Wikipedia talk:Student assignments/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Guidance on selecting a topic or article to improve

See User talk:Kira2525#November 2016 and particularly my post at the (current) end of the conversation.

Students attempting to edit already well developed articles, or writing drafts on topics that are already well covered by one or more existing articles, often experience resistance, with their edits being reverted or otherwise rejected. This is simply because improving such articles is quite difficult, often beyond the competence of many undergrad students. So I think we should have a guideline somewhere that cautions students (and teachers) to select topics that are not already well covered - it's much easier to improve a Stub than a B-class article, the latter would be almost impossible for a first or second year student on their first exposure to WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a good idea, thanks. I'll put some thought into it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the hook up!✋ Angelina k (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This is important, and an on-going issue. Instructors or students select a significant topic topic they're interested in, but adding to an extensively developed article runs into problems of repetition, balance and coordination that new editors often find difficult, giving the students an unpleasant experience and creating largely fruitless cleanup work for established editors. The ideal target is a tiny article on an important topic that is not already covered elsewhere. Wikipedia is full of such articles, once you look. Then even if the contributions have the usual student flaws, they may provide raw material for further improvement. Kanguole 13:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Yes, it certainly is an on-going problem. I just expanded the "Choosing a topic" section to explain how stubs are better choices to edit than are more advanced pages, and also warning classes away from Discretionary Sanctions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

"official"

here is nothing official about WP. Anyone can start any program they like, under whatever name they like, as long as it doesn't imply some non-existent official status. The enWP has no means of doing anything officially, which is why WikiEd is a separate organization. They can do things officially if they like, but it doesn't bind anyone here, nor are we obliged to pay any attention to their organizational structure unless we as individuals care to do so. (I think it is important that we do care to do so, both because they;re our friends, working in the same direction, and also in order to make sure that what they do with respect to the enWP will be acceptable at the encyclopedia.) On the other hand, if wikiEd wants to have the students in their programs write for the enWP, they must guide their editors to do things that will be acceptable here. Our standards are basically the same whoever writes the article, whether a student under guidance, or a person entirely on their own. That said, we need to recognize the realities of class programs: student writers will write as they do in other courses, and are no more likely to submit the material before their course's final deadline than they would be if they were writing an ordinary term paper. (I think everyone here knows the pattern from first hand experience). This makes some of our article quality methods inapplicable, because once they have left, they will not come back for revision. We can urge the wikiEd program to try to persuade the instructors to make the due date for the WP part of the course as early as possible, but -- based on my experience as a student and teacher -- trying to accomplish this is a very difficult thing. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. In the few courses I have looked at here, the deadlines are indeed setup to encourage exactly what you said, and it looked to me that students were complying. With the new shift to electronic learning, at the school I am taking course, there has been a shift to drop-dead deadlines (i.e. you turn it in 1 second late, you get a zero). I was in disbelief for quite some time, but eventually students get used to it. So, it may be more practical now to do what you suggest than even 5-10 years ago. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I should mention that when I taught, I required intermediate drafts, usually at 2 or 3 stages and--it it was a methods class, with weekly reports of progress on the survey or whatever project they chose. This is more or less the generally recommended method, but my students were quite unhappy with this, and it showed in my student evaluations. But this was 7 or 8 years ago and earlier, and I hope you are right that students are more accustomed to it now. (I never had a firm final deadline as such, but I always scheduled each of them to give an oral summary to the class, and they knew they would be embarrassed if they were not ready. As for the written version, all I asked was that they get the work in before I had to submit the grades, but I warned them that if it was at the last minute I wouldn't be able to give them time to rewrite. I'm amazed when I read that faculty use unnecessary deadlines and penalties and attendance requirements--I consider them punitive and a way of showing who's the boss. )

Looking at ed program classes, many of them do require something like I did, with progress markers--it's the way teachers nowadays are taught to do it . But I notice that usually only a minority of the students actually keep up with them.

there are some obvious analogies with ordinary editing at WP. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)