School talk:Media studies

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the Talk page for discussing the Media studies school

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~), and give comments that start a new topic ==A Descriptive Header==, placing them at the bottom of the page. This page is used for general discussion for the Media_studies school, proposed courses and subpages as well as the layout of the main page in general. For discussion on a particular subpage, please use its talk page.

Wikimedia Foundation

Radio and Television Broadcasting[edit]

We've had some interest in developing learning projects for Radio and Television Broadcasting. I see that there are several such topics proposed here at the School of Media Studies. Should we start a separate School:Broadcasting or make a Broadcasting Division of this school with Television and Radio Departments? Thoughts? CQ 18:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see my note in section that follows. My opinion is that it would make best sense to crate a [School: Media Production] to encompass practical / technical courses, including eg. Radio, Television, Film & Video, Computer Games & Digital Arts, Web Media Production. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.33.10.92 (talkcontribs) )

"Media studies" is not "Media"[edit]

Media studies is part of Media. Media studies examines the impact of media.

Media studies does not include the actual creation of media.

Please move all media creation to the appropriate pages. Robert Elliott 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur, but not completely. If School:Media existed as a separate entity, the moves may be justified. But for now, I think this School should act as an over-arching institution for many media projects (see below). CQ 18:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Multimedia in Media Studies classes
Starting with Apple Computer (etc.) in 1990, the definition of media has been distorted wrongly. According to all manuals coming out of computer companies until about 5 years ago, media was simply "multimedia" and all forms of media (including motion pictures) could be produced by using "multimedia" technology as taught in New Media classes. That is, Apple said that motion pictures are just a natural extention of multimedia.
Apple was such a good marketer that most educational institutions accepted this idea as true. Therefore, all universities with Media Studies programs still include motion picture production (and motion picture technology) under multimedia. This, of course, is totally wrong. The technologies are totally different, almost the exact opposite.
The funny thing is now Apple, Inc. has decided it is no longer just a "multimedia" company. It still sells the concept of "New Media equals Multimedia" to universities which teach Media Studies but Apple now has has a professional motion picture division which sells motion picture technology to film studios. And the technologies are the exact opposite.
All of the New Media programs at unversities still tell their students that if they learn the multimedia technology that they teach, students will be prepared for the future of television and motion pictures. They continue to say that all media is simply an extension of the multimedia as taught in their Media Studies classes. This is wrong.
Therefore, I am not eager to continue this deception. The technology of multimedia as taught in Media Studies courses is a totally different technology than motion picture technology.
This is like saying that English Composition should now be taught in French Literature classes because the two coutries are now joined by a tunnel. Nonsense! Robert Elliott 01:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Media / Multimedia[edit]

