User:Theredproject/sandbox/Wiki Assignment

Project overview
Your assignment is to choose an underdeveloped Design and Digital Media related subject to research and write about on Wikipedia. You will perform a literature search on that subject, and create a new article or expand an existing one, following any and all Wikipedia standards first and foremost. During the active project phase, you will monitor and respond to feedback on your article, and assist other students by reading and commenting on their work.

Project details
This assignment is worth 50 points.

In the first 1/4 of the semester, you will choose a Design and Digital Media related article to work on. Once you have chosen your article, you will write up a one page proposal, outlining important information about it, what points you will cover in your article, and a short list of resources. You will make an appointment to meet with me during class and discuss your proposal. The deadlines for this assignment are listed below.

Once you have gotten my approval, work to create an interesting, in depth article about your chosen subject. Make sure you familiarize yourself with encyclopedia-type writing before you begin. Writing for Wikipedia is very different from writing an essay, although not that far from writing a descriptive scientific paper, and you need to fit in with the proper format. Please read the following guidelines to get a handle on how you should write your article BEFORE you start writing:
 * 1) What Wikipedia is not, which summarizes what Wikipedia is, and what it is not;
 * 2) Neutral point of view, which describes Wikipedia's core approach to neutral, unbiased article-writing;
 * 3) No original research, which explains what is, and is not, valid encyclopedic information;
 * 4) Verifiability, which explains what counts as a verifiable source and how a source can be verified;
 * 5) Citing sources, which describes what kinds of sources should be cited and the manner of doing so; and
 * 6) Manual of Style, which offers a style guide.

Wikipedia maintains a high standard of writing, and has taken great pains to improve these standards. You need to follow their directions to the letter, since deviating from these standards will invite article deletion.

Regarding the length of the article, quality of sources used, please see these articles from COM 232 two years ago: Ladislav Sutnar, or The Hobby Horse. For work by students from other universities written during Wikipedia focused courses: here, here or here.

Feel free to include photos, but remember that not all pictures on the web are free for the taking. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's Copyright Policy to ensure you are not doing anything wrong (copyright violation, in the real, world, means what plagiarism in academia). Remember that any violation will be caught and dealt with by the plethora of editors on the site (and you do not want your group article to suddenly sprout a copyvio template like this 2009 group did...).

Your article must include at least 5 academic book or journal sources. However, keep in mind that this is a minimum requirement. On Wikipedia, every sentence or paragraph that makes a claim needs to be cited. You should also include a list of external links giving the reader more information on your subject, and link to your page from other Wikipedia pages, so your page is not an orphan. To answer that question in your head: yes, you can go on someone else's article and link to your own. That's the beauty of Wiki!

I encourage you to use Peer Review and related tools (see tips section below) and seek creative comments on your article. In other words, if you can get other Wikipedia editors to help you, more power to you!

Once you begin writing your article, you are required to respond to any comments on your paper and act accordingly (make proper changes, defend your choices, etc). These comments will give you substantial feedback on your work, and allow you to make your final product better. (Besides, I'm going to spend the semester reading your work and commenting on it--if you listen to my feedback, you'll end up with a much better grade. It's like I'm pre-grading it for you!)

Finally, you will read and evaluate/comment on your classmates' articles. Please make your comments constructive and useful. You will not get credit for such comments as "good article!" or "I liked it!" Suggest something that can be realistically improved, compare their article to yours and see if your group has learned any tricks that can help them. Also refrain from any abusive or inappropriate language. Remember, you are part of the public face of CSI for the semester--make us proud.

At the end of the semester, you will turn into me the following items in a print-out version:


 * 1) A print out of constructive comments you made when reviewing the work of another group, so I can give you the points for reviewing other articles. Please highlight your user name for clarity. Label that page(s) as: Review of other group work.
 * 2) A print out of constructive comments you made on your own group article's talk page, and on the talk pages of other editors (if relevant). Label that page(s) as: Communication during our group work. Note that only on-wiki communication is accepted, off-wiki communication like emails and such will not be graded.

Term Project Grading

 * The term assignment is worth 50 points of the final grade.
 * 25 points are awarded for in progress work, including drafts, proposals.
 * 25 points are awarded for the final article

Here is a description of quality classes for an article. I will award up to 25 bonus points for progress beyond a B Class article, towards a GA class.

Here is a checklist for article quality.


 * Paper is on one of the subject that was approved by the instructor
 * Paper includes intro summary (lead in the Wikipedia terminology), at least 3 body paragraphs per group member, conclusion, and bibliography
 * There are no grammatical/spelling errors throughout the paper (that does include absence of spurious capitalization, like Sociology instead of sociology and so on)
 * Introduction summarizes the subject properly and does not include unique information not present in the main body of the article
 * Conclusion sums up the paper without ending abruptly
 * Paper is structured logically, and there are no weird gaps (Note: "weird gaps" occur for example when you chose to write about a historical trend, but your group "forgets" to research few centuries in the middle; or when you are presenting an overview by country, but decide that few random countries are enough, because you use an arbitrary "two countries per group" member rule instead of thinking which countries are important to cover for the subject discussed)
 * Sources used are reliable
 * In-paper citations are present and used correctly according to Wikipedia format see Citing sources
 * In-paper citations are done in a consistent format, and provide all the necessary information (in brief: author's name, publication title, publisher information, page number if source has pages, URL if source is online, see ASA style for details)
 * Body of the paper explores the chosen subject in adequate detail. (Note: “adequate detail” means I shouldn’t be able to do a quick literature search and find information not included in the paper. I want you to search current and past literature, books, newspapers, websites, etc. and summarize all the information you find into an easy-to-read and understand paper. If you are missing major bits of information, or have included incorrect information without citations to back up your findings, you will lose major points here).
 * Paper should conform to Wikipedia writing standards (Neutral point of view, No original research)

I will grade your activity based on two primary factors:
 * Whether you contributed to your paper on a regular basis (every few days) or not
 * Whether you were active on the article's talk page. This means that I see that attempted to address and fix any and all comments/suggestions given by me, your colleagues, the reviewer and the Wikipedia community. If the change was not made, adequate explanation was given (which did not include "this is for an research assignment, so leave us alone")

How to fail the assignment:
 * plagiarism, or extensive quotations
 * missing deadlines
 * logging in an editing only at the very end of the course, where you discover you are not sure how to edit Wikipedia, and that your contribution does not really fit the articles your other members were working on
 * not participating in the talk page discussions