Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston/BRAWN SI Writing and Rhetoric Edit-a-thon

=BRAWN Summer Institute 2021 Workshop N. Writing and Rhetoric Edit-a-thon=

Facilitators:
 * Cecelia Musselman, Northeastern University
 * Rebecca Thorndike-Breeze, MIT

At age 20, Wikipedia is far and away the largest encyclopedia in English and the largest collaborative writing project ever. But there is plenty left to work on! This edit-a-thon will focus on improving articles on writing, writing studies, and rhetoric. Session facilitators will help participants get set up and begin editing articles, with a special focus on contributing to articles flagged as important or needing attention by WikiProject Writing. Participants may choose to improve vital articles, like Essay, that still need a lot of work, or contribute new articles on topics or people who are important to the writing studies field, paying special attention to the list of needed articles identified by WikiProject Writing

=Finding an article to work on= WikiProject Writing has useful lists of articles needing creation or editing under the Open tasks tab.

WikiProject Women in Red has lists of redlinked women needing articles. These lists are arranged by occupation, geography, and time period (among other things).

Similarly, WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, WikiProject African diaspora, and WikiProject Asian Americans (among many WikiProjects!) may also have useful links, lists, and ways to find articles to work on.

=Some Wikipedia principles in short= As academics making the transition to editing for Wikipedia, we'll want to keep a few guiding principles in mind:
 * NPOV: Wikipedia values a neutral point of view
 * Verifiability: We should be able to provide credible third party sources.
 * No original research: Wikipedia requires that editors avoid inserting anything that might be considered original research, including information gained from personal experience or interviews that the editor has conducted.

So, for example, if I add the line, "Dogs are dumb," to an article, I've gone against all of these principles: the statement isn't neutral, it provides no source and so is not verifiable, and it is an assertion of my own ideas on the subject. If however, I am quoted in a national newspaper as saying, "Dogs are dumb," and then Rebecca reads that, she could justifiably include a line saying, "Cecelia stated that 'Dogs are dumb,'[citation here]." Her sentence is cited (verifiable), it's neutral (even if the stated opinion is not), and because it's cited, it is not original research.

We also want to remember:
 * Notability: Article subjects should be notable, not just to a local or US audience, but globally.

Wikipedia loves documentation:
 * It has an extensive Manual of style.
 * Help is available under the Help link in the left hand menu (among other places).
 * The Wiki Education Foundation has a very helpful series of short brochures on editing/contributing to Wikipedia that are specifically designed for higher ed: https://wikiedu.org/for-instructors/#subject-specific

=Meet WikiEd= The Wiki Education Foundation offers many resources and course support for instructors in higher ed who want to work with Wikipedia in their courses!

If you're interested in getting involved, I recommend contacting Helaine Blumenthal: https://wikiedu.org/

If you'd like to have WikiEd support a course this fall, applications for support are open until June 20. Contact Helaine for further details.