Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Valparaiso University/New Literacies, Cultures, and Technologies of Writing (Spring 2018)

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 13
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.

This page breaks down writing a Wikipedia article into a series of steps, or milestones. These steps include online trainings to help you get started on Wikipedia.

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

To get started, please review the following handout:


 * Editing Wikipedia pages 1–5


 * Create an account and join this course page, using the enrollment link your instructor sent you. (To avoid hitting Wikipedia's account creation limits, this is best done outside of class. Only 6 new accounts may be created per day from the same IP address.)
 * It's time to dive into Wikipedia. Below, you'll find the first set of online trainings you'll need to take. New modules will appear on this timeline as you get to new milestones. Be sure to check back and complete them! Incomplete trainings will be reflected in your grade.
 * When you finish the trainings, practice by introducing yourself to a classmate on that classmate’s Talk page.
 * Read Evaluating Wikipedia. Find an article (on a topic you care about) that meets the &quot;elements of quality articles.&quot; Take notes on why. Find another article that has several &quot;signs of bad quality.&quot; Take notes on why. Bring these notes to class. Be sure to write down the titles of the articles, too, in case we want to look at them in class.

OPTIONAL -- This could be a fun and interactive way to gain mad Wikipedia skills!


 * Use Intertwine, a video conferencing tool where you can create your own User page and User Talk Page with peer editors enrolled in other courses. Sign up for a sessionhere or using the Intertwine training module below. (LAST I CHECKED ALL SLOTS WERE FULL.)

This week, everyone should have a Wikipedia account.

Week 14
It's time to think critically about Wikipedia articles. You'll evaluate a Wikipedia article related to the course and leave suggestions for improving it on the article's Talk page.


 * Complete the &quot;Evaluating Articles and Sources&quot; training (linked below).
 * Create a section in your sandbox titled &quot;Article evaluation&quot; where you'll leave notes about your observations and learnings.
 * Read and evaluate Wikipedia's article on Feed. As you read, consider the following questions (but don't feel limited to these):
 * 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?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Choose at least one question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. If you notice one of your peers is commenting on the same question, reply directly to them. Start an evolving discussion about your concern. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC).

Now that you're thinking about what makes a &quot;good&quot; Wikipedia article, consider some additional questions.


 * Wikipedians often talk about &quot;content gaps.&quot; What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them?
 * What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them?
 * Does it matter who writes Wikipedia?
 * What does it mean to be &quot;unbiased&quot; on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of &quot;bias&quot;?

Choose an article. Read through it, thinking 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.

Resources


 * How to do basic copyediting on Wikipedia
 * Pages tagged for copyediting

Familiarize yourself with editing Wikipedia by adding a citation to an article. There are two ways you can do this:


 * Add 1-2 sentences to an article of interest to you and one whose topic you have researched before, 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.

OPTIONAL -- This could be a fun and interactive way to gain mad Wikipedia skills!


 * Again, we introduce Intertwine,  a video conferencing tool where you will do an hour-long edit-a-thon to improve a fun Wikipedia article with peer editors enrolled in other courses. Sign up for a session here using the Intertwine training module below.

Week 15
Wikipedia's article on Faulkner's novel, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalom,_Absalom! Absalom, Absalom!], has been given a rating of &quot;start&quot; quality and &quot;high&quot; importance. Alternatively, its article on Faulkner's novel, Light in August, has been nominated as a &quot;good&quot; article of &quot;high&quot; importance. Why does Absalom, Absalom! fall so short?

Look at both articles carefully. Check out the Talk Pages for each. Imagine you were preparing to improve Absalom, Absalom! in both content and in style. Draft a brief plan of action in your sandbox:


 * what content would you want to contribute?
 * what research steps would you take to get that information?
 * what recommendations would you propose to the style or organization?

Individually,


 * Review page 6 of your Editing Wikipedia guidebook. Complete the Finding Your Article training module (10 minutes).
 * Confirm that you've been assigned a team member's Sandbox on the WikiEdu dashboard. A sandbox is like any other page on Wikipedia, and anyone can edit it. You will all use the assigned sandbox to draft your article.

