Wikipedia talk:Education program archive/University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill/Developmental Psychopathology (PSYC 500) (Spring 2015)

Various
, ,

This is not a good start: there are a number of problems here.
 * First, students in this course should not be expecting others to post article commentary on user talk pages ... article development is discussed on article talk.
 * Second, we must take GREAT care in replicating DSM content, as the APA guards copyright strictly. I have seen edits from this course that appear to be plagiarism, and are not acceptable for DSM.   We must take extreme care in even paraphrasing from the DSM:  the APA has in the past and will guard their copyright here on Wikipedia.
 * Third, please have students review WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS.
 * Fourth, please have students tag and follow talk pages of articles they are editing.
 * Fifth, the course instructions here are inadequate. A separate online tutorial for medical article editing was developed, and although I don't know where to find it just now, it should be covered.  It doesn't appear to have been covered, and your students don't seem to know MEDRS and MEDMOS.

Please do not move student edits to mainspace, as from what I have seen so far, they will be reverted. Also, please contact the Education Noticeboard about becoming familiar with the online tutorial for editing medical content. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:SandyGeorgia. We will definitely have students review WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS before making edits to psychology pages. We weren't aware of these; the "Teaching with Wikipedia" materials and even the Psychology materials we reviewed didn't mention WP:MEDMOS, and WP:MEDRS only in passing. So we appreciate being made aware of these. As we are starting to discuss on other pages, I am really trying to understand the sourcing, square it with my other professional standards of evidence, and I will run the synthesis by you and other editors before I start teaching it. If we can achieve a good, teachable synthesis, then I will hopefully be an extender. The tagging and following talk pages is a strategy that makes heaps of sense as I spend more time in Wikipedia. Again, not something laid out in the initial orientation materials. (Paraphrasing someone I respect, "Who wrote the manual?" :-)) The putting the material on sandboxes was a strategy suggested to us so that they could get comfortable with the formatting and have some internal discussion before posting on the talk pages. I wonder if it might not be a good hybrid to still start that way, but then move the content over to the article talk page when ready for editorial comment? That seems respectful of editors' time. Two longer term things -- I have been exploring with the World Health Organization whether we could cite the criteria, paraphrase, and link to WHO International Classification of Diseases criteria instead of DSM. All responses have been positive so far. That will be a good discussion to have, and I would like guidance about where to have it and whom to engage.  The second is about figuring out where is a good page home for evidence based assessment. Our very first foray into page creation was trying to do a page for evidence based assessment of pediatric bipolar. Because of my unfamiliarity with Wikipedia, it seemed like a good place to start. Because I was familiar with the content, I wouldn't have to worry about that and could focus on the coding. Our first page got reverted, with a suggestion to merge it with the Bipolar_disorder_in_children page. We did that, and that lasted for a while, but had issues with primary sources, and also I have realized that the potential COI issues will make that a very slow page for me to work on. :-) A major component of the "portfolios" that we are putting together is evidence based assessment approaches for different disorders. We will want to discuss what the best plan is for adding this type of information to the Wikipedia ecology. One is a hub & spoke, where the hub is a page (or set of pages) about aspects of evidence-based assessment (these do not appear to exist yet on Wikipedia, or not with names I recognize), and the spokes are disorder-specific modules on the disorder pages. The alternative would seem to be separate pages for "Evidence based assessment of XXXX" for each condition, but that would likely involve redundancy about the mechanics.  Our plan for the next few weeks is to "expose and orient" a new group of students to Wikipedia. I plan to have them edit the content we put into the sandboxes last fall, deleting the local resources and switching DSM to ICD criteria (though I am not going to make that a main focus -- want to have the discussion first, and also know that an ICD revision is coming). We also will add some content about other disorders, but concentrate on the epidemiology, assessment and treatment portions. I am not going to have the class make edits to pages, beyond perhaps adding links to secondary sources we identify from the text and PubMed searches limited to "review." I want to make our contributions a net positive, and I am appreciating that it is a good idea to go slower until we have more skills and understand the ecology better.  Thanks again for all the guidance and support! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello again, . It might have been good to start a new talk page section for this, since the initial post referred to last term, and you've moved a long ways since then (our discussions on my talk have been helpful)!  But we can work with this ...  On the lack of information in the educational materials you mention, it would be good to ping in  and ).  I know there are some old materials floating around, but there are newer materials for the Ed. Program that do, I believe, cover these items, so they might want to point those out (I'm never sure what or where to find them).  You might want to avoid referring to the materials, though, as synthesis: that is a bad word on Wikipedia!  :) :)    Your sandbox plan sounds good, but I always recommend another interim step.  Before students expend a lot of time and effort creating content in a sandbox, it would be optimal for them to suggest on article talk pages what sources they plan to use and what sections of the article they intend to work on.  That approach can help avoid having them spend a lot of time developing content that doesn't use good sources, and can help avoid a problem we see often, which is students not taking into account content guidelines (like section guidelines in MEDMOS) or not taking care to work new content into what is already there.  