The changes I made to the student responsibilities are intended to make the points less one sided, and to add helpful detail. I felt the point about being committed to your learning made it seem as if it was wrong to change your mind or change focus. I feel with adequate reflection and reevaluation, making decisions about how much you want to get out of a specific opportunity or whether you have to move on is a more mature way of learning, rather than simply ‘committing’ yourself to some sort of vow. Things change. It’s important to be highly skilled in accepting that. Giving and receiving feedback is great, but you can’t just bring people down, or treat them like dirt. Be honest, but helpfully honest, and take the edge off when you can. I have been lucky enough to work in group assignments with polite and reasonable people, but I constantly hear stories about pure rudeness from particular members of other groups. Going about it tactfully and objectively means people won’t think of you as some sort of goblin, and you are not Meryl Streep, and you aren’t a famous billionaire – not that that should justify rudeness. Point 7 about independent thought is important. I think integrity is ridiculously undervalued in the media industry, and often suppressed and undermined in many ways. However, it could be interpreted by some people that personal, subjective views are adequate. Listening to and considering others’ opinions is important. The industry is collaborative, so while independent thought is important and often lacking in every human being on the planet, if you’re sitting there alone in a corner with your thought, with no one interested in hiring you, you might wish that someone had amended point 7 slightly.
Mass file sharing and editing in this way is interesting. The best way I can describe the nature of it is through readers’ comments being integrated into an article after it is published, or in-line commentary. I think this could actually have practical purposes, like debating an issue. Everyone could add a point and the piece could eventually morph into a deep and layered view of the issue. However, it is very easy to vandalise and troll something like this. Moderators would have to be involved in some way to ensure the project isn’t sabotaged. Ultimately, I think sharing exercises like this will only work with small groups of people, or like-minded people.
However, I think there are working examples of collaborative editing, namely Wikipedia. If they can manage to keep an often inaccurate but always useful encyclopaedia going, surely an article or a document aren’t that hard to collaborate on.