Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Capilano University/ENGL 300 - Digital Writing Studio (Spring 2018)

This course introduces students to various genres and platforms of “writing” (composition, research, scholarship, and public writing) in the age of digital environments.

Week 8
Welcome to the first block in the timeline for the &quot;Wikipedia Read|Write&quot; Assignment. This timeline will guide you through this project for your course, ENGL 300, Digital Writing Studio.

This assignment is offered through WikiEdu which is a resource for courses across the planet that have decided to use Wikipedia proactively in an educational context.

This assignment assumes that while we may be readers (consumers) of Wikipedia we are not yet users. It begins with an introduction to the Wikipedia workspace and the process of making basic edits.

The assignment is also an introduction to the expectations of the Wikipedia editorial community and its peer-review and peer-editing procedures. The processes on Wikipedia often parallel academic peer review and standards of evidence but also diverges from them in significant ways.

The first steps of this assignment, to be completed in class today, include a few online trainings to help you get oriented with the Wikipedia community. We will as a class pursue the basic question underlying our assignment: how can we apply our discussions of rhetoric, digital rhetoric and style to the execution of a collaborative writing and publication assignment on Wikipedia?

After some introduction to the basic editing process and some orientation regarding editing norms, our actual assignment will begin. It will be carried out in a group format -- 3 students per group. Each student-member of the group should share the same topic of interest for their final paper: manifestos, public apologies, or podcasts. Together your group will either contribute 4-5 paragraphs to an existing article or create a new article related in some way to your group's topic of choice. Your 4-5 paragraphs will touch on your topic but also contribute a rhetorical analysis of a specific example of your chosen genre or platform: a specific manifesto, a specific apology, or a specific podcast (which might include an analysis of the interaction between spoken word, sound, and/or music on the podcast). These 4-5 paragraphs will be drafted, edited, in Wikipedia's offline &quot;safe space&quot; the &quot;Sandbox&quot; (see the upper right of any Wikipedia page) and then eventually added to the live Wikipedia website, where official editors may ask for further additions or changes. At the end of the assignment your 3-person group will have made significant contributions to an entry in your topic area.

The mark for this project is issued not only for the quality of the rhetorical analysis of your chosen artifact but also how your group demonstrates an awareness of Wikipedia itself as an example of what Lloyd Bitzer calls a particular &quot;rhetorical situation&quot; (&quot;The Rhetorical Situation&quot; 1968).

For the time being, though before assembling into groups for writing, lets do some preliminary orientation. We can learn what Wikipedia expects from its writers and what kinds of genre and/or rhetorical standards it expects from its articles.

Our course has also been assigned a Wikipedia Content Expert from WikiEdu. Check your Talk page for notes from them. You can also reach them through the &quot;Get Help&quot; button at the top right of this page.

To get started, please review the following handouts:


 * Editing Wikipedia pages 1–5
 * Evaluating Wikipedia

Don't be concerned that they mention &quot;writing&quot; articles -- this can include just &quot;contributing&quot; to articles as well.

Questions for follow-up discussion after reviewing the handouts above:


 * Wikipedia's &quot;No original research&quot; policy policy: what is it and why do they have it?
 * What kind of sources are we used to working with in academia (primary and secondary)? How do they differ from working with an encyclopedia (tertiary source)?
 * How does Wikipedia define evidence or credibility differently than we do in academic or scholarly research?
 * What is peer-review and does it differ from the Wikipedia editorial process?


 * If you do not have an account on Wikipedia already you can open one by clicking the &quot;Log In&quot; link at the top right corner of any standard Wikipedia page.
 * Create an account (using your first and or last name in some way so that you are identifiable to other members of our class). Then join our custom &quot;ENGL 300&quot; Wiki Edu course page, using the enrollment link your instructor sent you by e-mail. The link should be in your Capilano University Student e-mail.
 * Now it's time to dive into Wikipedia a bit further below. In the next block or module below you'll find the first set of online trainings you'll need to take. New modules will appear on this timeline as you get to new milestones. Be sure to check back and complete them! Incomplete trainings will be reflected in your grade.

Make a note: the &quot;Wikipedia Read|Write&quot; Project concludes with a response paper in which you reflect upon your experiences in the assignment itself. This will be our second and final response paper for ENGL 300.

Take a moment, at the start of this project, and make a few written notes about your expectations, perhaps biases or initial impressions about the project or about writing for or editing Wikipedia. What academic writing skills, if any, might you gain (or lose)? Are you skeptical about the usefulness of the project? Peer review will happen here; is that a useful part of a writing process for you? What do you think about having your writing edited or deleted by others? By anonymous Wikipedians? How was your childhood? Tell me all about your mother....

