Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Georgia Institute of Technology/Biogeochemical Cycles (Spring 2023)
| This Course
|
Wikipedia Resources
|
Connect
Questions? Ask us:
contact |
 | This course page is an automatically-updated version of the main course page at dashboard.wikiedu.org. Please do not edit this page directly; any changes will be overwritten the next time the main course page gets updated. |
- Course name
- Biogeochemical Cycles
- Institution
- Georgia Institute of Technology
- Instructor
- Jennifer Glass
- Wikipedia Expert
- Ian (Wiki Ed)
- Subject
- Biogeochemistry
- Course dates
- 2023-01-11 00:00:00 UTC – 2023-04-21 23:59:59 UTC
- Approximate number of student editors
- 16
This course will prepare advanced undergraduate and graduate students for research in a variety of scientific fields that incorporate aspects of biogeochemical cycles through deep space and time.
This course will alternate between lecture and discussion. Lectures will focus on one or more broad concepts and their connections to Vernadsky. Each lecture will conclude with a brief description of one step in a biogeochemical cycle.
The course project will consist of an individual science communication Wikipedia editing project to be made publicly available by the end of the semester.
Timeline
Week 1
- Course meetings
-
- Wednesday, 11 January 2023 | Friday, 13 January 2023
- In class - Introduction to the Wikipedia assignment
Welcome to your Wikipedia assignment's course timeline. This page guides you through the steps you'll need to complete for your Wikipedia assignment, with links to training modules and your classmates' work spaces.
Your course has been assigned a Wikipedia Expert. You can reach them through the Get Help button at the top of this page.
Resources:
Week 2
- Course meetings
-
- Wednesday, 18 January 2023 | Friday, 20 January 2023
- Milestones
By Monday Jan 16, everyone will have been assigned a Wikipedia article and peer review article. Add the article to your Watchlist by clicking the star next to "View history" will help you keep track. Add your email to your account to get notifications if something on the page changes.
- Assignment - Trainings 1-5
Create an account and join this course page, using the enrollment link your instructor sent you. (Because of Wikipedia's technical restraints, you may receive a message that you cannot create an account. To resolve this, please try again off campus or the next day.)
Complete these five training modules before starting the assignment.
More important tips on editing Wikipedia here.
Week 3
- Course meetings
-
- Wednesday, 25 January 2023 | Friday, 27 January 2023
- Assignment - Evaluate Articles
Choose three of the following existing biogeochemical cycle Wikipedia pages to evaluate, including at least one with a figure of a global cycle included:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silica_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenium_cycle
Take notes in your sandbox. Create a section in your sandbox titled "Article evaluation" where you'll leave notes about your observations and learnings. As you read the article you've chosen, answer the questions below in your sandbox as they relate to the article's content, tone, and sourcing.
Evaluating content. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? What else could be improved? Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon? Does the article link to other Wikipedia articles for related topics?
Evaluating tone. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Evaluating sources. 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?
Assignment Grading (13 pts possible):
1 pt: Edits made when logged into your Wikipedia account associated with your WikiEd account.
1 pt: Notes have been added to the correct place (in your Sandbox).
3 pt: Notes have been added about each of the three articles’ content.
3 pt: Notes have been added about each of the three articles’ tone.
3 pt: Notes have been added about each of the three articles’ sources.
1 pt: The writing is high quality (contains no spelling and few grammatical mistakes).
1 pt: Assignment is completed by the deadline.
Week 4
- Course meetings
-
- Wednesday, 1 February 2023 | Friday, 3 February 2023
- Assignment - Trainings 6-8
Week 5
- Course meetings
-
- Wednesday, 8 February 2023 | Friday, 10 February 2023
- Milestones
Week 6
- Course meetings
-
- Wednesday, 15 February 2023 | Friday, 17 February 2023
- Assignment - Add to An Article
Assignment 2
First, take notes (in your own words) on one of your sources. (You don't need to turn the notes in, but make sure to keep them to refer back to them as you work on your article.)
Second, find a place in your Wikipedia article (not in your Sandbox, although you can draft it there first) where your source could help support a statement. Add a citation to that location in the article. Make sure to include all the necessary information so that the citation is complete.
If you can't find an uncited statement, add 1-2 sentences to go along with your source as you learned in the Adding Citations training. Make sure the information you're adding isn't already covered in the article. If it is, check if that existing statement cites a source. If not, add yours!
Third, add links from your article to other Wikipedia articles, and from other Wikipedia articles to your own. Link to 3–5 articles, and link to your article from 2–3 other articles. To see how, read page 12 of Editing Wikipedia.
Fourth, add an image to your article. Wikipedia has strict rules about what media can be added, so make sure to take the Contributing Images and Media Filesinks to an external sitraining before you upload an image.