Also, they sometimes go off-topic, duplicating content that would be better contained in another article and wikilinked to the article they are working on.  So, everyone's time can be more productive if they stay in touch with article talk, indicate sources, and talk about what sections they might develop.  The more students can engage on talk, the more we all benefit.  It would also be very helpful if they all watchlisted this page for general issues, which avoids having to type similar information across multiple article talk pages.  On the World Health Organization criteria (ICD), all psych topics should optimally be discussing both WHO and DSM-- we strive for global coverage.  We should never do one at the expense of the other -- often the criteria is similar enough that one line covers the similarities or differences.  If you want some samples, have a look at our Featured articles in the Health realm, here. (Tourette syndrome is "my" work ... and if you look here, you will see how dismal our top coverage of basic psychology is.)  But please keep in mind that we reflect reliable sources, and most journal reviews tend towards DSM over ICD.  On orienting the new students, I see the section below where you asked them to add their names.  You might have asked them to sign their names using four tildes ( ~ ), as that will help make sure their sigs work (recalling the problem with yours). Surprisingly, getting new editors to figure out how to sign their talk page entries can be a hard part of the learning curve!   On the "evidence-based assessment" question, I'm unsure how to guide you ... on the childhood bipolar article, there was an excess of detail on the topic, and it relied highly on primary sources.  In Wikipedia-language, it gave WP:UNDUE importance to one issue, and because it relied on primary sources, it was synthesis (original research)-- not good!  We can't create original material on Wikipedia-- we reflect reliable sources according to due weight, so it will be important for you to be familiar with all those pages. We weight content in articles according to reliable sources, and the MEDMOS organization aims to give weight to topics as reliable sources do.  When I think about the area I know best (Tourette syndrome), it's hard to imagine we would need an entire page or article about assessment (relative to the MEDMOS section of Diagnosis, where a separate daughter article could be written), so I guess ... that depends on the topic.   I will ping in some other editors who may be helpful in that regard:   and .   Did I answer everything?  Thanks for all this communication-- I can't tell you how much it is appreciated!  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Sandy's hit the most important points above. An initial focus on starting with selecting current, high quality secondary sources will go far towards avoiding problems. Being able to list and discuss these intended sources will give students a chance to practice dialogue skills before getting too invested in the text created. When the sources are vetted, move on to finding the parts of those sources relevant to the article. Paraphrase those parts, attaching citations as appropriate as work proceeds. Then mold it into a structure following wp:MOSMED. Rework language to reduce, wiki link, or explain jargon, so that the text is accessible and understandable to as many readers as feasible, not just to those already familiar with the discipline. Copyedit for clarity, flow, etc. Solicit and accept comments without getting offended, even if they're not what you want to hear. Stay focused on wp:EDITSNOTEDITORS to keep things collegial. Oh, and remember to enjoy the journey! LeadSongDog  come howl!  07:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for the ping, Sandy. Am watching the page (and seeing the list of students grow, and starting to feel scared) Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I forgot to ping to this page and discussion.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * trypto is out of pocket for a while, due to personal matters, as mentioned on his talk page. :( Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Medicine
Hello! Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. Members of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia community where anyone can discuss health content on Wikipedia, is talking about this class at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine (permanent link). A concern expressed is speculation that the class is adding content to Wikipedia which is copied from the DSM, a work under copyright. Anyone who would like to participate in this conversation is welcome to comment there or to make comments here.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  17:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi,User:Bluerasberry; thanks very much for the heads up, and the link to the discussion. I greatly appreciate both you and User:SandyGeorgia reaching out. I am sorry that I was slow to reply. Besides the usual level of business in the fall semester, I am a neophyte coder still getting up to speed on Wikipedia, and it also is taking me time to read the different threads and the relevant Dispatches and Wikipedia policies. My experience with Wikipedia in 2014 can be summed up as "Wow! This is harder than it looks!" and I decided to slow down, try to learn more, and make less of a mess. I also thought seriously about quitting and deleting all the pages (as one of the comments suggested). After some reflection, I want to commit to the long haul. I want to learn what is involved in being a good Wikipedia editor, able to make contributions of a high quality, and to be able to help others learn how to do it. I will make more mistakes along the way, but that won't be by intention, and I will do my best to fix them quickly. So, looking forward to more dialog in 2015, and thanks for all of your work on the editing side of Wikipedia! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a great attitude to bring to it. Almost any good-faith error is forgivable, though it's certainly not mandatory to make them all :-) If in doubt, ask for help. It is almost always near to hand. Cheers, LeadSongDog  come howl!  21:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Usernames for PSYC 500: Spring Semester
Hello all, please type in your name and Wikipedia username here in the format of: Name:Username. Then, please sign your poss by typing four tildes (Ongmianli (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)).

