Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/UBC/ENG470D-003 Canadian Studies (2017)

Our class, UBC's English 470D (Canadian Studies), focuses on the intersection of Canadian Literature and Web 2.0, described by scholar Nicole Cohen as “interactive, participant-based online media.” Who is participating in online discussions of Canadian literature, and why? ... Together, we ask what motivates Web 2.0 users to take up this literary content? Which publics do they imagine and reach? What social needs do they address? What cultural work—or “social actions” (Miller)—do they perform? Who does and does not benefit from their labour?

Wikipedia CanLit Edit-a-thon One of our assignments is a CanLit Edit-a-thon that we are working on throughout the month of March 2017. There are 44 of us in total -- 43 students and myself, the instructor -- and we are being supported by educational developers from UBC's Centre for Teaching &amp; Learning, technical support staff from Arts ISIT, a research librarian, and the team at WikiEd. Students will be working in groups to edit 11 new or existing articles on Canadian literature, and we welcome input from interested members of the Wikipedia community.

Background The Wikimedia Foundation, the not-for-profit organization that runs the open-access encyclopedia, Wikipedia, has the following vision statement: “Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment”. There are major barriers, however, to working toward this imagined future of equal access to all knowledge. As Leah Collins of CBC Arts argues, while in theory anyone can edit Wikipedia, “the trouble is that everyone doesn't”. The social position of those who do volunteer to edit Wikipedia – predominantly white males who live in the United States and Europe – informs which articles they do and do not invest their time in to write and revise. For example, the Wikimedia Foundation’s 2011 survey (pdf) revealed that only 8.5% of Wikipedia editors identify as women, and today, Wikipedia states that “at least 80% of Wikipedians are men”. These systemic biases have been reported in the media, summarized in Wikipedia articles, and acknowledged by founder Jimmy Wales (for example, see  http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28701772  https://www.wired.com/2015/03/wikipedia-sexism/  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia <li> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_bias_on_Wikipedia">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_bias_on_Wikipedia</a> </ul>

People have sought to address exigencies of equitable representation by organizing and participating in Wikipedia edit-a-thons that counter racial, gender, and colonial biases. For instance, during Black History Month 2015, the White House <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/02/23/telling-untold-stories-african-americans-stem">organized an edit-a-thon to document</a> “previously unrecognized stories about African-Americans in STEM fields - science, technology, engineering, and math”. And just last month, <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ago-hosts-wikipedia-edit-a-thon-to-boost-profiles-of-black-canadian-artists-1.3931982">the Art Gallery of Ontario hosted an edit-a-thon</a> to “boost profiles of Black Canadian artists”. “<a href="http://www.artandfeminism.org/">Art + Feminism</a>” is another example. Started in 2014, this edit-a-thon has had over 280 events around the world, including the <a href="http://do604.com/events/2016/9/17/rematriate-wikipedia-edit-a-thon">2016 Rematriate Wikipedia Edit-a-thon for Indigenous artists and organizations</a> that took place in Vancouver and an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism_2017">upcoming UBC edit-a-thon on March 18-19th</a> hosted by faculty member Christine D’Onofrio, which focuses on Vancouver art. Other edit-a-thons have also taken place here at UBC: this past September for Science Literacy Week, UBC librarian Erin Fields and open-education strategist Will Engle <a href="http://guides.library.ubc.ca/scilit16/wiki">hosted an edit-a-thon</a> to add “more content to Wikipedia about local women scientists - UBC researchers and alumni” in parallel with edit-a-thons at SFU and BCIT.

This CanLit Edit-a-thon assignment asks you to address the exigence of equitable representation in Wikipedia by contributing new or expanding existing articles about Canadian literature. In undertaking this assignment, we are taking part in a wider open-access educational initiative in Canada and the United States, the Wikipedia Education Project by the <a href="https://wikiedu.org/about-us/">Wiki Education Foundation</a>. To date, WikiEdu student editors have “created or improved” 37,000 articles and their work has been viewed “<a href="https://wikiedu.org/changing/wikipedia/">147 million times</a>”. UBC students have been contributing to Wikipedia in edit-a-thons and for class assignments (e.g., Department of French, Hispanic &amp; Italian Studies, History, and Land &amp; Food Systems), and we are joining their efforts. We are piloting this particular assignment structure – a course-based edit-a-thon – with support from Wiki Ed, UBC’s Centre for Teaching &amp; Learning, and the Faculty of Arts Instructional technology team. We will then share what we learn – what worked and what did not – with other interested faculty so that they can adapt this assignment to meet the learning objectives of their courses and the needs of their students.

