Wikipedia talk:Education program archive/Cornell University/Online Communities (Fall 2013)/Delta Gamma

Use this page to upload your project report.

Group Project Report
Initially, we set out to expand and improve or even add new information in numerous areas and they are the following:
 * 1. Our group made a series of changes and additions to the Delta Gamma Wikipedia page that contributed to the overall improvement of the article.


 * More about George Banta and the Banta Brother event--an event characteristic to unique to the Delta Gamma chapter
 * The reasoning behind its identity as a fraternity and not a sorority--an attempt to disprove a common misconception
 * A list of chapters and corresponding schools across the nation
 * Additional information about basic characteristics-colors, symbols, etc.
 * More about the history of its founding and its founders
 * Additional information about Delta Gamma Headquarters in Columbus, Ohio
 * A more detailed walk through of the recruitment process and eligibility to join Delta Gamma (ex: Average GPA)
 * Additional pictures
 * Public opinion and social media responses to Delta Gamma (ex: parodies of "Crazy sorority girl letter" with regards to a DG member at University of Maryland)
 * Additional information about President, Vice President and Director responsibilities.

With exception to a few elements such as the additional information about basic Delta Gamma characteristics, our group firmly followed the outline we initially drafted and successfully edited accordingly. The majority of our information was drawn from Delta Gamma's official website and edited sections such as Controversies and public opinion of DG were ameliorated by reputable and well-known sources such as the Huffington Post.

We do believe that given all of the above edits and improvements that we contributed to the Delta Gamma page, that the article in question is ready to move up from a C-Class to a B-Class. The main distinction that we make between the two is that a C-Class article very apparently lacks vital and important information on the subject whereas a B-Class article is much fuller and substantial and presents no real issues or problems. Given the diverse and numerous areas in which we made edits, we do think that we have greatly strengthened and positively contributed to this article, leading it to be potentially appraised at a different level of quality in the eyes of Wikipedians.


 * 2. The transition discussed above from a C-Class to a B-class article very accurately portrays the evolution of the Delta Gamma page. More specifically however, there are certain key elements that allowed for this evolution. The first element would be additional sources and citations, which in any situation, only helps to further strengthen the article. Whereas we did refer to some of the pre-existing sources, we also added a few of our own. One of the key concerns and main priorities for Wikipedia is what they refer to as verifiability and notability. Thus, adding sources is one of the main and most successful ways to positively enhance the strength of an article and that is exactly what we did.

The second element was simply the act of filling in the various gaps and holes and providing essential information that was formerly missing. Examples of this are the aforementioned list of chapters and corresponding schools, Delta Gamma's history and public opinion. Not only did we add to existing sections but we furthermore contributed completely new sections and information that was shockingly absent previously.

Thus, extensive research and verifiable sources were the main elements that allowed for the Delta Gamma article to evolve.


 * 3. Generally speaking, our interaction with the community or lack thereof, was both disappointing and detrimental to our overall Wikipedia experience. Prior to this project, as a class, we had discussed at length the positive community aspect of Wikipedia and were thus let down by the lack of response to our efforts. We did reach out to previous editors by trying to interact with them on their talk pages but unfortunately received no answer. One user however did offer supportive commentary in response to our work, which was both gratifying and rewarding. It was nice to know that our work had not gone entirely unnoticed.


 * 4. In reference again to our outline, we initially divided the work as follow:
 * -Kyla: writing, grammar
 * -Kelsey: research, wiki code, verification that changes apply to guidelines and norms
 * -Victoria: background research, editing, flow

Again, we more or less were consistent with our initial projections. All participants conducted research and made edits, attempted to stimulate discussion, and ascertained that norms such as neutral point of view were constantly being respected. Kyla and Victoria were responsible for the majority of the research and edits and Kelsey proofread and drafted this project report.

kbb44 Kbb44 (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)