User:Colin/Introduction to Psychology, Part I

Note: This analysis inspired the essay: User:Colin/A large scale student assignment – what could possibly go wrong?, which is considerably more readable than these jottings.

This is an analysis of student edits for the course Canada Education Program/Courses/Introduction to Psychology, Part I (Steve Joordens). The students were awarded bonus marks for their course as follows:
 * 1% for creating a Wikipedia username and linking it to the Canadian Education Program, Registering with the APS Wikipedia Initiative, and linking your student number to your Wikipedia username as Steve highlighted in class
 * 1% for editing any psychology-related article in the English language Wikipedia (an article either pulled from the list on the APS website, or one you found yourself) to include at least one sentence expanding on the article and including an appropriate citation to back up the claim made in the sentence.
 * 1% for editing an additional article on a psychology-related topic either in the English version of Wikipedia or, preferably, in another language version you feel suitably proficient to edit.

Raw student contributions analysis
There were over 1500 students in the class. Only 317 (20%) created a username and registered themselves on the above list. Only 158 (10%) then went on to edit articles.

Namespace
Students mostly edited article namespace. Their edits to Wikipedia namespace were to register with course assignment. A small number of students made basic edits to their user page. Edits to article talk pages were mostly to add an student project banner (5 cases). One student mistook the talk page for the article and added their information there. Another student, who registered but did not actually participate in the assignment, added a suggestion to the talk page of a food article.

All the following statistics are for article namespace edits only.

Edit counts
Of the 158 students who edited articles, each student made an average of 5 edits and a maximum of 46 edits.

Of the 158 students who carried out the second task of editing a single article, one third chose not to carry out the third task of editing another article. Note: the option was given to the students to edit on another language Wikipedia for the third task, and we are unable to track those edits.

Articles
Most of the 216 articles edited by students attracted a single student but 54 were edited by more than one student.

Each article was edited an average of 3 times and a maximum of 50 times.

Timespan
The assignment ran from the 26th September to the 1st December (the start of week 39 to the middle of week 48). However, many students were late in performing their homework and editing continued into the next week. Four students had accounts prior to the assignment and registered those accounts on the student list. None of them had made many edits to Wikipedia articles. Only one of them participated in the assignment by editing psychology articles. Of the three who did not, one of those is responsible for the few edits made since mid December.

Articles
Many of the edits were to articles that were a topic in psychology or were a biography of a psychologist. However, a large number of edits were to articles in medicine and neuroscience in particular, suggesting the students took a loose approach to the scope of the assignment. None of the students who participated in the assignment made edits other than for their assignment, for example to unrelated topics.


