Wikipedia talk:Student assignments/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

See User talk:Kira2525#November 2016 and particularly my post at the (current) end of the conversation.

Students attempting to edit already well developed articles, or writing drafts on topics that are already well covered by one or more existing articles, often experience resistance, with their edits being reverted or otherwise rejected. This is simply because improving such articles is quite difficult, often beyond the competence of many undergrad students. So I think we should have a guideline somewhere that cautions students (and teachers) to select topics that are not already well covered - it's much easier to improve a Stub than a B-class article, the latter would be almost impossible for a first or second year student on their first exposure to WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a good idea, thanks. I'll put some thought into it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the hook up!✋ Angelina k (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This is important, and an on-going issue. Instructors or students select a significant topic topic they're interested in, but adding to an extensively developed article runs into problems of repetition, balance and coordination that new editors often find difficult, giving the students an unpleasant experience and creating largely fruitless cleanup work for established editors. The ideal target is a tiny article on an important topic that is not already covered elsewhere. Wikipedia is full of such articles, once you look. Then even if the contributions have the usual student flaws, they may provide raw material for further improvement. Kanguole 13:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Yes, it certainly is an on-going problem. I just expanded the "Choosing a topic" section to explain how stubs are better choices to edit than are more advanced pages, and also warning classes away from Discretionary Sanctions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

here is nothing official about WP. Anyone can start any program they like, under whatever name they like, as long as it doesn't imply some non-existent official status. The enWP has no means of doing anything officially, which is why WikiEd is a separate organization. They can do things officially if they like, but it doesn't bind anyone here, nor are we obliged to pay any attention to their organizational structure unless we as individuals care to do so. (I think it is important that we do care to do so, both because they;re our friends, working in the same direction, and also in order to make sure that what they do with respect to the enWP will be acceptable at the encyclopedia.) On the other hand, if wikiEd wants to have the students in their programs write for the enWP, they must guide their editors to do things that will be acceptable here. Our standards are basically the same whoever writes the article, whether a student under guidance, or a person entirely on their own. That said, we need to recognize the realities of class programs: student writers will write as they do in other courses, and are no more likely to submit the material before their course's final deadline than they would be if they were writing an ordinary term paper. (I think everyone here knows the pattern from first hand experience). This makes some of our article quality methods inapplicable, because once they have left, they will not come back for revision. We can urge the wikiEd program to try to persuade the instructors to make the due date for the WP part of the course as early as possible, but -- based on my experience as a student and teacher -- trying to accomplish this is a very difficult thing. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. In the few courses I have looked at here, the deadlines are indeed setup to encourage exactly what you said, and it looked to me that students were complying. With the new shift to electronic learning, at the school I am taking course, there has been a shift to drop-dead deadlines (i.e. you turn it in 1 second late, you get a zero). I was in disbelief for quite some time, but eventually students get used to it. So, it may be more practical now to do what you suggest than even 5-10 years ago. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I should mention that when I taught, I required intermediate drafts, usually at 2 or 3 stages and--it it was a methods class, with weekly reports of progress on the survey or whatever project they chose. This is more or less the generally recommended method, but my students were quite unhappy with this, and it showed in my student evaluations. But this was 7 or 8 years ago and earlier, and I hope you are right that students are more accustomed to it now. (I never had a firm final deadline as such, but I always scheduled each of them to give an oral summary to the class, and they knew they would be embarrassed if they were not ready. As for the written version, all I asked was that they get the work in before I had to submit the grades, but I warned them that if it was at the last minute I wouldn't be able to give them time to rewrite. I'm amazed when I read that faculty use unnecessary deadlines and penalties and attendance requirements--I consider them punitive and a way of showing who's the boss. )

Looking at ed program classes, many of them do require something like I did, with progress markers--it's the way teachers nowadays are taught to do it . But I notice that usually only a minority of the students actually keep up with them.

there are some obvious analogies with ordinary editing at WP. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Going to leave a few notes here. I understand there's been a lot of text generated over other recent changes, so I'll say at the start that little, if any, of this is of the sort of thing that needs urgent attention, and by all means come back to it if you're experiencing fatigue with this page. :) Also, please take all of these, in case it's not clear, as my own opinions on the page -- the perspective of someone at Wiki Ed rather than specific edit requests by Wiki Ed.

1. Footnote 1: See Wikipedia:Education Working Group/RfC. Volunteer editors are sometimes left with a mess and the burden of fixing poor-quality edits, merging content forks, and deleting articles.

