Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Fordham University/Roman Art (Fall 2019)

The course is a survey of Roman art from the Republic to Constantine.

We are paying particular attention to &quot;grounding&quot;-- a term coined by Elizabeth Marlowe to the circumstances of its modern re-discovery, excavation, restoration and display.

This term you work on a research and writing assignment that challenges you to do something comparatively difficult, and novel, in the study of Roman art. You are asked to take a famous example of Roman art, to research the facts of its “grounding”—the circumstances of its modern re-discovery, excavation, restoration and display. You will add these facts to relevant wikipedia articles.

At the end of term, you will be in a position to use the facts of your artwork's “grounding” to reconsider its original context and meaning in antiquity.

This is not always easy, as the focus of the field for many decades has been to ignore exactly this kind of question. You may not find that you can offer a definitive all-encompassing “answer”—and that is not the outcome of a successful project. You will find that even if your research hypothesis must remain tentative, the factual research will be useful to other scholars of Roman art. Your interpretation it will be original and interesting—and this is the payoff for investigating less-trodden ground.

Your research project will have two parts:

1) Contributing factual information to the wikipedia article on your artwork

2) Giving a short (15 minute) presentation using this factual information to support an argument about your artwork, in a tutorial with the instructor and 1 - 2 of your fellow students.

Week 2
Welcome to your Wikipedia assignment's course timeline. This page guides you through the steps you'll need to complete for your Wikipedia assignment, with links to training modules and your classmates' work spaces.

Your course has been assigned a Wikipedia Expert. You can reach them through the Get Help button at the top of this page.

Resources:


 * Editing Wikipedia, pages 1–5
 * Evaluating Wikipedia

Create an account and join this course page, using the enrollment link your instructor sent you. (Because of Wikipedia's technical restraints, you may receive a message that you cannot create an account. To resolve this, please try again off campus or the next day.)

This week, everyone should have a Wikipedia account.

Exercise
For this exercise please use the evaluate an article training to develop your sense of what makes for a helpful and high quality wikipedia article. We will discuss your findings in class, so please do *not* complete the optional assignment at the end of the training.

You can evaluate an article on any art work, Roman site, building, historical person or historical event that we have covered in class or that is mentioned in the Kleiner. Articles on the Villa of Livia, the Roman Forum, the Pantheon, Pompey the Great, Livia, and the Roman civil wars, for example, would all be great options.

If you get the bug, you're of course welcome to assess more than one article, or an extra article on a topic of your choice, but make sure to complete the primary evaluation first.

We'll discuss your sandbox notes in class, so be sure to have written them coherently.

Evaluate an article

Part of what we'll discuss in class when going over your article evaluations are the concepts of reliable sources, and avoiding plagiarism, so please go through this training too.

Thinking about sources and plagiarism

Week 4
This week you will need to choose the article you wish to contribute to. You can either pick from this list, or (if and only if you have my permission first) choose an article.

I selected these articles using the guidance from the various trainings you've completed. I first looked for articles with a high importance rating and a lower quality rating. I then focussed on articles either devoted to, or that mentioned, a piece of Roman art first made between 400 BC and 350 AD. I made sure that the article had scope for a section on grounding. I then made an initial check to see if there was reliable evidence, published in English, for the art work's grounding. Lastly I looked into the talk page, to see if the editors seemed friendly.

You can get ideas for famous Roman artworks with interesting modern histories in the Marlowe, and in: Beard, Mary, and John Henderson. Classical Art From Greece to Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Options:


 * Augustus Prima Porta
 * Alexander Mosaic
 * Statue and Basilica of Eumachia (adding information to a historical, not art historical article)
 * Library and statue of Celsus (this has some grounding information, but could use some more details)
 * The Dying Gaul
 * Meroe head of Augustus
 * Ludovisi Sarcophagus
 * The wall paintings at Boscotrecase. Adding to an article on the villa. These paintings are in the Met, so you can look at them in person.
 * Arch of Titus. This may be a little controversial.

Choose which article you will contribute to.

What's a content gap?

Have a look at the general guides below.

Various relevant wikiprojects also have guides on how to research effectively:


 * Classics

And wikiproject visual arts has some useful information, too.

You should also get a feel for how articles are judged and critqued on wikipedia, by looking over some nomination discussions for good articles on topics from the ancient world.

Art History

History

Articles that already have good sections on grounding:


 * Modern history on the Apollo Belvedere page
 * Context and findspot on the Laocoon page

Exercise
Here's your chance to dive in. This is due in week 5, but I strongly encourage you to start making small edits as quickly in term as you can. This will help you get the feel of things, get your feet wet, and allow other wikipedians to see that you're a useful editor once you start making more substantial changes.