 * 2.5D (visual perception) – talk
 * Ablative brain surgery – talk
 * Abraham Maslow – talk
 * Action potential – talk
 * Adjustment disorder – talk
 * Adolescence – talk
 * Alcohol abuse – talk
 * Alcoholism – talk
 * Alcoholism in family systems – talk
 * Alfred Adler – talk
 * Alpha (ethology) – talk
 * Alvin Liberman – talk
 * Amnesia – talk
 * Animal rights – talk
 * Animal sexual behaviour – talk
 * Animal testing – talk
 * Anorexia nervosa – talk
 * Anosmia – talk
 * Antisocial personality disorder – talk
 * Anxiety – talk
 * Aphasia – talk
 * Appetite – talk
 * Asia Minor – talk
 * Atrial action potential – talk
 * Attachment disorder – talk
 * Attachment in children – talk
 * Attitude (psychology) – talk
 * Avoidant personality disorder – talk
 * Axon – talk
 * Axon hillock – talk
 * B. F. Skinner – talk
 * Barnes maze – talk
 * Behavioural confirmation – talk
 * Bernard Weiner – talk
 * Big Five personality traits – talk
 * Bojan Krkic – talk
 * Bulimia nervosa – talk
 * Capgras delusion – talk
 * Cardiac action potential – talk
 * Carl Rogers – talk
 * Carolyn Sherif – talk
 * Causes of mental disorders – talk
 * Character orientation – talk
 * Clinical psychology – talk
 * Clustering illusion – talk
 * Codomain – talk
 * Cognitive Appraisal – talk
 * Color blindness – talk
 * Color vision – talk
 * Comparative psychology – talk
 * Compound muscle action potential – talk
 * Conditioning – talk
 * Cone cell – talk
 * Consciousness – talk
 * Contraposition – talk
 * Coping Strategies – talk
 * Corpus callosum – talk
 * Cultural evolutionism – talk
 * Cultural identity – talk
 * Death anxiety (psychology) – talk
 * Decision making – talk
 * Declarative memory – talk
 * Deindividuation – talk
 * Developmental psychology – talk
 * Dichromacy – talk
 * Discrete Emotions Theory – talk
 * Disease theory of alcoholism – talk
 * Drug therapy problems – talk
 * Dysnomia (disorder) – talk
 * Eating disorder – talk
 * Echoic memory – talk
 * Edward Thorndike – talk
 * Emotion – talk
 * Encoding (memory) – talk
 * Evolutionary psychology – talk
 * Eye movement – talk
 * Eye movement (sensory) – talk
 * Eye movement in language reading – talk
 * Fear – talk
 * Figure and ground – talk
 * Forgetting – talk
 * Fritz Heider – talk
 * Frustration–aggression hypothesis – talk
 * F-scale (personality test) – talk
 * George Sperling – talk
 * Gestalt psychology – talk
 * Harold Kelley – talk
 * Heredity – talk
 * History of psychology – talk
 * Humanistic psychology – talk
 * Hypnosis – talk
 * Hypochondriasis – talk
 * Hypothalamus – talk
 * Imitation – talk
 * Inert knowledge – talk
 * Inner ear – talk
 * Insomnia – talk
 * Interpersonal attraction – talk
 * Isolation (psychology) – talk
 * Janet Morgan Riggs – talk
 * Julian Rotter – talk
 * Kinetic depth effect – talk
 * Law of effect – talk
 * Leon Festinger – talk
 * Lesion – talk
 * Lev Vygotsky – talk
 * Locus of control – talk
 * Logopenic progressive aphasia – talk
 * Long-term memory – talk
 * Machiavellian intelligence – talk
 * Machiavellianism – talk
 * Marcel Kinsbourne – talk
 * Martha McClintock – talk
 * Matching law – talk
 * Maudsley Family Therapy – talk
 * Memory – talk
 * Memory loss – talk
 * Mnemonic – talk
 * Motion perception – talk
 * Motivation – talk
 * Motor babbling – talk
 * Motor skill – talk
 * Must (disambiguation) – talk
 * Muzafer Sherif – talk
 * Nature versus nurture – talk
 * Nazi human experimentation – talk
 * Negative Priming – talk
 * Neurotransmission – talk
 * Night terror – talk
 * Non-rapid eye movement sleep – talk
 * Normative social influence – talk
 * Occipital lobe – talk
 * Oceanic feeling – talk
 * Olfaction – talk
 * Oliver Braddick – talk
 * Operant conditioning chamber – talk
 * Paranoid personality disorder – talk
 * Paul Ekman – talk
 * Pedro Rodríguez Ledesma – talk
 * Perceptual narrowing – talk
 * Personality disorder – talk
 * Personality test – talk
 * Person-centered therapy – talk
 * Persuasion – talk
 * Peter Deunov – talk
 * Physical attractiveness – talk
 * Physical fitness – talk
 * Pidgin – talk
 * Positivity effect – talk
 * Prejudice – talk
 * Prenatal development (biology) – talk
 * Primary progressive aphasia – talk
 * Priming (psychology) – talk
 * Problem gambling – talk
 * Problem solving – talk
 * Promise – talk
 * Propinquity – talk
 * Psychoanalytic theory – talk
 * Psychologist – talk
 * Psychology – talk
 * Reciprocity (social psychology) – talk
 * Reductio ad absurdum – talk
 * Relationship counseling – talk
 * Reproductive success – talk
 * ROAM – talk
 * Rollo May – talk
 * Saccule – talk
 * Saimin (film) – talk
 * Self-awareness – talk
 * Sensation (psychology) – talk
 * Sensory memory – talk
 * Sensory processing disorder – talk
 * Sensory Processing Disorder Foundation – talk
 * Sensory system – talk
 * Separation anxiety disorder – talk
 * Sex differences in humans – talk
 * Short-term memory – talk
 * Simple eye in invertebrates – talk
 * Sleep disorder – talk
 * Sleepwalking – talk
 * Slow Motion Perception – talk
 * Smell – talk
 * Somatization disorder – talk
 * Somatoform disorder – talk
 * Song Ji-hyo – talk
 * Sophrosyne – talk
 * Split-brain – talk
 * Stop Online Piracy Act – talk
 * Structuralism (psychology) – talk
 * Substance abuse – talk
 * Synapse – talk
 * Synapse Films – talk
 * Taste – talk
 * Tau protein – talk
 * The Personality Test – talk
 * The Wanted – talk
 * Tim Crow – talk
 * Time perception – talk
 * Tip of the tongue – talk
 * Transcranial direct-current stimulation – talk
 * Trevor Harley – talk
 * Trichromacy – talk
 * Uncanny valley – talk
 * University of Toronto – talk
 * Validity (statistics) – talk
 * Visual perception – talk
 * Visual system – talk
 * Voice of Fire – talk
 * White Figure, White Ground – talk
 * Wilhelm Wundt – talk
 * Word error rate – talk
 * Words per minute – talk
 * Working memory – talk
 * Workplace stress – talk
 * Yoichi Ueno – talk
 * Zone of proximal development – talk

