User talk:Ryan (Wiki Ed)/2015b

Course page errors
Hey! My course page Education Program:CUNY, LaGuardia Community College/ENG103: The Research Paper (A Newbery Medal Project) (Spring 2015) seems to be randomly not allowing students (or myself) to add more than one article they are working on or plan to create. Sometimes it works and sometimes not. Am I missing something? HullIntegrity \ talk / 19:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Does it give an error message or just silently fail? Also may I try to add or remove some articles for your students to troubleshoot? Not sure if I'd have to, but I may. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just did a little testing on a test course page. The only practical limit I found was that it seems like I could only add 1 non-existent page (blacklink) to the list of articles a student is working on. Could it be they're trying to add multiple pages that do not yet exist? --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As Ryan notes, it's not possible to add more than one nonexistent page. (A related bug is that, even after you create a page that was assigned before it eixsted, it will not become a link on the course page.) If that's not the issue you're describing, let me know and I'll look into more.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we were trying to add more than one non-existent page. Hmm. That is annoying for organizational and planning purposes since my students create new articles. I'll devise a work-around. HullIntegrity  \ talk / 20:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki-Chem
Thanks for your patience with me. I am so agitated by these classroom projects, that I tend to go off with a rant. In any case, I think that I re-understand your question correctly now, so I tried to address it. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. I do know that frustration well -- I was a volunteer (on Wikipedia and with other organizations) long before I was a teacher or worked for Wiki Ed.


 * Would you mind restoring your previous comment and striking it rather than removing it (or maybe just add a line between my two posts indicating a removed response)? Without that context it may be kind of confusing.


 * I'll reply to your comments about my current project on the WT:CHEM talk page. While it's not related to the classroom program, but I hope you'll humor my taking the opportunity to write a few sentences on the matter (and if it's a sufficiently agitating subject that you'd rather not talk about it, feel free to ignore this).
 * There have definitely been classes that have caused serious problems in areas of Wikipedia and which have sapped significant amounts of volunteer time and energy. That's why I've been so enthusiastic about Wiki Ed -- a grant-funded organization with paid staff, separate from the WMF, which places an emphasis on developing and improving programs through a variety of staff, software, textual, etc. means.
 * Nobody wants classes on Wikipedia that don't send students through training, that don't have students work in sandboxes, that implement things like minimum word counts, that have students add original research, that don't take care to explain copyright and close paraphrasing, that don't ensure students engage on talk pages, that don't spend time going over sourcing guidelines, that have students work without any supervision, and so on.
 * Most of the work that we've been doing in the past ~year hasn't been about getting more students on here. To the contrary we've put most of our time and resources into working with existing classes and developing ways to make it so any class that we bring on board does all of the things I listed above. We rolled out new software/web tools this term and will be rolling out more in the fall. The assignment design wizard, for example, is good for instructors because it makes setting up and managing a class easier, but it's also good for us at Wiki Ed for the same reason it should also be exciting to Wikipedians: it's through it that we can factor in community input and shape/influence the content and structure of how people teach with Wikipedia. Basically, it builds the things from the list above into an assignment plan. And when we compare the work done by classes that used the tools to those that didn't, the difference is significant. That's really promising. We'll never get to the point where every student is writing featured articles and there will always be some that just don't follow instructions, but with the right systems and support structures in place, the quality of contributions should continue to increase -- and more to the point, the drain on community energies should decrease.
 * I'm not saying all of this to try to convince you that student editing is awesome. With the negative experiences you've had working with student editors, I know that would take seeing an awful lot of really great classwork with your own eyes. What I do want to convince you of is that Wiki Ed is committed to improving the quality of student work, prioritizing it over the number of students, number of classes, or the elusive "retention". I also want to convince you that I/we genuinely want to hear any suggestions you have for how to improve our processes. For example, let's say you don't think there's any hope at all for students editing chemistry articles. So what kinds of assignments could they do on Wikipedia that would help in some way without even getting into editing articles? --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yo MTV RAPS WIKIPEDIA PAGE
Hello Ryan,Just wanted to mention that my name is T-Money. I was part of the cast of Yo MTV Raps from 1988 to 1995. I was also know as the mailman. I wasn't mentioned in your Wikipedia version of the show. I also was part of Def Jams Recordings Original Concept which also included Doctor Dre. I need to know if there is any way you can submit a re edit or should I have it done myself. Please email if you can.

