Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Saint Mary's College/Women in STEM (Fall 2016)

Week 1
Welcome to your Wikipedia project's course timeline. This page will guide you through the Wikipedia project for your course. The information here matches what is found in your course syllabus schedule, however this page has more detail about your Wikipedia assignments. You should use this page as a guide for completing your Wikipedia assignments.

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 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.

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.
 * 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 2
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 below).
 * Choose an article, and consider some questions (but don't feel limited to these):
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * 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?
 * Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Choose at least 2 questions relevant to the article you're evaluating. Leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC).

Now that you're thinking about what makes a &quot;good&quot; Wikipedia article, consider some additional questions. You should participate in this discussion using the electronic discussion board on our Chem342 Blackboard course site. An in-class discussion will follow.


 * 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;?

Week 3
You should add a small contribution to an article related to your class, or add a citation to a claim that doesn't have one.


 * Complete the &quot;Sources and Citations&quot; training (linked below).
 * When you make a small claim, clearly state the fact in your own words, and then cite the source where you found the information.
 * The Citation Hunt tool can show you some statements that don't have citations. You can use that to find an article to reference.
 * 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.

Week 4
You should participate in this discussion using the electronic discussion board on our Chem342 Blackboard course site. An in-class discussion will follow.


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

Review Wikipedia's rules for topics related to medicine, human health, and psychology.

It's time to choose an article and assign it to yourself.


 * Review page 6 of your Editing Wikipedia guidebook.
 * Find an article from the list of &quot;Available Articles&quot; on the Articles tab on this course page. When you find the one you want to work on, click Select to assign it 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.
 * 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.

Week 5
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.
 * 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?

'''


 * 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 6

 * 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?


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


 * 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, and then assign them to yourself in the Review column.
 * Peer review your classmates' drafts. Leave suggestions on 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 7
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 Content Expert if you have any questions.

Week 8
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.

Week 9
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.

Week 10
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!


 * Prepare for an in-class presentation about your Article and your Wikipedia editing experience.

Week 11

 * Present about your Article and your Wikipedia editing experience.

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!

Week 12
Everyone should have finished all of the work they'll do on Wikipedia, and be ready for grading.