User talk:NCowling

=FMSU9A4: Wiki Exercises=

=Online Visibility= It would seem bizarre to find someone who is not, in any way, connected to the digital world. Online presence is a huge part of today's culture and as Boyd (2012) explores, we are always connected to the web - whether we would like to be or not. Online visibility takes many forms: posting, liking, commenting, sharing, all of these seemingly meaningless interactions that show our interests and present thoughts to anyone who cares to take an interest. Online presence and visibility is something I think about a lot especially when embarrassing videos go viral. How will that five minutes of fame impact job prospects in their future? Was it worth it?

The ease of access to someone's personal information is quite scary. It is possible now to determine someone's family history and life through profile browsing on Facebook, as well as, other social platforms. For this reason, I try and keep information available about me under control. I have the majority of my social profiles set to private to make my personal information browsing harder for others I may not know in real life. My Facebook contains information of my personal life - who I am related to, friends with, events I have attended - it is for this reason I do the most to maintain its privacy. On the contrary, my Twitter account is not hidden. Twitter is a space where I can share my thoughts and add to public debate - something I would never grace Facebook with.

I choose to share information on my Facebook with friends and family and I am careful about what I post or share because of this. Although I can control what I post, I have no control of what other people may post about me. If a friend "tags" me in a post, then other people who follow me will be able to see it as well. In addition to this, I choose to share information on Twitter however, I do not choose who sees that information or what they do with it. Much like this website, I have no control over who views my writing, but I do have control over how much I share and the content that I share.

The constant access to online profiles ties neatly into Boyd's ideas around always-on culture. We cannot "turn off" our online connection however, we can take measures to distance ourselves from our digital world. I use my social profiles to keep up-to-date on news and popular culture, as well as, just local gossip – that I can easily access through social browsing. The only way to protect private and personal information would be to have no online presence at all. If the data is not there, then full control can be maintained.

References:

Boyd, D. (2012) ‘Participating in the Always-On Culture’ in Mandiberg (ed.) The Social Media Reader pp. 71-76

NCowling (discuss • contribs) 23:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1) Hey, I enjoyed how you related the question of online visibility to boyd’s always on culture and also to your own personal experiences. I agree that the consequence of an viral post could be disastrous and that people probably do not take into consideration the lasting effect that it could have on their lives. I also find it infuriating when people post or tag you in something that you do not want people on your social media to see, specifically family. I would be interested to hear if or how the way you use social media has changed over time, and if you have always been aware of your online presence? Overall, you make some very interesting points and it was a very enjoyable read. Kab00094 (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this, especially with it being related to always on culture, which brings out your own personal experiences. I agree with whats has already been said in that it can be problematic for a post to go viral, which can lead to consequences beyond our control. Rej00012 (discuss • contribs) 18:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I really enjoyed many aspects of this post, it is well written and effectively constructs an argument which can in turn be relevant to Boyd's ideologies. An area in which I find particularly interesting is where you highlight how you would present yourself differently on Twitter to Facebook, in the form of public to private visibility. It does speak wonders for our society when we seem more confident in expressing our deepened thoughts and opinions to a much more wider-yet anon- audience than to that of our close friends and family. Perhaps it is due to the fact we can be personally linked to our thoughts, and it allows for a deeper and more personal insight which we feel uncomfortable to show to those we have on Facebook. When it comes to tagging it can be irritating as we do have very little control in what other people tag us in, and it may not fit who we present ourselves on each of our platforms. I would enjoy hearing the reason you personally think that different platforms result in different forms of online visibility. KaYuI (discuss • contribs) 21:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Your discussion is interesting to read, but I especially appreciate that you pointed out the possibility of repercussions of viral videos. It is something I often wonder if people think about when posting videos online (it doesn't often seem like it). It shows that you are actively aware of what is being put online. Despite this, you feel free to post whatever you want on Twitter, and it would have been interesting to see you explore why you feel more able on one platform to express yourself than on another (but I understand character limit constraints). The fact that you've tied your discussion into the work of Boyd is and the always-on culture is interesting also, and well done. Good piece of work. Smbromley (discuss • contribs) 12:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

=Annotated Bibliography= Keen, A., 2008: The Cult of the Amateur: How blogs, MySpace, YouTube and the rest of today’s user-generated media are killing our culture and economy. New York: Doubleday.

