Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Valparaiso University/Engl 400 New Literacies, Technologies, and Cultures of Writing (Fall 2015)

Interfacing with Wikipedia: Writing as a Community

With the worldwide burgeoning of affordable, easy-to-use Internet applications, Shirky argues people in industrial and post-industrial societies are able to shift from being media consumers to being media producers as well. As a result, we are able to engage in generous networked activity that has the potential to shape the world. It might seem while we’ve been reading Keen and Shirky that our class has veered away from attention to reading and writing practices. And it’s true that both thinkers focus on users of media rather than the digital word itself. With this practice in new media assignment, we’ll turn our attention back to the word. What is it like to be the amateurs contributing to user-generated media? How do we have to think anew about research, about writing, about audience? To engage these questions, we’re going to enter more deeply the world of Wikipedia.

Keen and Shirky both discuss Wikipedia in their books but to very different ends. In the interest of seeing how amateurs might participate in rather than just consume media, you will * sign up for a Wikipedia account, * study the cultural norms of verifiability and notability in order to analyze Wikipedia articles, * learn and practice basic editing skills, * communicate with others on Wikipedia via Talk Pages, * collaboratively create or build up an article on Wikipedia. (As a class, we will be contributing to Wikipedia’s effort to increase the number of articles dedicated to literature of one sort or another.)

In this way, you will be practicing the networked generosity of Shirky. If, like Keen, you end up skeptical of amateurs, you’ll have a chance to write about that later in an analysis of this assignment.

Week 1: Getting Your Feet Wet
Enroll in our course on WikiEdu. Very important! * 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. * You should anticipate needing an hour to an hour and a half to complete this well. You might wish to do it in two sittings to avoid information overload. Be especially mindful to take advantage of the brief 2-3 minute videos. Practice the editing skills every time you're given the option.

-

Resources: Online Training for Students


 * 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: Digging In

 * Begin by reading the introduction and the following sections of Verifiability.
 * “Why not?”
 * “But I Know the Truth”
 * “Editors Are Not Truth Finders”
 * “Meaning of Truth in Different Subject Areas”
 * Then read the introduction and the follow sections of Notability.
 * “General notability guideline”
 * “Notability requires verifiable evidence”
 * “Why we have these requirements”
 * Next review pages 4-7 of the Evaluating Wikipedia brochure (see Resources below). 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.
 * Finally, evaluate a section/subheading of Valparaiso University, and leave two 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, Using Talk Pages


 * Overview: add 1–2 sentences of new information, backed up with a citation to an appropriate source.
 * Locate an article on Wikipedia that you know something about and to which you'd like to add new material.
 * Find your reliable source(s).
 * Add 1-2 sentences of new information, remembering not to paraphrase but to summarize the material into your own words, perhaps this will mean editing some of the sentences around your addition as well. Remember: be bold. Editors can revert to previous versions if they need to.
 * To add your citation, read through the Citing Your Sources handout. If you need additional help, visit the &quot;Inserting a Reference&quot; section of Wikipedia's Referencing for Beginners and check out &quot;Using the RefToolbar.&quot; The video tutorials there can be useful for visual learners (I recommend the 5-minute 2.0 video).
 * Be sure to describe your edit and save your changes.

-

Resources: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Citing_your_sources.pdf" target="_blank">Citing Your Sources</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Inserting_a_reference" target="_blank">Inserting a Reference</a>


 * Overview: To contribute to Wikipedia, our class will be working in groups to help develop three articles on the novels of John Williams, a writer who has received renewed appreciation in the last 5-10 years. To prepare, each of you individually will consider the sorts of sections one expects to find in an encyclopedia entry on novels and come up with a set of criteria for what makes that section strong and well written for Wikipedia. You will then look at a current article on Wikipedia in order to evaluate it by your criteria.
 * First, briefly answer the following questions, remembering, of course, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. (Creating bulleted lists is fine.) What do you want to see in a “background” section? a “plot” section? a “characters” section? a “themes” section? a “style” section? a “critical reception” section?
 * Next, read <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_a_Mask" target="_blank">Behind a Mask</a> on Wikipedia. (I’ve chosen this article, by the way, because an Engl 400 student from Fall 2014 generated it from a stub.) How well does the article do at fulfilling your expectations? If you were going to contribute as an editor to this page, what would you do next?
 * Finally, post your criteria, your evaluation of Behind a Mask, and your suggestions for what you would do next to our class <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wiki_Ed/Valparaiso_University/Engl_400_New_Literacies,_Technologies,_and_Cultures_of_Writing_(Fall_2015)" target="_blank">Talk Page</a>. See instructions and my example there.