Then, please type in "#" (without the quote marks) in order to continue the numbered list. Just like that, you've learnt your first Wikipedia "code"! Hooray!


 * 1) Name:Username
 * 2) Eric Youngstrom, PhD: Eyoungstrom
 * 3) Mian-Li Ong, MA: Ongmianli (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Claire Porter: Ceporter2015 (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Virginia Davis: davisvDavisv (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Nakita Pigford: Nakitap (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Ian Priola: Ianpriola (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Paige Heeke: Pheeke (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Denise King: denisek93
 * 10) Zona Reid: Mshanga16 (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Nia Davis: davisnj
 * 12) Kristen Chambers: Klchambe (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Lisa Nguyen: lisadnguyen Lisadnguyen (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC) (Ongmianli (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC))
 * 14) David Shin: shind23
 * 15) Katherine Koller: Katherine.koller (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) Alexandra Dempsey: adempsey13
 * 17) Alban Foulser: afoulser Afoulser (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 18) Tess Guerra: (tessguerra) (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 19) Caitlin Williamson: Caitlinbw (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 20) Priyanka Mehta: psmehta
 * 21) Yen-Ling Chen: YenLingChenYenLingChen (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 22) Chloe Paterson: chloepatChloepat (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 23) Maggie Thomasson: mthomasson
 * 24) Jaid Stewart: tiffanyjaidTiffanyjaid (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 25) Hannah Davis: Davishm (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 26) Ellyse Julien-Dalton: Ellysejd (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 27) Katrina Lawrence: frenstrinFrenstrin (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 28) Annie Poole: Apoole13 (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 29) Kelsie Mitchell: Kelsiem92 (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 30) Bao Tran: baottran Baottran (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 31) Anna Zeng: Azeng11 (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 32) Tori Wyche: Vwyche (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 33) Shadae Robertson: ShadaeR (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 34) Leah Whitton: lawhitton Lawhitton (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 35) Samantha Bender: skbender Skbender (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 36) Marcus Elizondo: melizond Melizond (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 page
, I think there is supposed to be a new course page set up for the 2015 term ?? How many students are there this term? Sandy R (Talk) 18:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Progress
I just took a stroll through the sandboxes. It looks as if everyone's getting a handle on the mechanics of editing, and the format issues are minor. I'm concerned however that few editors are maintaining source-to-statement integrity: if one makes a statement, it should be possible to see which is the cited source that supports it. This is far easier on contributors to do this as the article is developed than to add in afterward. If I was to assess the articles in their present state, they would be covered in a thick layer of refimprove and tags. In many cases the references being used are primary, which implies that the editors are engaged in original synthesis, effectively creating their own reviews. There are many fine publications who want that kind of content, but it has no place on Wikipedia. Please spare yourselves the grief of watching it be cut away later, and select secondary sources per wp:MEDRS to begin from. LeadSongDog come howl!  22:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * LeadSong, I'm wondering if you are viewing last term's sandboxes from the course page, which is old? I've not seen many sandbox edits this term.  Echoing LeadSongDog's post, I'd add that I am thrilled with the positive and enthusiastic attitude shown this term by the prof, but I have a couple of concerns:
 * Where is WikiEd staff on responding to the threads above? There are many queries, including about educational materials, course page, etc.
 * Should there not be a new course page for the 2015 term, listing students and articles?
 * The list of students is growing! How many articles will be affected, and will we be able to keep up?  (Again, where is WikiEd staff?  Are my pings not working?)
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a course page for the current class here, but it is not a WikiEdu-supported class (though I hope we can change that soon). I was last in contact with the professor shortly after your previous ping. He responded to say that he had been made aware of the talk page/term mix-up and was going to contact me to straighten things out soon. Since then, however, I know that UNC and the surrounding area have been shut down due to weather. Unfortunately that's all I know/can say at the moment. Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was indeed looking at the sandboxes from last fall. Let's see if this term's efforts can avoid these problems. Further discussion should really move to Education Program talk:University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill/Developmental Psychopathology (PSYC 500) (Spring 2015) LeadSongDog come howl!  05:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