People
The assignment was organised by Steve Joordens – – professor of psychology at the University of Toronto at Scarborough. Steve has had an account since 16 August 2011 but has made no article edits at all.

There were four campus ambassadors:


 * Tim Cheng – . Tim has made a handful of very minor edits to a handful of articles.
 * Hanan Domloge – . Hanan has made two very minor edits to one article.
 * Rob Walker – . Rob has made no article edits.
 * Ron Chu – . Ron has made no article edits.

Help from Wikipedia's Global Education Program was provided by two people:
 * Jonathan Obar – professor at Michigan State University. Johnathan has had an account since 13 Jan 2011 and has made 811 edits (12% article).
 * Frank Schulenburg – Frank has had an account since 6 July 2005 but has only made 354 edits to the English Wiki (44% article). He has made more than 20,000 edits of which more than 50% are to the main space on the German Wiki.

Process
Here's the process I'm going through with each student. If you think this should be done differently, let me know. Colin°Talk 20:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Review all their contribs, their user and talk page. I look at the talk page to see any warnings and this might give a clue about deleted edits (I'm not an admin so I can't see them).
 * For each article they edited, summarise what they did, whether it was sourced, made sense, etc.
 * Investigate the source and check for accuracy and copy/paste. I don't have subscription journal access or a university library to borrow from so I may reach a dead end. If I can find the source, then great but sometimes searching for the text added on Google or Google Scholar will throw up the paper/book/website from which it has been copied -- Google Scholar will show a snippet view of a paper with the found text even if on subscription.
 * If the edit scores 4 or 5 (see below), then either fix or revert. I'm no psychologist so often its a revert. Fix small mistakes too.
 * Check to see what happened to to edit in the history -- sometimes another editor has reverted or it is now lost.
 * I've not been leaving user-warnings on talk pages. I don't have time and these students have finished -- nobody has responded to any warnings I've seen so far.
 * Blatant copy/paste must go, as must edits that only superficially reword the source. However, I'm probably being more lenient than some. I think the nature of this assignment makes it very hard for these students to write original text. Since on WP we must echo our sources, and don't allow original thought, we can only condense from them. Most of us can use our worldly knowledge and vocab to help rewrite some biographical or everyday-thing article in our own words, but for scientific works this is much harder. Unless we are already subject experts, it is very hard to rewrite without making mistakes. Particular words may be crucial: an "inhibitory" synapse cannot be rephrased as "dampening"; a "tonic" seizure cannot be rephrased as "stiffening". If these students could draw on several sources for their single-sentence-addition then they'd have a variety of phrasings to pop into the pot. But they've got one source and one sentence.
 * Score the student against the best edit they did and the worst.

Scoring
The scoring system used by Colin and Doc James is as follows: The difference between 1 and 2 is subjective but very few students used sources that would be considered ideal when judged against WP:MEDRS and very few wrote text at an FA level of professional encyclopaedic English. The difference between 1 and 2 is quality improvement vs quantity-of-text improvement, though the mood of the reviewer at the time is also a factor :-). The actual number should not be considered a score: just a grouping for allocating student edits.
 * 1) Beneficial. Appropriate, original reliably-sourced text was added to the article.
 * 2) No worse than what was there. The additions/changes had problems but they don't stand out because the article was already lousy.
 * 3) Didn't make any content changes.
 * 4) Not helpful. The text added was inappropriate, confused/confusing or incorrect.
 * 5) Harmful. The text was a clear copy/paste job with no or little attempt at rewording.

