Talk:Remix culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Teemicail (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rajira h, Jessie E Nocella.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GiancarloXDXD.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RobBeatty. Peer reviewers: Va.97mendez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FreakingPedia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Curiaso.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 2 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YOUWIN fka.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mlss00. Peer reviewers: Harrietmarcilla.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Domains of Remixing Add on

GIFs

GIFs are another example of remix culture. They are illustrations and small clips from films used for personal expressions on online conversations. Each clip is "looped, extended and repeated." GIFs take a specific movement from a form of mass media and reimagines, or remix, its meaning in the original context to use it as a form of personal expression in a different context. Rajira h (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Untitled

The page Participatory culture was recently redirected to the this page by another wikipedian. I must admit when I saw the other article I realized that the topics are very similar and I can see the benefits of possibly combining or at the very least linking these two articles. I do believe that “participatory culture” should not be simply redirected to “remix culture” because although they are similar they do have significant differences. “Participatory Culture” is a term that is slightly broader than the term “remix culture” as it includes content that is entirely created by the user in addition to the “remix culture,” which seems to focus primarily on copyright laws and the rights of producers and consumers rather than the entire phenomenon itself. Perhaps at some point these articles could be merged or simply linked together, but first I would like to create some discussion before action is taken.Quickwikinick 23:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Though both terms are very much related, they are indeed two different entities. However, I wouldn't be opposed to having an internal link to the page in showcasing an example of its resemblance to the topic. When talking about memes, for example, it can be used to show the "participatory" factor in the action of creating and recreating the memes. -- KRCPhilmon (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Based on Lessig's 'Remix'?

I'm not sure how that's possible. The external links at the bottom link to a "Remix Culture Symposium" from 2005. Remix was published in 2008. So it must be the case that the term existed (significantly enough to base a conference around it) before the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.210.113 (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Redirect

Just a heads up I'll be killing the sharing economy redirect to this article since it isn't appropriate once I finish writing an acceptable version of the replacement article. Nefariousski (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Improvements/Suggestions Needed

-Remix culture is ever growing and has become intertwined with other cultures as well. I think this needs to be combined into Participatory Culture which involves the production and creation of new content from consumers, making them producers which was mentioned by Quickwikinick

Jessie E Nocella (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

-There should be a more direct correlation with the criticism of artists work being remixed. This process effects the work and income of the original creator which can last for years. Direct examples of artists work being used can prove the influence of remixing art. Jessie E Nocella (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a lack of section for the idea of remix culture in religion. If history can be attributed to remixing so can the idea of biblical beliefs and how they have all added and contributed to each other to make new outlets out of the same concepts. Jessie E Nocella (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Sounds all like valuable additions, feel free to add such content with references. Shaddim (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

References Added/Fixed

- There should be another reliable source added to the DRM portion of the article "This is primarily done in the form of Digital Rights Management (DRM), which imposes largely arbitrary restrictions on usage. Regardless, DRM has proven largely ineffective in enforcing the constraints of analog media.[9]" . I think this resource would be helpful to add DRM reference Jessie E Nocella (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

-There was a source that should be killed because it's not connected to the link anymore under "Copyright" section. "Under copyright laws of many countries, anyone with the intent to remix an existing work is liable for lawsuit because the laws protect the intellectual property of the work. However, current copyright laws are proving to be ineffective at preventing sampling of content.[46]" I suggest to replace source #46 with this resource http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2009/06/article_0007.html. Jessie E Nocella (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

thanks, included. Shaddim (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

-Source number 3 on the Remix image should be killed; the link is no longer available Rajira h (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

removed Shaddim (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

- Under the section "Domain of Remixing" and "Books and other information" there is a reliable source missing. The sentence, "Amazon.com called Wikipedia "the world's most exhaustive and up-to-date encyclopedia" because it is edited and produced by such a large pool of people.[17]", is linked to the kindle page on Amazon. It is missing a source to support the statement. Rajira h (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

fixed, wbearchive had it. Shaddim (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Contribution Added

Intertwining of Media Cultures For Remix culture to survive it must be shared and created or "remixed" by contributors. This is where Participatory culture come into play, because consumers start participating by becoming contributors especially many teens growing up with these media cultures. [1] A book was published in 2013 by Henry Jenkins called "Reading in a Participatory Culture" which focuses on his technique of remixing the original story Moby Dick to make it a new and fresh experience for students. [2][3] This form of teaching enforces the correlation between participatory and remix culture while highlighting it's importance in evolving literature. Since media culture consumers start to look at art and content as something that can be repurposed or recreated therefore making them the producer.