In this book, Keen reviews how the increase in “amateur content” puts our economy, values, and creativity itself in danger. As well as identifying problems, Keen offers solutions on how we can challenge the new web. Keen looks at big sites, such as YouTube and Wikipedia, to demonstrate that although amateurs have a voice, it is those with the most money who are being heard. His research in YouTube focuses on the shift of advertising, from forcing viewers to watch a commercial before content, to merging adverts within the content. This reading is useful to my research topic as Keen explores the way web 2.0 is used. User-generated content applies to always-on culture due to the constant engagement. The main limitation of Keen’s work is that it was written in 2008. Web 2.0 has moved on since this time. Thus, to further improve my research on always-on culture, more recent papers should be explored. This will give a history of the development of web 2.0 and its place in the modern world. This reading will not form the basis of my research, but it is a key insight into how YouTube and other sites merge user-generated content with advertising.

NCowling (discuss • contribs) 01:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
1. Hi there. I found this annotation both frustrating and understandable (due to the article content, not your summary!).

As an amateur 'youtuber' myself, I find that a number of creators can actually encourage and increase creativity instead of putting it "in danger". From my own experience, I have to be more creative the more content I put online because I have to come up with new ideas, new ways of editing and new ways of interacting with an audience to self improve and build my skills. Everyone has to start of from an amateur skill set. Sure, money can help buy better equipment and resources but learning to put information and constructing content in itself takes a lot of creativity that money can't buy. It is smaller creators that are improving their editing and skills and finding new content and ways to present that content. Creativity is about fun and having ideas which amateur content often portrays. Of course there are exceptions but in general that small creators can be much more entertaining the large Youtubers with millions of subscribers who now have their own Netflix series or television gigs. User-generated content often engages more people directly as the public can comment and interact with that content instantly. Also, youtube creators for example, seem more relatable because they are on a more 'amateur' platform rather than on a film screen for example. I know I related a lot more to Youtubers than actors or television presenters which what lead me to create my own channel because youtube encourages anyone to be creative, not just those that have the qualifications to go onto a professional set.

I do agree that it is often the larger, richer Youtubers that get heard the most on the platform. However, we now see that larger youtubers don't always get special treatment such as Pewdiepie after the Wall Street Journal Controversy. It remains true that more sponsored content is being placed in video content. However, instead of being seen as a killer of creativity, it now acts as a necessary action after advertisers pulled out from advertising on Youtube due to questionable content on the site. In order to keep making creative video content, youtubers big and small have to do sponsored adverts in order to survive on the platform.

The out-dated nature of the article is an issue when looking at Youtube since so much has changed in terms of Youtube policy and advertisements. However, it also shows how quickly the Web 2.0 has advanced and how difficulties are arising as technology continues to develop.

Your summary was well written and constructed, sorry for the long comment! Just very passionate about Youtube in particular as a platform.

--Stirsb00027 (discuss • contribs) 00:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi ! Sorry it has taken so long for me to reply but I have only just discovered how to tag people! I was really intrigued by your comment and found your thoughts quite insightful. I feel Keen's work is really looking at the power and influence companies have in the digital space even with amateurs. There is a new way of advertising messages and influencing consumers without them being fully aware. I like your point about how you found you related more to these online amateurs than you did to famous film stars. I feel this is becoming more of a trend in today's society with young people aspiring to be the next "Zoella", which is what Keen is getting at. Online personalities appear to be open about their life in order to make themselves more "real" and relatable to a wide audience; if a company sponsors their content then this will make their products relatable too - if that makes sense?

I think it is fantastic you use YouTube as a platform for your own creativity! How do you find the platform as a user? Are there things you view differently now than when you were a consumer?

