User talk:RowanHarp1

I am using Wikibooks as part of a group project.

Annotated Bibliography

Meikle, G. & Young, S., 2012: ‘Introduction’, Media Convergence: Networked Digital Media in Everyday Life: 1-12

This section introduces some of the key concepts surrounding the topic of media convergence and provides contemporary examples of how the subject is particularly relevant. The authors reference other academics, using work mostly produced and relating to the 21st century, in part to highlight some of the different approaches that have been taken on the topic of media convergence. This section, and the book in general, largely focusses on media convergence and its impact on digital media. This section proves to be particularly useful as a foundation for further reading/study on the topic of media convergence, as it provides detailed yet concise definitions of some of the key terms, integral to the subject. Due to the focus on digital media, and its inherent fast moving and consistently developing nature, the section in question fails to address some of the most recent examples of popular digital mediums and does not touch upon many examples outside of the mainstream. Ultimately, more recently published academic work will likely prove to be more relevant. Unlike other academic studies, ones that involve digital media have an especially short life span of relevancy, as more recently published work will always be addressing more up to date examples. This section of the book can and very likely will help to form the early stages of my research. While it provides a decent foundation, to further my research, I will need to seek other sources to fully support the main body of my essay.

comments
I find your take on media convergence very interesting. This book is clearly one that has greatly informed you on the topic. What do you think are the most important factors of Media Convergence? Is it a topic you find interesting, and would apply to your life? KaYuI (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello!! I think you did a good job with your annotated bibliography. In particular I appreciated the way you discussed the fact that studies based around digital media and media convergence tend to have a shorter period of relevancy because of the fast moving evolution of the topic. It is amazing to think that a study done more than five or six years ago could seem completely outdated or irrelevant in the face of our world today, just because media and technology have changed that much, that quickly. I also appreciate that you state your work clarifies and defines the important terminology of media convergence- I always find articles that do this incredibly helpful when working on research essays or studies such as these, so I imagine this will be very helpful to you as you continue working on your final piece. Overall, I think you found an excellent piece to use for your research article and topic, and I wish you and your group all the best as you continue working on your collaborative essay! Mom00107 (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Reflective Account of the Collaborative Essay

At its most fundamental core, Wikibooks is an online platform intended for the sharing of information. By simply acting as a host, the platform almost entirely relies on its ability to create a contributing community to populate the site with valuable content, by the means of sharing resources, links, ideas, and feedback with fellow classmates. This approach can allow for engaged users of the site to flourish with their contributions, while remaining a relevant destination for more passive, non-engaged visitors who can browse and gather research.

Wikibooks certainly delivers a heightened level of visibility, compared to the traditionally solo preparation and research method. Using the site, we were encouraged to share our general thought process towards the task at hand, and post our accumulated notes for our main content. From my experience, this has the benefit of being an added incentive to create high quality notes that can help to form equally high quality research because, due to the material being public and the pressure of wanting it to be of a presentable standard. A failure of this however is that it may lead to a large portion of wasted time when transforming and re-writing highly personalised methods of note-taking to a universally understandable standard, suitable to be posted online. This almost forced level of quality largely discouraged ‘real’ discussion, between users, who usually opted for an unnaturally formal form of discussion which may alienate some from contributing.

As previously alluded to, Wikibooks is dependent on building a community. For the task that we undertook on this module, a decently active community was able to form due to fact that the contributions were being written for a relatively small and personal audience, who judging from my interactions, seemed particularly supportive and pleasant to collaborate with. This does however lead me to question Wikibooks community building ability outside of the classroom parameters. I am not yet convinced that an active and diverse group would naturally choose Wikibooks to facilitate their conversation, when not required for coursework. Also worth mentioning is how Wikibooks is being hindered by its dated and frankly ugly interface and design, which in my opinion is detrimental to the necessary ‘flow’ that’s essential to most online communities and is unlikely to turn many new users away from the platform. I am aware that the design is fitting with the overall look of most Wiki*edia properties, and that Wiki*edia is a non-profit organisation who do not utilise on-site advertisements as a form of revenue, meaning that an expensive design overhaul may not be financially viable.

Wikibooks and the collaborative nature at its core represent some aspects associated with a digital commons. It’s an inherently public platform other than privately owned, relying on the culmination of collective intelligence through the expression of ideas.

To conclude, for this reflective piece to be of any value at all, it must remain close to the truth. Undoubtedly, Wikibooks has distinct advantages as a platform, but it also holds glaring flaws. No website, let alone one that attempts to establish itself as community driven, should require clear instructions detailing how to work with the platform in its basic form. Navigating Wikibooks unexpectedly proved to be the main challenge faced by our collaborative group. We did however end up relying on each other and working together to overcome most of these challenges. I do hold criticisms, but ultimately, I believe a higher quality has been produced using Wikibooks, compared to what a solo effort would have likely wielded. RowanHarp1 (discuss • contribs) 09:55, 12 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:
 * Clear Fail. Assignment responses receiving marks below 30% tend to not contain any merit or relevance to the module. Contrinbutions are one-liners, sometimes made up of text-speak, if there are any contributions at all. Often they are indicative of failure to comment on other students’ ideas, and therefore do not engage with the crucial peer-review element. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement, or the user has been blocked for vandalism or other contraventions of wiki T&C. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.

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 4 days registered as having logged a contrib, 10 entries in total, and most of these were on 4th and 5th April, the final two days of the project. It seems that this activity was a bit of an afterthought. The biggest contribs seem to be draft work that is then cut out and pasted onto the essay page. I’ve discounted this as I am unable to mark the same work twice. This leaves very little material that is actually discursive, and evidences sharing and discussion of ideas. Overall, this really was a case of too little, too late.

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


 * This was minimal. Only one discursive entry 1000+.

•	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 minimal.

•	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


 * This was minimal.

•	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) 13:37, 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:


 * Posts of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. They offer little to no engagement with the concerns of the module. They are poorly written and comments are often extremely brief or missing. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.


 * Although this work is at the upper end of this grade band because what has been submitted is of a fair standard in quality, I draw attention to the aspect of the above descriptor that cites missing work as a factor. This is essential to note: it would have been 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 and fulfil the briefs – there are a number of elements missing. Also of note here, there are some rather strange assertions regarding the wikibooks interface (yes it is ugly; true, it is not a social media interface) as putting off new users – but this is not the case for millions of wiki contributors (Wikipedia is still one of the fastest growing online communities, regularly featuring in top Google hits). This seems to contravene and undermine the argument raised in the reflective exercise.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – none undertaken. This would effectively halve your mark.

General:
 * Reading and research: some evidence of critical engagement with set materials.


 * Argument and analysis: some evidence of capability here, b8ut the missing elements mean that there is less evidence to go on.


 * Presentation: rudimentary use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)