Assignment

As a group, choose a topic relevant to our focus on Canadian literature (e.g., an author, text, or institution) that you argue is currently underrepresented in and symptomatic of systemic bias on Wikipedia. ... Importantly, your Canadian literature topic must meet the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability">Wikipedia community’s criteria of notability</a>, “a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article”. There are specific notability guidelines relevant to our CanLit project: <ul> <li> books:  <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books)">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books)</a> </li> <li> people:<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)"> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)</a> </li> <li> organizations:<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)"> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)</a> </li> </ul> Then together, draft and publish an article that begins or strengthens this representation by synthesizing existing scholarly and public knowledge. As well, write a group reflection of what you learned during this project. See Part One and Two below.

Part One: Wikipedia Entry (600-800 words: note revised length)

Approach this article as a public genre, addressed to a general readership that includes both experts on and non-specialists interested in your topic. Your article must <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources">cite five “reliable sources</a>,” minimum; if available, two of these sources should be scholarly. The length of your article (or article section/s) should be approximately 600-800 words, plus a listing of your sources following <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)">Wikipedia’s guidelines</a>. To give you points of comparison, currently the article on Laurence Hill’s Book of Negroes is roughly 2000 words, and the one on Joy Kogawa is roughly 1000 words. In comparison, the article on CWILA, Canadian Women in Literary Arts, is only about 100 words and categorized as a “stub” (too short to constitute encyclopedia coverage) that is rated of “low importance.” Post your final draft in your group's sandbox and your final version to Wikipedia; then submit both the draft and the final article to me as a Word document via Connect (see the timeline for what to include in this document).

Throughout this class project, UBC’s Arts ISIT will provide us with technical support, and a volunteer from WikiEdu will host your group, facilitating your interactions with community members as required.

On the “Talk” page of Wikipedia articles, community members engage in ongoing peer review: they disagree with a contribution and explain their reasoning, recommend, make or undo revisions, and/or support a change. Accordingly, your group’s contributions may be deleted, altered, changed, or challenged by Wikipedians. This is all part of process: community members’ responses will not negatively impact your grade and may prompt you to make revisions that improve your final contribution. For your grade, I assess what you post to your group's sandbox on the specified dates and the final document that you submit via Connect.

Part Two: Edit-a-thon Reflection (400-500 words)

Please approach this reflection as a public academic genre, primarily addressing the reading expectations of experienced and apprentice scholars such as myself and your peers while being open to other interested readers. Write a 400-500 word reflection (plus Works Cited in MLA style) on what your team experienced and learned throughout this Web 2.0 project. Please address some of the following questions: What did you learn about the Wikipedia community, the article genre, the agency of Wikipedia editors, and the rhetorical constraints they work within? What exigencies did you hope to address and why? Did you accomplish what you set out to achieve? Is there something that you wanted to learn but did not? How did the team function together? What would you have done differently? What did your experience teach you about Web 2.0? Post your reflection to your group's sandbox and then also submit it to me as a Word document via Connect.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank UBC's Will Engle and Cindy Underhill for their help in designing this assignment and supporting our class. Judy Chan also offered me excellent advice and sample reflection questions from her own assignment, which I have adapted here. Thanks to Helaine Blumenthal and the Wiki Education Foundation team and to the technical support team from UBC’s Arts ISIT for their support of our class project. And a big thanks to the students of #crazyforcanlit: Canadian literature and Web 2.0 for their enthusiasm, intellectual curiosity, and collaborative spirit during this project.

Week 1
Welcome to our Wikipedia assignment timeline for ENG470D. This page will guide you through our Wikipedia project - please also reference the assignment handout that I provided.


 * Create an account and join this course page, using the enrollment link that I sent you.
 * It's time to dive into Wikipedia. Below, you'll find the three online training modules you'll need to take.  Incomplete trainings will be reflected in your grade.
 * When you finish the training, practice by introducing yourself to a classmate on that classmate’s Talk page.

To get started, please review the following handouts:


 * Editing Wikipedia pages 1–5
 * Evaluating Wikipedia

For homework as individuals (due start of class, Feb 28th):


 * For Tuesday's class this week, everyone should have a Wikipedia account and have enrolled in this WikiEdu Project page via the enrolment link that was emailed out.

For homework as individuals (due start of class, Feb 28th):


 * Identify two possible “notable” articles to create or expand and briefly explain how they address the exigence of underrepresentation (1-2 sentences each).  You will hand this in at start of Tuesday's class (brief, point form, handwritten or typed). Be prepared to pitch your topics to your group.

For homework in your groups (due start of class, March 2nd):


 * Propose two “notable” article topics (in rank order) and briefly explain how they address the exigence of underrepresentation (1- 2 sentences for each)
 * Identify who will be the technical and reflection leads.
 * Select one group member whose 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.
 * Post topics and leads to group sandbox by start of Thursday's class

Note: I will review and approve one of your topics March 3-4, and notify your group.

