Assessement questions: Digital Media Cultures
After the cut, you can find the assessment questions for my third-year undergrad Digital Media Cultures class.
OPTION 1: MAKE AND ANALYZE YOUR OWN REMIX
OPTION 2: Discuss the legal and ethical implications of TurnitIn
OPTION 3: PROVIDE A SCHOLARLY ANALYSIS OF YOUR FRIENDS LISTS
OPTION 4: COMPARE TWO FORMS OF ‘SUPER PUBLIC’ LIVING
OPTION 5: EVALUATE A PUBLIC OR COUNTER-PUBLIC SPHERE ONLINE
OPTION 6: COMPARE AND CONTRAST TWO EXAMPLES OF SURVEILLANCE CULTURE
OPTION 7: WRITE A SCHOLARLY REVIEW OF THE V & A ‘DECODE’ EXHIBIT
OPTION 8: ANALYZE SOCIAL CAPITAL FORMATION IN A YOUTUBE EXPERIMENT
OPTION 1: MAKE AND ANALYZE YOUR OWN REMIX
In class, we discussed Jean Baudrillard’s argument that in the age of digital reproduction, simulacra have become our dominant modes of representation, leaving aura a thing of the past. We also discussed Walter Benjamin’s argument that the wane of aura is a productive thing for society, as it frees people from our earlier ‘parasitic dependence on ritual’ and opens new possibilities for questioning the politics of representation. We then viewed questions of simulation and aura through Lawrence Lessig’s thoughts about ‘remix culture.’
For this option, we’d like you to make and evaluate a remix of your own. The first step in this option is to make your own remix, which can be any format (music, video, photo, Powerpoint slide) any length (though shorter is probably easier) and can deal with any subject you’d like. Next, write an essay in which you discuss the process you went through to create your remix, considering your choices in light of work we’ve read on simulation, aura, remix culture, or any other material covered in class.
NOTE: While I would like to see a copy of your remixed product, it will be for reference only. For this option, you are being marked your analysis and writing skills, not your production abilities. A technically great remix will not get a better mark than one with poor production values. One more time: if you take this option, you mark will not be based on the media you make, but rather the critical skills you show in your writing.
SUGGESTIONS FOR HOW TO BEGIN: If you’d like to do this option, but are searching for an easy place to start, you might want to remix one of the Powerpoint lectures for this class, reworking the available material on UEL with your own images, sounds, and video to critique or re-imagine what’s been taught so far. Another possibility would be to create your own version of the “Hitler meme” videos going around the Web these days. Here are some useful links to read on those:
• NY Times article on how to make a “Hitler Meme” Video http://nyti.ms/aG7BnZ
• Good discussion on the politics of the Hitler Memes: http://bit.ly/bqHetf
IF YOU’D LIKE TO MAKE A REMIX PRODUCT THAT DEVIATES FROM THESE SUGGESTIONS, THAT IS FINE, BUT YOU NEED TO SPEAK WITH TERRI BEFORE STARTING.
OPTION 2: Discuss the legal and ethical implications of TurnitIn
In class, we discussed the legal and ethical implications digital material ownership claims. Some of us saw the Web as ushering new forms of “free culture” based on cutting, pasting, ripping, and burning, while others insisted that whatever freedoms our technology allows, it won’t be long before corporate interests follow. Consider these arguments in light of recent copyright controversies surrounding Turnitin, a plagiarism detection service used at UEL. Note: to write this essay, it will be helpful to familiarize yourself with the debates. Check the following resources:
• Marsh, B (2004) “Turnitin.com and the scriptural enterprise of plagiarism detection.” Computers and Composition Volume 21, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 427-438. Available on UEL Plus
• “iParadigms wins Turnitin Lawsuit.” Plagiarism Today web site. http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/
• Information on the “Don’t Turnitin” site at http://www.dontturnitin.com/
• “Students reach Settlement in Turnitin Suit” Chronicle of Higher Education:Wired Campus. http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Students-Reach-Settlement-in/7569/
OPTION 3: PROVIDE A SCHOLARLY ANALYSIS OF YOUR FRIENDS LISTS
In class, we discussed the issue of sociality in digital culture, explicitly examining the ways in which Web 2.0 technologies work to create ‘social capital.’ One of the issues we discussed was the changing notion of friendship in a virtual world, asking: How do digital technologies allow newfound closeness to others? How does it permit newfound means to separate from those who might need us most?
