Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Rutgers University/Language and Law (Spring 2018)

Overview Determining “whodunnit” can involve language at every step of the legal process, from analyzing the linguistic evidence of ransom notes, bomb threats and corporate denials, to interrogating suspects, cross-examining witnesses, and instructing juries. This course provides an introduction to forensic linguistics, or the application of linguistics within legal settings, and examines how language is used in laws and in courts. Topics such as syntax, semantics, phonetics, phonology, morphology, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics will inform our examination of language from evidence to courtroom.

Grading Individual work   Trainings   Peer Review   Final Reflection   Group work   Bibliography   Draft   Final Contributions  

Week 1
Welcome to our Wikipedia project course timeline. This page will guide us through the Wikipedia project for our course. You can follow all other assignments on our main course page on Sakai.

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.

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

Week 2
'''INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT, due Sunday 1/28. (5 pts)'''


 * Create an account and join this course page, using the enrollment link.
 * 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.
 * Please review the following handouts:
 * Editing Wikipedia pages 1–5
 * Evaluating Wikipedia
 * When you finish the trainings, practice by introducing yourself to a classmate on that classmate’s Talk page.

Individually:


 * 1) Complete training in Wikipedia Essentials &amp; Editing Basics
 * 2) Introduce yourself on a classmate's Talk page

Finally, we introduce Intertwine, a video conferencing tool where you can will create your own User page and User Talk Page with peer editors enrolled in other courses. Sign up for a sessionhere or using the Intertwine training module below. (This activity is optional and ungraded, but recommended.)

This week, everyone should have a Wikipedia account.

Week 3
'''INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT, due Thursday 2/01.

'''

It's time to think critically about Wikipedia articles. You will evaluate a Wikipedia article related to the course and (optionally) leave suggestions for improving it on the article's Talk page.


 * Complete the &quot;Evaluating Articles and Sources&quot; training (linked below).
 * Read and evaluate any of the following Wikipedia articles:
 * Consent Search
 * Davis v. United States (1994)
 * Speech act
 * Politeness theory
 * As you read, consider the following questions and subquestions:
 * How is the article rated, both in its &quot;grade&quot; and indicated importance, if any?
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is there anything that you think should be added to the topic?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Is each fact reference with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from?
 * Check four citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * 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? Select and list up to three major topics or issues raised about the article from its Talk page. Do you agree with what the contributors say, or not? Why?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Write your evaluation and submit it on Sakai by Thursday, Feb. 01.
 * Format:
 * First indicate which article you are evaluating.
 * Then, number your work and respond as appropriate to each of the seven items above.
 * Length: varies; probably about 1-5 sentences for each of the seven items.
 * Optional, ungraded: Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article &amp; leave your evaluation one the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes: Cakers01 (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC).

Optional: Again, we introduce Intertwine,  a video conferencing tool where you will do an hour-long edit-a-thon to improve a fun Wikipedia article with peer editors enrolled in other courses. Sign up for a session here using the Intertwine training module below.

Week 4
INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT, due Thursday 2/8  (5 pts)


 * Review page 6 of your Editing Wikipedia guidebook.
 * Review the list of &quot;available articles&quot; on the Articles tab of this course page. Find one article that you want to work on.
 * Assign yourself to the group's Wikipedia article in the Students tab of this course page.
 * Note: Groups may range from 1-5 members. If an article already has five names assigned to it, please choose a different article.

INDIVIDUAL Assignment, due  Sunday 2/11  '''( Update 2/15/18: Due Sun, Feb 18)

'''


 * The alphabetically first person listed as an assignee for your article will be the personwhose Sandbox space you'll all share to draft your article. Each person should link to that shared Sandbox from their own Sandbox page. A sandbox is like any other page on Wikipedia, and anyone can edit it.
 * Wikipedia doesn't allow multiple people to edit from different devices at the same time. If you're working together in person, one person should add the work to the Sandbox. If you are all working independently, make small edits and save often to avoid &quot;editing conflicts&quot; with classmates. Make sure that you're logged in under your own Wikipedia account while editing in your classmate's sandbox to ensure your edits are recorded.
 * Don't create a group account for your project. Group accounts are prohibited.

Individually (5 pts):


 * Link to the shared Sandbox (belonging to the alphabetically first assignee in your group) from your own Sandbox page.

INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT, due  Sunday 2/11  '''(25 pts)   ( Update 2/15/18: Due Sun, Feb 18)

'''


 * Review page 6 of your Editing Wikipedia guidebook.
 * Create a short proposal (1-3 paragraphs) in your group sandbox of what you plan to contribute to the article. Think back to when you did the article critique, and consider what you can add to your chosen article.
 * Note: In Week 5, your group will review all the ideas submitted in the individual proposals in the group and will develop a plan together for which ideas to implement. See the full timeline for more info.