Week 3: Making a Contribution

 * In preparation for this assignment, I have collected various articles that will help our class create/contribute to three Wikipedia pages on John Williams’ novels: Stoner, Butcher’s Crossing, and Augustus. You will be assigned a group and a number of readings on one or more of the novels.
 * Your first job is to read all the sources I've assigned to you, highlighting in each information you think would be relevant to the various sections for the table of contents in a Wikipedia novel article: background, plot summary, characters, themes, style, critical reception. It’s quite possible you will have more information for some categories over others. [Revised content since Wed's Oct 21st class: I found a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Novels" target="_blank">Manual of Style</a> that Wikipedia uses for novels. By and large it corroborates our class discussion, but a few things are different or clarified. It will serve as our reference point.]
 * Your second job is to summarize your findings in your own individual Sandbox on Wikipedia. Keep in mind that you will be sharing these findings with the rest of your group members and assigning various sections to each other. This means it’s essential that you include references and page numbers so that a peer can locate that information easily.
 * Meet in CLIR 261 for a work day.


 * Complete the homework your group assigned you from Monday's class, drafting your contributions to the article in the designated Sandbox. Double check the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Novels" target="_blank">Manual of Style</a> for the criteria relevant to your section(s).
 * Leave any concerns or questions you have in the Sandbox's Talk Page. Check the Talk Page at least once before today’s class and leave advice for your peers.
 * Things should be starting to look nice. Sections should be filling out, and formatting should receive your attention, e.g., headings and subheadings, bulleted lists, citations, linking to other relevant Wikipedia or webpages... Review how to avoid plagiarizing (see Resources); be sure to raise any concerns on this matter with your peers.
 * In class today, you will have work time as a group. Meet in CLIR 261.

-

Resources: <a href="http://wikiedu.org/editingwikipedia" target="_blank">Editing Wikipedia</a>, <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Avoiding_plagiarism.pdf" target="_blank">Avoiding Plagiarism</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_conflict" target="_blank">Edit Conflict</a>

Week 4: Giving Yourself a Barnstar
<ul> <li> Read chapter 6 in Shirky (pp. 161-181). </li> <li>Polish your Wikipedia article in the Sandbox.</li> <li>As a group, post to the Sandbox's Talk Page what you think remains to be done, inviting future editors to contribute. If individuals in the group disagreed about an approach or content or arrangement, you can also comment on this in the Sandbox Talk Page. I definitely consider the Wikipedia community of practice part of this assignment, and as we've seen, editors don't always agree about articles.</li> <li>Move your article out of the Sandbox: Butcher's Creek group, use the resource guide below; Augustus and Stoner, use the following instructions. If you are moving content from your sandbox into an existing article, care should be taken to integrate the content into the existing article as coherently as possible. If you have copied information from an article into a sandbox to re-write it: </li> <li>Look for changes that have been made since you copied the material from the article, to make sure you aren't undoing improvements that others have made.</li> <li>Copy changes section by section; don't copy your entire sandbox into the article.</li> <li>Make sure that you make it clear where the new content came from, especially if several people worked together in a sandbox. Adding &quot;copied content from user:example/sandbox; see that article's history for attribution&quot; is usually sufficient.</li></ul>

Given the dynamic, collaborative nature of Wikipedia, you may feel there are gaps in your article, e.g., perhaps none of your sources allowed you to create a Background section. That’s ok. You should nevertheless feel secure in your contributions as a group member, who also helped others in the group do their best work by challenging and provoking and upbuilding them. Additionally, you should feel proud of what you've put forward for others to build upon and you should be excited for others to contribute. In fact, part of your assignment for today is to post, as a group, to the Sandbox's Talk Page what you think is missing from the article and how you hope future editors will contribute.

That said, I will look for certain criteria when grading: * Is the tone in the article neutral? Is it coherent and consistent throughout? Is the writing strong and free from grammatical errors and typos? * How well does the appearance of the article fit the overall style of Wikipedia pages within the “genre” of the novel article? How much attention have editors paid to proper formatting? * Have the editors established notability by demonstrating thoroughly that others have commented on the topic? * Are claims verifiable? That is, have editors demonstrated that this is not original research but the presentation of research by scholars/journalists/etc. whose work has been recognized by their peers? Is work properly cited? Has plagiarism been avoided? (NOTE: If I discover plagiarism, the group will receive an F for this portion of the assignment and the plagiarism will need to be corrected to receive a grade for the overall assignment.) * Does your invitation on the Talk Page demonstrate you understand what the article needs to become a high quality article? Is the missing information reasonable, i.e., not just a matter of poor time management, but something that would require time outside the scope of this class? If your group had a disagreement, have individuals respectfully commented upon it on the Talk Page?

Apart from exceptional circumstances, group members will share the grade for this portion of the assignment. Please know that your grade is not dependent on whether the article is accepted/published/remains on Wikipedia.

-

Resources: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:All_subject_specific_handouts.pdf&page=6" target="_blank">Polishing Wikipedia Article</a>, <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Classroom_handout_-_moving_out_of_your_sandbox.pdf" target="_blank">Moving Out of Your Sandbox</a>