it had got out of hand. There was a significant amount of backlash with that season and it became not fun anymore to be a part of that fandom because of the negative reputation us creators and fans were getting in the media. Although, on the other side of that; I would never have gotten into Sherlock in the first place in 2012 if I hadn’t been introduced to it on Tumblr and ‘Johnlock’ and spent a whole day exploring the fan-fiction, fan-art and headcanons before binging all six episodes (series 1 & 2 combined) the next day. I would never have gotten so heavily involved with the show if it hadn’t been for the fandom community on Tumblr.

I’d be interested to know your views on fans helping grow a franchise that is still going such as Doctor Who, Marvel or even The Walking Dead? If you’re a fan interested in purchasing merchandise; would you purchase official merchandise or have you ever found yourself buying fan-made merchandise on redbubble or even Etsy? Lauraanniegoodwin (discuss • contribs) 08:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's really cool we're both involved in different fandoms and still manage to interact and discuss it maturely, because I definitely see competition. Especially between older fans and younger fans, which has always bugged me. I try to keep on top of myself when enthusing about my interests, in order to not alienate other fans.

In response to your first question, there's a lot of admiration I have for fans that contribute to the storyworld of their favourite media. With my own involvement in The Walking Dead community, it's quite insane how much effort and time people put into their fan work (be it art, fiction or merchandise). I've bought merchandise both official and fan-made, and in all honesty the fan-made products have been more visually pleasing and personal so I lean toward fan-made things myself. This goes for most of my 'fandoms', the bigger the fan-base the wider the availability to decent fan-art. Has your experience been similar? I'm curious to know about Harry Potter merchandise (but not too much! haha!), because the fandom of that media is so large and worldwide I see official merchandise EVERYWHERE. From Primark clothes to even cutlery, does fan merch hold any importance in the sea of official merchandise available to HP fans? MillyZombie (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
This is such a good piece! It sounds like it will really help with our transmediality collaborative essay that we have due. I'd like to have a discussion about this, and your full stance on transmediality and you you feel it's evolved

This is a good, concise and well-written bibliography! The article you bring forward is interesting in relation to the context of transmediality and it's interesting how it combines the sociology and film study aspects of the topic, which you correctly point out, as the sociological aspects of this topic are very relevant. Furthermore, it's good that you point out how the author takes on a global perspective as this, indeed, is extremely useful for our essay as it broadens the findings, it isn't subjective and it is relevant as media and transmediality is a global phenomenon. I agree with your statement that mediatization does happen in all aspects of our life, so maybe we can look into this further. Great piece of work and I'm definitely going to read this article to engage and fulfil my own understanding of transmediality! Jeneds (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I find that your succinct summary of Hepp's articles give a good overview of her stance on transmediality but leaves me wanting to know more about her argument specifically. It's inconvenient that you have linked your source for others to check out if they find themselves likewise as intrigued. If you find yourself disagreeing with Hepp's focus on transmediality only in our social worlds, some good questions for you to ask/answer in your collaborative essay would bring about discussion on this topic. For instance, what elements of transmediality are pushed aside in Hepp's analysis? Perhaps expand on her definition of mediatization in regards to its changing of communication, her approach to mediatization research with a "transmedial perspective" (Hepp 627), and where your own thoughts on these concepts correlate or differ. Auj00003 (discuss • contribs) 16:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This is an extremely interesting approach to media and transmedia, it not only covers topics of personal interest but as well as good points to discuss throughout the collaborative essay. I'm interested to see how this will tie into the topic of transmedia, and how you would link it to sociology. I like how the author splits the media into different areas of focus, which will help with future writing. Rej00012 (discuss • contribs) 16:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Rej00012 (discuss • contribs) 16:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If you're interested, I have some other interesting readings to look into more. THIS LINK will lead you to a book on google books that will help aid in our research. I've mostly been finding myself struggling with specific examples. Have you been able to find any with direct or precise examples? Also, let me know if there are any areas you're struggling to narrow down and I will also attempt to find some information. MillyZombie (discuss • contribs) 18:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1
In 2018, it is normal among technology driven societies for individuals to have an online presence. Boyd considers in her article the phenomenon of the ‘Always-On’ culture which is surprisingly easy to find yourself a participant of without even realising. Personally, I actively engage with many of the offerings that come with living in a digital age. I consider there to be many different personas I adopt depending on the type of social media I'm using.

