User talk:Tga00002

Wiki Exercise One
The first thing I done when writing this post is searched my name on google, and the amount of information that had come up about me was overwhelming. My Facebook, twitter, Instagram, Spotify, LinkedIn account had come up. Basically any social media platform I am on is accessible to the public when they search my name. Even my workplace website had come up. I am evidently a lot more visible online than I had thought.

My privacy settings across my social media platforms vary. I used to live in a society where Instagram followers were important, and my Instagram was public: anyone could follow me and see my posts. However I soon felt uncomfortable with the thought that people that I do not know were following me and could see my posts so I made a decision to make my Instagram private. My Snapchat settings is set that only my friends can send me snapchats and see my stories, so I am not receiving snapchats from people who I do not know and they cannot view my stories. My Facebook is relatively private, however I find it the hardest to be completely private on Facebook due to the function of tagged photos, and if I post on a friends wall, friends of friends can see this. I am however public on twitter and this is a conscious decision I made, as I am not very active on twitter. I rarely tweet, my profile is just full of retweets which I do not mind being public.

As put by danah boyd, we are always on: meaning that even when we are not physically on our phones, we are still connected to the online world through our social media therefore our online presence is very strong. Media convergence is becoming even more apparent where our social media accounts are becoming connected: I can post a picture on Facebook through Instagram, for example, or if my friend on Facebook makes an Instagram account I get notified through Facebook.

It is hard to be truly invisible online, due to the many social media accounts people have these days making it hard to keep on top of. However we can try to become less visible by changing our privacy settings on our social media, limiting the content we put out there to who we want


 * Always sign discussion edits with your four tildes (~) GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 19:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Create your user page
Do this please^ GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography
Rhiannon Bury and Johnson Li’s journal article looks at the various modes of viewing that have come about as a result of timeshifting, downloading and streaming etc: they recognise that it is not just TV screens people use these days to watch TV due to these developments.

Bury and Li collect data from an online survey as part of the Television 2.0 project conducted of 671 people within six months in 2010 with the aim of deriving quantitative statistical analysis of traditional and new modes of viewing patterns. They conducted their research through the purposive and snowball technique which is good as it allows the study to branch out to demographics it may not would have otherwise. Bury and Li briefly outline the history of TV before going onto before tackling their main issue to give more context to readers followed by discussing digital convergence, research questions, method and results and the demographic variables in relation to he results. They also discuss limitations and future directions.

Questions such as age, gender and country of residence was mandatory as Bury and Li take interest in whether demographic variables produce significant difference in multi-modal viewing by ANOVA.

This article is very useful as it refers to other relevant significant scholars such as Henry Jenkins. The authors do not just rely on industrial research already conducted but actively conducts their own research to built upon already existing research in this topic making the paper more reliable. The authors then compare their findings to other industrial data such as the Neilsen data. Bury and Li provide graphs and tables to present their findings making it easy to draw on the information which is very useful.

The data was collected in 2010-2011, which is a significant limitation, as we live in a ever-changing digital world and there are constantly new developments. Since then second screen viewing has emerged and provided a new dimension to TV viewing in accordance with social media, therefore further research would need to be conducted in relation to this topic for an up-to date analysis. Another limitation includes the global demographic of the research conducted. The research seems to be focused in the West: there could be geographical differences that could alter this research. The questions in the survey in relation to estimates of use are subjective and approximations of percentages of use are not as accurate than those given a yes or no answer.

Overall, this paper is very useful as it draws on the issue of media convergence and refers to important scholars in relation to this topic which helps me to understand the issue further. However it has serval limitations such as it being dated therefore more research Is needed which the authors recognise. This article provides a good insight into transmediality however I will not draw on data from this article as the research need to be updated.

This is a good annotated bibliography, however, I am curious about the specifics of the paper. You state that the article is based on research for modes of viewing, but I would like to know the main points of the article. What are the author's main goals, what are they trying to prove, and why should people care. Also, you mention the authors use graphs, but what type of data do they use on the graphs? On the other hand, I like how you found an article that relates to topics we discussed in class such as Henry Jenkins. What area of Jenkins work did the research focus on? I also liked how you included that the data was snowball effect so that means the data was collected from individuals who know about the topic. The data was collected about seven years ago and you are right that technology is always changing but this data can still be relevant and used in your research. It can be used to compare how media convergence was discussed ten years and how we talk about it now. Especially now with the millennial generation older and willing to share and express their opinions about media convergence. It is insane to witness and realize how much things change, and it could be used to contrast with the two so do not completely scratch this article from your research that can be used. I think your next steps should be to find an article about Henry Jenkins or writings he has to do about media convergence and relate it to your essay. Also, find articles that talk more in-depth on transmedia if that is an important topic to discuss in your research and essay. Crs00039 (discuss • contribs)

