Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Clackamas Community College/English Composition (Summer 2018)

Introduces the academic essay. Students learn to use a writing process, from brainstorming to polishing, as they develop original responses to challenging articles and academic essays. The class emphasizes information literacy: how to find and evaluate source material, as well as integrate and cite it.

Week 2
Welcome to your Wikipedia project's course timeline. This page will guide you through the Wikipedia project for your course. Be sure to check Moodle for the full set of assignments and instructions for this class.

This page breaks down writing a Wikipedia article into a series of steps, or milestones. These steps include online trainings to help you get started on Wikipedia.

Your course has also been assigned a Wikipedia Expert. Check your Talk page for notes from them. You can also reach them through the &quot;Get Help&quot; button on this page.

To get started, please review the following handouts:


 * Editing Wikipedia pages 1–5
 * Evaluating Wikipedia


 * Create an account and join this course page, using the enrollment link your instructor sent you. (To avoid hitting Wikipedia's account creation limits, this is best done outside of class. Only 6 new accounts may be created per day from the same IP address.)
 * It's time to dive into Wikipedia. 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.
 * When you finish the trainings, practice by introducing yourself to a classmate on that classmate’s Talk page.

This week, everyone should have a Wikipedia account.

Week 3
It's time to think critically about Wikipedia articles. You'll evaluate a Wikipedia article and leave suggestions for improving it on the article's Talk page.


 * Complete the &quot;Evaluating Articles and Sources&quot; training (linked above).
 * Create a section in your sandbox titled &quot;Article evaluation&quot; where you'll leave notes about your observations and learnings.
 * Choose an article on Wikipedia related to a topic that interests you to read and evaluate. As you read, consider the following questions (but don't feel limited to these):
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class or the way you've seen it talked about in other spaces?
 * Optional: Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — Anthonxq (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC).

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


 * Wikipedians often talk about &quot;content gaps.&quot; What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them?
 * What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them?
 * Does it matter who writes Wikipedia?
 * What does it mean to be &quot;unbiased&quot; on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of &quot;bias&quot;?

Familiarize yourself with editing Wikipedia by adding a citation to an article. There are two ways you can do this:


 * Add 1-2 sentences to a course-related article, and cite that statement to a reliable source, as you learned in the online training.
 * The Citation Hunt tool shows unreferenced statements from articles. First, evaluate whether the statement in question is true! An uncited statement could just be lacking a reference or it could be inaccurate or misleading. Reliable sources on the subject will help you choose whether to add it or correct the statement.


 * Review page 6 of your Editing Wikipedia guidebook.
 * Look at the list of available articles in the &quot;Articles&quot; tab at the top of this project page and select 3-5 of these that you might be interested in updating on Wikipedia. Review the content of the article and check the Talk page to see what other Wikipedians are already contributing. Identify what the key areas are of each that you could improve.
 * Choose 2-3 potential articles from that list that you can tackle, and post links to the articles and your notes about what you might improve in your sandbox.
 * Finally, present your choices to your instructor for feedback--see Moodle for full instructions for this presentation.

Week 4

 * Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?
 * What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?
 * What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?
 * What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?


 * On the Students tab, assign your chosen topic to yourself.
 * In your sandbox, write a few sentences about what you plan to contribute to the selected article.
 * Think back to when you did an article critique. What can you add? Post some of your ideas to the article's talk page, too.
 * 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. Make sure to check in on the Talk page to see if anyone has advice on your bibliography.

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

'''Creating a new article?

'This is a somewhat more challenging approach because a new topic needs to be relevant and not already be covered by an existing article to really warrant a new entry. If you're considering this approach, please let me know and we will work together on making sure the article you propose covers new ground.'

'''


 * Write an outline of that topic in the form of a standard Wikipedia article's &quot;lead section.&quot; Write it in your sandbox.
 * 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 an existing article?

'This is most likely what you will be doing this term. It's generally much easier to improve on a bare-bones start of an article than to create one from scratch.'

'''


 * 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 your sandbox.

Keep reading your sources, too, as you prepare to write the body of the article.

Resources: Editing Wikipedia pages 7–9

Everyone has begun writing their article drafts.

Week 5

 * Keep working on transforming your article into a complete first draft. Get draft ready for peer-review.
 * If you'd like a Wikipedia Expert to review your draft, now is the time! Click the &quot;Get Help&quot; button in your sandbox to request notes.


 * What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of &quot;neutrality&quot;?
 * What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
 * On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. What kinds of sources does this exclude? Can you think of any problems that might create?
 * If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?


 * First, take the &quot;Peer Review&quot; online training.
 * Select two classmates’ articles that you will peer review and copyedit. On the Articles tab, find the articles that you want to review. Then in the &quot;My Articles&quot; section of the Home tab, assign them to yourself to review.
 * Peer review your classmates' drafts. Leave suggestions on the Talk page of the article, or sandbox, that your fellow student is working on. Other editors may be reviewing your work, so look for their comments! Be sure to acknowledge feedback from other Wikipedians.
 * As you review, make spelling, grammar, and other adjustments. Pay attention to the tone of the article. Is it encyclopedic?

Every student has finished reviewing their assigned articles, making sure that every article has been reviewed.

Week 6
You probably have some feedback from other students and possibly other Wikipedians. It's time to work with that feedback to improve your article!


 * Read Editing Wikipedia pages 12 and 14.
 * Return to your draft or article and think about the suggestions. Decide which ones to start implementing. Reach out to your instructor or your Wikipedia Expert if you have any questions.

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!
 * Be sure to copy text from your sandbox while the sandbox page is in 'Edit' mode. This ensures that the formatting is transferred correctly.

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 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 Wikipedia Expert at any time if you need further help!

Week 7
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 Wikipedia Expert at any time!

Write a reflective essay (~2 pages) on your Wikipedia contributions.

Consider the following questions as you reflect on your Wikipedia assignment (and you can also expand this reflection to include other relevant thoughts you have on the work you've done this term):


 * 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: 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 your topic? Why is this important?

See Moodle for full instructions for this assignment.

Write an analytical paper (4-5 pages) on the topic (or one of the topics if you edited multiple stubs) you have been working with for the Wikipedia project this term.

You've spent a significant amount of time this term diving into research about a topic and having to assess, assimilate, and then neutrally summarize that information. Here is where you get to take a stance on one angle of what you've learned in that process:


 * Focus: This paper should have a clear, central thesis that makes a single point (not a three-part thesis). The thesis should be narrow and arguable, an opinion that you can support from your sources (the ones you've already used to flesh out the &quot;stub&quot; article you've edited--you should not need to find additional sources for this paper).
 * Audience awareness and clear support/connections between ideas: You now know a lot about this topic, even if you didn't know much about it at the beginning of the term. It can be easy to forget that your audience doesn't know all the great things you know about this topic. Keep your audience in mind, and make sure you are building clear connections and explaining how the information you are pulling from sources supports the point you are making.
 * Format and Editing: This should be in MLA format, including a works cited page. You should incorporate (and cite) at least 2 and no more than 5 sources in this paper. Proofread carefully before submitting your final draft.

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