For this option, you are to write a personal essay in which you discuss the how you came to create and maintain your friends lists in whatever online venues you are currently using. Some questions to get you started thinking: Who features on which of your lists (limited, private), and why? Have you run into situations where you’ve had to remove people’s privileges on certain friend lists? How would you respond if you received a friend request from an ex, a teacher, a potential employer?
In addition to class readings, your essay should dialogue with the views put forward in the following chapter of this book, which you can access online:
• danah boyd (Lead Author). “Friendship.” In Mizuko Ito et al., eds. Hanging Out, Messing Around, Geeking Out: Living and Learning with New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press, 15 Feb. 2009 .
OPTION 4: COMPARE TWO FORMS OF ‘SUPER PUBLIC’ LIVING
In class, we discussed how new media technologies have led to a re-envisioning of the privacy and publicity. We focused particularly on the fashioning of the self as a ‘super-public’ entity, one whose words and images travel way beyond the immediate venues in which we originally placed them. We also briefly touched on the ways in which conceptions of the self online are increasingly influenced by corporate branding and celebrity, as in the phrases ‘brand me’ and ‘micro-celebrity.’ Write an essay in which you compare and contrast two instances involving super-public identity and the internet. You may choose from the examples below, or suggest cases of your own to explore (note: in the examples below, some involve conscious choices of participants to go public, while others decidedly do not.)
• The earliest house-webcam pioneers of the film We Live in Public
o Note: this film can be rented in the UK after 1 March 2010
• The Facebook ‘fan’ site for the Market Street Mincer:
o Note: Fan site is here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2243503909
• The internet-bred stardom of veteran actor Michael Ashe
o For a profile on Ashe, see http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/10/ashe200810
• oFor more info on Channel 101, where Ashe became ‘internet famous,’ see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_101
• The marketing philosophy of Udorse: www.udorse.com
• Anyone you know (including yourself) who uses social networking to promote themselves in the public eye.
OPTION 5: EVALUATE A PUBLIC OR COUNTER-PUBLIC SPHERE ONLINE
In class, we discussed how digital media has altered our older notions of public and counter-public spheres. Some of us sided with Robert Putnam’s argument that technology has to led declining cultural capital among citizens who live next door to one another. Others wound up favoring Barry Wellman’s counter-argument that digital technologies enable networked individualism among like-minded people in remote locales. Wherever we came down on the issue, nearly all of us agreed that the architecture of the Web leads to new configurations of social space, creating what danah boyd calls super-publics. Discuss the above by closely considering the political impact of one of the following:
• Twitter use during Iran’s “Green Revolution”
See Burns, Alex and Eltham, Ben (2009) Twitter Free Iran: an Evaluation of Twitter's Role in Public Diplomacy and Information Operations in Iran's 2009 Election Crisis. In: Communications Policy & Research Forum 2009, 19th-20th November 2009, University of Technology, Sydney. Online at http://eprints.vu.edu.au/15230/
• The British National Party Website (see http://forum.bnp.org.uk/
See Hope, Christopher (2007) “BNP Website Most Popular in Politics.” Daily Telegraph web site (13 September) Online at http://bit.ly/bd6IA1
For more on the BNP and activism, see Matthew Goodwin, “Activism In Contemporary Extreme Right Parties: The Case Of The British National Party (BNP) Online at http://www.ipeg.org.uk/staff/goodwin/documents/DCERN2.pdf
• LiveJournal’s “Pro Anorexia” community: http://bit.ly/y88J
For further discussion, see Burke, E. (2009). Pro-anorexia and the Internet: A Tangled Web of Representation and (Dis)Embodiment. Counselling, Psychotherapy, and Health, 5(1), The Use of Technology in Mental Health Special Issue, 60- 81. Online at http://www.cphjournal.com/archive_journals/v5_1_60-81_burke.pdf
OPTION 6: COMPARE AND CONTRAST TWO EXAMPLES OF SURVEILLANCE CULTURE
In class, we spent a fair amount of time discussing how digital surveillance technologies enable a shift away from what Foucault calls regimes of discipline toward what Deleuze terms societies of control. Today, it is not enough to speak of ourselves as powerless victims of surveillance. We must also understand how we often willingly participate in surveillance culture, either to increase consumerist pleasure, to avoid what we perceive as unnecessarily time-consuming bureaucracy, or both of these.
