Wikipedia talk:Student assignments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Student assignments page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:ASSIGN

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3: 3 months

Guideline proposal

There is a proposal to change this page from an information page to a guideline at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Converting Wikipedia:Student assignments into an actual guideline. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The archived discussion on the proposal is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_167#Converting_Wikipedia%3AStudent_assignments_into_an_actual_guideline Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for students about bad assignments from instructors?

While having infrastructure set up to help instructors use editing Wikipedia for education purposes is great, it's inevitable that some teachers are going to give their students assignments which, likely unknowingly, require their students to break some rule of the site. For example, what if a well-meaning teacher were to ask their students to make a Wikipedia article for themselves, not knowing this violates WP:NOTE and WP:ORIGINAL? It seems wrong to bend the rules and have the site clogged up with junk articles, but it also seems wrong to fail an entire classroom of kids for something out of their control. Is this just an unfortunate circumstance we shouldn't be responsible for, or should we provide some guidance on this page for students in this sort of situation? --Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Via IRC Help I was informed about a student assignment from a political science class: Students were to deliberately inject false information into articles about living politicians and then observe if and how Wikipedia "healed" from this attack.

Of course, this is a terrible way to learn about how our anti-abuse policies work and I think we were able to convince this student to pass on the message to his professor. As far as we know this particular assignment never happened, but I am sure many like it have. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should give advice to students about that here, because it would involve telling them to disobey their instructor's requirements. Instead, the way to handle these situations as soon as they become apparent is to report them at WP:Education noticeboard. In my experience, this typically resolves the problem pretty efficiently. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance for moving drafts into mainspace

The current advice to students says to have your instructor review and approve the text before adding material to existing articles, but it doesn't explicitly say anything about doing so before creating new articles. This seems something of an oversight. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, thanks. I'd be happy to add something, but first, I'd appreciate a few pointers on what to say about New Page Patrol and Articles for Creation in this regard (especially as students typically work on a shorter time scale than our reviewers do). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually know much about RPP or AfC; I tend to hang out at AfD (which perhaps speaks to a mean streak in my personality, though I think I'm happiest when we can save a page). It does seem like asking students to wait on a Wikipedia backlog would be rather unfair. XOR'easter (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. I want to think about it for a while, and maybe I'll ask at those two projects. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to go ahead and do this. How does that look? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"content that promotes social change"?

A ton of content that is neutrally presented and backed up by RS promotes social change. We don't disallow that. I think Sj's edit makes more sense, being clear that it's not about the nature of the subject but rather the relationship between that content and RS/DUE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Our content describes social change, but we do not allow content whose purpose is to use Wikipedia to advance an agenda. (See the principle adopted by ArbCom here: [1].) An RS can promote social change, and we report that the RS does that, but that is not the same thing as Wikipedia promoting it ourselves. After all, there isn't much difference between using Wikipedia to "right great wrongs" or to use it to "promote" any kind of "change". The wording came about following the discussion here: [2]. A professor had assigned a class to create new pages, many of which got deleted at AfD. The problems with those pages that were identified by AfD editors centered on containing original research that promoted a particular POV. "Righting great wrongs" is well-understood internally here as a Wikipedia term of art, but it is less accessible to the target audience (academics with little WP editing experience) than "promoting social change". Also "righting great wrongs" has the sound of doing something big, whereas an academic who misunderstands how we do things might reasonably think "I'm just trying to get Wikipedia to cover this cutting-edge idea that I've been thinking about" (but that isn't yet published in RS). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content that describes social change and content that promotes social change are not mutually exclusive. Having a solid article about feminism promotes social change. Increasing access to free knowledge in general promotes social change. The meaning of "promote" as a form of activity on Wikipedia that conflicts with NPOV is itself wikijargon like "righting great wrongs" and ideally we wouldn't assume knowledge of either one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it's good to discuss things. ;-) I now understand better the distinction you are making, between content whose purpose for being added to the page is to promote change, and content that, when read, will make readers more aware of and receptive to change. I made this edit: [3]. Does that help? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems awkward to attribute an agenda to the content itself IMO. I'd probably go with something like: "When assigning topics to students, please understand that Wikipedia does not allow content which prioritizes social change over Wikipedia policies like neutral point of view and using reliable sources, even if the course itself is about promoting social change." (The connection between social change/justice and course content is, in my experience, more likely to be relevant than the professor's personal research, which isn't to say it's always the case). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, attributing to the content sounded wrong to me too. I like your points about social change being associated with justice, and about it being better to focus on what the course is about, than on the instructor's research. The other WP policies get a lot of coverage elsewhere on the page, so I wanted to keep that part more succinct. I did this: [4], and I think this discussion has improved the page a lot. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's better, but I feel like the contrast with policies is needed to avoid confusing jargon with off-wiki terms. I'll leave it at that and let others opine, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I went ahead and made another change, making it explicit that this comes from policies: [5]. The sentence immediately before this one refers to all those policies, so I don't see a need to repeat them again. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be useful to add an explanation that a Wikipedia article never expresses an opinion. It reports, with attribution, the existence of opinions, but neither supports or disapproves of any such opinions. (Avoid unsourced/unattributed adjectives!) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does discuss NOR and NPOV – a lot. Can you suggest a place where an addition would be useful? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish Actually a careful reading of the entire page will find NPOV mentioned once in the lead and a single brief sentence about it in the "Advice for students" section.

