Wikipedia talk:Student assignments/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Student assignments. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| 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)
- That's a good idea, thanks. I'll put some thought into it. --Tryptofish (talk)
Thanks for the hook up!✋ Angelina k (talk)
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
- 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)
"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 )
- 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)
- 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 )
a few notes
Going to leave a few notes here. I understand there's been a lot of text generated over other recent changes, so I'll say at the start that little, if any, of this is of the sort of thing that needs urgent attention, and by all means come back to it if you're experiencing fatigue with this page. :) Also, please take all of these, in case it's not clear, as my own opinions on the page -- the perspective of someone at Wiki Ed rather than specific edit requests by Wiki Ed.
- 1. Footnote 1:
See Wikipedia:Education Working Group/RfC. Volunteer editors are sometimes left with a mess and the burden of fixing poor-quality edits, merging content forks, and deleting articles.
- In the context of the lead, it seems like this sentiment would be most effectively communicated directly/plainly, as I don't think it's very controversial that poorly conceived/executed class assignments can cause headaches for other editors. A link to an RfC from the Education Program's early days may be useful for historical/procedural purposes, but anyone clicking on the link for more information about what the note says will probably find it more confusing than helpful.
- 2. Footnote 2:
One can browse User:jbmurray and Attention needed on several articles and users, for a couple examples.
- It's unclear what from jbmurray's talk page this is pointing to, as his classes that he mentions there look to have been largely successful (unless by "mixed" the intention is to give a positive outcome along with a negative outcome). Perhaps this subpage is what's intended? It may also be useful to summarize what the reader should take away from that link to a length ENB discussion. Since the result wasn't exactly ideal (prof saying he won't teach with Wikipedia again), it's hard to extract constructive/actionable lessons from the discussion. That said, if the purpose is just to give an example of an experienced editor who had trouble with a class, it obviously does that, but it seems like it would be more useful if it were a "here's how to avoid this" rather than just "here's a mess".
- 3.
Instructors are expected to have a good working knowledge of Wikipedia, and should be willing to help address core content policy violations[3] and, in the US and Canada, to coordinate with the Wikipedia Education Program ("WikiEd") system.
(and then the note [3] isThere are Wikipedia editors who will help you learn how to run a successful assignment. Consider delaying your Wikipedia assignment to next semester if you are not familiar with how things work. Someone will be happy to consult with you through video chat about how to run an assignment; please ask at the education noticeboard. You and your students will benefit from good planning.
- the Wiki Education Program is global. There are resources at outreach:Education/Countries for people in many parts of the world, and WMF staff who can help try to make connections with people who can help in those areas. "Wiki Ed" specifically refers to the Wiki Education Foundation, which is the separate organization that manages the US and Canada arm of the Education Program. I'd recommend splitting this sentence and rewording along these lines: "Instructors are expected to have a good working knowledge of Wikipedia, and should be willing to help address core content policy violations in student work. The Wikipedia Education Program has many resources that can help instructors and students learn about Wikipedia and avoid common pitfalls. There are people who will help you learn to run a successful assignment, and you may want to consider delaying your assignment until next semester if you have not coordinated with members of the Education Program. For classes at institutions in the United States and Canada, contact the Wiki Education Foundation. For all other countries, visit the Education Program on the Outreach Wiki. If you don't know where to turn or have other questions, ask at the Education Noticeboard." This is a bit longer than the original, and I migrated the footnote into the main text, but it seems like an important block of text. Edit as you see fit, of course. In general I'd recommend highlighting the country-based support distinctions as early and as prominently as possible to ensure people get to the people who can help them with minimal confusion.
- 4.
Each assignment should have a course page...
- This links to a page that is specifically about the Education Program MediaWiki extension which is no longer maintained and scarcely used. Course pages with Wiki Ed are Dashboard pages, and are automatically created for everyone working with Wiki Ed. Likewise, templates are automatically placed on students' pages and article talk pages (there are some cases when this doesn't happen, that we're looking into, but in general it should be automatic). Most others should IMO probably be using the Programs and Events Dashboard. I don't believe anyone is maintaining the various on-wiki trainings, course page templates, etc. at this point, but I may be wrong about that. Not sure how this is best presented here.
I've written more than I intended here, so I'm going to go ahead and stop at the lead for now. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk)
- I have changed the format to number Ryan's points, for ease of discussion. Please revert if you object, Ryan. Thanks. EdChem (talk)
- Edit 3: I have made changes along the lines suggested by Ryan, with some tweaks to it and the surrounding content. Comments and criticisms welcome. Anyone can revert if they feel that it is necessary (and then please discuss here, obviously), but I think the basic thrust of the change is sensible. I tried to make the country-specific stuff prominent and the WikiEd at the end, and I agree with Ryan that this is important content to spend time on in the lede. We might want to split it into two paragraphs. EdChem (talk)
- Edit 2: I have expanded footnote 2 in two edits to reflect Ryan's comments. Reflect / revert / revile / reappraise / recapitulate / reinforce etc at your option. EdChem (talk)
- As anyone following along has seen, I went ahead (partly simultaneously with EdChem), and implemented much of this. I trust Ryan will let us know if I still got stuff wrong! I'm cautiously hopeful that these recent edits have pretty much wrapped up the issues from the recent controversy, and I personally am quite happy with how the page is now. --Tryptofish (talk)
- @Ryan (Wiki Ed): Any and all additional comments welcomed, as and when you have time, but particularly on whether my edits and Tryptofish's have addressed the four points you raised. EdChem (talk)