Evaluate the paragraph above by comparing TWO of the examples of surveillance. You can use examples from the news, or work with two of the stories below:
• “School administrator boasts about spying” http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/25/school-administrator.html
Note: if you take this example, you should address not only links noted, but also the conversation that ensues at bottom of the page.
• The “HollabackNYC” Web campaign :http://hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/
For a good discussion of privacy issues and ‘net venting’ that mentions Hollaback, see “Net-Venting: Should a Server or a Speaker Face Civil Liability for Spite Speech on the World Wide Web? By David A. Furlow, Esq.” http://www.tklaw.com/resources/documents/PRV0501_FurlowComm.pdf
• The “valorization of surveillance” on Facebook”
For a good discussion, see Cohen, Nicole (2008) “The Valorization of Surveillance: Towards a Political Economy of Facebook “ Democratic Communiqué 22, No. 1, Spring2008. http://udc.igc.org/communique/issues/Spring2008/cohen.pdf
OPTION 7: WRITE A SCHOLARLY REVIEW OF THE V & A ‘DECODE’ EXHIBIT
Write an essay in which you explore any ideas we’ve discussed in class (simulation, remix, Web 2.0, community, publicity, etc.) by writing a review of the artist featured in the “Decode” exhibit at the Victoria and Albert Museum. We visited this exhibit as a class 8 March 2010; if you were not in class, you can visit the exhibit on your own until mid-April. Your essay, which needs to dialogue with assigned reading materials from class, should explicitly discuss and evaluate at least two pieces in the exhibit. The web site for that exhibit is http://www.vam.ac.uk/microsites/decode/
OPTION 8: ANALYZE SOCIAL CAPITAL FORMATION IN A YOUTUBE EXPERIMENT
This option is designed to encourage you to engage in a “YouTube Experiment” as a way to better understand Web 2.0 ideologies, social capital formation, self-branding, simulation, and micro-celebrity. If you wish to take this option, you’ll need to do the following:
1. Make a video of at least thirty seconds on a subject of your choosing. Students who feel awkward with a video camera can animate some PowerPoint slides, or even create a single still image with audio over it. I don't really care.
2. Post the material to YouTube after March 15, either as a public document, or friends only. (Please see note on private/public issues at the end of this form.)
3. Submit your YouTube link to me, telling me whether or not I have permission to screen your material in class.
Throughout the semester, I’ll track your progress in the YouTube competition, and award in-class prizes to students for their videos in the following categories:
• Speed of release (i.e. Whomever is the first to get their material up on YouTube )
• Production value (i.e. Whose material looks the most professional. This business of 'professional' is absolutely subjective on my part, and I will harbor no debate from students, hopefully for reasons that are clear by the end of this note.)
• Entertainment value (i.e. Whose stuff is most interesting, funny--again, subjective!)
• Most UNIQUE USERS TO POST on each student's page (of course this could include comments from sock-poppet versions of students themselves, just as it does on YouTube)
• Highest NUMBER OF COMMENTS generated on each student's page (not the same at all as unique users--it's not uncommon to see a comment thead of 100 posts of more dominated by 5 users.)
• Most 'linked to' videos (These could be videos from other YouTube videos, but if the student wanted to create multiple videos and link to his/original just to rack up points in this category, it's certainly do-able)
Write an essay in which you discuss and evaluate your participation in this project. Some ideas to start you writing: You might want to talk about these prizes as they are awarded, discussing what one gains and loses by focusing on speed over content, or unique users over sustained conversations, etc. You might want to look at class reading on Web 2.0 to discuss how these issues play out in the 'real world' (e.g. The criticality of speed on gossip sites; the allure of unique users on social activism sites; the importance of being linked to by someone 'connected' on business sites, etc.) You might want to talk about whether you think this YouTube exercise has merit as a teaching tool, and/or you might want to talk about the public/private elements on this exercise. For instance, common sense says a video posted 'friends-only' wouldn't do particularly well in categories like "most unique commentors," but common sense isn't always right. Someone with thirty keen people on their friends list could create a fair amount of traffic on a locked posting, where an video ostensibly open to the world might get no traffic at all, if the creator of said video doesn't get some buzz around it. And of course, the class and social politics of 'buzz' is worthy of an entire essay…
As you can see, the essay focus is pretty-open ended. The only rule here is that you must engage with class readings in some way. Also: please understand that although I need to see your video and you’ll participate in our contest for fun, your final mark for this option will be derived from your essay only. A better quality video will not get a better mark from me; only a better quality essay will.