NCowling (discuss • contribs) 21:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry that my reply was a bit delayed! As a user it has it's good and bad points. ~in terms of the good points, it definitely is very easy to interact with your audience. You get alerts when someone comments and it's so simple to reply back. You can private message other people including your audience and other creators although this feature is generally harder to find in the creator studio. I love being able to see analytics as well so I can see where my audience is from an roughly the age range of my viewers which helps with what content I want to create. There is a editing feature that you can use if you don't have the money for editing equipment so it makes the ability to create content a lot more accessible to everyone, not just those that have enough money for software and equipment. Also you can link other videos and create polls on videos that helps you engage with an audience. It's got a lot of features which are really useful.

Other parts of the platform are frustrating at times. Notifications don't always work as they should, subscription boxes don't always show the videos of creators you are subscribed to and a lot of the creator features as I mentioned before like the editing tool is really hard to find, especially for new creators. I definitely have realized how long a process it can be to create a video let alone have a regular upload schedule-it's really draining. Also it definitely it's as easy as I thought to get a following. The platform is so fully of information and content on virtually every subject and field that it is difficult to find an opening in it all but it is also really exciting that a social media platform like Youtube is really coming into it's own in terms of convergence and information sharing. I never knew how many things Youtube could provide to help with creation of content. Not only editing but royalty-free music and picture correction features are also on the creator menu which is really helpful and as a consumer I never knew Youtube provided that.

In terms of advertising and adsense, Youtube recently implement new requirements which are pretty hard to achieve when you are just starting out like myself meaning that taking Youtube as a career path is extremely hard, even more so than before. Existing creators are even finding new 'advertisement friendly' guidelines restricting, meaning they aren't earning nearly enough as before. Instead of relying on advertisement revenue, creators are going to sites like Patreon where their audience can give them so much money a month for rewards as well as a way for the audience to support the content and the creator. So not only is advertisements becoming more subtle within content through sponsorship's, but creators are having to adapt to new rules and having to find revenue from outer sources, therefore relying less on Youtube and their, at times very vague, restrictions.

Thought these points might be interesting to your research!

--Stirsb00027 (discuss • contribs) 23:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

2. I like the discussion about the inevitability of ametuer content and its impact on the creativity within not only the online community, but also the real world. The fact that the internet made online content made it more accessible for individuals to post ametuer content was always going to affect the real world as well as the digital world, but that Keen adresses it through both a positive and negative perspective is interesting. Especially as depending if you are a creator or and consumer, depends on where you stand regarding the idea of ametuer content. I agree that big corporations are often taking advantage of online popularity in order to promote themselves, drowning out the voice of those who were once free to express themselves as they desired without consequence. I like that you pointed out that this was written in 2008, but this may not necessarily be the case. It may be useful as a comprasion to see whehter or not the contribution to always-on has increased or decreased due to ametuer content availability and coorporate interference. I understand how this can be useful, and appreciate the insight into the content of Keen's work. Smbromley (discuss • contribs) 17:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for the delayed reply! I like your acknowledgement to the impact the digital world was going to have with the real world - it is crazy to think they were once two separate identities. Personally, I think it is great that companies are using the digital space to their advantage and really moving with the times. Digitisation seems to be expressed in a negative light most the time but it is amazing what we, as a species, have a achieved in this new age. Although, it may seem they are "drowning out" voices by paying for someone's opinion to be blasted across the web. Keen's work has aged well considering the crisis YouTube is facing right now but it was interesting to see how many of his ideas and concepts followed through!