Finally, make sure to publish all the changes, and include brief summarizes of your changes each time you publish. Congrats! You just made your first changes to a Wikipeda article !
Assignment Grading (6 pts possible)
1 pt: Edits made when logged into your Wikipedia account associated with your WikiEd account.
1 pt: At least one new source has been added to the Wikipedia article.
1 pt: The citation is relevant and appropriate to the statement where it is cited.
1 pt: A complete citation has been added for new source.
1 pt: An image has been added to the Wikipedia article.
1 pt: A clear and concise caption for the image has been added.
1 pt: The added image does not violate Wikipedia copyright policies.
1 pt: The added text does not violate Wikipedia plagiarism policies.
1 pt: The article has been linked to 3-5 Wikipedia articles.
1 pt: The article has been linked from 2-3 other Wikipedia articles.
1 pt: All published changes have been annotated.
1 pt: Assignment is completed by the deadline.
Week 7
- Course meetings
-
- Wednesday, 22 February 2023 | Friday, 24 February 2023
- Milestones
Read instructor comments carefully and incorporate them into your draft.
Week 8
- Course meetings
-
- Wednesday, 1 March 2023 | Friday, 3 March 2023
- Milestones
Week 9
- Course meetings
-
- Wednesday, 8 March 2023 | Friday, 10 March 2023
- Milestones
Week 10
- Course meetings
-
- Wednesday, 15 March 2023 | Friday, 17 March 2023
- Assignment - Draft your contributions
Assignment 3
Create a draft of your article in your sandbox. Make sure your article includes the following at the bare minimum to receive credit for the draft, and work towards inclusion of all categories listed in the "Final Draft" description (see below).
1. Lead Section
Introductory sentence: Student has edited the introductory sentence (if necessary) to state the article topic concisely and accurately in single sentence.
2. Article
Content: Student has added at least 3 paragraphs of additional text to the article.
3. References
Citations: Student has cited at least 2 peer-reviewed publications in the added text.
Remember: Nothing you add to your Sandbox can violate Wikipedia plagiarism and copyright rules!
Resource: Editing Wikipedia pages 7–9
Assignment Grading (14 pts possible):
1 pt: Edits made when logged into your Wikipedia account associated with your WikiEd account.
2 pts: The draft text has been added to the correct place (Sandbox).
1 pt: The draft text includes a lead section with a concise and accurate single sentence.
1 pt: The draft text includes at least three paragraphs of new text.
2 pts: The draft text cites at least two new sources (review articles).
2 pts: The citations are relevant and appropriate for the statements in the text and in the ' figure caption where they are cited.
2 pts: The draft text does not violate Wikipedia plagiarism or copyright policies.
2 pts: The draft text is high quality (contains no spelling and few grammatical mistakes).
1 pt: Assignment is completed by the deadline.
Week 11
- Course meetings
-
- Wednesday, 22 March 2023 | Friday, 24 March 2023
- Milestones
Week 12
- Course meetings
-
- Wednesday, 29 March 2023 | Friday, 31 March 2023
- Assignment - Peer review
Assignment 4
Peer review is about identifying the strengths and weaknesses of an article. As you go through the review process, make note of what the article or figure accomplishes well, alongside where it could be improved. Pay close attention to whether or not the article and figure contains the following:
1) A lead section that is easy to understand. The lead is the first section of an article. It usually states the most important information about the article's subject, and gives a good overview of the rest of the article. Good leads don't get too bogged down in detail, and don't simply repeat what's in the article below. You should be able to read the lead and feel like you have a pretty good grasp of what the article is about.
For the peer review, you should comment on the following: Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?
2) A clear structure. Now, let's look at the article itself. Different aspects of the article should each have their own section. The difference between sections should be easy to understand, and each statement should have a clear reason for being where it is.
For the peer review, you should comment on the following: Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
3) Balanced coverage. Wikipedia articles are summaries of pre-existing resources. They should be balanced according to the available literature. No aspect should take over too much of the article, and more well-documented viewpoints should get more space. However, a good article also presents minority viewpoints and positions.
For the peer review, you should comment on the following: Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
4) Neutral content. Wikipedia articles aim for a neutral point of view. That means they don't attempt to persuade the reader into accepting a particular idea or position.
For the peer review, you should comment on the following: Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.
5) Reliable sources. Good articles are built on good sources. When you've carefully reviewed the article or figure, turn to the references section.
For the peer review, you should comment on the following: Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately.
Consider the following structure, drawing from your notes:
First, what does the article or figure do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase or presentation that described/depicted the subject in a clear way? What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article or figure? Why would those changes be an improvement?
What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article ? Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article ?
Tips:
Many students consider peer review to be difficult, because they don't want to criticize a classmate's work. Remember that critiquing doesn't equal criticism. That's why it's helpful to post your comments as useful ideas. For example, instead of suggesting an editor is biased one way or another, focus on the content within the article that suggests a bias. In the end, you aren't criticizing your peer, you are evaluating the article.