Individually: Submit a 1-3 paragraph proposal for how to improve the article in your group sandbox.


 * Format: Use bulletpoints or headings to identify your top priorities for improvement. Briefly expand on how to meet each priority (1-2 paragraphs).

Week 5
GROUP ASSIGNMENT, due  Sunday 2/18  '''(Updated: Due Thurs, Feb 22)

'''Discuss the individual proposals posted in the group sandbox and create a group proposal to submit for feedback.

Tip:


 * Create a group Google Doc and share editing privileges with all group members.
 * Copy all individual proposals in the Google Doc.
 * Review the individual proposals to determine the top priorities for the group to improve.

As a group: Create a group proposal and submit on Sakai for feedback.


 * Format: Use bulletpoints or headings to identify the top priorities, and briefly expand on how to address each priority (1-2 paragraphs each).
 * Length: Varies; probably 3-5 priorities per group

Look up Rutgers email addresses if you need help contacting others working on your article: Link

This week, everyone should have chosen an article to edit for this project.

Week 6
Sakai Discussion: Step 1 and initial response to Step 2 &amp; 3 due Thursday, 2/22; Follow-up response to discussion due Sunday 2/25


 * Step 1: Complete the Sources and Citations Training and Plagiarism training. (5 pts each; 10 pts total)
 * Step 2: In the Sakai discussion for this week, respond to at least TWO of the following: (12 points, in Discussion grading category)
 * Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why? Consider how indirect speech acts and conversational implicature may play a role.
 * What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing or plagiarism?
 * Step 3: In the Sakai discussion, post at least one source that can be used to contribute to your group's Wikipedia article and explain why it is a good source.

Individually:


 * 1) Complete Sources and Citations training and Plagiarism training
 * 2) Contribute to Sakai discussion (standard rubric and point values apply)
 * 3) Post source with explanation of why it's a good source in your Sakai discussion.

Week 7
'''Recommended by Thursday, March 01

'''


 * By this week, you should have some feedback from your instructor about your group's proposal for the topic you will work on.
 * Review the responses from your Sakai discussion to 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 group sandbox. Make sure to check in on the Talk page of the article to see if anyone else has advice on your bibliography.
 * For individuals: In your group sandbox, contribute to a group outline of what you plan to improve in your article, with clear, concise delineation of what you as a group member will be in charge of. Note that you may have already done this as part of completing your group proposal.
 * Tips:
 * Assign your name to the headings or bullet-points used to identify priorities in the original proposal. Each person should be working on at least one priority.
 * Divide the work on priorities in whatever way seems equitable.
 * Briefly describe how you will be contributing to your priority.

Recommended, ungraded tasks:


 * Compile and post a group bibliography
 * Post to the talk page of the article you'll be working on
 * Post in your group sandbox.
 * Post group proposal/ action plan with clear, concise delineation of member assignments to priorities.

INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT, due Sunday March 4th.

You have picked a topic, found your sources, and created a proposal/ action plan. Now it's time for everyone to start writing.


 * 1) First, take the &quot;Sandboxes and Mainspace&quot; training. (5 pts).
 * 2) Check the group proposal/ action plan and begin working on the tasks that you've identified for yourself. Be sure to contribute your work inyour group sandbox. (10 pts)

Here are some helpful tips as you write:


 * Check the lead
 * Review the existing &quot;lead&quot; section of your article.
 * Tip: 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 isAda Lovelace. SeeEditing Wikipedia page 9 for more ideas.
 * Does it need to be improved? If so, expand the outline of your topic in the form of a standard Wikipedia article's &quot;lead section.&quot; Write it inyour group sandbox.


 * Expand your proposal
 * Identify what's missing from the current form of the article. Think back to the skills you learned while critiquing an article. Continue to expand your outlined proposal and improvements inyour group sandbox.
 * Keep reading your sources, too, as you prepare to write the body of the article.
 * Resources:Editing Wikipedia pages 7–9

Week 8
'''INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT, due Thursday March 22 (10)

GROUP ASSIGNMENT, due Sunday March 25. (5)

'''


 * Complete the items assigned to you from your group's proposal/ action plan to transform your group's article into a complete first draft. It needs to be ready for peer-review. Your work must appear in the group sandbox. (10 pts)
 * Elect one person in your group to click the &quot;Get Help&quot; button in your group sandbox to request notes from your content expert (and be sure to click &quot;Get Help&quot; by the end of this week!) (5 pts)

Individually: 


 * Complete the items assigned from  your group's proposal/ action plan and indicate on the proposal/ action plan that you have completed these tasks.

As a group:


 * Ensure that one person has clicked the &quot;Get Help&quot; button in your group sandbox.

