Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Utah SFESOM/BioC 7210 - Wikipedia Editing for Health Care Professionals (Sep 5 2023 - Sep 29 2023)

Students will choose individual topics from the Medicine WikiProjects area and spend 4 weeks researching the topic and editing the page.

Week 1
Welcome to your Wikipedia course timeline. This page guides you through the steps you'll need to complete for this course, 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.



Tuesday 8/5 OR 8/6 (4-5 pm either day, Zoom link: Formosa Zoom Link )


 * Overview of the course
 * How does editing Wikipedia fit in to a Medical School Curriculum?
 * What are the expectations and etiquette of Wikipedia editing?
 * How do I find a topic and page to edit?
 * Expectations for peer-reviews
 * Overview of Wiki resources
 * Context and impact of editing Wikipedia pages

Resources: Course Google Drive with Handouts

The WikiEdu training modules are necessary for getting started. You can start doing them as soon as you are added to the course, and you are expected to complete all of them by the end of the day on Tue Sep 6. The &quot;Systemic Review&quot; exercise will be discussed in our introduction so the due date is flexible.

These are additional training modules that are more focused on Health Care professionals. They should also be completed by the end of the day on Wed Sep 6.

Medicine



By 9:00 am on Fri Sep 8 ( before  our first weekly check-in), post your final Workplan to your selected Wikipedia's talk page, so that you can engage with the general Wikipedian community members who are interested &amp; actively following your article. If you are working on a team, be explicit about what section(s) you will individually be responsible for.

Consider explicitly declaring any/all of the following (but 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?
 * Which sections will you prioritize?
 * What resources do you intend to look up, and when?
 * How will you decide what things (signs, symptoms, side-effects, etc.) to explicitly include? To explicitly exclude?
 * Will you also embed additional links to other Wiki pages?
 * How will you ensure that you are using language that is broadly understood by those outside of your profession?



Handout: Workplan worksheet

=
On Fri Fri Sep 8 you will present your first outline of your topic to your peers. We will give feedback on your evolving thoughts. If you need to join by Zoom use this link. ======

Week 2
A month-long course may feel like a long time, but it's remarkably short for this kind of work! You should have begun making edits live on Wikipedia (e.g. not merely in your sandboxes) before the end of this week.

On Fri Fri Sep 15 you will present your second draft of your work to your peers. We will give feedback on your evolving thoughts.

Week 3
Present your latest progress to your peers. We will give feedback on your evolving thoughts.

Guiding framework



Please perform peer reviews beginning on Fri Sep 22 after check-in #3


 * What should a peer-review look like? Here's our suggested plan::
 * Start by reviewing the stated workplan
 * Mention two things they're doing well
 * Two things they might improve on
 * General principles of feedback (e.g. be SPECIFIC)
 * Global impressions of
 * Readability
 * Flow
 * Specific areas to fix
 * Whether the level of detail is appropriate or too far &quot;into the weeds&quot; (specifically where?)
 * Be nice and professional
 * Assume good intent from the writer

 

Logistical Details:

 Peer reviews are DUE by end of week 3 = Before you go to sleep on Sun 9/24 Post the peer-review on the TALK page of the article you are reviewing. </li> <li>Here's a link to a wikipedia peer-review rubric offered by Wiki Ed for evaluating student contributions to Wikipedia articles. While we will NOT formally use the point system, it does provide a nice complement to our &quot;home-grown&quot; peer-review process. </li></ul>

Resources:


 * Editing Wikipedia
 * Reach out to your Wikipedia Expert if you have any questions.

Thinking about Wikipedia

Exercise
Add links to your article

Now's the time to revisit your text and refine your work. You may do more research and find missing information; rewrite the lead section to represent all major points; reorganize the text to communicate the information better; or add images and other media.

Week 4
BEFORE we start our session on Mon 9/25, ALL peer-reviews should have been completed and posted to the talk page of the page being reviewed.

<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; font-size: 15.008px; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif;">Present your work-in-progress to the class after incorporating changes based on the feedback you receive.

Edit your work based on feedback from the class and any suggestions from the Wikipedian community.

<div style="font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; font-size: 15.008px; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; color: #2c2c2c;">

How to respond to the peer-reviewer's comments?


 * Thank your reviewer for their EXCELLENT peer review
 * Acknowledge the things you agree with and your intent to address them
 * Outline things you disagree with so you can either negotiate or justify your viewpoint
 * Point out how/where you've made the changes suggested by your peer-reviewer
 * If you don't have time or bandwidth to complete all the suggestions declare that for future wikipedians.
 * Be nice and professional
 * Assume good intent from the writer

<div style="font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; font-size: 15.008px; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; color: #2c2c2c;">

Logistical Details:


 * Post your responses to peer-review on the TALK page near the peer review.
 * This will allow other Wikipedians to engage with the recommendations long after you finish this course

Resources:


 * Evaluating Wikipedia
 * Reach out to your Wikipedia Expert if you have any questions.

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!

<div style="font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; font-size: 15.008px; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif;">

On Fri Sep 29 we will convene for a meeting to share accomplishments and discuss lessons learned. Final presentations will be structured as follows: round robin &quot;reports&quot; (maximum of 10 minutes each) from each of you as follows:

<div style="font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; font-size: 15.008px; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif;">


 * What did I accomplish this month (broad overview)?
 * What did I learn?
 * What will I take forward with me into the future?
 * Now in hindsight, is there anything I would have done differently?

<div style="font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; font-size: 15.008px; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif;">

<div style="font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; font-size: 15.008px; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif;">