Keep in mind that the final assignment will require you to, at a minimum,


 * synthesize 5-7 verifiable sources,
 * across at least 500 words of new content, properly cited, in a neutral tone,
 * while carefully copyediting for grammar and proper Wikipedia formatting.

Together with your team,


 * Use the strategies from Finding Your Article, identify 3-5 potential articles you might want to update on Wikipedia. (I recommend looking at the list of novels in the start-quality and C-quality high-importance categories of the WikiProjects Novel assessment table.) Place your list of potential articles in the assigned team member's Sandbox.
 * Have an idea for an article not yet on Wikipedia? That's fair game, too, as long as you know there are enough diverse, verifiable sources to ensure notability.
 * Review the content of each article and check the Talk page to see what other Wikipedians are already contributing. Discuss how you would meaningfully add new material/research and otherwise improve the article. If you're pitching a new article, identify which sections of the article you would build. You will probably find it helpful to refer to the Manual of Style/Novels now and throughout the writing process.
 * Finally, choose the two articles from your list that you would be most interested in tackling. Embed the links to the articles and provide a plan of action for each in the assigned team member's Sandbox. Briefly explain why your group is less interested in pursuing the other articles from your list. (Partners will share the grade from this portion of the assignment.)


 * On the Students tab, assign your chosen article to yourself. Make sure everyone in the group is also assigned to that article.
 * Wikipedia doesn't handle multiple people editing from different devices at the same time very well. If you're working together in person, one person should add the work to the Sandbox. If you are all working independently, make small edits and save often to avoid &quot;editing conflicts&quot; with classmates. Make sure that you're logged in under your own Wikipedia account while editing in your classmate's sandbox to ensure your edits are recorded.
 * Note: You may be tempted to use Google docs instead of the sandbox. Resist! For this assignment, I am requiring you to use Wikipedia's platform with all its shortcomings and strengths. This will ensure I and other Wikipedia editors have access to your work and thought processes.
 * Don't create a group account for your project. Group accounts are prohibited.

As a team,


 * Clearly identify which article you will move forward with for this assignment in your team's designated sandbox. Revise the plan of action. Post that plan to the article's talk page, too.
 * Compile a list of relevant, reliable books, journal articles, or other sources. At this point, strive for more than you will actually need. 10-15 would be ideal. If you cannot find at least 5-7 substantial sources, you probably don't have a notable topic yet. You should go back to your list of possible topics and try again. Be sure to notify me if you take this approach.
 * Post the bibliography to the talk page of the article you'll be working on and in your designated sandbox. Use MLA citation to enable yourself and others to retrieve the source later. (Do NOT use urls generated by library databases. People without access to Valpo's library won't find the article.)
 * Make sure to check in later on the Talk page to see if anyone has advice on your bibliography.


 * What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of &quot;neutrality&quot;?
 * What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
 * On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. What kinds of sources does this exclude? Can you think of any problems that might create?
 * If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?

Week 16
Individually, complete the Plagiarism training module.

As a team, revisit your plan of action. Of the sources you've identified, which 5-7 sources will best help you accomplish your plan?

Read those sources carefully. Feel free to divide and conquer.

Provide a 3-4 sentence summary of each. Bullet point key elements you will use when synthesizing this source with others. This should all be in your own words to help avoid plagiarism down the road.

In your team's designated sandbox, annotate your previous bibliography. In other words, find the MLA citation for the source you've been working on and paste the summary and bullet points beneath it.

For today's class, four of the 5-7 sources should be annotated.


 * Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?
 * What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?
 * What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?
 * What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?

Finish annotating your bibliography. By today's class, all 5-7 sources should be annotated.

Come to class prepared to talk with your team about the writing process: who will write what? will you write collaboratively? what challenges do you anticipate about the process? about the content? what concerns do you have about your sources?

Individually, complete the Sandboxes and Mainspace training module. Read pages 7–9 of Editing Wikipedia.

As a team, keeping in mind the following, begin drafting the material for your article in your team's designated sandbox. (This might mean copying material from other Wikipedia editors into your sandbox. I will still be able to tell what new material has been added by each student as long as you're signed into your account.)

