User talk:RossTheSnake

=Annotated Bibliography - Against Henry Jenkins. Remarks on Henry Jenkins’ ICA Talk “Spreadable Media” By Christian Fuchs=

The article is essentially a scathing critique of Henry Jenkins’ ICA talk “Spreadable Media” which extends into a dissection, rebuttal and damnation of Jenkins and similar theorists' outlook on media culture and critique. Christian Fuchs emphatically takes exception to Jenkins’ notion that media convergence is both dangerous due to the exploitive capabilities of mainstream media companies, but also a positive gift – benefitting and being driven by audiences of all demographics due to their “participatory” powers. The theorist takes the stance that companies like Facebook and Apple participate in the commodification and profiting of culture and thus it would be necessary for users to have influence on the business decisions, swing of power and concentration of attention within these companies for those users to be truly “participatory”. This is a compelling article that deliberately and openly takes a far more political and economy-central standpoint towards convergence theory than Jenkins does. It is true that Jenkins has an observable habit of focusing on media consumerism as a cultural phenomenon driven by the masses in which the "everyman" is in control - which is indeed at odds with the reality that even within the so-called web 2.0 almost all media platforms are controlled by massive, profit driven, controlling and commercial corporations.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Jenkins#Participatory_Culture Fuchs states that by overlooking the latter fact Jenkins has failed to recognise that the sheer power held by these companies leaves participation in Jenkins’ sense of the word meaningless: “Jenkins has a reductionistic understanding of culture that ignores contemporary culture’s political economy”. Fuchs’ argument can be observed and expanded on with case study of Facebook. Facebook as a platform is a public good in which one consumer using the product does not limit another user, hence mobile phones, tablets, laptops and other vehicles of media convergence indirectly benefit financially from Facebook’s spill over effect. The companies who utilise Facebook’s ability to gather information on user in order to pander to them in advertising benefit directly.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook#Economic_impact Fuchs delves considerably deep into the notion that democracy should be fully participatory; in that it should be above the representative democratic model followed by modern Western countries. With his notion that the power, decision making, and future of companies should be held in all forms by the people of all classes the articles explicitly endorses anti-capitalism and implicitly Marxism. If corporatism cannot co-exist with participation, then the only true way to freedom is the nationalisation of Facebook and the seizing of Apple’s means of production.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Marxism Jenkins in his 2004 work “The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence” states that the new base of power is the ability to share knowledge and will overcome nationhood and commodity consumerism. Fuchs states (with references to Habermas who he claims Jenkins fundamentally misunderstands) that this notion is merely a short sighted and idealistic view on an industry that is in fact a small amount of power holders reaching and controlling an affluent middle class youth.

RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 03:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

=Wiki Exercise 4= Wikibooks is an interactive, all-encompassing platform made up of multiple contributors and multiple sources. Wikibooks emphasises visibility mainly through its accessibility to the public. Anyone can stumble across certain Wikipedia articles, an Wikibooks is certainly part of the larger Wikimedia platform. Furthermore, the fact that multiple contributors can comment and add to any page certainly shows how visible the work of such things are. Wikibooks helps facilitate collaborative research. In my experience I was able to collaborate and get my own opinions and ideas across through having the discussion page. I would sew a seed of knowledge and my Wikibooks brethren would take this up and make it into their own paragraphs, in which they discussed their differing and at some points conflicting lines of argument to mine. However that is not to say that we did not focus as a group. Indeed, as great thinkers of the philosophy of working in a team such as Alex Ferguson and Alastair Campbell often say, a team divided against itself cannot function and all groups need a shared view of the strategy and goal in order to function. I set out the basic strategy in the Wikibooks discussion page, but I was not the only one to decide on the general plan of action. It was actually in our group meeting that this idea formed and took life. We realised from a judgement of our own abilities, preferences and skills what we would be best at working on in the essay and how we would construct it. What we concluded was that we each had the knowledge, ability and interest in the specific paragraphs we set out, and that the line of argument we should strive to have was that we agreed with Jenkins to a minor extent. This is therefore to say that the group meeting was vital, but after the general plan and line of argument were set on the Wikibooks page my group and I were able to push forward. Wikibooks fosters a community through offering the exchange of the world’s new currency according to Henry Jenkins: knowledge. Whereas in the past nationalism or in recent years commodity and capital were the deciding factors in power hierarchies it is now our ability to assemble into groups and share knowledge that determines the growth of dominant, large groups. That, as is the case with many social media, is how Wikibooks fosters a community. Online collaboration such contains a lot of traditional learning and engagement, but it also requires a level of peer-reviewed assessment, which make it similar to a digital commons. One of the key features of a digital commons is to preserve and contribute knowledge, which is also a prime use of the Wikibooks exercise, as my group and I used the platform to spread the knowledge of Henry Jenkins and his theories on active audiences and media convergence. Wiki platforms offer potential for online emancipation to a certain extent. The very nature of them, in tat one must communicate through leaving a message on a certain discussion page any for that message be susceptible to criticism from anyone on the platform displays this. One can not simply send a message to another persona and get a response without being open to the world. This in fact ties into Fuchs slightly, as merely the potential to speak your mind is not enough of a platform to constitute as genuine emancipation. There are certain rights people must have in order to be fully free, and one of these is the total freedom from exploitation. Yet another right is privacy, and without privacy one is at the mercy of the onlookers. People have the ability to steal others’ unprotected and not private messages to each other on the Wikibooks platform. Therefore I agree that online emancipation comes from this but only to a minor extent. RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 00:42, 14 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 (although it ought to be noted that this work is at the lowermost end of this descriptor):
 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory contributions may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse) and will have little justification for ideas offered on Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will need some work.

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


 * You have managed to create an evidence trail for some meaningful engagement over a period of time. Although by no means every day, and certainly not all of it is discursive by any means, certainly for a significant percentage of the duration of the project.

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


 * Several contribs registered as being under 1000 characters. Additionally, a few classed as “substantial”, although it should be noted that most of these consist of draft work rather than discussion.

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


 * There is a little evidence of peer-assistance and peer-review, but I would have liked to have seen more. You seem to be the instigator of some of the discussions, which is useful.

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


 * Not much seems to be in evidence in relation to this.

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


 * Very well conducted, as far as the evidence suggests.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:50, 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 lower end of this grade band, but shows potential in terms of engaging with the underlying issues. So, whilst this is fairly good work overall, there is 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.


 * 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. This is because you show signs that you are thinking about the platform’s affordances, and are making fairly extensive use of functions like embedding links and so on.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion – which is ultimately discussion pages are all about.

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


 * Argument and analysis: fairly good articulation of ideas and some evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position)


 * Presentation: fairly good use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)