DJTMONEY2000@YAHOO.com

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.116.237 (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Wikipedia actually has some very good resources to help new editors with questions like this. If you ask at this page: WP:TEAHOUSE, they should be able to help. This account is for work associated with the Wiki Education Foundation, so I'm sorry that's not something I can help you with today. I'll leave a message on your user talk page with some additional links to resources and information. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Two Questions for LAE 6389
Hi Ryan, My class is working on revisions to articles in their sandboxes (and they appear to be using ones associated with their user pages rather than the ones listed for the course), and they have signed up for peer review. Someone from outside the class has signed up to peer review one of the articles. Is that normal? I don't think that really fits with the course, but it may be a good thing. I don't know. Also, one of the students has a question about pages that forward to another similar title. She wants to work on Revenge Tragedy, which is different from Revenge Play but associated with it. she's posted a question on our talk page. Finally (I guess I have three questions), what does it mean if the course page has been patrolled? Thanks for your help. LLRungegordon (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Great to hear things are progressing. If you want, you can have students list their sandbox page on the course page in the same way they do their article. For example, where it says "Add an article" you (or they) could type "User:Studentusername/sandbox" (without quotes) and it will appear next to the article title.
 * It's expected -- or at least common -- for other Wikipedians to provide feedback to students about their work, but not by signing up for peer review on the course page, if that's what you mean. What's the username?
 * A page being marked as "patrolled" refers to New pages patrol. It's a mechanism through which experienced users can look through newly created pages to make sure they're appropriate (not spam, not attack pages, not vandalism, not test pages, etc.). For something like a course page, it's relatively meaningless :)
 * would you mind looking into the Revenge play/Revenge tragedy matter?
 * Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * THanks, Ryan. The user name is Fredericka_Eiler, and she has signed on to the course page as a peer reviewer.  2607:FE50:0:6203:E5B1:4922:A33D:626F (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)LLRungegordon (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, Ryan., I've left a note for your student about the redirected articles. Those can be a little confusing even for veteran wikipedia editors. Redirects are designed to be innocuous so figuring out both that you need to fix them and how to do so are tricky at first. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Application for visiting scholar at the University of Pittsburgh
I probably don't fit the the 'profile' of a visiting scholar and I don't even attend the University of Pittsburgh at this time. I was in a graduate program back in the 1980s in the Graduate School of Public Health. Since I live so close to the University, about ten minutes away, I would like to supplement the position with actual contact with those who want content created for the University. I might need to meet with the various libraries to 'learn' how to remotely access their materials. I would like to identify the collections that have been digitized and also convince those involved with this project that it is in their best interest to either have a more permanent Wikipedia scholar in residence or allow a limited number of editors access to their materials remotely. I don't have a resume except my editing activity because for the past 30 years I have been raising a family and maintaining a home.