Peter.C's reviews used a score that counted the number of good and bad edits. --Colin°Talk 08:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts
Colin°Talk 18:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Psychology articles on WP are lousy. Although that may make them appear ripe for any improvement, it makes them poor examples for editors to learn from and to work with. Their lead sections are often incomplete or otherwise a poor summary of the body. Or they are just stubs themselves. They may contain incorrect information too, which requires a fairly knowledgeable editor to fix -- so additional edits may just compound the problem. Often the existing sourcing/citations is poor.
 * Students need more help formatting proper inline citations. Need to be told not to use in-college urls, to include the article title in the citation (!) and that just saying "(Bloggs 2011)" isn't enough!
 * Some blatant copy/paste and some very poor attempts at rewording. In fairness, writing original text is made harder by the nature of the assignment: having only one source to work from and having just one sentence to formulate. If students had to read a variety of sources on the topic (even if they just used one) and wrote a longer piece of text, there would be more opportunity to vary the prose. Since these are 1st-year undergrads, taking an elementary course, I'm assuming that the students didn't already know the information they were adding -- in other words, they were largely relying on the source for their own knowledge. This also limits one's ability to rephrase and makes it easy to make mistakes when substituting words.
 * Some text added to DAB pages, to the wrong section or to the wrong article.
 * I can't access all the sources used so there may be other copy/paste issues I haven't detected.
 * Although some issues have already been reverted or fixed, many were not until I reviewed the changes. But I've reviewed only 10% 36% of the 300+ editors who are listed and that took quite some time.
 * The bulk of the additions have been reverted or not otherwise survived. Does that make this a net-negative? Since not all the revertable material is being detected (unless we see many other editors helping) much of these negative changes will remain. This is particularly problematic for incorrect text or where there are copyright issues.
 * Most of what remains isn't great. I don't think I saw any text+source that would survive if any of these articles were taken to FA level. In other words, this is not adding high-quality material to WP. It is adding weak material to existing weak articles.

Update: I see folk are adding to / changing this and that's fine. I haven't looked at the additions yet but to be clear, I didn't want this to be just a list of crimes. If the information and stats are to be useful, we need to objectively describe what the students did good/indifferent/ugly. There may be some merit in trying to categorise students/edits for example: I think later I'll add two columns: Best edit/Worst edit with the above numbers. These can then be sorted optimistically or pessimistically as you desire. Colin°Talk 09:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Beneficial. Appropriate, original reliably-sourced text was added to the article.
 * 2) No worse than what was there. The additions/changes had problems but they don't stand out because the article was already lousy.
 * 3) Didn't make any content changes.
 * 4) Not helpful. The text added was inappropriate, confused/confusing or incorrect.
 * 5) Harmful. The text was a clear copy/paste job with no or little attempt at rewording. Or the text was simply vandalism.
 * Yes as this is only 6% I thing it would be good to go through the rest and add them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd got it up to 10%, unless the numbers have grown some more! I'll dump the full list shortly and take a chunk to work on. If anyone else wants to volunteer then say and I'll chop it up. Plus, if anyone has access to the sources I mentioned above that I don't have, then you could review the copy/paste & accuracy issues I couldn't. Colin°Talk 18:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The class is done for the semester. We need to get this done to figure out what to do next semester. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Together with the 5 students added by Peter.C, we've now analysed 55 of the 317 students listed (17%). Note that some of the ratings/comments might get worse if someone with access to the textbook the students keep citing can check that for copy/paste and accuracy. Colin°Talk 23:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Summary 1
Summary so far: Of the first 50 students I analysed, 19 made no contributions so will be excluded from the rest of the stats when working out percentages. Eight students (26%) added text that harmed Wikipedia by copy/paste of copyright source text. A further sixteen students (52%) made edits that were so bad they were reverted. So three-quarters of the students made edits that needed to be removed. On the positive side, thirteen students made edits that weakly expanded our already weak psychology articles (42%) and a further three students (10%) made edits that were clearly beneficial. The inclusion of a student in one of the last two categories may be influenced by my mood at the time and also by me giving the benefit of the doubt to edits that cite a source I can't read. I suspect those numbers are optimistic. Colin°Talk 23:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Summary 2
Of the 116 students who I have analysed who registered: Of the 63 (54%) who made contributions: The positive contributions figure is optimistic: where I didn't have access to the source I gave the student the benefit of the doubt. An expert might also have spotted flaws in the text I missed.
 * 53 (46%) made no contributions to content.
 * 11 (17%) harmed Wikipedia by copy/paste of copyright source text and their edits were removed.
 * A further 36 (57%) made edits so bad that they were reverted.
 * A combined 47 (75%) made edits that left Wikipedia so much worse that they needed to be reverted.
 * 31 (49%) made edits that added sourced information to Wikipedia that was good enough to be kept.