NCowling (discuss • contribs) 21:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

3. Hi there, I was keen (excuse the pun) to read this article from your summary of the content in which it regards. I have personally always found it an exciting but terrifying concept that anyone has the ability to post what they wish on sites such as Youtube and I like how this author delves into both the positive and negative aspects of doing so instead of providing a bias opinion. The adverts that pop up on Youtube are the bane of my life especially when you aren't interested in anything they have to offer you. I like your correlation of the article with the notion of web 2.0 as I would agree that Youtube has become much more of a consumerist platform since its creation of being purely for entertainment purposes. It would be interesting to find out how such platforms would be viewed a decade on since the article's publication in 2008 as I would assume that the platforms would be considered much more on the negative side of things with their invasion in the simplicity of pleasure. I liked your link to that of Always-On culture as companies manipulate their devoted users into becoming viewers of their advertisements with very little option other than to watch what they feed to us. I was thoroughly intrigued to read Keen's opinion on the matter after reading your summary of it. Very well structured and followed similarities of that used in the blog version. Great work! I would be interested to know your opinion in reaction to what you read about Keen's take on it all? Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 12:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for the late reply! I appreciate your pun - wish I had thought of it at the time of writing! Considering his work will be coming up for ten years old, it was amazing to see how much of it was still relevant today. I like your point about YouTube becoming more of a consumerist platform, and I feel with the addition of renting films or series from the platform, we will see the development of a new YouTube identity. In regards to advertising, I do agree with you that there is nothing worse than a 30 second unskip-able ad that is of no interest to you! Which is why I think embedded content is really interesting. It is away to subconsciously engage with products and online trends allow for viewers to engage in their own way. I also feel the creation of Vine was a major influence for new advertising. Vine should us a six second video is long enough to contain an engaging story. Do you prefer adverts that are embedded in online video content or stand-alone, and why?

NCowling (discuss • contribs) 21:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

4. I find this annotated bibliography very good and well structured. The insight into Keen’s work makes me really interested in the book and I am looking forward to reading it in the future. I appreciate that Keen explores solutions as well instead of just offering a negative opinion on the matter. I find Keen’s argument that content created by amateurs influences the economy and creativity of the online community very intriguing. I actually never thought about it in that way, rather just accepted it the way it was. Of course it’s comprehensible that when everybody has the chance to add whatever content they like that it will have an effect in some way. What I don’t agree with is that amateur content endangers creativity. For me amateur content is exactly that, something that came up because of creativity, something that was sparked by other creations. Because often amateur content inspires other people to come up with their own ideas or even react to it in their own way. I do agree with the argument that those with money have a bigger influence than those without though. It may be true that some (especially creators on YouTube) started off as small amateurs and now built themselves up to very successful youtubers, however that does not mean that the smaller youtubers do not have good content. What I can somewhat understand (though it is rather annoying and sad) is the need for advertisement and that all youtubers need them to survive on the platform (as mentioned by ). Great work, and thank you for introducing this piece to me! Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

5.Hey there. I enjoyed this annotated bibliography as it explained the points in detail and concise points. Furthermore I like that topic as I will be writing about always on culture. I will be sure to look at it and read about the topic. I don't seem to have the same thoughts about armature content influencing the creativity of content on Youtube, however it is a perspective to take into consideration.Chrisalwayson (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

6. Hi ! I think this is such an interesting facet of novice user creation spaces such as Youtube that we do not often consider as we are consuming the content posted to the site. I found your annotation to be very enlightening and it made me want to find more updated perspectives about this issue. As someone who consumes a lot of "free" content, I hardly ever factor in the idea that the media that I consume is hurting more traditional forms of monetized entertainment. I think an updated source would be very interesting as these people who create this "free" content are still contributing to the economy, just not supporting these media giants. Youtubers and podcasters are often sponsored by various brands and sell things like t-shirts and stickers. Money is being made, just not in the ways it has been in the past. What are your thoughts about how this perspective could be updated for how these "free" entertainment platforms are being used today? Cls00085 (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

=Collaborative Essay Reflective Account= Wikibooks is hosted by the Wikimedia foundation, it is an online platform that allows for the sharing and consumption of information, collective intelligence. It differs from traditional mass media that share information following a “one-to-many” formula, an example of this would include news broadcasting. Communication of other technologies can take the form of “many-to-one”, the internet stores mass amounts of data that can be retrieved by individuals. These individuals select to retrieve only the data that interests them (Burnett and Marshall, 2003). This form of communication can be seen within Wikibooks as a community is formed through its users contributing their personal knowledge of a subject to a greater project. In my experience of using this programme over the past few months, I am able to offer comment on other posts as well as my own. I can add extra information to projects and introduce a new direction the original creators may not have thought of.