One perspective that I do have is my ability to identify reliable sources that lead to notability and verification. As an editor I don't even add content unless I have a source. My editing is rarely reverted due to this. I am heavily involved in helping to encourage new editors in their editing. This explains the large number of edits that I have on talk pages. Let me know if I am able to pursue this position based upon my editing activity alone or do I have to try to generate a resume. Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 10:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I'm so glad you're interested in the program.
 * Visiting Scholars are necessarily remote positions, but that's primarily to open them up to as many Wikipedians as possible (and sometimes to limit the amount of time staff must commit). Candidates can't be required to be local, but if the Scholar happens to be local and wants to engage/work on campus, I think that's great. That'll be something to discuss right at the outset, of course. I should say, however, that while further engagement is great, it's useful to retain a distinction between Visiting Scholars and other kinds of positions like Wikipedian in Residence or Campus Ambassador. As a Visiting Scholar, the only priority is using resources materials to improve articles in a topic area of mutual interest, and communicating plans/results to some extent.
 * Your on-wiki activity is most important, but since the institutions do create an official position for the Scholar, I think the resume is a human resources requirement. Perhaps a cover letter that included contact information could suffice. I'll check and get back to you about that. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I can generate something that highlights my education. Do you think a reference letter might help? I understand the idea of working remotely-it could actually demonstrate the benefit so well to the University that they would request a Wikipedian in residence (not necessarily me) after the position ends. I don't think the Ambassador work would be of benefit here in Pittsburgh.  Another editor and I have been trying to generate interest since April and have been largely unsuccessful at this point.   Bfpage &#124;leave a message 21:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * On a mostly unrelated note, I don't know if you've seen that Wiki Ed is going to be running a "Wikipedia Year of Science" campaign next year. It'll involve all of our programs. That includes the Community Engagement Program, through which we work to bring resources from academia to the Wikipedia community. Taking on the Visiting Scholars program is part of that. For the Year of Science, I've been soliciting ideas for the kinds of things Wikipedians who work on science-related articles want or need that could come from academia, academic organizations, academic libraries, academic museums, specific faculty/staff, etc. Some thing people have suggested already include a way to bring more experts to Wikipedia, soliciting and/or facilitating media donations, conducting content gap analyses, getting access to specific journals or databases for specific WikiProjects, etc.
 * Again, unrelated to Visiting Scholars, but if any such ideas occur to you anytime in the next months, I'd love to hear them :) --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The editors who regularly edit science and med articles are pretty, hmmm, how do I describe this....lets' just say that none of them or very few are interested in encouraging new science editors or volunteer on the Wiki project Welcoming committee or the Teahouse. At this point I see this as a big problem.  If you want to bring more experts to Wikipedia, they really would have to be really groomed to take criticism, accept edit reversions, criticism of their sourcing, crucifixion if they accidentally don't realize the problems with original research and other such affronts that suggest that their expertise is in question.  I hope I am communicating this problem sufficiently.  You would have to get a commitment or funding so someone, full time would be the 'official encourager' of these new scientific, experts.  Those who are experts are not accustomed to having their writing questioned by anyone other than their peers. You would almost need an 'expert' ambassador.  There is a lot of ownership of articles in the sciences with very little collaboration.  It isn't apparent on the surface, but I would expect to see the new 'experts' challenged quite often especially if their edit count is low. There is definitely a pecking order in Project Medicine and I think in the sciences somewhat based on edit counts, and in Project Medicine, occupation, and the correct use of sourcing.  Project Medicine guidelines for sourcing are the most stringent in the Projects and those who step out of line are pounced upon.  I see editors come and go because they weren't able to understand the nuances of participation in Project Medicine.  I don't know if I helped but there may be a bit of 'Pollyanna' in your thinking that experts are going to flock to Wikipedia and contribute content that can be removed by a 14-year-old.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 21:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No Pollyanna here :) I agree with the general point you're making. Lots of people have tried to get experts/academics to edit Wikipedia. I still think that's worth doing, but you're right that Wikipedia has a messy relationship with experts both practically and ideologically. I have an academic background and work with a lot of academics through Wiki Ed, so have heard more than a few stories from experts chased away from Wikipedia. It's well and good to try to prepare people for what they will encounter, but it's hard to do effectively in my experience, in addition to being an uncomfortable conversation to have with people that may inadvertently convince them not to bother. Nonetheless, there are a lot of people -- even in those WikiProjects which impose high standards -- who really want experts on Wikipedia. So the question is how to make it work. To me, the answer is mediated engagement or coming up with alternative projects to aid WikiProjects. We're definitely going to try something along these lines next year, if not sooner, but the details are fuzzy and I'm still collecting ideas (about expert engagement or anything else along the lines of the examples I mentioned above). I do also want to mention that although some areas of Wikipedia are quite difficult to work in (medicine and psychology being two that come to mind), lots of other science topics are much more welcoming. We're also interpreting "science" loosely for the Year of Science, so sociology, linguistics, and other social sciences would be included, too. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Great idea about experts being in a separate project! That way they can get the recognition they want/deserve and editors can come to them with requests.  After all, we do have a template that does that very thing-it asks for expert input.  We have editors go to the Copy editors guild for help along with the library people...I think you are on to something there.  Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 22:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll keep you posted when we start moving on that project. In the meantime do ping me if you have other ideas for what from the world of academia might help Wikipedians. Coming back to the original purpose of this thread, though they'll likely request some additional information, I have confirmation that you're ok sans resume. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Great Job on the Dashboard
Great job on the Visiting Scholars dashboard. One glitch is that it 'counts' redirects as article creations. I have not really created 30 articles, but the dashboard says that I have. You are giving me more credit than I deserve. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I just sent an email about this and a few other things. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)