Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of South Florida/ENL6236 18thC Women Authors (Fall 2015)

This course surveys the “Age of the Emerging Female Writer” and includes the best female authors between the years 1660-1789. Updated with a 2015 twist, the course has the added experience of digging in the digital archive. Almost all the course readings, including lyric poetry and satire, experiments in the early novel, essays, popular plays, letters and memoirs, can be found either online or in digital databases, and we will learn about book history and editing by attending to works in digital forms. In addition to collections such as EEBO and ECCO, the Burney Newspaper Database, Hathi Trust and the Internet Archive, we will engage new digital archives and tools such as the Digital Miscellanies Index, the Ann Finch Digital Archive, ABO Public, and the 18thCentury Common. We will even do some feminist Wikipedia intervention.

What was the eighteenth-century woman like? The literature foregrounds the figure of “woman” in an historical context that assumed she was inferior to “man” and that engendered some of the earliest feminist discourse. Women expressed public and private concerns in their writing, such as about courtship and marriage, sexuality, children, economics, slavery, empire and travel, education, literary authority and publication. Remarkably resonant with contemporary cultural issues, the class will examine representations of rape culture, slut shaming, gender performance, celebrity, scandal, nerds, healthy lifestyles, developing a following, and the like.

The course is grounded in feminist historiography and literary criticism, making questions of how we constitute the category of literature and why we read and study it central to our purpose. The field of early women’s writing offers many opportunities for substantial new research; class members will become conversant in current critical conversations on the subject, practicing critical reading skills on secondary resources, and producing digital writing in public and professional genres. Through weekly scaffolded assignments, students will build a fully researched author summary project, and through similarly scaffolded weekly assignments, students will learn to edit Wikipedia and contribute new biographical and literary history on eighteenth-century women writers. Students will engage in weekly writing, hands-on in-class research and creative activities, and develop an independent research essay of conference presentation length. This course fulfills an 18th Century distribution and cultural-critical studies requirements and students may produce an MA pre-1900 portfolio paper. The course syllabus can be found here: http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~runge/ENL6236-18thCWomenSyl.html.

Week 1

 * Overview of the course
 * Introduction to how Wikipedia will be used in the course
 * Introduce Wikipedia, how to get an account, training modules, course expectations.
 * Assign authors for articles

-

Handout: Editing Wikipedia

Week 2

 * Basics of editing
 * Anatomy of Wikipedia articles, what makes a good article, how to distinguish between good and bad articles
 * Collaborating and engaging with the Wiki editing community
 * Compare and contrast Wikipedia article on your author with Blackwell's Encyclopedia article and ODNB article.

-

Handouts:, Evaluating Wikipedia


 * 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.
 * Create a User page.
 * To practice editing and communicating on Wikipedia, introduce yourself on the user talk page of one of your classmates, who should also be enrolled in the table at the bottom of the page.
 * Explore topics related to your topic area to get a feel for how Wikipedia is organized. What areas seem to be missing? As you explore, make a mental note of articles that seem like good candidates for improvement.

-

Resources: Online Training for Students

All students have Wikipedia user accounts and are listed on the course page.

Week 3

 * Be prepared to discuss some of your observations about Wikipedia articles in your topic area that are missing or could use improvement.

-

Handouts:


 * Choose one article, identify ways in which you can improve and correct its language and grammar, and make the appropriate changes. (You do not need to alter the article's content.)

Week 4

 * Be prepared to explain close paraphrasing, plagiarism, and copyright violations on Wikipedia.
 * Discuss evaluation of Wikipedia article vs. academic article.

-

Handouts: and


 * Add 1–2 sentences of new information, backed up with a citation to an appropriate source, to a Wikipedia article related to the class.


 * Identify an article that would benefit from illustration, create or find an appropriate photo, illustration, or audio/video, and add it to the article.
 * All media uploaded to Wikipedia must fall under a &quot;free license,&quot; which means they can be used or shared by anyone. Examples of media you can use are photos that you take yourself, images and text in the public domain, and works created by someone else who has given permission for their work to be used by others. For more information about which types of media can be uploaded to Wikipedia, see Commons:Help desk.
 * To add a media file to an article, you must first upload it to Wikimedia Commons. For instructions on how to upload files to Commons, refer to Illustrating Wikipedia. This brochure will also provide you with detailed information about which files are acceptable to upload to Wikipedia and the value of contributing media to Wikipedia articles.


 * Explore a topic on your author (either the author page or a related/linked page; e.g. one of her titles)

Week 5

 * Discuss the topics students will be working on, and determine strategies for researching and writing about them.
 * Generate a list of article suggestions and /or corrections to your author article in your sandbox. Visit two other class members’ sandbox and add comments

Week 6

 * Present briefly your article decision (collaborate, trade authors, brainstorm) and list your article choice on course wiki site; add WikiEducation banner to talk page of article.
 * Q&amp;A session with instructor about interacting on Wikipedia and getting started with writing.


 * If you are starting a new article, write an outline of the topic in the form of a standard Wikipedia lead section of 3–4 paragraphs in your sandbox. Wikipedia articles use &quot;summary style&quot;, in which the lead section provides a balanced summary of the entire body of the article, with the first sentence serving to define the topic and place it in context. The lead section should summarize, very briefly, each of the main aspects of the topic that will be covered in detail in the rest of the article. If you are improving an existing article, draft a new lead section reflecting your proposed changes, and post this along with a brief description of your plans on the article’s talk page. Make sure to check that page often to gather any feedback the community might provide.
 * Begin working with classmates and other editors to polish your lead section and fix any major issues.
 * Continue research in preparation for writing the body of the article.