I find that student contributions quite frequently contain "<this> is important" or "note that" language, probably mimicking the way lectures and textbooks might emphasize the salient points of a topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful. I did this: [6], which I hope addresses that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now the sentence simply seems inaccurate :) What WP policy forbids [well-sourced, neutrally worded, proportionate] editing, based on the agenda or intent behind it? There is nothing special about being motivated by 'promoting social change or justice' vs being motivated by 'promoting knowledge' or 'promoting numeracy' that makes an edit taboo. Depending on your point of view, we may even allow editing whose agenda is 'to promote the pure goodness that permeates every action of my favorite corporation'. So calling out 'justice' in this way seems perverse. So far we've had more classes focused on social change than those at Megatrend University spot-shining a brand, but that's no reason to mislead readers of this page. – SJ + 02:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this gets difficult (we need to say more about policies; this isn't about polices). I did this: [7]. I took RGW out of it entirely, and instead used WP:NOT and WP:Notability, and tried as best I could to make the language match with what those pages say, and I tried to avoid picking on "justice" while still addressing the problems that precipitated these revisions. If editors still don't like it, please suggest actual revisions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging and extension of academic student drafts

(Any final policy discussion will take place only on related policy talk page This is just preliminary inputs round.)

Proposal : Student's ~~academic~~ drafts be tagged as '~~Academic~~ Student's draft' in draft namespace and extend draft life for ~~academic~~ student drafts up to four years from present six months.

Reasoning:

Positive part is academic books are available with students and they can work on assigned topics to fill information and knowledge gaps not touched by non-academic Wikipedians compared to usual focus of popular topics by non-academic Wikipedians.

To my understanding academic assignments by students are supposed to be peer reviewed by other students and then approved by their professor before being posted on Wikipedia. My observation is peer review by other students and final review and corrections by professors are usually missed.

Same time various batches of student seem to be working on the same topic year after year. What I propose here is student's ~~academic~~ student draft be tagged as 'Academic draft' in draft namespace and extend draft life for ~~academic~~ student draft up to four years from present six months. So next batch students can peer review content of previous batches and improve. Four year term will give enough time to professors also for evaluation of the content being posted by their students and get necessary course correction. -- Bookku (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Boud, Ahunt, and BilCat: Since I read their certain concerns at Draft talk:Women's Participation in Peacekeeping and User talk:Ahunt. Bookku (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]

I would agree with the concept of tagging these articles as "academic drafts", but don't see the point of a longer deletion cycle. In my experience these drafts normally get abandoned at the end of the semester (three months max) and so the normal six month cycle seems to be a good idea. I think a longer draft period will just increase the number of abandoned drafts. - Ahunt (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think six months would work just fine for now. If each successive class begins within 6 months of the previous one ending, the draft will still be there. If some classes are only once a year, and it becomes a problem with them being deleted, then we can revisit this. For now, having a professor request an undelete should suffice.

Another suggestion is that academic drafts could be copies of mainspace articles that students could work on without fear of their edits being reverted as being "unencyclopedic". Certain issues, such as BLP and copyvios, would of course still need to be enforced. At the end of the semester/term, a professor could post a request on the main article page for editors to review the drafts, and incorporate any good material into the main article. (Such editors would probably need access to the academic sources used to verify that the content is actually supported by the sources. BilCat (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.. If some classes are only once a year, and it becomes a problem with them being deleted, then we can revisit this. ..

My impression is in most cases new batch of students join annually.

.. If some classes are only once a year, and it becomes a problem with them being deleted, then we can revisit this. For now, having a professor request an undelete should suffice. ..

WP:NOTBURO ?