OPTION 1: MAKE AND ANALYZE YOUR OWN REMIX
OPTION 2: Discuss the legal and ethical implications of TurnitIn
OPTION 3: PROVIDE A SCHOLARLY ANALYSIS OF YOUR FRIENDS LISTS
OPTION 4: COMPARE TWO FORMS OF ‘SUPER PUBLIC’ LIVING
OPTION 5: EVALUATE A PUBLIC OR COUNTER-PUBLIC SPHERE ONLINE
OPTION 6: COMPARE AND CONTRAST TWO EXAMPLES OF SURVEILLANCE CULTURE
OPTION 7: WRITE A SCHOLARLY REVIEW OF THE V & A ‘DECODE’ EXHIBIT
OPTION 8: ANALYZE SOCIAL CAPITAL FORMATION IN A YOUTUBE EXPERIMENT
OPTION 1: MAKE AND ANALYZE YOUR OWN REMIX
In class, we discussed Jean Baudrillard’s argument that in the age of digital reproduction, simulacra have become our dominant modes of representation, leaving aura a thing of the past. We also discussed Walter Benjamin’s argument that the wane of aura is a productive thing for society, as it frees people from our earlier ‘parasitic dependence on ritual’ and opens new possibilities for questioning the politics of representation. We then viewed questions of simulation and aura through Lawrence Lessig’s thoughts about ‘remix culture.’
For this option, we’d like you to make and evaluate a remix of your own. The first step in this option is to make your own remix, which can be any format (music, video, photo, Powerpoint slide) any length (though shorter is probably easier) and can deal with any subject you’d like. Next, write an essay in which you discuss the process you went through to create your remix, considering your choices in light of work we’ve read on simulation, aura, remix culture, or any other material covered in class.
NOTE: While I would like to see a copy of your remixed product, it will be for reference only. For this option, you are being marked your analysis and writing skills, not your production abilities. A technically great remix will not get a better mark than one with poor production values. One more time: if you take this option, you mark will not be based on the media you make, but rather the critical skills you show in your writing.
SUGGESTIONS FOR HOW TO BEGIN: If you’d like to do this option, but are searching for an easy place to start, you might want to remix one of the Powerpoint lectures for this class, reworking the available material on UEL with your own images, sounds, and video to critique or re-imagine what’s been taught so far. Another possibility would be to create your own version of the “Hitler meme” videos going around the Web these days. Here are some useful links to read on those:
• NY Times article on how to make a “Hitler Meme” Video http://nyti.ms/aG7BnZ
• Good discussion on the politics of the Hitler Memes: http://bit.ly/bqHetf
IF YOU’D LIKE TO MAKE A REMIX PRODUCT THAT DEVIATES FROM THESE SUGGESTIONS, THAT IS FINE, BUT YOU NEED TO SPEAK WITH TERRI BEFORE STARTING.
OPTION 2: Discuss the legal and ethical implications of TurnitIn
In class, we discussed the legal and ethical implications digital material ownership claims. Some of us saw the Web as ushering new forms of “free culture” based on cutting, pasting, ripping, and burning, while others insisted that whatever freedoms our technology allows, it won’t be long before corporate interests follow. Consider these arguments in light of recent copyright controversies surrounding Turnitin, a plagiarism detection service used at UEL. Note: to write this essay, it will be helpful to familiarize yourself with the debates. Check the following resources:
• Marsh, B (2004) “Turnitin.com and the scriptural enterprise of plagiarism detection.” Computers and Composition Volume 21, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 427-438. Available on UEL Plus
• “iParadigms wins Turnitin Lawsuit.” Plagiarism Today web site. http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/
• Information on the “Don’t Turnitin” site at http://www.dontturnitin.com/
• “Students reach Settlement in Turnitin Suit” Chronicle of Higher Education:Wired Campus. http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Students-Reach-Settlement-in/7569/
OPTION 3: PROVIDE A SCHOLARLY ANALYSIS OF YOUR FRIENDS LISTS
In class, we discussed the issue of sociality in digital culture, explicitly examining the ways in which Web 2.0 technologies work to create ‘social capital.’ One of the issues we discussed was the changing notion of friendship in a virtual world, asking: How do digital technologies allow newfound closeness to others? How does it permit newfound means to separate from those who might need us most?