None of the positive contributions were stellar. This was weak text, weakly sourced, added to weak articles.

Many of the bad edits were because the student added text to the wrong article or section. For example, adding to a dab article. These students sometimes got carried away at the apparent lack of information on WP and added paragraphs or sections of text when in fact the correct article had this already and sometimes was good enough to be GA level. Other reasons for bad edits were very poor English or most commonly, where the student clearly didn't understand what they were writing about. That this was obvious to a reviewer who hasn't studied the subject is an indication of the degree of confusion apparent in the writing.

Although some of the bad and copy/paste edits were removed by other editors, the bulk was only detected during this analysis. Therefore, the assumption that Wikipedia will clean up the mess made is false. Partly this is due to the neglected nature of psychology articles. It may also be due to articles being subject to multiple edits from several students -- folk may only look at the most recent changes in their watchlist. Some articles have been attacked by many students over the last couple of months and have been left wrecked in comparison to the slimmer but better text before.

No articles have been structurally improved, nor has any noticeable quantity of existing text been improved. The assignment was just to add a sentence or two.

No student has edited articles outside of the few they chose for this exercise, or made contributions considerably in excess of what was required.

No student has edited since the assignment completed.

No students wrote on or responded to talk page comments. No students asked for help. Even when messages were left on their user talk pages, there was no response. Therefore no students engaged with the Wikipedia community.

I don't believe existing plagiarism tools are useful for this kind of assignment (though don't know much about them). I would assume that any tool looking at an entire article would fail to spot that one sentence was structurally identical to its source and had only one or two words different. Many students chose to use textbooks, ancient journal articles, or articles that aren't free online as their source, which makes it harder for volunteer editors to check the facts and the originality.

Colin°Talk 22:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is indeed very disappointing. Thank you for your great effort in this matter. I will do a couple of other sections next week. Will than present the final results to the WMF and we will need to have a serious discussion on what to do next. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Confused-- 47 and 31= 78, not 63, percentages don't add, what am I reading wrong, but eeeeeek, this is really dismal. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are not exclusive sets. There were some editors who made good edits and bad edits. In fact, very roughly, a quarter of the contributing students did good, a quarter did good and bad and half did bad. Colin°Talk 07:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Group 2 - Peter.C
Grading system for group 2: Edits of users were viewed and analysed for copyright violations and issues. If an edit had some form of negative impact (such as poor formatting or a copyvio) it was deemed "bad". If an edit improved Wikipedia in a beneficial way, though expansion or a grammar fix, it was deemed a "good" edit. Peter.C •  talk  •  contribs  11:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: Unlike the score/grouping used in other sections, Peter.C's scoring is a count of the number of good and bad edits made. The two systems can't be directly compared but perhaps give a useful different way of looking at the same issue. --Colin°Talk 08:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts
I will refrain from doing any final calculations on the edits until I have completed them all, but for the most part there were very little "good" edits to Wikipedia articles. For the most part the students either a) did not edit any articles, or b) contributed in a way that was not beneficial to Wikipedia's content, or caused further harm. Despite these poor findings the "good" edits lead me to think that perhaps a program like this will work in a smaller class, or in a more regulated setting where it would be easier for an editor to correct a users edit quicker than slower to prevent further problematic edits down the road. I will continue grading in the next few days to come and I will be done by Saturday night at the latest. Peter.C •  talk  •  contribs  23:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts
Of the 98 students analysed in this batch 49 students added no content and 49 students did add content. Of the ones who added content none replied to talk page comments. There where issues with copy and paste of content with at least 4 of these editors. There where also many issues with using old sources or inappropriate sources as references. A couple of students did come back and fix some problems. One editor added vandalism here and was reverted by a bot. No user both properly formatted and used an WP:MEDRS appropriate source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 50% made an edit (49)

of this

These numbers are just a rough count late at night. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 8.2% copy and pasted (4)
 * 2% added simple vandalism (1)
 * 71% either added content that was not refed or the ref was inappropriate or the content was not comprehensible (35)
 * 18% added content that was okay (9)