Later on you can refer to ways in which these expectations were confirmed or refuted at the completion of the project -- in your concluding response paper.

These initial notes or thoughts will not be collected or marked.

By the end of this first week, everyone should have a Wikipedia account and a good working knowledge of the behind-the-scenes editing space on Wikipedia.

Week 9
It's time to start thinking critically about Wikipedia articles. In this section you will evaluate a Wikipedia article of your choice, and leave at least two suggestions (or more if you like) for improving it on the article's Talk page. This activity asks us to look at Wikipedia through an academic lens.

Step One


 * First, complete the &quot;Evaluating Articles and Sources&quot; training (linked below).

Then move on to Step Two


 * Select an article or two -- start browsing Wikipedia for articles related to a topic about which you consider yourself to have some measure of academic (or personal) &quot;expertise.&quot; Sports? Pets? Music? Biology? Finance? Consider some criticisms of the article you just selected (but don't feel like you need to be limited to these exact examples):
 * Is each claim or fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you or seemed not relevant?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Are there points or view points that are not included in the article?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any plagiarism in the article (material that has not been cited)?
 * Is any information out of date? Are the sources out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Or, simply take your guidelines from the &quot;Evaluating Articles and Sources&quot; tutorial.

Come up with at least 2 thoughts, questions or comments (guided by the suggestions above) relevant to the article you're evaluating. Leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page (leave two thoughts on one article Talk page or two separate thoughts on two different article Talk pages). The Talk page can be accessed on the upper left of any Wikipedia article. The format for talking is loose, so make it up as you go along if you are unsure.

To do this: once you are on the &quot;Talk&quot; page, you can make annotations or additions to an existing comment &quot;Section&quot; by clicking &quot;Edit&quot; at the top right. Or, you can add your own brand new comment/observation &quot;Section&quot; by clicking &quot;New Section.&quot;

Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC). Whenever you conclude an edit on Wikipedia with this code you will automatically insert the time and your user name into the comment (that is, if you are logged into Wikipedia when you make the change -- as you should be so our course &quot;Dashboard&quot; can track your progress). Hit &quot;Publish changes&quot; at the bottom when you have added your comments.

In this assignment you will practice using the Edit Page. It can be found at the top right of any Wikipedia page.

Choose any Wikipedia article. It should be different than any of the ones you have selected above. Find one, perhaps, that reflects a current event in the world. Note that if events are too current, or still unfolding in real time, Wikipedia may lock editing on them.

Click on &quot;Edit&quot; on the upper right, and use this page to read through and make two copy (or proofreading) edits. This might involve things such as fixing grammatical mistakes; breaking up longer sentences into shorter sentences; joining two shorter sentences to make longer sentences, or adding transition phrases (&quot;however&quot;; &quot;first, second, third&quot;;  &quot;moreover&quot;; &quot;for example&quot;; etc.). Then, make the appropriate changes. Save them by clicking the &quot;Save&quot; button at the bottom. Return to the &quot;Article&quot; front page to make sure your changes were accepted.

A short overview of how to edit is here.

Remember that Wikipedia etiquette also asks you to complete the &quot;Edit summary&quot; box when you make an edit and before you &quot;Publish&quot; your changes. The edit summary box is reviewed here. Add a note like &quot;typo&quot; or &quot;spelling error&quot; or &quot;grammatical improvement.&quot; You may be contacted later by a Wikipedia editor about your change. Feel free to engage with their comments, reject them or ignore them.

For this assignment you DO NOT need to contribute new information, ideas, or research to your chosen article.

Now that you're thinking about what makes a &quot;good&quot; Wikipedia article, consider some additional questions about &quot;neutrality.&quot;


 * How do we define &quot;neutral&quot;? Does it mean the same thing as &quot;objective&quot;? &quot;Balanced&quot;? &quot;Unbiased&quot;?
 * How do different rhetorical communities define neutrality or balance differently? An encyclopedia editor? A journalist? An academic?
 * Does neutrality indicate the absence of bias? Or a heightened awareness of one's own bias? Are those the same thing? Should a writer be &quot;up front&quot; about his/her biases? Or can he/she simply cast them aside?  Example for discussion: The political leanings of a teacher.
 * Why do we value the lack of bias?

Students will learn how to use the Talk page and the Edit page to propose or make changes on an article.