For this option, you are to write a personal essay in which you discuss the how you came to create and maintain your friends lists in whatever online venues you are currently using. Some questions to get you started thinking: Who features on which of your lists (limited, private), and why? Have you run into situations where you’ve had to remove people’s privileges on certain friend lists? How would you respond if you received a friend request from an ex, a teacher, a potential employer?
In addition to class readings, your essay should dialogue with the views put forward in the following chapter of this book, which you can access online:
• danah boyd (Lead Author). “Friendship.” In Mizuko Ito et al., eds. Hanging Out, Messing Around, Geeking Out: Living and Learning with New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press, 15 Feb. 2009 .
OPTION 4: COMPARE TWO FORMS OF ‘SUPER PUBLIC’ LIVING
In class, we discussed how new media technologies have led to a re-envisioning of the privacy and publicity. We focused particularly on the fashioning of the self as a ‘super-public’ entity, one whose words and images travel way beyond the immediate venues in which we originally placed them. We also briefly touched on the ways in which conceptions of the self online are increasingly influenced by corporate branding and celebrity, as in the phrases ‘brand me’ and ‘micro-celebrity.’ Write an essay in which you compare and contrast two instances involving super-public identity and the internet. You may choose from the examples below, or suggest cases of your own to explore (note: in the examples below, some involve conscious choices of participants to go public, while others decidedly do not.)
• The earliest house-webcam pioneers of the film We Live in Public
o Note: this film can be rented in the UK after 1 March 2010
• The Facebook ‘fan’ site for the Market Street Mincer:
o Note: Fan site is here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2243503909
• The internet-bred stardom of veteran actor Michael Ashe
o For a profile on Ashe, see http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/10/ashe200810
• oFor more info on Channel 101, where Ashe became ‘internet famous,’ see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_101
• The marketing philosophy of Udorse: www.udorse.com
• Anyone you know (including yourself) who uses social networking to promote themselves in the public eye.
OPTION 5: EVALUATE A PUBLIC OR COUNTER-PUBLIC SPHERE ONLINE
In class, we discussed how digital media has altered our older notions of public and counter-public spheres. Some of us sided with Robert Putnam’s argument that technology has to led declining cultural capital among citizens who live next door to one another. Others wound up favoring Barry Wellman’s counter-argument that digital technologies enable networked individualism among like-minded people in remote locales. Wherever we came down on the issue, nearly all of us agreed that the architecture of the Web leads to new configurations of social space, creating what danah boyd calls super-publics. Discuss the above by closely considering the political impact of one of the following:
• Twitter use during Iran’s “Green Revolution”
See Burns, Alex and Eltham, Ben (2009) Twitter Free Iran: an Evaluation of Twitter's Role in Public Diplomacy and Information Operations in Iran's 2009 Election Crisis. In: Communications Policy & Research Forum 2009, 19th-20th November 2009, University of Technology, Sydney. Online at http://eprints.vu.edu.au/15230/
• The British National Party Website (see http://forum.bnp.org.uk/
See Hope, Christopher (2007) “BNP Website Most Popular in Politics.” Daily Telegraph web site (13 September) Online at http://bit.ly/bd6IA1
For more on the BNP and activism, see Matthew Goodwin, “Activism In Contemporary Extreme Right Parties: The Case Of The British National Party (BNP) Online at http://www.ipeg.org.uk/staff/goodwin/documents/DCERN2.pdf
• LiveJournal’s “Pro Anorexia” community: http://bit.ly/y88J
For further discussion, see Burke, E. (2009). Pro-anorexia and the Internet: A Tangled Web of Representation and (Dis)Embodiment. Counselling, Psychotherapy, and Health, 5(1), The Use of Technology in Mental Health Special Issue, 60- 81. Online at http://www.cphjournal.com/archive_journals/v5_1_60-81_burke.pdf
OPTION 6: COMPARE AND CONTRAST TWO EXAMPLES OF SURVEILLANCE CULTURE
In class, we spent a fair amount of time discussing how digital surveillance technologies enable a shift away from what Foucault calls regimes of discipline toward what Deleuze terms societies of control. Today, it is not enough to speak of ourselves as powerless victims of surveillance. We must also understand how we often willingly participate in surveillance culture, either to increase consumerist pleasure, to avoid what we perceive as unnecessarily time-consuming bureaucracy, or both of these.