Effects of Remix Culture on Artists

Remix culture has created an environment that is nearly impossible for artists to have or own "original work". [4] Media and the internet has made art so public that it leaves the work up for other interpretation and in return, remixing. A major example of this in the 21st century is the idea of memes. Once art is put into cyberspace it is automatically assumed that someone else can come along and remix the picture. [5] For example the 1974 self-portrait created by artist Rene Magritte, 'Le Fils De L'Homm, was remixed and recreated by street artist Ron English in his piece Stereo Magritte. (http://flavorwire.com/192640/homages-in-art) [6].

File:Http://67.media.tumblr.com/da7bf67907e08f3295ed557cd7ec300d/tumblr n7ethfcu6S1s5u2cno1 500.jpg

Stereo Magritte

Another example is the never-ending remix of Leonardo Da Vinci's piece Mona Lisa. This painting has been reproduced an uncountable amount of times with different faces and photoshop effects. Some remixed images include photoshopped images of Mr.Bean and an alien-like version:

File:Http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X04ppBxxaRQ/Ts4Pmq2NEPI/AAAAAAAAClk/cLbsg 4InA0/s1600/mrbean+mona+lisa.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Zyui8l4jCKM/Ts4GkbirYtI/AAAAAAAACjw/zIJFK5LBLJs/s1600/alien+mona.jpg

(Under the "History" Sections) Remixing in Religion

Throughout history remix culture has been truthful not only in exchange of oral stories but also through the bible.[36][37] This is a book of stories and lessons that has been compiled and remixed over generations.[38] Eugene H. Peterson reinterpreted bible stories in his 2002 book "The Message// Remix" which makes the bible more simple for readers to interpret.[39] As another example, it is thought that the beliefs of Buddhism has influenced other religious practices and ways.[40] An idea of remixing dated back to the Quakers who would interpret the scripture and create a biblical narrative by using their own voices, which went against the "read-only" practice that was more common.[41]

Notes 1. http://www.pewinternet.org/2005/11/02/57-of-teen-internet-users-create-remix-or-share-content-online/ 2. http://henryjenkins.org/2013/02/there-she-blows-reading-in-a-participatory-culture-and-flows-of-reading-launch-today.html 3. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8MwvZhV8eLsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=henry+jenkins+reading+in+a+participatory+culture+scholarly+review&ots=XtrobJrjot&sig=3GOcKnGSwpcuHqxYuCVx0keSRTw#v=onepage&q=henry%20jenkins%20reading%20in%20a%20participatory%20culture%20scholarly%20review&f=false 4. https://fordhamcyberculture.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/remix-culture-its-own-art-form-or-the-death-of-creativity/ 5.http://networked-culture.wikia.com/wiki/Memes_and_Participatory_Culture 6.http://flavorwire.com/192640/homages-in-art 7.http://listverse.com/2013/06/30/ten-influences-on-the-bible/ 8. http://peopleof.oureverydaylife.com/buddhisms-influences-other-religions-7691.html

Jessie E Nocella (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

looks fine for me. :) Shaddim (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Jessie, I think that this is a really great start. Maybe to start off you can give more of a background of what remix culture is exactly. Some people do not know what it is. I think that your Wikipedia article could benefit from giving examples of what websites use remix cultures and give an in depth look at how remix culture is used and maybe use some examples of pictures of remix culture that people have made. I like how you used remix culture and the intertwining of participatory culture. I think that this is strong. I might just add some more examples of how this impacts people today especially on the media that we are looking at everyday. How is remix/participatory culture effecting the way we look at media, and changing the way we use it?

I think you could potentially find a little more information on how it effects artists, but its a great start. I agree with you on how its hard to make artists think and create originally. How can you elaborate this?

The history portion I think that it could benefit from more research which allows that portion to have more clarify and get your point across more clearly. If you have more information on this specific topic you can back up your facts and have a more cohesive article. Like I said this is a great start, I think your contributions could benefit from more research and sources to back up your points! Great work Jessie! NikosKouts4 (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I've removed some of these changes, because the sources used were not reliable. At a quick glance, it looks like more should also be removed or replaced. Blogs and Wikis are not usable, because they are self-published sources (or user generated content). "Listicles" rarely have the level of fact checking and editorial oversight needed to be reliable, either. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Ironically, this article is about the value of the so called "user generated content". Also Wikipedia is the prime example of the power and reliability of "user generated content", so this fight against blogs and other as unworthy defamed sources is disturbing. (While I'm all in for striving for using "more reliable sources", binary defining black and white is stupid.) cheers and sigh Shaddim (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Fight against blogs? Defamed? They're nothing necessarily wrong with them, I just do not think they are reliable for Wikipedia in that context. It's not like this is a new thing, and Wikipedia isn't itself a reliable source anyway. If you want to defend those sources I removed, go ahead. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS a reliable source, proven by Nature. It think it is bad joke that we were tricked into arguing ourselves user generated & checked content is less reliable than other sources. It could (and I think SHOULD) argued we are peer reviewed comparable to scientific journals or paper. Shaddim (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