Week 2
For homework in your groups (due start of class, March 7th):


 * On the home, assign yourselves individually to your approved topic.
 * Revise your group sandbox to reflect your approved topic and explain the significance of your choice
 * Post an introduction of your project and topic to the relevant talk or project page with a link to your sandbox
 * Identify one fairly robust Wikipedia article on Canadian literature  (different from your chosen topic) that you can then analyze together during class

____ Resource: Using Wikipedia Talk Pages

Take note: 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.

During class: As a group, you'll evaluate a Wikipedia article, and leave suggestions for improving it on the article's Talk page. You will also edit the page by adding 1-2 sentences and citing a source. In doing so, you'll be building on the training modules, &quot;Editing Basics&quot; and &quot;Evaluating Articles and Sources,&quot; that you already completed (also linked below). You might also find the training module, &quot;Finding Sources,&quot; useful (see below).


 * Evaluate your chosen article:
 * 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?


 * Contribute to your chosen article:
 * Post 2-3 suggestions for its improvement to the article’s Talk page
 * Add 1-2 sentences to this article page, and attribute this statement to a reliable source

During class:


 * Identify 3-5 possible sources for your own article. These can be relevant, reliable books, journal articles, or other sources.
 * By the end of class, post this working bibliography both in your group sandbox and to the talk page of the article you'll be working on.
 * Optional: post some of your ideas to the article's talk page, too, inviting feedback.

Week 3
For homework in your groups (due start of class, March 14th):


 * Identify additional sources for your article and post them to the group sandbox and Talk page (have 5, minimum, for the start of class)
 * Check the Talk page to see if someone has offered feedback on your topic and sources,  and discuss if and how to address their input
 * NEW: Read through each source in advance, flagging sections that you plan to cite in your article
 * NEW: Make a plan for how to divide the work across your team members for the first edit-a-thon session.

During class: You've picked a topic, found your sources, and identified sections to cite. Now it's time to start writing.

'''Creating a new article? '''

on the group sandbox [REVISED: if you have posted a general invitation on the relevant talk page, then you do not need to post an update.]
 * In your group's sandbox, write a rough draft of your article with sources.
 * Post an update to the relevant project page, inviting people to read your draft
 * Save a backup copy in MS Word [REVISED: you do not need to complete this step; instead, the technical team will note the URL of your group sandbox draft for this date and time.]

'''Improving an existing article? '''

on the group sandbox [REVISED: if you have posted a general invitation on the relevant talk page, then you do not need to post an update.]
 * In your group's sandbox, write a rough draft of the changes you plan to make to the article with sources. This may include the addition of one or more new sections and/or revisions to existing sections. Label these (e.g., with headings) so that people reading your draft can map your proposed changes to the current article.
 * Post an update to the article's talk page, inviting people to read your draft
 * Save a backup copy in MS Word [REVISED: you do not need to complete this step; instead, the technical team will note the URL of your group sandbox draft for this date and time.]

Remember to keep reading and rereading your sources, too, as you draft and revise your contributions.

____

Resources: Editing Wikipedia pages 7–9

Week 4
For homework in your groups (due start of class, March 21st):


 * Check your article's Talk page to see if someone has advice on your draft and discuss if and how you will address their feedback
 * NEW: Reread your draft, and identify major revisions you plan to make. Take the necessary steps to be able to complete these during class (e.g., reread a source or find a new source before class; draft a major change in advance)
 * NEW: Make a plan for how to divide the work across your team members for the final edit-a-thon session.

During class, complete these three steps: First, make the final revisions to your article on the group Sandbox.

Second, once you have it finalized, 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.

Third, save a backup of your article to MS Word.

For homework in your groups:


 * Check your article's talk page to see if someone has responded to your contributions. Discuss if and how to address this in your reflection

For homework in your groups:

1) your topic and a brief rationale for choosing this topic from March 7th, 2) NEW: No longer required (your draft article from March 14th), 3) your final article posted to Wikipedia March 21st (NEW: with minor revisions), and 4) your reflection posted to your group sandbox
 * finalize your group reflection and post it to your group's sandbox (details below)
 * Compile a MS Word document and submit it to me via email (note: one member may submit it on behalf of your group). Your document should include the following with each section clearly labelled and all participants listed:

As a reminder, here is a description of this reflection component of the assignment:

Please approach this reflection as a public academic genre, primarily addressing the reading expectations of experienced and apprentice scholars such as myself and your peers while being open to other interested readers.

Write a 400-500 word reflection (plus Works Cited in MLA style) on what your team experienced and learned throughout this Web 2.0 project. Please address some of the following questions:


 * What did you learn about the Wikipedia community, the article genre, the agency of Wikipedia editors, and the rhetorical constraints they work within?
 * What exigencies did you hope to address and why?
 * Did you accomplish what you set out to achieve? Is there something that you wanted to learn but did not?
 * How did the team function together?
 * What would you have done differently?
 * What did your experience teach you about Web 2.0?