can you please explain what you mean about "not a WikiEd-supported class"? If that means Wiki Ed staff is not available to help here, I don't know how "we" can keep up with three dozen students who don't yet have clue about Wikipedia. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 08:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, all! I have power and Internet access seems stable again. I will work with Ryan today to get the course page sorted and stuff migrated over. Some quick thoughts:
 * There are 34 students signed up for the class.
 * Mian-Li Ong, a campus ambassador, will also be attached to the class.
 * I have no teaching assistant for the class. I am going to ask a few of the "alumni" from the Fall 2014 to also join the class to help answer questions and monitor edits. I hope that it will keep them engaged and deepen their skills and interest in Wikipedia, and that it may help shepherd the new group along. I also am inviting a few other teachers to "sit in" as observers so that they can see the process. I am hoping that this will help get some other people interested and oriented, perhaps reducing the sense of shock at realizing there is a lot more to this than simply reading a few pages and then jumping in.
 * My "scope of work" for the class this semester is much more limited. Per my "want to go slower until I get the hang of it" comments, my goals for this cohort are more "exposure" and figuring out what it would take to get to "competence." I am not going to assign anything where they would be editing active pages. I am envisioning focusing more on the content in the sandboxes and cleaning it up more as a way of learning the principles for sourcing, and the coding skills. I definitely do not want to create a burden for the editors.
 * re Wiki Ed -- Mian and I had a great conversation with Helaine in January (by phone! Old me was loving the oldschool medium... felt much less like a fish out of water!). I will close the loop with Ryan ASAP. Ryan (Wiki Ed)
 * Let me know what else would be helpful, and thanks! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Unable to add Tess Guerra to Student page
Hello Eric, I was unable to add Tess Guerra to the student page because the student signed his/her name without logging in, resulting in a signature of an IP address.

Please see evidence here. Ongmianli (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * has been added to the course page. Ongmianli (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio issues
The course page here contains links to multiple sandboxes from last term, and every one of those sandboxes contains copyvio (complete diagnostic criteria listed from DSM). I can't find a single sandbox there that contains any salvageable text. If students this term are going to continue working from those same sandboxes, even if they replace the copyvio text, the copyvio exists in history should any of that text eventually be moved to mainspace. In other words, all of those sandboxes should be deleted, to remove all traces of old copyvio, and new sandboxes should be set up. There is nothing usable in the old sandboxes currently linked to from the course page, so deleting them entirely removes the possibility of copyvio history being inadvertently moved to mainspace. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Course page note
I've moved the spring 2015 content here from the fall 2014 talk page as discussed with. There were also two messages from fall 2014 that received replies this term. I've copied the original messages here for context, but also left the originals where they were. Moving content this way is always a little messy, so I apologize if there's any confusion. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)