Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Maryland, College Park/Digital Rhetorics (Spring 2019)

In this upper-division rhetoric course we study the social significance of the ways digital texts are composed and circulated. In Spring 2019, we will explore why it matters how the Web is written and who does the writing. The course emphasizes discussion of contemporary rhetorical theory as well as active experimentation with digital tools as we expand our theoretical understandings through critical making.

Week 1
Welcome to your Wikipedia assignment's course timeline. This page guides you through the steps you'll need to complete for your Wikipedia assignment, with links to training modules and your classmates' work spaces.

Your course has been assigned a Wikipedia Expert. You can reach them through the Get Help button at the top of this page.

Resources:


 * Editing Wikipedia, pages 1–5
 * Evaluating Wikipedia

Create an account and join this course page, using the enrollment link your instructor sent you. (Because of Wikipedia's technical restraints, you may receive a message that you cannot create an account. To resolve this, please try again off campus or the next day.)

This week, everyone should have a Wikipedia account.

Exercise
Evaluate an articleIt's time to think critically about Wikipedia articles. You'll evaluate a Wikipedia article related to the course and leave suggestions for improving it on the article's Talk page.


 * Complete the &quot;Evaluating Articles and Sources&quot; training (linked above).
 * Create a section in your sandbox titled &quot;Article evaluation&quot; where you'll record notes about your observations and ideas.
 * Choose an article on Wikipedia related to your course to read and evaluate. As you read, consider the following questions (but don't feel limited to these):
 * 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?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? 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?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way it's been discussed in class?
 * Choose at least one question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC).

What's a content gap?Now that you're thinking about what makes a &quot;good&quot; Wikipedia article, consider some additional questions.


 * 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 write from a neutral point of view (NPOV) on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of &quot;bias&quot;?

Copyedit an articleGet started editing Wikipedia with 1-3 minor edits. Choose an article. Read through it, thinking about ways to improve the language, such as fixing grammatical mistakes. Then, be sure you are logged in and go ahead and make the appropriate changes. You don’t need to contribute new information to the article.

This week, everyone has edited Wikipedia!

Exercise
Add a citationComplete the training module above and then get some more practice editing Wikipedia by adding a citation to an article. There are two ways you can do this:


 * Add 1-2 sentences to a course-related article, and cite that statement with a reliable source, as you learned in the online training.
 * The Citation Hunt tool shows unreferenced statements from articles. 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 a citation or to correct the statement and add a citation.

Exercise
Choose a topic


 * Review page 6 of your Editing Wikipedia guidebook.
 * Look up 3-5 potential topics related to the course that you might want to improve on Wikipedia. Review the content of the article and check the Talk page to see what other Wikipedians are already discussing. Identify one or two areas from each that you could improve.
 * Choose 2-3 potential articles from that list that you can tackle. Post links to the articles, reliable sources you could cite, and your notes about what you might improve in your sandbox.
 * Finally, present your choices to your instructor for feedback.

Resource: Editing Wikipedia, page 6

Finalize your topic / Find your sources


 * On the Students tab, assign your instructor-approved topic 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, too.
 * Compile a list of 5-10 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.

This week, everyone has identified articles on Wikipedia they can improve.

Week 4


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

Reach out to your Wikipedia Expert if you have questions using the Get Help button at the top of this page.

Art History

Biographies

Books

Films

History

LGBT+ Studies

Women's Studies

Thinking about Wikipedia






 * 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?

Everyone has begun researching and writing their article drafts.

Week 5





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

Guiding framework




 * First, take the &quot;Guiding Framework: Peer Review&quot; online training, linked above.
 * Find the two classmates’ articles that you have been designated to peer review and copyedit by navigating to the Articles tab. Then in the &quot;My Articles&quot; section of the Home tab, assign them to yourself to review.
 * Peer review your classmates' drafts. Leave suggestions 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?

You probably have some feedback from other students and possibly other Wikipedians. Consider their suggestions, decide whether it makes your work more accurate and complete, and edit your draft to make those changes.

Resources:


 * Editing Wikipedia, pages 12 and 14
 * Reach out to your Wikipedia Expert if you have any questions.

Every student has finished reviewing their assigned articles, making sure that every article has been reviewed.

Week 6




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!
 * Be sure to copy text from your sandbox while the sandbox page is in 'Edit' mode. This ensures that the formatting is transferred correctly.

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.

Guiding questionsYou will present a very brief summary (2 minutes max) of the material you are writing or revising. Among the questions to consider:


 * What drew me to this article particularly?
 * What made me choose to revise an existing article (or write a new article from scratch)?
 * What content gaps was I responding to in my work?
 * How have I incorporated the feedback I've received?
 * What work remains to do on the page in order for it to be a useful resource?

Exercise
Add links to your articleContributing images and media files

Now that your article is live, consider how you can make it even better.


 * Watch the Talk page and edit history of your article and respond to any concerns raised by other Wikipedians.
 * Consider adding links from your article to others and from other articles to your own.
 * Read Editing Wikipedia page 12 to see how to create links.
 * Try to link to 3–5 articles, and link to your article from 2–3 other articles.
 * Consider adding an image to your article.
 * Before you start, review the Illustrating Wikipedia handbook, or see Editing Wikipedia pages 10–11. When you've reviewed those pages, complete the training module linked below.
 * When you're ready to start finding images, remember: Never grab images you find through an image search, or those found on Instagram, Tumblr, Reddit, Imgur, or even so-called &quot;Free image&quot; or &quot;free stock photo&quot; websites. Instead, you'll want to find images with clear proof that the creator has given permission to use their work. Many of these images can be found on search.creativecommons.org.
 * Once you've found an appropriate image, first upload it to Wikipedia's sister site for images, Wikimedia Commons, then add it to the Wikipedia article you are editing. If you have questions, take another look through the Illustrating Wikipedia handbook or get help from your Wikipedia Expert.





This week, everyone revised their drafts and moved their work from the sandbox into mainspace.

Week 7
Continue to expand and improve your work, and format your article to match Wikipedia's tone and standards. Remember to contact your Wikipedia Expert at any time if you need further help!

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 Wikipedia Expert at any time!

Guiding questionsWrite a reflective essay (3-4 pages, between 800-1200 words) on Wikipedia as a site of digital rhetorics. Consider the following questions as you reflect:


 * Critiquing articles: What did you learn about Wikipedia during the article evaluation? How did you approach critiquing the article you selected for this assignment? How did you decide what to add to your chosen article?
 * Summarizing your contributions: include a summary of your edits and why you felt they were a valuable addition to the article. How does your article compare to earlier versions?
 * Peer Review: Include information about the peer review process. What did you contribute in your review of your peers article? What did your peers recommend you change on your article?
 * Feedback: Did you receive feedback from other Wikipedia editors, and if so, how did you respond to and handle that feedback?
 * Wikipedia generally: What did you learn from contributing to Wikipedia? How does writing for Wikipedia differ from other writing assignments? How can Wikipedia be used to improve public understanding of scholarship in the field of Digital Rhetoric? Why is this important?

Revise and edit for focus and clarity, then submit your essay via ELMS.

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