Thank you for commenting on my post. Re-reading my own post I acknowledge that the aim of the paper may not be clear. Bury and Li aim to find out how timeshifting, downloading and streaming services have altered recent viewing habits of the public, taking into consideration the demographic differences: they aim to find out what kind of demographics watch television on a traditional TV screen, or on their computers, or (least popular) their mobile devices. I think this is an important topic to discuss as it highlights huge differences in media culture and how it has evolved is important in order to open our minds up to what could possibly change in the future. It really makes me think about future developments and how our viewing habits could change in ten years time which I am very curious about, don’t you agree? Bury and Li refers to Jenkins' idea of media convergence and draws on his Black Box Fallacy which ties in very well with their argument. Bury and Li presented several graphs and tables, which made it easier for me to engage with the paper. The data presented in graphs and tables showed: the percentage of live TV verses timeshifted, technologies they used for online viewing, the total amount of viewing on each device, the viewing differences between gender, age, and regions. Here are the graphs and tables that they present, I find them very interesting and is worth having a look at. I think the explanation of why there are significant differences between age groups in relation to TV viewing are fairly obvious however I am curious as to why there are such differences between the regions Bury and Li have investigated and find these results particularly interesting. I think this is something that Bury and Li could have expanded on and I think this is very interesting. Is there anything you found particularly interesting or surprising about these results? Or could you think of any possible reasons to the differences between the regions? I would be interested to hear what you think. I agree that comparing media convergence ten years ago to now would be a good use of the data collected from these results. This is my first time uploading photos on Wikipedia - have you uploaded any photos yet? I found it complicated to start with but this YouTube video helped me and made it easy to upload! This is the link if you haven't uploaded any photos yet and wish to try it out with an easy explanation! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbqmA2iR5kE)

Tga00002 (discuss • contribs) 15:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Tga00002 (discuss • contribs) 00:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC) Tga00002 (discuss • contribs) 00:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki 4
I explored Wikibooks for the first time during this module and have discovered what a useful platform it is. Wikibooks is a collaborative project platform which allows anyone with a user account to create, build upon, contribute and edit information. It allows people to come together with their thoughts, from all areas of the world, constantly expanding knowledge: Wikibooks could be described as being a hive mind. Wikibooks is a mix of people who are viewers of information and creators of information. Within the platform, Wikibooks emphasises visibility in certain aspects such as it is very visible as to how much a certain user has edited, commented or contributed to discussion pages just by clicking on their username. Wikipedia is extremely visible, as when you research almost anything, one of the top results is often Wikipedia: most people know about Wikipedia. However most people, from what I have gathered, are not aware of the Wikibooks extension form Wikipedia. This makes the platform in general not that visible. I found the collaborative essay project very interesting as I had never worked on a project like it before. There are many aspects that I liked about using Wikibooks for the collaborative essay such as the ability to be able to reply to other users’ comments, and the discussion page we had on our collaborative essay page to discuss our ideas. I found this an especially useful tool as it enabled us to easily discuss what topics, readings, scholars etc. we were going to use for our essay. The reply function encouraged users to suggest readings to each other, not just within out group, but between other groups which was very helpful. This platform also meant that it was not necessary to meet in person to discuss the essay, as we would just put any questions on the discussion page, which were normally answered relatively quickly. Furthermore, because we were simultaneously adding information to the page as part of our essay, we could read each others work making it easier to link our paragraphs together and so we could suggest anything else we could think of so we were constantly improving our work and bouncing knowledge off each other. However, it is a rather confusing platform to use at first, it took a lot of trial and error and the great tool of sandbox to figure out how to use it, but once I knew how to use it, it was great. The reply and discussion features helps foster a community as the platform encourages discussion. The platform also allows us to connect with those with who have similar interests, being able to share thoughts, and articles that we otherwise may have not known about, which creates a strong sense of community which is essential for our learning. Because of the community feel Wikibooks has to it, I feel more confident in my work, as I feel on an equal level with my peers, instead of a student-teacher more intimidating level, which encourages me to engage more. Online collaboration represents digital commons as the information produced is shared with all owners of Wikibooks, it is not owned by just one individual. Wikibooks is a highly useful platform, that should be just as well-known as Wikipedia, and I would want to use it in future for other projects, as it has made me more confident in my writing and contributions.

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 – only 4 days registered as having logged a contrib. However, when you did engage, these were significant entries in terms of moving the project forward. Additionally though, appropriate level of engagement is not in evidence: your contribs to discussion pages seem to be mere draft work for the essay page and do not evidence discussion of the ideas, justifications for contributions nor any exchange of ideas for the essay. These all seem to be bunched, along with essay edits, around the 4th and 5th April, so do not really represent sveral weeks of discussion and development..

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


 * A small number of contribs registered as being under 1000 characters, and a couple that could be regarded as “considerable” contribution to the project. However, it is easily noticeable that much of this is repetition from previous edits, so there doesn’t seem to be much contribution in aggregate.

•	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


 * Very weak – your contribs consist almost entirely of draft work rather than discussion. The only discursive elements seem to occur on 19th March.

•	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


 * None – see above.

•	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) 12:12, 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. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to these particular posts, a lot of organisation would have gone a long way. There are clearly

Ways in which 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 became more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good. 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 some evidence here, although you didn’t follow the instructions relating to the annotated bibliography – no citation!


 * Argument and analysis: Some evidence of this.


 * Presentation: Needs work – see above comment.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)