Final contributions to creating or improving an article should, at a minimum:


 * synthesize 5-7 verifiable sources
 * across at least 500 words of new content, properly cited, in a neutral tone, and
 * be carefully copyedited for grammar and proper Wikipedia formatting.

You might also find the following resource helpful: a guide on how to edit Wikipedia articles about books.

Everyone has begun writing their article drafts.

Week 17
As a team,


 * Transform your article into a complete first draft. All sources should be synthesized and properly cited. In class, your article will be peer-reviewed.
 * If you'd like a Wikipedia Expert to review your draft, now is the time! Click the &quot;Get Help&quot; button in your sandbox to request notes. Don't be shy!! Collaboration is what Wikipedia is all about.


 * Using my Peer Review Guideline, review the draft of the team to which you've been assigned.
 * As time allows, I will assign you a second article to review.

You probably have some feedback from other students and possibly other Wikipedians. It's time to work with that feedback to improve your article!

As a team,


 * Review Editing Wikipedia page 14.
 * Return to your draft or article and think about the suggestions. Decide which ones to implement. Do you need to do any final research? Reach out to your instructor or your Wikipedia Expert if you have any questions.
 * Review your tone one last time. You might find the &quot;Avoid Peacock and Weasel Terms&quot; a useful check.
 * Read Editing Wikipedia page 12 to see how to create links from your article to others, and from other articles to your own. Try to link to 3–5 articles, and link to your article from 2–3 other articles.
 * Optional: consider adding an image to your article. Wikipedia has strict rules about what media can be added, so make sure to take Contributing Images and Media Files training before you upload an image.

Once you've made improvements to your article based on peer review feedback, it's time to move your work to Wikipedia proper - the &quot;mainspace.&quot;

'''Editing an existing article?

'''


 * NEVER copy and paste your draft of an article over the entire article. Instead, edit small sections at a time.
 * Copy your edits into the article. Make many small edits, saving each time, and leaving an edit summary. Never replace more than one to two sentences without saving!
 * Be sure to copy text from your sandbox while the sandbox page is in 'Edit' mode. This ensures that the formatting is transferred correctly.

'''Creating a new article?

'''


 * Read Editing Wikipedia page 13, and follow those steps to move your article from your Sandbox to Mainspace. Only one team member needs to do this step.
 * You can also review the Sandboxes and Mainspace online training.

Week 18
Given the dynamic, collaborative nature of Wikipedia, you may feel there are still gaps or weaknesses in your overall article. 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 still needs improvement in the article.

As a team,


 * ReadEditing Wikipedia page 15 to review their final check-list. Not all criteria will apply, but it's a good way to look at your material with fresh eyes.
 * Make any final revisions to your Wikipedia article and polish it up. Remember copyediting and proper Wikipedia formatting are part of your final grade.
 * Post to the article's Talk Page what you think remains to be done to improve the article as a whole, inviting future editors to contribute. Demonstrate you have thought beyond your own contributions. If team members 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.

I will look for certain criteria when grading. My eye will be on your team’s contributions. In other words, I will not lower your grade for significant amounts of content by other Wikipedians. At the same time, if there are weaknesses elsewhere in the article (content or style), I will expect to see you comment on this in the Talk Page, and that does contribute to your grade.


 * 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?
 * Have the editors established notability by demonstrating thoroughly that others have commented on the topic, using at least 5-7 reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Have these sources been well synthesized, steering clear of original research while helpfully noting patterns in the way scholars and critics have commented on the article’s topic? Is the contribution significant enough, meeting or exceeding the word count without adding filler or fluff?
 * Has Wikipedia formatting and style been followed? Is the article linked to other Wikipedia articles? Is work properly cited? Has plagiarism been avoided? (NOTE: If I discover plagiarism, the individual editor will receive an F for their work on the article, and the plagiarism will need to be corrected for the team to receive their grade.)
 * Does your invitation on the Talk Page demonstrate you understand what the article as a whole needs to become a high quality article? Are the suggestions framed respectfully? If your group had a disagreement, have individuals respectfully commented upon it on the Talk Page? Have team members thanked each other and fellow Wikipedians?

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.

Everyone should have finished all of the work they'll do on Wikipedia, and be ready for grading.