User talk:Sok00011

Thank you for coming my discussion page! Feel free to edit and leave comments for me! It should be helpful for improving myself!!! Thank you!!!

Annotated Bibliography
[Citation]Meikle, G. and Young, S. (2012) Media convergence. Basingstoke, Hampshire [England]: Palgrave Macmillan.

[Introduction] The Chapter titled Creative audience says the media convergent collapses boundaries between customers and producers. It tries to let readers understand clearly by giving an example of 'Google Earth'. Therefore, writer state producers should create audiences clearly before they produce contents because the audiences can be thought in various ways by many different traditional research ways. [Aims and Research Methods] The writer states Lawrence Lessig's argument, for explaining 'the Web 2.0 trend' and reason how barriers between audiences and producers. He explained the change of how media is consumed was the key change of it. [Scope] The article contains the basic concepts of how audiences are targeted in a current media trend. In addition, It also shows some audience group as an example. [Limitations] However, it has fewer arguments from theorists. Therefore, for writing essays and supporting my view strongly, I think I need to refer many other books. [Usefulness] This book was useful for writing my essay 'How marketers advertise their products in the digital market and how does the media convergence affect them. The book was enough to build knowledge of audiences. [Conclusions] Thus, I think it is a good book when I explain the background knowledge of changing customers' behaviour and the relationship between media convergence and customers. However, since it has a few theories, I need to read and state more books for supporting my views strongly. [Reflection] This book is helpful to understand what media convergence and customers is. Therefore, the journal allows me further understanding of media convergence. Not only this, I could know the connection between media convergence and customers by this book.

I found your annotated bibliography well written, I feel you have come to grips with the article and understood its positive aspects but also took into consideration of its limitations, you have all the main points that are relevant in an annotated bibliography and have structured it well. I hope you found this useful when considering your collaborative essay.Erin.mcnamara (discuss • contribs) 18:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I think your annotated bibliography is done well- you clearly find the topic of the book that you have selected very interesting, and it shows through in the detail of your writing. The topic of your book as you describe it, does sound very useful for your collaborative essay, and I believe that this books sounds like a good read in general for those studying digital media or advertising in today's world. As you said, I do think that the research you found in this book could benefit from other sources to strengthen your argument, but those should be easy to find, given the basis you have given yourself with this book. I hope the rest of your research goes well, and good luck on your collaborative essay! Mom00107 (discuss • contribs) 23:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

wiki experience #3
Hello. erin! At first, thanm you for replying on My annotated bibliography. I can see you are also write your collavorative essay with the ‘convergence’ topic. I really look forward to have more discussion about it with you. The media convergence covers huge range of topics. Among them, I can see you are interested in the collective intelligence!The book what I read for my essay talked about David Skrbina’s group mind. He argues ‘participatory’ is fundamentally a mental phenomenon, and therefore, ‘participatory mind’ can be a key point of the collective intelligence. How do you think about this topic? I also think the psychologic reason is one of the biggest reason why people do socialising and participate in ‘collaborating of intelligence’. Also, I think you can read a book titled ‘Participation, Organisation, and mind: Toward a Participatory Worldview’ which is written by David Skebina too.sok00011 (discuss • contribs)

Wiki Experience #4
What Kind of platform is wikibooks?

Wikibooks is a website where allow internet users to make contents with collaborative works. Users can freely edit, add and leave comments anonymously. People can create 'knowledge communities' by the website. Therefore, the Wiki Books is awarded one of the good examples for showing convergence culture. Jenkins saw now people are learning information through our day-to-day interactions within convergence culture. People learn by sharing their knowledge with others and it allows to get various views, while people could not learn by books or from school. The Wiki Books explains how people collaborate their knowledge and broaden their views these days and Jenkins's opinion.

In what ways does it emphasis visibility, and why?

I think Wiki Books is a very visible platform. This is because it has good accessibility. The users who have tools for accessing the internet can access the website. In the website, they can edit or amend contents easily if they have own account. In addition, creating an account is not hard. Since they can amend or edit anonymously, users also can be released by the pressure of sharing their knowledge.

In what ways can it be used to help facilitate collaborative research?

I will answer this question with my experience. When I do a collaborative essay as my university assignment, I felt comfortable to do a group project on the website. All team members could discuss essay and share their knowledge without off-line meeting. We created our 'draft and discussing page' and helped each other by leaving comments. In my case, I was struggling with English writing because I am not a native. However, team members left comments and edited my paragraph if there are grammatical errors. Not only this, we could create a page for discussing our essay easily. Users can create as many pages as they want and they also can search the page easily. I think this allows users to do research more easily and the fact that every user can access and edit contents easily makes collaborative research on the Wiki Books to facilitate.

In what ways does Wikibooks foster a community?

The Wiki Books allows users to create pages quickly and to edit other users' contents easily. During editing same page, people can be connected with other people and it makes feeling to be into a community. The page allows to gather users who have similar purposes, and this strongly fosters a community. In addition, anyone can leave their feedback or comments on the other people's discussion page. I think this is also fostering communities. In my experience, I also felt that I am in the community by discussing our essay. Although the community was not for leisure, the environment was enough to feel I am in a community.

'''Do wiki platforms offer potential for online emancipation? Why/not?'''

Personally, I do not think the platforms offer online emancipation. Oppositely, I think it fosters a dependency of online when people do research. The reason why I think like that is it has too high accessibility.The users ho have tools for getting into the internet can easily access this website and anyone can express their views and opinions and contribute to content easily. Not only this, since it is anonymous, users can get rid of the pressure of providing 'information from trustful resources'. The users ho have tools for getting into the internet can create content and group project. This attracts people who are researching or doing group project and fosters people to rely on the internet.

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:
 * Poor. Among other things, poor contributions may just offer links without real comment or apparent point. They may offer nothing more than poor-quality synopsis or description of material of dubious relevance. They may have serious clarity problems (including dead links, random graphics) which affect comprehension (or even worse, admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement). They might be off-topic, private trivia, or of unclear relevance. The wiki markup formatting will be of a poor standard.

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 –you only logged a handful of contribs over a three-day period. However, when you did engage, these seemed to be genuine contributions in terms of moving the project forward, especially in engaging with others in the group, essay planning, and collaborating. A couple of the larger contribs on the discussion page are just drafts so I’ve largely ignored these, but there’s evidence here of some meaningful engagement that really enabled the essay to move forward.

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, and a couple that could be classed as “substantial” in the sense outlined above.

•	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


 * Some evidence. You encouraged others to comment/respond.

•	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 is some evidence of 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.


 * You conducted yourself well.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 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.

Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries 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). The wiki markup formatting will need some work.


 * This work is at the lower end of this grade band, 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.


 * 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 a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are ok, if a little brief. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work.

General:
 * Reading and research: There is a little of this in evidence, but not to a great extent.


 * Argument and analysis: Arguably the weakest element of your work – you tend to be descriptive rather than analytical.


 * Presentation: See above comment. Much more could have been done in relation to this.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)