Evaluate the paragraph above by comparing TWO of the examples of surveillance. You can use examples from the news, or work with two of the stories below:
• “School administrator boasts about spying” http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/25/school-administrator.html
Note: if you take this example, you should address not only links noted, but also the conversation that ensues at bottom of the page.
• The “HollabackNYC” Web campaign :http://hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/
For a good discussion of privacy issues and ‘net venting’ that mentions Hollaback, see “Net-Venting: Should a Server or a Speaker Face Civil Liability for Spite Speech on the World Wide Web? By David A. Furlow, Esq.” http://www.tklaw.com/resources/documents/PRV0501_FurlowComm.pdf
• The “valorization of surveillance” on Facebook”
For a good discussion, see Cohen, Nicole (2008) “The Valorization of Surveillance: Towards a Political Economy of Facebook “ Democratic Communiqué 22, No. 1, Spring2008. http://udc.igc.org/communique/issues/Spring2008/cohen.pdf
OPTION 7: WRITE A SCHOLARLY REVIEW OF THE V & A ‘DECODE’ EXHIBIT
Write an essay in which you explore any ideas we’ve discussed in class (simulation, remix, Web 2.0, community, publicity, etc.) by writing a review of the artist featured in the “Decode” exhibit at the Victoria and Albert Museum. We visited this exhibit as a class 8 March 2010; if you were not in class, you can visit the exhibit on your own until mid-April. Your essay, which needs to dialogue with assigned reading materials from class, should explicitly discuss and evaluate at least two pieces in the exhibit. The web site for that exhibit is http://www.vam.ac.uk/microsites/decode/
OPTION 8: ANALYZE SOCIAL CAPITAL FORMATION IN A YOUTUBE EXPERIMENT
This option is designed to encourage you to engage in a “YouTube Experiment” as a way to better understand Web 2.0 ideologies, social capital formation, self-branding, simulation, and micro-celebrity. If you wish to take this option, you’ll need to do the following:
1. Make a video of at least thirty seconds on a subject of your choosing. Students who feel awkward with a video camera can animate some PowerPoint slides, or even create a single still image with audio over it. I don't really care.
2. Post the material to YouTube after March 15, either as a public document, or friends only. (Please see note on private/public issues at the end of this form.)
3. Submit your YouTube link to me, telling me whether or not I have permission to screen your material in class.
Throughout the semester, I’ll track your progress in the YouTube competition, and award in-class prizes to students for their videos in the following categories:
• Speed of release (i.e. Whomever is the first to get their material up on YouTube )
• Production value (i.e. Whose material looks the most professional. This business of 'professional' is absolutely subjective on my part, and I will harbor no debate from students, hopefully for reasons that are clear by the end of this note.)
• Entertainment value (i.e. Whose stuff is most interesting, funny--again, subjective!)
• Most UNIQUE USERS TO POST on each student's page (of course this could include comments from sock-poppet versions of students themselves, just as it does on YouTube)
• Highest NUMBER OF COMMENTS generated on each student's page (not the same at all as unique users--it's not uncommon to see a comment thead of 100 posts of more dominated by 5 users.)
• Most 'linked to' videos (These could be videos from other YouTube videos, but if the student wanted to create multiple videos and link to his/original just to rack up points in this category, it's certainly do-able)
Write an essay in which you discuss and evaluate your participation in this project. Some ideas to start you writing: You might want to talk about these prizes as they are awarded, discussing what one gains and loses by focusing on speed over content, or unique users over sustained conversations, etc. You might want to look at class reading on Web 2.0 to discuss how these issues play out in the 'real world' (e.g. The criticality of speed on gossip sites; the allure of unique users on social activism sites; the importance of being linked to by someone 'connected' on business sites, etc.) You might want to talk about whether you think this YouTube exercise has merit as a teaching tool, and/or you might want to talk about the public/private elements on this exercise. For instance, common sense says a video posted 'friends-only' wouldn't do particularly well in categories like "most unique commentors," but common sense isn't always right. Someone with thirty keen people on their friends list could create a fair amount of traffic on a locked posting, where an video ostensibly open to the world might get no traffic at all, if the creator of said video doesn't get some buzz around it. And of course, the class and social politics of 'buzz' is worthy of an entire essay…
As you can see, the essay focus is pretty-open ended. The only rule here is that you must engage with class readings in some way. Also: please understand that although I need to see your video and you’ll participate in our contest for fun, your final mark for this option will be derived from your essay only. A better quality video will not get a better mark from me; only a better quality essay will.