Week 10
This week you will gather as a group, crack your knuckles and get down to the business of selecting an article topic and making a draft of what you plan to add in your Sandbox. Your group will select a Wikipedia article or topic broadly related to one of the three topics of our final Scalar research project: manifesto, (public) apology or the podcast. You will try to isolate an existing or possible Wikipedia article you can either REVISE or WRITE from the ground up. Your additions to WIkipedia should be based on a minimum of four paragraphs (for the whole group) and the introduction of two academic sources on the topic. Some of your addition to Wikipedia may include summary, paraphrase or direct quotation of those sources.

Start by:


 * Reviewing page 6 of your Editing Wikipedia guidebook.
 * Next we move on to rounding up some sources that can serve as material to add to or build the article that suits your group's chosen topic.

As a group compile a list of relevant, reliable books, journal articles, or other sources. Post that bibliography to the talk page of the article you'll be working on, and in your Sandbox (or in the Sandbox of one of your group members). Make sure to make notes on a persons &quot;Talk&quot; page if you want to communicate about the project.

You've picked a topic and found your sources. Now it's time to start writing.

'''Creating a new article?

'''


 * Write an outline of that topic in the form of a standard Wikipedia article's &quot;lead section.&quot; Write it in your sandbox (your group members may prefer to work in one sandbox -- pick one person's).
 * Consider whether you want to build on Wikipedia's existing format for article. For example, do you want to create or build on a &quot;lead&quot; section?  A &quot;lead&quot; section is not a traditional introduction. It should summarize, very briefly, what the rest of the article will say in detail. The first paragraph should include important, broad facts about the subject. A good example is Ada Lovelace. See Editing Wikipedia page 9 for more ideas.

'''Improving or revising the paragraphs of an existing article?

'''


 * Identify what's missing from the current form of the article. Think back to the skills you learned while critiquing an article. Make notes for improvement in existing articles in that article'ssandbox; you may have editors reply to your thoughts.

Review your sources, too, as you prepare to write, add to or modify the body of the article.

Resources: Editing Wikipedia pages 7–9

Each group has selected a topic, picked an article and started drafting it (or compiling selected edits and revisions).

Week 11

 * Expand and refine the draft of your article or article additions and changes.
 * Include at least two academically credible sources.
 * If you'd like a Content Expert from Wikipedia to review your group's draft, now is the time. Click the &quot;Get Help&quot; button in your sandbox to request notes from a professional Wikipedia expert.

Drafts have been nearly finalized.

Week 12
Once you've made improvements to your article based on peer review feedback, it's time to move your work to Wikipedia proper - the &quot;mainspace.&quot;

Editing an existing article?


 * NEVER copy and paste your draft of an article over the entire article. Instead, edit small sections at a time.
 * Copy your edits into the article. Make many small edits, saving each time, and leaving an edit summary. Never replace more than one to two sentences without saving!

Creating a new article?


 * Read Editing Wikipedia page 13, and follow those steps to move your article from your Sandbox to Mainspace.
 * You can also review the Sandboxes and Mainspace online training.

Do additional research and writing to make further improvements to your article, based on suggestions and your own critique.


 * Read Editing Wikipedia page 12 to see how to create links from your article to others, and from other articles to your own. Try to link to 3–5 articles, and link to your article from 2–3 other articles.
 * Consider adding an image to your article. Wikipedia has strict rules about what media can be added, so make sure to take the 'Contributing Images and Media Files' training before you upload an image.

Continue to expand and improve your work, and format your article to match Wikipedia's tone and standards. Remember to contact your Content Expert at any time if you need further help!

Week 13
It's the final week to develop your article.


 * Read Editing Wikipedia page 15 to review a final check-list before completing your assignment.
 * Don't forget that you can ask for help from your Content Expert at any time!

Write a short response paper (2–3 paragraphs) on your experience with Wikipedia and the Wikipedia assignment.

Consider the following questions as you reflect on our course Wikipedia assignment:


 * Critiquing articles: What did you learn about Wikipedia during the article evaluation? How did you approach critiquing the article you selected for this assignment? How did you decide what to add to your chosen article?
 * Summarizing your contributions: include a summary of your edits and why you felt they were a valuable addition to the article. How does your article compare to earlier versions?
 * Peer Review: If your class did peer review, include information about the peer review process. What did you contribute in your review of your peers article? What did your peers recommend you change on your article?
 * Feedback: Did you receive feedback from other Wikipedia editors, and if so, how did you respond to and handle that feedback?
 * Wikipedia generally: What did you learn from contributing to Wikipedia? How does a Wikipedia assignment compare to other assignments you've done in the past? How can Wikipedia be used to improve public understanding of our field/your topic? Why is this important?

Everyone should have finished all of the work they'll do on Wikipedia, and be ready for grading.