Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Western University/Biology 3224F Education in Life Science (Fall 2016)

This course is about change. Change in the participants, change in the Biology curriculum and change in the world.

We intend to allow the course content to emerge out of the space where the principles, theories and passions of life science education intersect with the experience and interests of the class. Although there will be a broad public and common backbone of the course, you will also be invited to engage with a more personally reflective and unique component that unpacks topics in ways that are of particular value to you.

The Wikipedia Improvement Project (WIP) provides an opportunity for you to contribute to Life Sciences education on a world-wide scale.

Week 1
Welcome to your Wikipedia project's course timeline. This page will guide you through the Wikipedia project for your course.

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 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.

To get started, please review the following handouts:


 * Editing Wikipedia pages 1–5
 * Evaluating Wikipedia


 * Create an account and join this course page, using the enrollment link Tom sent you.
 * 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! These trainings are required for your course.
 * When you finish the trainings, practice by introducing yourself to a classmate on that classmate's Talk page.

It will be important to get into the Wikipedia Improvement Project early in the term. By the end of this week, all BELians should have a Wikipedia account, be finished their basic training and be starting to think about a topic that they would like to work on.

Week 2
It's time to think critically about Wikipedia articles. You'll evaluate a Wikipedia article, and leave suggestions for improving it on the article's Talk page.


 * Complete the &quot;Evaluating Articles and Sources&quot; training (linked below).
 * Choose an article, and consider some questions (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?
 * Choose at least 2 of the above questions relevant to the article you're evaluating. Leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2016 (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;?

You should add a small contribution to an article related to your class, or add a citation to a claim that doesn't have one.


 * Complete the &quot;Sources and Citations&quot; training (linked below).
 * When you make a small claim, clearly state the fact in your own words, and then cite the source where you found the information.
 * The Citation Hunt tool can show you some statements that don't have citations. You can use that to find an article to reference.
 * 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.

Week 3

 * 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?

Review Wikipedia's rules for topics related to medicine, human health, and psychology.


 * Review page 6 of your Editing Wikipedia guidebook.
 * Choose 3–5 potential articles that you can tackle, and post links to them on your Wikipedia user page. For articles that already exist, check the Talk page to see what other Wikipedians might be doing. Finally, present your choices to Max and/or Tom for feedback.

Week 4

 * On the Students tab, assign your chosen topic to yourself.
 * In your sandbox, write a few sentences about what you plan to contribute to the selected article.
 * Think back to when you did an article critique. What can you add? Post some of your ideas to the article's talk page, too.
 * Compile a list of relevant, reliable books, journal articles, or other sources. Post that bibliography to the talk page of the article you'll be working on, and in your sandbox. Make sure to check in on the Talk page to see if anyone has advice on your bibliography.

You've picked a topic and found your sources. Now it's time to start writing.

'''Creating a new article? '''


 * Write an outline of that topic in the form of a standard Wikipedia article's &quot;lead section.&quot; Write it in your sandbox.
 * A &quot;lead&quot; section is not a traditional introduction. It should summarize, very briefly, what the rest of the article will say in detail. The first paragraph should include important, broad facts about the subject. A good example is Ada Lovelace. See Editing Wikipedia page 9 for more ideas.

'''Improving an existing article? '''


 * Identify what's missing from the current form of the article. Think back to the skills you learned while critiquing an article. Make notes for improvement in your sandbox.

Keep reading your sources, too, as you prepare to write the body of the article.

Resources: Editing Wikipedia pages 7–9

Everyone has begun writing their article drafts.

Week 5

 * 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 6
Do additional research and writing to make further improvements to your article, based on suggestions and your own critique.


 * 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.

Week 7
Continue to expand and improve your work, and format your article to match Wikipedia's tone and standards. Remember to contact your Content Expert at any time if you need further help!

Week 8

 * Keep working on transforming your article into a complete first draft that is at least 250 words and a least one citation.  The more extensive your draft, the more valuable the feedback will be from a peer.  Get draft ready for peer-review.
 * If you'd like a Content Expert to review your draft, now is the time! Click the &quot;Get Help&quot; button in your sandbox to request notes.


 * First, take the &quot;Peer Review&quot; online training.
 * Peer review the article of the classmate assigned to you as described by the OWL assignment.

The Tuesday class this week will be a WP workshop where you can work on Peer Review and improving your draft.

Week 9
You have some feedback from a fellow Belian. It's time to work with that feedback to improve your article!


 * Read Editing Wikipedia pages 12 and 14.
 * Return to your draft or article and think about the suggestions. Decide which ones to start implementing. Reach out to your instructor or your Content Expert if you have any questions.

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

Week 11
It's the final week to develop your article. Your final article should contribute at least 500 words to a Wikipedia topic. See the OWL assignment for full details and rubric.


 * Read Editing Wikipedia page 15 to review a final check-list before completing your assignment.
 * Don't forget that you can ask for help from your Content Expert at any time!

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

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!

'''Creating a new article? '''


 * Read Editing Wikipedia page 13, and follow those steps to move your article from your Sandbox to Mainspace.
 * You can also review the Sandboxes and Mainspace online training.


 * Write a reflection on your experience as a Wikipedia editor.  Post to OWL forum.