When using Facebook or Instagram, my visibility and available information is probably at its highest. On Facebook, security is important, and I therefore have very high privacy settings for people who are not my friend or a friend of a friend. However, if I do have someone as a friend they are able to see personal things about me other than photos, such as place of education, select interests, and any places I tag myself in. My Instagram is public and I post mainly content that I find appropriate for all kinds of family and friends. Snapchat is only for friends and certain family members that I approve, and I never use the public story or map option. This type of awareness of who is accessing my ‘content’ definitely affects the way I use the social media. The posts are more restrained, and I would avoid controversial topics to also avoid the confrontation from people I interact with in day to day life.

These are wildly different to the impression I may give from my Twitter or Tumblr. While there is vague information on the actual biography sections of these sites, I recognise upon review that there is a lot of information about myself I willingly put publicly, especially on Twitter. Even though I have some friends as followers, the way I present myself is much more overt and unashamed. I admittedly am very opinionated and open to varied discussion on Twitter. Even though I control the information, I still feel due to how much I’ve used it over the past eight years, it is too often I am willing to talk about a personal matter or experience on Twitter. These types of presence do unnerve me when I find emails or targeted ads from companies I have never heard of, making me fully aware every so often that my information is probably not as hard to find as I would like.

A final more specific type of presence is that of anonymity. Reddit is well known for being a site where many are unwilling to divulge into their personal information, and I find myself following that consensus. While even I am unsure of why this is compared to other sites, it makes me uncomfortable on sites such as Reddit. In a general googling of my name, I found it unsettling to find a couple of photos of myself on the first page, but when I remembered using a site from years ago I realise it was myself who put them out there. While I feel and appear to be mostly in control of my information, there are some times where I hide it unnecessarily, suggesting that I know there is a lot of reasons to be careful with online visibility.

1.	Boyd, D. ‘ Participating in the Always-On Lifestyle’ The social media reader. New York : New York University Press, c2012. pp 71-76 MillyZombie (discuss • contribs) 23:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Your post made me examine a few things in my life, the notion that our personalities and the faces we portray on social media differ based on the platform we post on is undoubtedly true. On Instagram, i use the page as a creative photography outlet and a place to connect with other creatives, whereas with Facebook I primarily use that just to get some pop culture news and to get in contact with friends and family.

This is troublesome though as you point out sharing information and keeping it private is a very thin line to cross. Often I post what I am doing and where I am doing it on Instagram Stories. I have 500+ followers, most of which I don't actually know. Sharing your day on social media is a wonderful tool to connect with your followers and to provide content though of course, but it means that people that I may not be comfortable with knowing my location... now do.

This bibliography is written well and highlights aspects of our 'Always-On' culture this discussion is important to how we as a society deal with putting ourselves 'out-there' on social media. We both now have a better understanding of the positives and negatives of Digital Media identity,

Keep up the good work!

Jackaodha (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level:
 * Excellent. Among other things, contributions will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including formatting, links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful and transparent way on the Discussion Pages. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts, justifying decision-making with transparency. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader as well as for fellow researchers collaborating. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.

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


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

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


 * Some contribs registered as being under 1000 characters, with a mix of several others that are “significant”, “substantial” and a few regarded as “considerable” to the project. The elements of research and discussion of ideas are the useful ones for this criterion, and it’s on this that you really show your strengths. Very, very good work.

•	Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages o	Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration o	Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay o	Evidence of peer-review of others’ work


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

•	Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages o	Clear delegation of tasks o	Clearly labelled sections and subsections o	Contributions are all signed


 * You were clearly collaborating on the discussion pages. Some of the organisation here is a little haphazard (which is typical of a wiki project and is a challenge you were encouraged to engage with), but overall the discussion is easy to follow, and this is partly down to your bits and pieces of “wikignoming” where you tidied up the page and organised things at one or two moments. These proved very useful indeed. You have also signed where necessary, so it’s easy to see where your contribs fit into the overall discussion.

•	Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated.


 * You conducted yourself exceptionally well, showing generosity by sharing what you know with others – this is a key component of this project overall and suggests that you understand the value of this kind of working.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 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 is at the lower end of this grade band, but you show a lot of potential in your exercise work, so 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 formatting and organisation of your user discussion page went a bit awry - 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. You have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion from other users, and manage to sustain to-and-fro discussion in places, which is not only useful for yourself, but for other users too.

General:
 * Reading and research: some evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material, particularly with the annotated bibliography. Would have liked to have seen more in your reflective account.


 * 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) 11:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)