In the context of the lead, it seems like this sentiment would be most effectively communicated directly/plainly, as I don't think it's very controversial that poorly conceived/executed class assignments can cause headaches for other editors. A link to an RfC from the Education Program's early days may be useful for historical/procedural purposes, but anyone clicking on the link for more information about what the note says will probably find it more confusing than helpful.

2. Footnote 2: One can browse User:jbmurray and Attention needed on several articles and users, for a couple examples.

It's unclear what from jbmurray's talk page this is pointing to, as his classes that he mentions there look to have been largely successful (unless by "mixed" the intention is to give a positive outcome along with a negative outcome). Perhaps this subpage is what's intended? It may also be useful to summarize what the reader should take away from that link to a length ENB discussion. Since the result wasn't exactly ideal (prof saying he won't teach with Wikipedia again), it's hard to extract constructive/actionable lessons from the discussion. That said, if the purpose is just to give an example of an experienced editor who had trouble with a class, it obviously does that, but it seems like it would be more useful if it were a "here's how to avoid this" rather than just "here's a mess".

3. Instructors are expected to have a good working knowledge of Wikipedia, and should be willing to help address core content policy violations[3] and, in the US and Canada, to coordinate with the Wikipedia Education Program ("WikiEd") system. (and then the note [3] is There are Wikipedia editors who will help you learn how to run a successful assignment. Consider delaying your Wikipedia assignment to next semester if you are not familiar with how things work. Someone will be happy to consult with you through video chat about how to run an assignment; please ask at the education noticeboard. You and your students will benefit from good planning.

the Wiki Education Program is global. There are resources at

Education Noticeboard

." This is a bit longer than the original, and I migrated the footnote into the main text, but it seems like an important block of text. Edit as you see fit, of course. In general I'd recommend highlighting the country-based support distinctions as early and as prominently as possible to ensure people get to the people who can help them with minimal confusion.

4. Each assignment should have a course page...

This links to a page that is specifically about the Education Program MediaWiki extension which is no longer maintained and scarcely used. Course pages with Wiki Ed are Dashboard pages, and are automatically created for everyone working with Wiki Ed. Likewise, templates are automatically placed on students' pages and article talk pages (there are some cases when this doesn't happen, that we're looking into, but in general it should be automatic). Most others should IMO probably be using the Programs and Events Dashboard. I don't believe anyone is maintaining the various on-wiki trainings, course page templates, etc. at this point, but I may be wrong about that. Not sure how this is best presented here.

I've written more than I intended here, so I'm going to go ahead and stop at the lead for now. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I have changed the format to number Ryan's points, for ease of discussion. Please revert if you object, Ryan. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Edit 3: I have made changes along the lines suggested by Ryan, with some tweaks to it and the surrounding content. Comments and criticisms welcome. Anyone can revert if they feel that it is necessary (and then please discuss here, obviously), but I think the basic thrust of the change is sensible. I tried to make the country-specific stuff prominent and the WikiEd at the end, and I agree with Ryan that this is important content to spend time on in the lede. We might want to split it into two paragraphs. EdChem (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Edit 2: I have expanded footnote 2 in two edits to reflect Ryan's comments. Reflect / revert / revile / reappraise / recapitulate / reinforce etc at your option. EdChem (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• As anyone following along has seen, I went ahead (partly simultaneously with EdChem), and implemented much of this. I trust Ryan will let us know if I still got stuff wrong! I'm cautiously hopeful that these recent edits have pretty much wrapped up the issues from the recent controversy, and I personally am quite happy with how the page is now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• @Ryan (Wiki Ed): Any and all additional comments welcomed, as and when you have time, but particularly on whether my edits and Tryptofish's have addressed the four points you raised. EdChem (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

How are examples included in 'Examples the Best Practices' section not in violation of the Wikipedia policies of 'Wikipedia articles must not contain original research,' and 'All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV).' 'Best' implies a judgement call and it would be especially problematic if this section was added by the users themselves who conducted these Wikipedia assignments, seems biased.Decoybriefcase (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This page is in the "Wikipedia namespace", which is separate from the encyclopedia and doesn't have to follow all of the same rules for content. It's not about an encyclopedic subject but about a Wikipedia-related activity. "Best practices" is just a way of saying "this is what works best" kind of like the examples given at

WP:NPOV could be described as "best practices" for following NPOV. That's not to say they cannot be modified, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk

\\ 03:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly with that. First of all, this is not an article, in the sense of mainspace articles. But there is a world of difference between "Wikipedia:Student assignments" and "Wikipedia:Advice for students who are in student assignments". Student assignments does not only mean "this is information for students about how to edit Wikipedia". Student assignments are a defined type of Wikipedia contribution, with a unique set of challenges. If you go to WP:Education noticeboard, you can see what that is. This is an information page about student assignments on Wikipedia, with sections for each of the involved groups of users. I really cannot imagine how anyone would find it confusing – but it is not only advice for each of them, as there are also parts that apply to everyone. Splitting it into multiple pages would serve no purpose. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

A message on the

Agreed. There is already something about that in the second-to-last line of the Instructors section. Should it be made more prominent? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd missed that, so yes, I think it would be wise to make it clearer, perhaps including mention of review of drafts, as some instructors may not realise what the

article for creation process means. --David Biddulph (talk

) 23:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for pointing this out! I've done this: [1]. Does that suffice? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I was just editing Ableism in order to clarify that the stereotypes of disability it references are often false (for example, the widespread belief all wheelchair users are paralyzed), and was surprised to find the article had been the subject of several class-assigned editing assignments under this project. There's no indication of whether the assigned students were disabled, or had any knowledge of disability beyond what they might have heard in their class. Given how widespread false stereotypes of disability are among the abled community, the risks are obvious. The same risks of stereotyping and repeating inadequate, inaccurate, or outright false knowledge will carry over into all minority group topics, whether they related to disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. There is an existing warning on this page with respect to medical articles, but medical and disability articles have only a partial intersection and articles on other minority groups will have very limited intersection with medical articles. I'd suggest the article and/or the Wiki Education Program add a specific warning with relation to articles focused on minority groups, and suggest that students should only be assigned to such editing projects if they are a member of such group and/or can demonstrate they have appropriate knowledge. 82.11.66.40 (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

You should know that not only does

WP:CIR. We do not, and shall not, restrict editing of articles to those who suffer undue sensitivities about the issue. True objective coverage comes from mutual cooperation in reflecting what source material says, not in the personhood of the editor. Chris Troutman (talk

) 20:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

'Suffer undue sensitivities'? That's a particularly unfortunate turn of phrase to use in describing an area of discrimination and illustrates my point. If you had phrased it as 'those with knowledge in the subject area' then you might have come closer to the point I was trying to make (and the standard used in other encyclopaedias). Ableism is a form of discrimination which frequently goes unrecognised in the non-disabled population, and is regularly mistakenly perceived as pro-disabled activity. For instance the proclivity of random strangers to grab wheelchairs without permission and to start pushing. Many stereotypes of disability are incorrect, for instance the belief that all people who are blind have no sight whatsoever, or that all wheelchair users are paralyzed, or have some form of intellectual disability. The existence of commonly held misconceptions about a subject should raise concerns as to whether it is suitable for use as a class assignment, particularly in sensitive areas such as discrimination. The article noted that there are stereotypes of disability, in essence raising the same point I am making, though in an incomplete manner (by not stating whether those stereotypes are correct, or false). Similar issues arise in respect of other minority groups. Wikipedia regularly takes action to protect subjects which are subject to either deliberate vandalism, or recurring incorrect edits because of commonly held, but incorrect, views. I don't see how suggesting there may be similar concerns here, and in articles relating to discrimination in general, is in any way unreasonable.

82.11.66.40 (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

(

policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia. Thanks, Mathglot (talk

) 20:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

As I noted in my reply to Chris Troutman, my point relates to editing of articles by those with no knowledge of the subject area, _when there are commonly held incorrect beliefs_, the article's noting that there are stereotypes of disability, but not that those stereotypes are commonly false, being an example (and one that is true across all areas of discrimination). You raise a very good point about potentially forcing editors to out themselves, so another approach would be necessary. I do disagree with the belief that it is better for editors to have no connection with a subject given both the widespread existence of common misconception, and that clarity of presentation is dependent on understanding (though conflict of interest is a valid point that may arise). For instance, when I rewrote the article on the Short Sturgeon a few years ago, another editor 'corrected' 'O5/43' to '05-43', presumably believing it to be a typo for a date, whereas O5/43 is in fact an Air Ministry requirement in its correct format, but someone without knowledge of the subject would not know that. Referencing can protect against that to a certain extent, but could not protect against, for example, someone using a climate-change denial reference in trying to rewrite a climate-change page, and examples like that are ones where Wikipedia does move to restrict editing in various ways.