Bookku (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see any reason to treat student drafts differently than any other drafts. Part of what should be the learning process in a class project is for the students to experience Wikipedia editing the same as anyone else does, so carving out any kind of special dispensation gets in the way of that. We already deal with large backlogs of drafts, so I'd rather not add further complexity to the process. If an instructor wants to keep material from one semester to another, the instructor can simply move the content into userspace. I also would object to using the word "academic" for "academic drafts", because this is not scholarly work in the sense of what faculty and other academic scholars publish. Rather, if we were to call them anything, it should be "student drafts". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do endorse what User:Tryptofish has written here. - Ahunt (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.. a class project is for the students to experience Wikipedia editing the same as anyone else does ..

The way topics are assigned IMO it's generally part of student studies plus faculty's interest in addressing information and knowledge gaps in Wikipedia and not just experiencing Wikipedia. How much individual student succeeds in given assignment is different aspect- that's becoming our concern.

..In my experience these drafts normally get abandoned at the end of the semester ..

My point is particular student is abandoning the draft, faculty is not abandoning the topic.

If drafts are topic wise, Continuation of draft for longer period does not increase number of drafts rather would reduce number of abandoned drafts.

From Wikipedia ambassador once they know unless draft - if any topic is not worked by four students from four batches and they clearly improving it things are not going to progress I suppose co-operation and monitoring level and quality may improve.

Bookku (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted me about the purpose of a class project being for students to experience Wikipedia editing the same as anyone else, and I stand by that. When the instructor makes a decision to use Wikipedia as a teaching tool, they are doing so in such a way that they are using Wikipedia as it actually exists. If they think that they can expect Wikipedia to change the way we do business simply as a courtesy to the instructor, they are grievously mistaken, to the point of being WP:NOTHERE. They have lots of alternatives when designing a class. They can have students look at Wikipedia articles and create new material that is submitted in class, but not posted on Wikipedia servers. So they do not have to design the class in a manner that includes hitting the "publish" button. Rather, that's an educational choice. By the way, I'm the primary author of this information page, and I wrote that editors are not unpaid teaching assistants for a reason. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to the proposal, as there's no good reason for it. And if it passes, somehow, then I'm opposed to the name, which is essentially WP:PUFFERY. There's no reason to puff up the submission of one brand new editor over any other, by labeling their contributions in a certain way, just because they happen to be enrolled in a Wikipedia education-monitored class. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is just one of the idea suggested, in an effort to find solution to our common concerns. A very basic level discussion to seek inputs, we are not expecting votes, we can not finalize policies here that what is clearly mentioned in this talk page instructions.

Name means 'academic drafts'? , the point is taken I would be okay with wording 'student draft' too. As such original suggestion about tagging 'student draft' is not mine. I just took initiative to facilitate discussion to find solutions for concerns being discussed. Bookku (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed – my experience is that one day after their course ends, a student editor is gone, and will no longer respond to comments or questions on their Talk page, user sandbox, or anywhere else. Four years won't make any difference; at that point, they are probably trying to get into grad school or are already there, and are even busier than before, or they are otherwise busy finding their footing in adult life. Keeping it open for four years won't do much. Just my two cents, but I've watched a lot of student editing, and exceptions to that pattern are rare. I'll bet my paycheck that shortening the life of student draft from six months to six days after the class end date (or six hours) will likely generate zero requests for WP:REFUND. Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I appreciate the large amount of effort jc37 put into revising the page over the past day. However, I dislike the overly brief and bland lead section, and would like to take it back to something more like what it was before. I won't be hasty about it, and would like to take a little time to think it over, so I thought I'd post this here and invite comments from other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a gaggle of various things there, which I tried to merge to some sensibility. I won't say I was wholly successful lol. The page really could use work on clarity.

All that said, as I mentioned inn the edit summary when I wrote the current sentence in the lead - it really needs work. And really was just a place holder. So if you've got better ideas, great : )

But I think we should avoid the lead being quite as negative as the stuff I merged from the lead and the overview section into "challenges". It probably should be something more neutral and explanatory. What do you think? - jc37 20:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think a certain amount of negativity is a feature, rather than a bug. Not that I want to scare anyone off, but the original impetus for creating this page was that there are problems, and that remains as true now as it was then. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't think they should go away, but the title of the page is "student assignments". We should be providing tools for usage right at the start. I particularly was uncomfortable how far down, deeply buried in walls of text, the caution about student usernames and privacy was.

It's like this page has been morphed to serve two main duties. A guide for starting and running an ed course, and also how to interact with that pesky community : )

I think the page needs to draw a clearer line between those two goals, for clarity, understandability, and really just so someone who needs info can get to it quickly and not have to skim through walls-of-text. - jc37 21:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]