 * All students have started editing articles or drafts on Wikipedia.

Week 7

 * Briefly discuss article bibliographies.


 * list 5-10 sources your talk page. Visit and review a classmate's talk page.

Week 8

 * Share experiences and discuss problems.


 * Post annotated bibliography (5-10 sources) to article talk page with an outline of your intended changes; watch for feedback and suggestions.

Week 9

 * Expand your article into an initial draft of a comprehensive treatment of the topic. Continue working in sandbox Write article / edit article in sandbox.

-

Sandbox tutorial

Week 10
Briefly discuss peer-review process in class. ::Article assessments video, Evolution of an article video


 * Select two classmates’ articles that you will peer review and copyedit. On the table at the bottom of this course page, add your username next to the articles you will peer review.
 * Peer review two of your classmates’ articles. Leave suggestions on the sandbox talk pages.
 * Copy-edit the two reviewed articles.


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

Week 11

 * Discuss final edits to article page. [week of ABO/ABS editathon – extra credit for participation]
 * A general reminder: Don't panic if your contribution disappears, and don't try to force it back in.
 * Check to see if there is an explanation of the edit on the article's talk page. If not, (politely) ask why it was removed.
 * Contact your instructor or Wikipedia Content Expert and let them know.

-

Handout:


 * Move your sandbox articles into main space.
 * If you are expanding an existing article, copy your edit into the article. If you are making many small edits, save after each edit before you make the next one. Do NOT paste over the entire existing article, or large sections of the existing article.
 * If you are creating a new article, do NOT copy and paste your text, or there will be no record of your work history. Follow the instructions in the &quot;Moving out of your sandbox&quot; handout.
 * Begin expanding your article into a comprehensive treatment of the topic.
 * Make edits to your article based on peers’ feedback. If you disagree with a suggestion, use talk pages to politely discuss and come to a consensus on your edit.

Week 12

 * Visit article page and check for updates/interactions/reverts.
 * Return to your classmates' articles you previously reviewed, and provide more suggestions for further improvement. If there is a disagreement, suggest a compromise. *Add any additional research and writing to make further improvements to your article, based on your classmates' suggestions and any additional areas for improvement you can identify.

Week 13

 * Add final touches to your Wikipedia article.

-

Handout:

Week 15

 * Students will discuss their articles and author summary projects
 * We will &quot;publish&quot; a class book of our work

For more details please consult the following rubric:

Writing/tone and language: Is it suitable for first-time/general users AND those looking to understand the topic in more detail?


 * Excellent: writing is very detailed, clear and appropriate for first-time or general users


 * Strong: writing is detailed, clear, and appropriate for first-time or general users


 * Weak: writing is wordy, repetitive, laced with jargon

Media literacy / important terms linked appropriately: Are all the important terms linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference?


 * Excellent: all important terms are linked to respective Wikipedia pages and cross-referenced on appropriate pages


 * Strong: all important terms are linked to respective Wikipedia pages


 * Weak: many terms that should be linked to respective Wikipedia pages are not

Media literacy / illustration legal, appropriate, situated optimally: Do the images meet the quality guidelines described in the handbook?


 * Excellent: Illustration is legal, appropriate and situated optimally


 * Strong: Illustration is legal and appropriate


 * Weak: Illustration is missing, illegal, or inappropriate

Media literacy / overall presentation of webpage legibility, organization: Rate the overall presentation of the webpage. Check for typos, hard-to-read images and equations or syntax errors


 * Excellent: webpage appeals to the eye and is easy to follow, well organized, and free of typos or technical errors (code or language)


 * Strong: the webpage is organized well and free of typos and technical errors (code or language)


 * Weak: webpage is disorganized or contains more than one typo or technical error (code or language)

Content/ significance: Do the contents of each section justify its length?


 * Excellent: contribution is concise, significant and appropriate for subject


 * Strong: contribution is significant


 * Weak: contribution does not add to the usefulness of the article

Content/ references complete and appropriate: Are the references complete and inclusive?


 * Excellent: references are the best available, complete and appropriate


 * Strong: references are complete and appropriate


 * Weak: references are incomplete or inappropriate

Content/ logic: Is there a logical flow to the page?


 * Excellent: content is comprehensive and logical


 * Strong: content flows in logical way


 * Weak: content demonstrates flaws in logic

Content/ appropriate emphasis:
 * Excellent: all relevant considerations have been presented in an equal and neutral way


 * Strong: the points of view of presented in neutral way


 * Weak: content demonstrates bias or unequal treatment of issues

Content/ satisfies objectives in outline:
 * Excellent: article exceeds objectives in outline


 * Strong: article matches objectives in outline


 * Weak: article does not meet objectives set in outline

Content: minimum amounts - Minimum of five paragraphs / 3 sections / or 1000 words, five references, one illustration.


 * Excellent: contribution exceeds minimum expectations


 * Strong: contribution meets minimum expectations


 * Weak: contribution does not meet minimum expectations