Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Valparaiso University/New Literacies, Cultures, and Technologies of Writing (Spring 2017)

We’re accustomed to, and quite comfortable, thinking of technology as a tool—we use it and it makes our lives (hopefully) easier; we put it down, and it no longer impacts us. But tools embody values, and values shape our behaviors, actions, and finally our sense of self (e,g., we &lt;3 efficiency and so our tools help us move and communicate faster, and when’s the last time you “unplugged” and felt comfortable in your solitude?). So technology is not only a tool; it’s also a cultural force.

This course seeks to investigate how technology has shaped and is shaping us in particular relation to our media. What happens to the way we read and write, to the way even that we think, when computer and Internet technologies enter our means of communication? What new forms of media are produced? What new kinds of self are introduced?

In some ways, the study of new media is a recent field. The advances in technology have rapidly changed how media is created, distributed and stored. But, of course, media itself isn’t new; neither is technology. Many people studying new media today harken back to the enormous changes our culture went through with the invention of the printing press. They suggest that we, too, are going through such a sea change today. Are we?

Week 11
Welcome to your Wikipedia project's course timeline. This page will guide you through the Wikipedia project for your course. Be sure to check with your instructor to see if there are other pages you should be following as well.

Your course has also been assigned a Wikipedia Content Expert. Check your Talk page for notes from them. You can also reach them through the &quot;Get Help&quot; button on this page.

In class, we will go over the following:


 * Introduction to how Wikipedia will be used in the course
 * Enrolling in our WikiEdu course

Week 12
Read Tech: Cronon (151).

Take the Editing Basics training below—be sure to watch the videos and practice the tutorials when prompted!

Find an article on Wikipedia that you care about and one that needs some love and attention. Visit the Talk Page to see what editors have had to say about it. Either respond to a concern you see posted there and make a change to the article that addresses the concern, or find a section or paragraph whose prose needs some polishing (copy editing, grammar, consistent voice, etc.). Be sure to describe your changes and save them. You can check the View History tab to make sure you documented your changes correctly.

Complete the Finding Articles training. Note: this is designed for instructors but contains helpful hints on how to find out which articles are best to edit. This will be useful later in the Brainstorming assignment, too.

Complete the Sources and Citations training below.

Then practice editing a Wikipedia article by adding a citation. There are two ways you can do this:


 * Add 1-2 sentences to an article whose topic you know something about, and cite that statement to 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 it or correct the statement.

In addition to completing the training module for today, you will need to perform a rhetorical analysis on an existing article.


 * 1) Find an article on a topic you care about and read it carefully.
 * 2) Referring to pages 5 and 6 in the EvaluatingWikipedia brochure, make a list of its strengths and its weaknesses. You may use your own criteria to evaluate the article in addition to the checklists in the brochure.
 * 3) Read pp. 2-4 of EvaluatingWikipedia.
 * 4) Click on “View history” for your article. When was the article started? How did the article look in its early stages? How/when was material added? By whom? How long did it take to get to its current stage? How recently have edits been made? Is it still active?
 * 5) Click on the “Talk” tab for your article. How actively did the editors use it? For what reason? How would you describe the tone of the conversation? Do you see the same editors here that you saw on the history page?
 * 6) Copy edit the article in some way: think about ways to improve the language, such as fixing grammatical mistakes. Then, make the appropriate changes. You don’t need to contribute new information to the article.
 * 7) Post your list of strengths/weaknesses, answers to questions #4 and #5, and the description of your edits to your User account talk page.

Week 13
In addition to completing the training module for today, you will need to critique an existing article. In addition, you will leave suggestions for improving it on the article's Talk page.


 * Complete the &quot;Wikipedia Essentials&quot; training (linked below).
 * Choose an article that interests you. With an eye for how well the editors have established both verifiability and notability, evaluate the strength of the article. 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 there enough and a variety of sources? 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?
 * Based on your analysis, what changes would you make to the article to improve the verifiability and notability?  Leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — Aschuet1 (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC).
 * Make at least one of the changes you recommended.

Most students find the biggest challenge to successfully completing this assignment to be finding a topic that is a) not already on Wikipedia and b) substantial enough to have created a buzz such that sources on the topic are available. Some examples of topics that have worked for students in the past:


 * a popular young adult novel from a trilogy,
 * an important international artist,
 * an award-winning book from the past that had been overlooked,
 * an award-winning play from the past,
 * a noted hair stylist and founder of a salon franchise,
 * an especially regarded music album.

As you brainstorm a list of topics, then, you should think about authors, artists, books, short stories, activists, etc., that you’ve researched in other classes or out of your own interest; and think about popular culture that has fascinated you and that media sources have also likely commented on. Wikipedia is especially interested in articles that provide information about marginalized and minority communities in the United States who are often overlooked in traditional media, textbooks, and on Wikipedia itself.