IBM Personal Computer XT

I'm not entirely sure why the IBM Personal Computer XT is a remix culture device. You couldn't do video editing on it, and its audio capabilities were quite rudimentary. Graphics were quite primitive by today's standards (none of the CGA or EGA card graphics modes had square pixels, to start with) -- see PC Paintbrush. It did bring word-processing capabilities to a wider number of people than ever before, and I guess you could interface it with MIDI with the help of some expensive hardware... AnonMoos (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Remix culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927164215/http://www.djbc.net/beastles/newsweekbeastles.jpg to http://www.djbc.net/beastles/newsweekbeastles.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630225243/http://www.montrealmirror.com/2007/032907/load.html to http://www.montrealmirror.com/2007/032907/load.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110417142307/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4323661317653995812 to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4323661317653995812
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215120810/http://www.booksmith.com/events/index.html to http://www.booksmith.com/events/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Giancarlo Guerrero Question

Question: What is the fine line between Remixing/Creating unique work inspired by someone else's work and copying someone else's work?

GiancarloXDXD (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Giancarlo Guerrero

• Remixing is taking something that exists and putting it in a new context by adding something to it, creating a work that is only inspired by something else doesn't involve any direct copying, and copying is creating an exact replica. lethargilistic (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement.

Below are some suggestions for article improvement.

Link (6) is no longer active and (7) does not appear to be on the subject. The two links/citations below could work instead: https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10519/Lessig/

https://web.archive.org/web/20160402060619/https://www.scribd.com/doc/47089238/Remix “Remix.” Bloomsbury Academic

The topic of copyright infringement and handicap assistance could also be included. The translation of books to audio books for the blind or visually impaired and translation of books and audio content to braille, along with devices that do this for them. The exemption of copyright was passed in 2012 and is seeking renewal. ( https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2014/petitions/American_Foundation_for_the_Blind_et_al_1201_Initial_Submission_2014.pdf ) This is an important part of copyright and stands as a perspective on why the topic should still be discussed.

Other small things:: -Link (10) comes from a trustworthy author but is a blog post. T -For the Music section of "Domains of Remixing." Software like LoopLabs, Logic and bandcamp could be included as well since they are known for their large collection of copyright-free loops and samples intended for remixing.

Thank you for taking the time to read through my suggestions! RobBeatty (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions for Additional Section

Draft for Article Draft (Para1) https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/disability/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2014/petitions/American_Foundation_for_the_Blind_et_al_1201_Initial_Submission_2014.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#121 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#112

Remixing for Disability Services

An exemption exists for disability service technology to change copyrighted media to make it accessible to them. (1) The American Foundation of the Blind (AFB), American Council of the Blind (ACB) and Samuelson-Glushko Technology Law & Policy Clinic (TLPC) work with U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress to renew the exemptions that allow the visually impaired to convert visual texts in copyrighted work into e-readers and other forms of technology that make it possible for them to access. (2) So long as the copyrighted material is obtained in the legal way, the exemption allows for it to be remixed to help to be accessible to anyone disabled. (1) This exemption extends broadly, including transcribing public broadcasts such as television or radio to be transcribed to braille or visual text if need be. (3) With the proper license, obtained by anyone with a disability that can limit perception, copyrighted material that is obtained legally can be remixed for their understanding. (3) (4). It has last been renewed in 2012 and continues to stand. (1)

1 “Exceptions for Disability - Copyright.” CopyrightUser, 31 Aug. 2017, www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/disability/. 2 “Petition for Exemption Ebook Accessibility for People Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Print Disabled.” Copyright Submissions, 2012, www.copyright.gov/1201/2014/petitions/American_Foundation_for_the_Blind_et_al_1201_Initial_Submission_2014.pdf. 3 Office, U.S. Copyright. “Chapter 11: Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright.” Copyright, www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#121. 4 Office, U.S. Copyright. “Chapter 11: Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright.” Copyright, www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#112.

RobBeatty (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Response to RobBeatty

Hello Rob, I think your contribution is pretty good. However, the second sentence is very long, maybe you can make it two sentences. Also, by the end of the paragraph, you kind of say the same thing in two different sentences, you could make it one. Va.97mendez (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article Critique Project - article suggestions

Below I am listing some discussion and suggestions for improvement for this article, based on questions and prompts from an analysis assignment for my college Media Literacy class.