Howard Rheingold (2002) discusses the way information and communication are beginning to invade the real world, a trend that has only grown since his work sixteen years ago. Although Rheingold looks at the emergence of technology in every-day items, this can also be read as information being available instantly. The collaborative nature of Wikibooks contributes to this readily available information due to its easy access to the public. Any person can make an edit and contribute their thoughts and opinions to a project, or make a page look better and easier to read. However, Wikibooks ensures users can only make changes to projects if they have an account to avoid the spread of false information. This adds to online identity as anonymity is reduced and contributes to the community created within the platform.

‘Participatory culture’, according to Jenkins, is one in which users, fans, and other media consumers are encouraged to participate in the creation and spread of new content (cited in Burgess and Green, 2009). With regards to Wikibooks, users are invited to participate in multiple projects as well as creating new pages for future projects. Participating on the platform can range from posting original thought to suggesting edits. From my experience, commenting on other users’ posts allowed me to gain insight in different fields of work within the same subject. I engaged with comments on my own posts to improve my future assignments. The discussion feature of Wikibooks within comments made communicating easier with my peers as I was notified of their engagement.

Wikibooks, although complex at first like any new programme, is a great programme for collaborative work. Personally, I found when it came to the discussion pages for the collaborative essay, the site was messy and hard to read. My group primarily held meetings when it came to discussing ideas for our project than using our discussion page on Wikibooks. However, we would post summaries of our meetings on the site so other users could keep up-to-date with our plans and add any comments they thought may be useful to us.

To conclude, Wikibooks is an online platform primarily used for the sharing of information. When it came to the collaborative essay, the platform could not be used for regular conversation. To solve this problem, my group posted informed and concise updates of our project.

NCowling (discuss • contribs) 08:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

 References 

Burgess, J., Green, J. (2009) YouTube: Digital Media and Society Series UK: Polity Press

Burnett, R., and Marshall, P. D., (2003). Web Theory: An Introduction London: Routledge

Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution U.S: Basic Books

Comments
Hey ,

I really enjoyed reading your collaborative essay reflective account, as it was both informative and reflective of your personal experience. I found it interesting the way in which you related Wikibooks to both a range of academic works and your own personal experience. Your summary of how Wikibooks works is also impressive as it is succinct and easy to understand, it is also very interesting to see your opinions on how you felt you interacted with the platform. I agree that the notification element of Wikibooks was very useful for discussions, because being informed that someone else has added information or a comment encourages interaction between people and makes it easier to do so. I concur that that it was difficult in the beginning to understand the platform, but became easier through time spent using and interacting on Wikibooks. My group also had problems with the organisation of our discussion page, especially, after we starting publishing essay notes, as the page was messy to look at and we struggled to organise it in a coherent way. It also sounds like you used good problem solving skills to overcome the negative aspects to Wikibooks, which is very impressive. Overall, your collaborative essay reflective account was very interesting and enjoyable to read, as it was related to both your personal experiences of the platform, as well as academic sources. The collaborative essay you worked on was also very good.