Robert has a point, but he's off track. There should be clarification of what is being discussed, and the media platforms involved at both the production and consumption ends of the communication process should be noted explicity. However the reality is that in the present day, the creation of film, television, radio AS WELL AS 'New Media' (web content, video games, etc) happens on a desktop computer. The difference between the video I make in iMovie and post on MySpace versus Lord of the Rings, is increasingly a matter of degrees of skill and resources, rather than a difference of 'kind.' The principles are the same.
The more important question is this: should technical / practical Production courses -- whether for Film, TV, Music, Radio, Games, Web Content, what have you -- be included under the 'Media Studies' banner? Or, as is most often the case in brick-and-mortar schools of the present day, should they be placed under a separate "Media Production" heading? My take on it is that it should be one or the other -- all in or all out. So, either we move the Film Production content under a "Media Production" SUB-HEADING of "Media Studies," or we move Multimedia production under a separate full-heading of "Media Production," alongside Film Production and whatever else may come. Each option has potential advantages and disadvantages. Please discuss. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.33.10.92 (talkcontribs) )
I think it's obvious that there are different skills and technologies involved in particular disciplines of the media (ie video/film production - and its sub-disciplines - sound recording, writing, etc), however some of these skills certainly overlap. This is why I think it makes sense, for certain courses, to give an overview of what "the media" is, how it is produced and disseminated, and how it affects us. I think this does well to involve a practical and theoretical understanding both of technical processes (such as editing film), and the societal implications of how a film is edited. Any "media studies" course I have been aware of has incorporated this kind of perspective - an understanding of both "how to do it", and what "the doing of this" means. This is a key to media literacy - being able to understand, critique, use, and produce media. This is why I disagree with media studies not including the actual creation of media (Robert).
I'm also not sure I understand or agree with how Robert is delineating multimedia and media above. As far as I have always understood it, media is a generic term for a 'means of communication', and multimedia is a generic term for the array of media at our disposal, particularly newer and predominantly audio/visual media. Neither of these words mean much specific, and I think it would be worthwhile to have a page (or series of pages) devoted to these words alone. As regards how courses/resources are structured, it should really be flexible enough not to have to worry about whether something is a "sub"/section of a certain field or another - all these departments/resources can be listed multiply, categorised and cross-categorised, according to their specific focus. There is also a Portal:Media which is intended to be a user-friendly gateway to all things media-related. I think all these things are interrelated, so we should therefore interrelate them all accordingly. :-) Cormaggio talk 23:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert Replies:
You say "The difference between the video I make in iMovie and post on MySpace versus Lord of the Rings, is increasingly a matter of degrees of skill and resources, rather than a difference of 'kind.' The principles are the same."
No! This is wrong. No matter how much skill and resources you use, the technology (methodology) that you use can NEVER produce a motion picture like "Lord of the Rings".
· Companies such as Apple have told people this for years. But it is not true.
Personally, I believe that Apple was the one that created this myth. Their marketing department told people that if they learned to make multimedia, they were also learning how to create motion pictures. At the time, Apple was only able to create the technology for making multimedia but not motion pictures. So this was an excellent marketing ploy. But it simply is not true.
· The people who teach multimedia have told students this for years. But it is not true.
· The people who write request grant money have said this for years. But it is not true.
Narrative filmmaking uses techniques which look very similar to multimedia production. Therefore, at first glance, people assume that the methods uses for multimedia are the same as for narrative motion pictures.
These are totally different technologies. Therefore, they should not be grouped together otherwise we will continue to support this myth. Robert Elliott 08:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with anything there (though I do disagree with media studies being only the analysis of media and not including learning how to produce media). But I don't quite understand what the problem is here. Is it purely a matter of "grouping"? Personally, I don't think we can (or should) exclude a link to the "filmmaking" page from the "analysing film" page, or indeed this school's page. How do you think we should group content/links instead? Cormaggio talk 09:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be great if everyone was saying "To learn how to add audio, video, pictures, music, and dialog to a production, click here to learn how to create multimedia. But to learn how to create a dramatic movie, click here to learn the technology of filmmaking. And to learn how to create television production using synced cameras and a switcher, click here."
Instead, people are saying, "We must offer more classes in multimedia so people can learn how to create motion pictures." or people are saying "To understand more about the different media (including motion pictures), we must offer more classes on how to create multimedia." Both of these are wrong.
Putting filmmaking classes under the heading of "Multimedia" or "New Media" is like saying we should put "French Poetry" under "German" because they are both foreign languages. The students are mutually exclusive. No student of "New Media" has ever produced a motion picture. Robert Elliott 21:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I just don't understand why we are having this discussion. Who is saying that we need more multimedia classes in order to lead the learner to a career in filmmaking? And also, who is to say that knowing something about audio and video editing/aggregating might not be useful experience in learning about filmmaking (eventually, down the road)? Can't we say that all these endeavours are aspects of "media" (ie communication), and then delineate and interlink as appropriate? Cormaggio talk 22:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Wikimania[edit]

The Wikiversity School of Media Studies is planning to get Wikiversity involved in producing a "Virtual Wikimania" from Taipei via a "Wikiversity kiosk" located at the main event. Some of the participating content development groups are:

If you know of people, companies or groups that could help out, please let us know at Talk:Wikimania 2007. Thanks in advance for your input! CQ 17:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


literature review from b:Wikiversity-school of media:media113:comparing texts[edit]

Hello the following info will be removed soon from Wikibooks. Perhaps someone can need/include it somewhere ? Thanks, ----Erkan Yilmaz (my talk page, wiki blog) 11:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Art of Thinking, A Guide to Critical and Creative Thinking 6th Edition. Vincent Ryan Ruggiero Copyright 2001 Addison Wesley Longman

Starts a little slow but looks like a good introduction. 172.198.210.24, 19:58, 22 December 2005

Definition[edit]

"Media studies examines the effect of media on society" - o.k. that's the sociology point of view. But what is about the "rest": the content and history of (mass) media? If you don't know the media, how do you want to talk about the effects? --89.247.43.210 16:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)