With 93 references, I did not have the time myself to search through and make sure each fact was being referenced with a reliable source, and this is something I think a few people should take the time to do on the article and edit it properly. I will use one moment, in particular, I found as an example. The third cited fact on the article was linked to a very poorly created website that had links to a YouTube series on it called, “Everything Is a Remix,” by Kirby Ferguson. I would not consider this source reliable or scholarly at all. I found a good research article that also has a definition for remix culture that I think would be a better source.

I came across a few links that when clicked on would not open or said that I could not access the page at this time – that could have been due to my own internet being a bit unstable, but a few of the links I could tell were not because of issues on my end. Most of the article was written well and was understandably informative, and I did not see any plagiarism, though a couple of sentences could be considered paraphrased. They were mostly after quotes were referenced and I think some of the editors of the article of the page may have paraphrased simply because they were too in the headspace of what they had just taken information from.

There are 93 sources listed throughout the article, so I was not able to check over every source to see if they were all neutral. I found sources that I thought may not be very reliable. I found a few YouTube video links and some blogs with articles discussing the information being mentioned. I personally don’t think a YouTube video is a very reliable source, but at the same time, I understand it is just a different format in which we can share our thoughts. I feel like this could lead to a bit more bias in what you are talking about when it is coming from a personal way of sharing information like in a video. For the most part, when there was bias in a source, it was noted and discussed properly. I feel like this article could really use some source combing however, just really making sure the sources pertain to relevant information in a scholarly and neutral format.

The article was rather long and while a lot of it was relevant to the topic, I felt like some of the information was bulky and unnecessary. The article covers a lot of ground and while it does take the time to spell out remix culture, I felt like the moments of depicting whether what I was reading was biased took away from the article and make it a bit distracting.

Personally, I felt as if the positive aspects of remix culture were highlighted a bit more than the negatives, so at times I felt as if what I was reading did have a bit of bias to them. It could be however that there simply aren’t as many negatives as possible to this culture than positive impacts. I think that some more research/information should be added about the negative impact remix culture is having on society.

While most of the information is about a decade or two old, I thought that there was enough current information sprinkled throughout the article that allowed it to have relevance. I think the topic and discussion of the app TikTok should be added into the article, however, as it is one of the newest and largest platforms out currently that largely remix culture. It would add a lot and help be an important example to readers learning about the topic because I think a large demographic could relate and connect to the app being used as an example as it is easy to understand the remix culture concept explained through the type of content people create on TikTok. Mlss00 (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Article Draft - new topic addition suggestions

The app TikTok has become a relevant media platform that utilizes remix culture as a marketing and engagement technique, using it to market products to viewers while also entertaining them. Content creators and brands can now collaborate in an environment where remixing content is accepted and encouraged as a way to gain followers through creative videos following trending actions, audios, and memes. Older songs and celebrities are making comebacks by being attached to remix trends, their music or content is now being viewed again by being attached to a trend. Garnering attention for the artist and these bits is a marketing technique that makes viewers want to look into the artist more. Musicians like Doja Cat and Lil Nas X are two current musicians that have culminated their music in the TikTok remix culture. For example, "Remember (Walking In The Sand)" the 1960s song by the Shangri-Las has recently been remixed to an EDM track that brought more attention to the song and a following into it due to a popular TikTok trend circulating largely in 2020. These trending songs allow for music on TikTok to become spreadable and testable. Companies and artists can test out music bits and loops to see how successful they may become before fully releasing them. Mlss00 (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review: This article is very organized and was very easy to understand. I think the example of "Remember" (Walking in the Sand) was a great idea to specify the information for readers and to help them understand more. I think the last two sentences would fit before the example because it flows better with the information given at the beginning of the paragraph. Some of the adverbs and adjectives used could be seen as biased such as the term "widely" to describe the content being viewed. I also think the term "rebirthed new life" can be seen as putting a positive light on TikTok when this is meant to be written in a neutral light. The term "prominent" before current musicians in the last sentence can be eliminated to prevent any biases from being shown. The first and last sources are both reliable sources because they come from an article and a book that has been peer-reviewed, but I cannot confirm that the second and third are reliable. They both come from media sites that I'm not too familiar with and they are not news sites such as The Times or Washington Post. Harrietmarcilla (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: IFS213-Hacking and Open Source Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2023 and 19 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chikenscratch (article contribs). Peer reviewers: UndercoverSwitch.

— Assignment last updated by UndercoverSwitch (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)