Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of San Francisco/RHET 110N Written Communication 1 (Fall 2015)

In order to prepare students for the kinds of writing typically required in college-level courses and in civic discourse, RHET 110N teaches the composition of thesis-driven argumentative essays that respond to important social and academic issues. In addition to four units of classroom instruction, students learn and practice the writing process, from idea to final essay (e.g., pre-writing, drafting, revising, and editing) in a 2-hour computer writing lab each week. Using elements of rhetorical theory, students gain practice in composing brief to medium-length arguments that are focused, clearly organized, well supported and based on accurate critical reading of materials assigned by the instructor. Students develop skills in summary, paraphrase, and quotation; incorporating multiple sources in the service of a unified argument; and in addressing multiple points of view. Students are introduced to library research as a tool of academic inquiry and gain practice revising for whole-text coherence, as well as for clarity and correct usage.

Week 1: Becoming a Wikipedian

 * Overview of the course
 * Introduction to how Wikipedia will be used in the course
 * Understanding Wikipedia as a community, we'll discuss its expectations and etiquette.

-

Handout: Editing Wikipedia

Week 2

 * Create an account and then complete the online training for students. During this training, you will make edits in a sandbox and learn the basic rules of Wikipedia.

-

Resources: Online Training for Students

Week 3

 * Review pages 4-7 of the Evaluating Wikipedia brochure. This will give you a good, brief overview of what to look for in other articles, and what other people will look for in your own.
 * Evaluate an existing Wikipedia article related to the class, and leave suggestions for improving it on the article's talk page.
 * A few questions to consider (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?

-

Resources: Evaluating Wikipedia,