Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Northern Arizona University/WGS 300w Feminist Theories (Fall 2022)

WGS 300W: &quot;Foundational overviews of the history of feminist theory. Also addresses contemporary ethnic minority and international theorists&quot;

Week 1
Download and review the complete project guidelines from our BB Learn page

Student expectations and skills:

·        build junior level academic research skills by finding verifiable, peer-reviewed sources.

·        practice WGS/social sciences technical writing skills including writing a formal literature review.

·        critically apply expert knowledge to comprehensive assessment of Wikipedia.

·        add at least a paragraph’s worth of writing to the article in the “objective and unbiased” writing tone required by Wikipedia, making sure additions and changes reflect the topic as it is and not your own opinion of what it should be, and are substantive/important (i.e. not just grammar fixes).

·        add and fix in-text and footnote/endnote citations in the complete format requested by Wikipedia.

·        practice working with a professional organization: ensure that all Wikipedia work is “live” (i.e. is public); rate the page; check and respond to editor changes; complete changes requested by me.

 Elements:  

this project has two parts: becoming the expert on a topic, and applying that expertise to its Wikipedia page.

Week 3
Pick a topic and confirm verbally or in writing  that it is available before you sign up for it on Wikipedia. Topics are first-come-first-serve. If you are interested in soething that is not on this list, by all means ask (make sure there is already a page for it first).

In the next weeks:


 * create an account and join this course page, using the enrollment link provided.
 * link yourself to your chosen wiki page (for help, complete the Finalize your topic exercise)
 * take the above online training modules to help you figure out how to edit, and what is expected for entries. These trainings are required for your course and wikipedia tracks your completion of them.
 * set up wikipedia visual editor

For extra explanation and resources, read this handout and the Women's Studies handout.

Extensively research and read about your field. Find and read seven or more scholarly sources. You will need to find and read resources from each of these areas:

a) book reference materials

b) scholarly (peer reviewed) journal articles and periodicals

c) non-peer reviewed online materials (can be news articles, blogs, etc)

turn in a complete works referenced page documenting the sources you used to become an expert. Standard reference format is required (MLA, APA, or Chicago). You will also turn in 3 annotated biblographies (1 para each).

Week 6
 “Objective” introduction to topic paper (3 pages):  after reading so many sources, you know more than most people about your topic. Your job is to decide what seem to be the most important things to know about your topic (based on your research), then condense and organize that information into something that gives others a basic overview (this is exactly what encyclopedia writers do) in 3 pages

   

Wikipedia requires an “objective/neutral/unbiased” summarizing tone for entries so we’re going to practice that in this paper (this is NOT the usual tone we take in critical or persuasive papers so it will be a challenge). Compose an objective general overview as if you were writing to an educated person who has never taken a feminist theories class, supporting your statements with scholarship. You’re  not  making an argument or value-statement, you’re organizing and explaining what you have deemed the most essential info. Consider these questions:

o    How is this topic defined/described in academic literature?

o    Why is this topic important/part of WGS?

o    How and why did the topic come to be (when did we name and begin studying it)?

o    What are some of the most critical ideas or theories or people that work on it?

o    ' Is your topic a term or a subject? ' (i.e. heteronormativity is a thing but the term was created to reveal our acceptance of this thing, thus it's a subject we designed to investigate certain behaviors/ideals)

Make sure your intro paper has a short thesis at the top to guide your reader into the topic and what you will point out are the critical elements.

Week 7
 Literature review:  your review must address no less than three (but likely more) theorists and their academic texts (books or articles). You must focus on the most famous/canonical ones or the most controversial ones: ones who made significant interventions in the topic or helps shape what it is. A good way to identify these people/texts is to read several articles and summaries. Whose name keeps coming up? What work is always cited? In your literature review DO NOT include:


 * 1)       texts or authors that are summarizing famous people or famous texts (secondary sources). You need to access the primary sources;
 * 2) texts or authors who might talk about something in the field or be part of the field but are not key or canonical (i.e. did not change or shape the field);
 * 3) summary books, anthology books, or other books explaining the field (tertiary sources).

A literature review IS NOT an annotated bibliography, NOT a series of book or article summaries, and NOT a position-based critique. Rather, you creating a picture of the key ideas that authors and texts that have shaped the topic. Synthesize this material rather than summarize. What are some key through lines? How are these texts in conversation with one another? Why did this work or author make such an impact? What did they contribute? We will have a workshop on types of literature reviews before this is due.

Week 11
Go to Wikipedia page and check:

a)      if focus, scope, and subheadings are similar to what you learned.

b)     information you want to check/confirm (names, dates, large claims) from your own research (can you add a citation or fix something wrong).

c)      areas that are already flagged as needing a citation, needing more accuracy, or seem to be opinion. This might appear as a parenthetical notation in the text or as an “this article has issues” box that begins the page (has an orange !)

d)     areas that can be expanded on, clarified, or are absent (i.e., things you found in your research that are not on the page or are not discussed extensively enough). Also please consider who is speaking/being quoted/referenced i.e., are only white scholars being mentioned?

o    write text for these areas by following Wikipedia-required “neutral” tone for entries and creating full in-text and footnote citations that demonstrate where you found the information you are adding. Add at least a large paragraph’s worth of material throughout the entry. If you cannot add this much, explain your plan/annotated copy why you won’t be able to add that much material.

e)      things that seems really weird or wrong that you might need to flag or move to the talk space for debate.

o    you cannot delete large sections of text. If an entire section seems off topic or inaccurate, plan to flag it for “talk” and note that on your annotated copy.

Compose a 2-page assessment/plan paper that synthesizes your assessment of the whole page and your plan for fixing and adding things, adding text, and flagging controversial things.

Week 12
Write new text making sure you follow Wikipedia required tone for entries, and create full in-text and footnote citations (as per the citation tutorial you tool) that demonstrate where you found the information you are adding. Compose at least a paragraph’s worth of material throughout the entry in addition to edits.

Week 13
Make actual changes and document everything. Double check that your submission is “live” (aka on the main public page).


 * 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!

You need to come up with an annotation documentation system (with a key) that shows me:

a)       all the info you checked for accuracy and where you were able to confirm the info in your research materials ( this part is usually what students don't annotate well so be careful )

b)      every word you added

c)       every word you deleted

d)      everything you moved around on the page

e)       every citation you fixed both in the text and at the bottom works cited

f)       all grammar changes you made

g)      all the fixes you made to make sure your page conformed to universal design.

h)      everything that you flagged or added to the talk

Each student will briefly explain their field to the class and discuss what they did on their Wikipedia entry (5 minutes each). Consider these Guiding questions while preparing for your presentation.

Week 14
Over the next week, check:

a) the view history tab to see what has been changed about your work

b) your talk/messages to see if Wikipedia editors have given you direct feedback

c) your feedback from me

d) confirm or change the “rating” of your page (check how to do this here)

You must make the changes I request; consider the changes an editor asks you to make (perhaps by making the changes or by creating a discussion thread in the “talk” page of the article); fix the rating; and—if there are large deletions by an editor—consider what changes to tone or citations will ensure most of your work remains live.

After one week is over, upload a 1-page follow-up report of what you did. Reports can be detailed bullet lists about what tasks you were asked to do and how you fixed them (documentation here encouraged), what was changed on your page, when and how you responded, and if/why you changed your rating.

If you turned in your Wiki project late, this step is due 7 days after submission. If you turn your project in without 7 days before the end of finals week, you won’t be able to complete this step.