Here’s what I’d like you to turn in to me for this part of the assignment:


 * 1) Create a list of fifteen possible topics on your User account talk page.
 * 2) Check Wikipedia and cross those topics off the list that already exist.
 * 3) Of those topics that remain, carefully think about which ones will likely be verifiable and notable, i.e., those that people in the media or in the academy will have commented on.  If no topics remain on your list, go back to the drawing board. You may find it useful to go back to the stubs on Wikipedia. With my permission, a stub can be the basis for an article, but be careful—they might be stubs because people can’t find sources.
 * 4) Once you’ve chosen the topic you want to pitch to the class, provide a rationale for why the topic belongs on Wikipedia in a sentence or two. Why do you think it’s notable enough? Who do you think has written about it? Where will you find these sources? Post answers to your User account talk page.
 * 5) Now push yourself to think outside the box. List other possible avenues or people not directly related to your topic that might still turn up interesting resources. For example, when I wrote an article on the Slate Political Gabfest, I had researched the show, the magazine that hosts the podcast, and the hosts of the podcast, and I still didn’t have enough sources. So I decided to research the producer even though I wasn’t going to write about him in my article. This led me to two new sources that I was able to use and that helped me increase the notability of the show. Post answers to your User account talk page.
 * 6) List other possible Wikipedia pages that you might be able to link to from your article, e.g., in my article, I could link to Slate magazine, the hosts of the podcast, and a public radio station. Post answers to your User account talk page.
 * 7) Come to class prepared to argue for your topic. We will select six all together and students will work in groups of five to draft, revise, and polish the article.


 * 1) As a group, select one of your member's User talk pages. This will be your communication platform. [To find a User talk page, go to the &quot;Students&quot; tab at the top of our coursepage. Click on the username of the selected member. Under the heading &quot;User Contributions,&quot; click on &quot;talk&quot; next to the member's username. Alternatively, you can copy and paste the username at the end of this url in your web browser: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:&lt;insert user name here&gt;]
 * 2) Individually, go to Wikipedia and find an article on a topic similar to your group's topic—What have these editors done that you’d like to imitate? How have they organized the article? With what headings? What kind of information is included? Where do they get their sources from? What did the editors miss that you would want to include? Post your answers to the selected User talk page.
 * 3) Based on your answers, draft a potential table of contents for your group's article. For each heading, come up with a list of two criteria that will make that kind of section strong. For example, a Critical Reception section for an article about a novel will be strong if a) it provides both positive and negative criticism and b) if it provides an overview of the criticism and not just a list of different critics. Post your answers to the selected User talk page.

Week 14
Building on what you learned in the library session, each individual member of your group should identify and locate two or three potential sources for your article. Keep in mind you might be using the same search strategies as each other, so try to think outside the box a little to get as many different sources as possible because eventually your group needs to find at least seven-ten sources that can help you write a verifiable and notable article for Wikipedia. (I hope you might be able to find more.)

Remember that what Wikipedia cares about is that secondary sources have confirmed the merit of the topic you’re writing about. I cannot stress the importance of this enough. If the sources you find are self-referential, i.e., directly connected to the topic you are writing about, Wikipedia will not count these sources toward notability, basically because self-interest does not yield verifiability. Note: you might find it valuable to use Facebook and Twitter as resources that lead you to further information; however, Wikipedia will consider them primary sources too closely related to the topic itself. Sources can range from:

●      magazine/newspaper/radio journalism

●      scholarly article or study

●      audio or video from reputable sources

●      valid websites.

Post your 2-3 sources in MLA style format to the designated group member's User talk page. (Feel free to use a resource like http://www.easybib.com/ at this point.)

Review the list of possible sources your group collected for Monday. Based on Monday's library session, what holes do you see if any? What additional sources can be added?

You will need a final list of at least 7-10 sources.

Create a brief annotated bibliography for each, justifying why the resource will be useful for you in a sentence or two—I want to know why the resource will establish both verifiability and notability; I want to know which sections of your article it will help you build. Provide citations in MLA style.

It is up to your group how you delegate work, but the annotated bibliography should be complete and posted to your group's selected User talk page before class.

The group shares the grade.

Week 15
Use your designated sandbox to draft parts of the article. Keep using the Talk Page to discuss what you’re finding and what concerns you have.

Have one or two people in your group bring a laptop to class.


 * Continue to use the assigned article to complete the homework your group assigned you from Monday's class. Draft sections in your own sandbox, but make sure everything is copied and pasted into the assigned article before Wednesday's class.
 * Leave any concerns or questions you have as you draft in the assigned article's Talk Page. Check the Talk Page at least twice before Wednesday'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 on Wednesday, your article will be workshopped, and any remaining time you have, you can use to work as a group. Bring a laptop to class if you have one.

Resources: Editing Wikipedia,, Edit Conflict

Given the feedback of your peers, given your own group's assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of your article, given that you've had a little more time to do research--make changes to your article that get it closer to where you want the finished product to be.

Have one or two people in your group bring a laptop to class.

Week 16
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 aim instead to 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 editors outside our class to contribute in the future. In fact, part of your assignment for today is to post, as a group, what you think is missing from the article and how you hope future editors will contribute.


 * Revise your Wikipedia article and polish it (see resource below).
 * As a group, post to the assigned article'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 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.
 * Move your article into Wikipedia's main space using the Moving Out of Your Sandbox resource below--only one person in your group needs to do this.

Resources: ,

I will look for certain criteria when grading:


 * Is the tone in the article neutral? Does it avoid flattery on the part of the editors? 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 article? How much attention have editors paid to proper formatting, including the references?
 * Have the editors established notability by demonstrating thoroughly that others have commented on the topic, using at least 7-10 reliable sources that are independent of the subject?
 * 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.