Week 9
'''INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT, due Thursday March 29th (peer review online training)

INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT, due Sunday April 1 (peer review completion)

'''


 * First, take the &quot;Peer Review&quot; online training. (5 pts)
 * You will be assigned ONE other article that you will peer review and copyedit. On the Articles tab, check your name to find the article that you are assigned to review.
 * Peer review the other student(s)' draft. Following the recommendations on the WikiEd Peer Review training, leave suggestions on the User Talk page of the sandbox that your fellow students are working on. Other editors may be reviewing your work, so look for their comments as well! Be sure to acknowledge feedback from other Wikipedians. (25 pts; graded on the quality of the peer review you complete)
 * As you review, make spelling, grammar, and other adjustments. Pay attention to the tone of the article. Is it encyclopedic?

Individually: 


 * 1) Take the &quot;Peer Review&quot; online training (5 pts)
 * 2) Submit a peer review for your assigned group (25 pts)

OPTIONAL: Not only your classmates, but also a broader group of Wikipedia student editors can benefit from peer review! Here, we introduce Intertwine one more time. You will do an hour-long peer review session with peers from other courses. Sign up for a sessionhere using the Intertwine training module below.

Week 10
'''INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT, due Thursday April 5th. (15 points)'''

Your group probably have some feedback from other students and possibly other Wikipedians. It's time to work with that feedback to improve your article! Make changes or respond to the feedback as appropriate.


 * 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 Content Expert if you have any questions.

Individually: Review the feedback carefully, particularly for the areas associated with the priority you were assigned in the group proposal/ action plan. In the group sandbox, make revisions or indicate other actions (such as contacting the Content Expert) taken in order to address recommendations on the peer reviews.

'''GROUP ASSIGNMENT, due Sunday April 8th. (10pts)'''

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

'''Tips for 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 from your group sandbox 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' or 'Edit source' mode. This ensures that the formatting is transferred correctly.
 * If necessary, review the &quot;Sandboxes and Mainspace&quot; training.

As a group:


 * Ensure that all edits from your group sandbox are moved into the article.

Week 11
'''INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT, due Sunday April 15th. (5 pts)'''

It's the final week to develop your article.


 * Review the final check-list contained in the Editing Wikipedia page 15.
 * Make any necessary final revisions.
 * View the checklist on Sakai, and check off each item to demonstrate that you have reviewed your article.

Individually:


 * Check off items on Sakai checklist

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

Week 12
'''INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT, due Thursday April 19th. (100 pts)'''

Write a reflection (2–4 pages) on your Wikipedia contributions.

Respond to each of the following items as you reflect on your Wikipedia assignment. Subquestions are provided for each item as inspiration.


 * 1) Subject-matter content (1-2 paragraphs):  How does the content of your article relate to our course? What did you learn from your article, either from the content that was already there or from what you added to the article? Is there anything more you wanted to learn about or add to your topic?
 * 2) Forensic linguistic perspective on critiquing and adding to articles (Choose at least two different bullet-pointed items; 2-3 paragraphs in total):
 * 3) * Authorship analysis involves examining a document for style and other evidence characteristic of a particular author. Wikipedia articles require a particular style, which may be quite different from the style you typically use. How would you characterize that style? As a contributor, did you find it difficult or easy to adopt this target style successfully? Why?
 * 4) * Taking the perspective of a Wikipedia editor -- or a forensic linguist - what challenges did you face in determining whether sentences written by other people were original or were &quot;too close&quot; (or plagiarized) from other sources?  If you were able to identify potential plagiarism or authorship problems, what kinds of evidence, or linguistic clues, helped you to identify these problems? If not, think back to the Plagiarism training (linked below) that Wikipedia provided. Could you identify linguistic clues to authorship problems in the training exercises?
 * 5) * Reflecting on your experiences critiquing and contributing to articles, what insights do you gain into how successfully people can adopt other styles or voices (such as for criminal purposes like we examined in the course) or into how successfully forensic linguists can identify authorship?
 * 6) Feedback (1-2 paragraphs): Did you receive feedback from other Wikipedia editors, and if so, how did you respond to and handle that feedback? Were these the kind of topics/comments you expected, or not? Why? Were any comments related to authorship or other topics related to our course?
 * 7) Public-facing side of linguistics and Wikipedia generally (1-2 paragraphs): What did you learn from contributing to Wikipedia to bring knowledge of linguistics to the public? How was the experience of this project different from writing a standard research paper? How can Wikipedia be used to improve public understanding of linguistics, language and the law, or your topic specifically? Why is this important? What would you have changed about this assignment if you could?

Individually:


 * Submit your reflect to the Sakai assignment.
 * Format: please number your responses as shown above.
 * Length: Respond to each of the four items using the sub-questions to help guide your response. Minimum lengths are provided for each response, but you are free to write more if you choose. Respond to each of the four main questions