Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of British Columbia/ASTU 260 (Summer 2016)

This page includes the course assignment details; student responses to this assignment are available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Astu260instructor_2016/Summer_2016_Content_Gap_Analysis.

Week 1
'''Welcome ''' Welcome to our Wikipedia assignment timeline for ASTU 260. This page will guide you through the Wikipedia project for your course. Please also reference the assignment handout that I provided.

Our course has 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.

In addition to the training modules you have completed, you may find the following handouts useful:


 * Editing Wikipedia pages 1–5
 * Evaluating Wikipedia

You may also find it helpful to review the work done by last year's students:


 * 2015 Assignment
 * 2015 Student Responses

Assignment

This group assignment asks you to translate scholarly research on knowledge mobilization for a non-specialist audience, readers of Wikipedia. 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 Wiki Education Foundation. As a group, identify a topic relevant to our focus on mobilizing knowledge. Examine if and how this topic is currently represented on Wikipedia, and then contribute an entry that begins or strengthens this representation.

Part One: scholarly analysis

Choose a topic related to knowledge mobilization; examine how this topic is currently represented in Wikipedia (e.g., an article dedicated to the topic and/or a subsection of an article). You may investigate a course-related concept, social movement, person, or institution. You are welcome to move beyond material we have covered in class, providing your chosen focus is clearly tied to the mobilization of research knowledge (if you are not sure, then check with me). Addressing a scholarly readership, identify a gap in how this topic is currently covered, explain how you found it, and why it is significant (how does its absence potentially impact readers interested in this topic?). In your analysis, also explain what this gap suggests about the public circulation of research knowledge (to do so, engage two or more scholarly sources). In other words, how does your gap analysis confirm, challenge, or contradict current scholarship on mobilizing scholarly research.

Audience: please approach this gap analysis as an academic genre, addressing the reading expectations of experienced and apprentice scholars such as myself and your peers.

Length: approximately 250 words plus Works Cited (following MLA or APA style).

Part Two: proposed Wikipedia entry

Given the gap you have identified, how would you address it by revising, expanding or adding a Wikipedia entry? Find 5 references (reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia), and write a proposed entry (or section of an entry) to address this gap. Your references should include 2 scholarly sources (minimum) and may include sources in languages other than English. (Option: you may wish to translate your proposed entry into other languages, too.)

Audience: please approach this entry as a public genre, addressed to a general readership including both experts on and non-specialists interested in your topic.

Length: 250 words, minimum, plus a listing of your five sources (following Wikipedia’s citation guidelines; if they are online sources, provide hyperlinks).

To offer you some possible entry points, my preliminary searches on Wikipedia (August 9 2016) revealed the following …


 * Dedicated entries on “Open Access,” “Knowledge Sharing,” “Knowledge Mobilization,” and “Knowledge Translation” but not on “Knowledge Production,” “Knowledge Construction,” or “Knowledge Dissemination”
 * Entries on “TED (conference),” “Aaron Swartz,” and “International Reporting Program”

Optional Activity (not tied to your assignment or participation grade)

To participate further in the course’s focus on translating research knowledge, initiate a conversation with the Wikipedia community invested in your topic. You may choose to do this as you are working on this assignment, once you have a final draft or after you receive feedback from me. Again, this experience is entirely optional and will not impact your course grade.

On the “Talk” page of the entry you have proposed revising, introduce yourself as a student group in this course (you could link to our course assignment page), explain the research you are translating, and share your proposed sources and/or revisions for their feedback. Alternatively, if you have proposed creating a new entry, then post this information to the Talk page of a Wikipedia Project that monitors your topic (I can direct you to the appropriate project page, in consultation with the WikiEd Foundation). A volunteer from WikiEd will host your group, facilitating your interactions with community members as required.

As you know from Jemielniak and the student training modules, community members engage in ongoing peer review, disagreeing with a contribution and explaining their reasoning, recommending revisions, and/or supporting a proposed change. Your experience might take place only on the Talk page or, based on community feedback, you may then post your revisions to the entry: in either case, it should be an interesting learning experience.

Please let me know if you choose to do this activity, as I would be very interested in reading the exchanges that follow.


 * Create an account and join this course page, using the enrollment link your instructor sent you.
 * Remember to complete the first three “Basics” modules (“Wikipedia Essentials,” “Editing Basics,” and “Evaluating Articles and Sources”).

As a group, pick a preliminary topic for a new Wikipedia article or an  addition to an existing Wikipedia article. Email me your topic ideas. 8/16/2016

As a group, create a draft of Part 1 -- scholarly analysis -- and Part 2 -- Wikipedia entry -- to share with peers.

Conduct peer review of drafts during class. 8/23/2016

Revise your scholarly analysis and Wikipedia entry, taking into account feedback from your peers.

If you have any technical questions, the team at Arts ISIT will be happy to help your group from 10-noon, Friday August 26th in Buchanan C105.

Remember you can also ask for help from our Wikipedia Content Expert by selecting &quot;get help&quot; from this page.

Submit your scholarly analysis and entry to our WikiEd course page. One member may submit the assignment on behalf of your group. 8/29/2016 by 4pm

Submit your work to me via Connect (&quot;Assignment Submissions&quot;) as a single Word document that includes both your analysis and entry. One member may submit the assignment on behalf of your group. 8/29/2016 by 4pm