Kab00094 (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi ! Thank you so much for your kind comment! Wikibooks did become easier through continued use and now I almost feel as though I am a pro (joking of course, I still cannot reference correctly or make a numbered list that does not just say "1" beside each entry). Establishing a structure for our collaborative essay was one of the hard parts too, it could not just make sense to us, it had to be able to be understood by outsiders. NCowling (discuss • contribs) 17:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, ,

I appreciated your reflextive account on the Collaborative Essay very much, as it evidently expresses a thought-through consideration about the WikiBooks platforms and its peculiar uses. I find it interesting that you mention that, thanks to the massive archive of information that WikiBooks represents, users are free to navigate through the platform following their own interests, and engaging with already existing content by the editing and commenting features. While I find it partially true, I also think that the very structure of WikiBooks, and of every wiki project as well, encourages a more herratic navigational behaviour within its users – I say this thinking especially about Wikipedia’s linking system, where almost every single word is linked to its designated page for further, but sometimes also distracting, research. I found that on Wikibook this effect is reduced, but the platform still tries to make its users take notice of the enormous potential spread of their research and their field of study. It requires a certain focus not to lose direction in all the cross-references and additional information one could obtain.

I share your opinions on the advantages and disadvantages of the use of this platform for collaborative discussion, but I think that our group managed quite well to keep our discussion page as clear and concise as possible, while offering at the same time information about the development our plans were undertaking. I still value face-to-face communication as absolutely essential when it comes to collaborating with your peers, and what Wikibooks might lack is a section dedicated to group of users that needs instantaneous communication – a system like Google documents, which may not be showing perfectly synchronous edits but certainly allows for a speed and easiness of editing and commenting on the same document. Probably due to the fact that Wikibooks requires academic-based research, this feature does not exist in order to allow users to post content when it has reached its finalised form, instead of drafts and brainstorms. On another note, I certainly agree with you that the platform encourages the creation and perception of a participatory culture at work spread through the world. The fact that it is dedicated to academic research and the publication of textbook would additionally ensures that there is a certain quality and relevance to the subjects discussed in its page, which makes for a very useful tool for collecting information and building up both individual and collective knowledge. What I find interesting is the archiving aspect of this project, in a way that mirrors libraries in putting in the same place all the information that contemporary culture finds important to structure and maintain.

Well done on this elaborate comment, you did a good job especially for managing to incorporate reference from your studying instead of just expressing a personal opinion, and for you contribution to our collaborative essay, on which you did an extremely good job. Absterloutely (discuss • contribs) 10:37, 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.


 * This was clearly not the case here – only 7 days registered as having logged a contrib. However, when you did engage, these seemed to be significant entries in terms of moving the project forward, and some genuine moments of discussion and peer-review of process..

Evidence from contribs to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of editorial activity as evidenced through ‘contribs’). These are primarily considered for quality rather than quantity, but as a broad guideline: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	Items on a contribs list that are <1000 characters are important, and are considered in the round when evaluating contribs as a whole because of their aggregate value


 * Several contribs registered as being under 1000 characters, with three classed “substantial” – these were discursive and meaningful.

•	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


 * This was the strongest element of your contribution. You clearly pushed your arguments and encouraged others to comment/respond, and gave feedback to other members of the group. Whether they enacted this is unclear, but you did give a fair amount of support.

•	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


 * There was a little organisation of the discussion page on your part.

•	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 well.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall:


 * Good. Among other things, good entries will make a clear point in a clear way. They will relate concepts to original examples in a straightforward fashion. They will make effective use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons). They may also demonstrate a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns, and are likely to show evidence of reading and thinking about the subject material. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.


 * This work is at the upper end of this grade band – some very good work here, which comes alive particularly when engaging with others. I would have liked to have seen a little more along this line, because this seems to be a particular strength, but overall this shows that you have real potential to get the higher marks.


 * One way this could have been done for this particular project would have been in making more use of the wiki functionality and markup. This 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.


 * For future work where you are working in more conventional settings, keep up the independent reading, spend more time in the library conducting research, and keep up to speed with the contextual currents in media studies more generally. This will really help to enhance your experience as a student.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good. You sometimes framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion with other users. This is good – it shows you have engaged in discussion in an open and critical way, that is to say, you've responded to what other people are saying and are contributing meaningfully to discussion

General:
 * Reading and research: some evidence of critical engagement with set materials, as well as evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material. The basics are here, so now it is time to extend this aspect of your work.


 * Argument and analysis: some evidence of independent critical ability.


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

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