Please make at least 3 small edits. 2 of these should be to a Roman topic. You can:


 * Add a citation
 * Make a copy edit, or clear up some confusing phrasing
 * Add an image (this is actually a little more work, but I give you this option in case you're visually minded)

Add a citation

You can use this fun tool to help you find where citations are needed.

Week 6
Reach out to your Wikipedia Expert if you have questions using the Get Help button at the top of this page.

Resource: Editing Wikipedia, pages 7–9

The first thing you should add to you sandbox contributions is a bibliography of reliable sources that you intend to consult. Please use the attached research guide (WIP) to help you.

I will also go over some methods in class.

You should aim to have at the very least 5 scholarly sources in your initial bibliography.

At this stage two of these must be physical, paper, dead tree, heavy-in-your-hand, professionally bound, impeccably catalogued, peer-reviewed, footnoted, scholarly books, that you, personally, in actuality, IRL, have physically opened, standing in the dusty yet thrilling atmosphere of Fordham's library stacks.

Everyone has begun writing their contribution drafts.

Week 7
Part of our class time this week will be devoted to re-visiting the topic of Wikipedia's neutral point of view polict. By now you will likely have had to consider this concept in some detail, perhaps in your own writing, or perhaps in a discussion with another editor.

We'll be discussing why wikipedia chose this standard, what it means, how it is upheld, and your opinions of its opertation in practice, and its underlying theory.

Thinking about Wikipedia

Week 8
You probably have some feedback from other students and possibly other Wikipedians. Consider their suggestions, decide whether it makes your work more accurate and complete, and edit your draft to make those changes.

Responding gracefully to criticism is perhaps the most directly transferrable skill you'll learn from this course. Or at least, practice as part of this course, as it can take a lifetime to learn.

Try not to take anything personally, and have a relentless focus on what, in the grand scheme of things, is best for the article. Don't get hung up on the small stuff.

Resources:


 * Editing Wikipedia, pages 12 and 14
 * Reach out to your Wikipedia Expert if you have any questions.

Please make a precise, useful, thoughtful, direct and kind comments on the work of two of your fellow classmates. This doesn't mean it should be only praise--quite the contrary! Your aim is to help your peers improve their work.

You can make these comments on the talk page of the article they're working on, their user talk page, or in their sandbox. Please take a moment to look over which of our class has already recieved peer-review, and fill in an gaps. We want everyone in the class to have the benefit of a second pair of eyes.

Now that you've improved your draft based on others' feedback, it's time to move your work live - to the &quot;mainspace.&quot;

Resource: Editing Wikipedia, page 13

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

Exercise
Add links to your article

Now's the time to revisit your text and refine your work. You may do more research and find missing information; rewrite or add a summary section to represent all major points; reorganize the text to communicate the information better; or add images and other media.

By this point you need to develop a clear understanding of what the consensus is around your contribution to the article--which sections need work, which might need to be cut or moved, and which need more detail.

Always remember, you are graded on the work you do, not the work that &quot;sticks&quot; to the public article.

Week 10
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 11
It's the final week to develop your article contributions.


 * 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!
 * Remember that you are graded on the work you complete, not what your fellow wikipedians decide to keep.

Week 12
This is your chance to write a short, personal essay on your experience editing wikipedia.

This is a graded assignment, but it is also something of a favor to future students. Your reflections will help me and other instructors refine this course for future years. I'm also extremely interested in how this intellectual quest unfolded for you and so appreciate your thoughts on it.

You may also find this a useful exercise for yourself. This is a large project that has required a subsantial amount of work on your part, and under a little more pressure than is usual for a college term paper. Take the time to reflect on what went well, what was tricky, that great idea you didn't have time to write up in wiki-approved style, and of course, what you learned along the way.

You can either email this to me directly, or upload it to your talk page or sandbox, if you'd like it to be public.

Guiding questions

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

This is due for your tutorial meeting with me. We will arrange these dates in November.

Tutorials will be in my office (LL423C) and will be  60-90 minutes. Do not be late, for any reason.

We will spend the time discussing the grounding of your object. I will ask you questions on your research, and how you think the artwork should be interpreted in the light of your research. I will also show you other, similar artworks and ask you to comment on them.

To start off our conversation, please prepare a 10-minute thesis presentation. It should give a strong case for how the grounding you've researched this term alters our understanding of the artwork you've studied and written about. You can chose to make an argument about how the artwork operated in its original context, or its importance for understanding an episode in later history.

This is our chance to change gears, and to use what we've learned this term to make, critique, defend, try out and adjust hypotheses and arguments. Tutorials are friendly, but do come prepared to make a case!