When you have reviewed your peer's article or figure, you should leave a message on their User Page Talk page (see instructions below).
How to submit your peer review comments:
1) On the Articles' tab, find your peer's article that you have been assigned to review.
2) In the "My Articles" section of the Home tab, assign it to yourself to review.
3) Find your peers' sandbox. Navigate there from the Students tab on the Dashboard and click their username.
4) Go to the Talk page of their sandbox (at the top left of the page). Click "New section".
5) Add a subject, something like "Samantha's peer review".
6) Leave your notes in the space below. Enter your message with comments on all five of the categories listed above. Remember to sign with four tildes! (MethanoJen (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)). (Reminder: visual editing is not available when using Talk pages. For tips on using Wikicode, see the back page of your Editing Wikipedia brochure or revisit the editing training Save the page.
Here is an example of how to navigate to New Section on a Talk page:
File:Https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Sandbox talk page.png
Assignment Grading (11 pts possible)
1 pt: Edits made when logged into your Wikipedia account associated with your WikiEd account.
1 pt: The peer review has been added to correct place (as a New Section in Talk Page of Peer’s Sandbox).
1 pt: The peer review is written respectfully and provides constructive criticism. (No personal attacks!)
1 pt: The peer review comments on the peer article’s lead section.
1 pt: The peer review comments on the peer article’s structure.
1 pt: The peer review comments on the peer article’s balance of coverage.
1 pt: The peer review comments on the peer article’s neutral content.
1 pt: The peer review comments on the peer article’s scientific accuracy.
1 pt: The peer review comments on the peer article’s level of completeness and detail.
1 pt: The peer review comments on the peer article’s citations (relevance, format, and completeness).
1 pt: Assignment is completed by the deadline.
Week 13
- Course meetings
-
- Wednesday, 5 April 2023 | Friday, 7 April 2023
- Assignment - Edit your work based on peer review
Exercise
Now's the time to revisit your text and refine your work based on the comments you received from your peer. You may do more research and find missing information or references; rewrite the lead section to represent all major points; reorganize the text to communicate the information better; redraw the figure; etc. etc.
- Assignment - Training 9
Now that you've improved your draft based on others' feedback, it's time to move your work live - to the "mainspace."
Resource: Editing Wikipedia, page 13
Week 14
- Course meetings
-
- Wednesday, 12 April 2023 | Friday, 14 April 2023
- Assignment - Polish your work
Continue to expand and improve your work, and format your article to match Wikipedia's tone and standards. Remember to contact your Wikipedia Expert at any time if you need further help!
- Assignment - Final Article
Assignment 5
Finalize and publish the changes to your article or figure.
Ensure that the final version contains the following:
If you are editing an article:
1. Lead Section
Introductory sentence: States article topic concisely and accurately in single sentence
Summary: Summarizes all major points in the article
Context: All information included is also present in body of the article
2. Article
Organization: Clear organization of heading and subheadings; appropriate transitions and clear language/grammar
Content: Accurately covers scientific information relevant to assigned topic; links to relevant Wikipedia articles for background.
Balance: Article presents balanced coverage without favoring one side unduly.
Tone: Tone is neutral and appropriate for an encyclopedia audience.
Wikilinks: the article is thoroughly wiki-linked.
3. References
Citations: Every statement can easily be associated with a supporting reference
Sources: Includes citations for at least three peer-reviewed publications.
Completeness: All references added include completely filled-out citation template or are otherwise complete.
Assignment Grading (15 points possible):
1 pt: The final article or figure has been published (moved out of Sandbox).
1 pt: The article is high quality (contains no spelling and few grammatical mistakes).
1 pt: The article contains a lead section that summarizes all major points in the article.
1 pt: The lead section’s introductory sentence states the article topic concisely and accurately.
1 pt: All information in the lead is also present in the body of the article.
1 pt: The article is well-organized, with heading and subheadings.
1 pt: The article accurately covers scientific information relevant to the article.
1 pt: The tone is neutral and appropriate for an encyclopedia audience.
1 pt: Every statement in the article is associated with a supporting reference.
1 pt: Any relevant technical terms in the article are linked to a Wikipedia article.
1 pt: The article contains at least three new references (review articles).
1 pt: All references added include completely filled-out citation template or are otherwise complete.
1 pt: References are neat and formatted correctly.
1 pt: Suggestions for modifications from the peer reviewer and instructor have been changed.
1 pt: Assignment is completed by the deadline.
Week 15
- Course meetings
-
- Wednesday, 19 April 2023 | Friday, 21 April 2023
- In class - In-class presentation
Assignment 6
Present 5-minute PowerPoint presentation on your Wikipedia assignment, addressing the following points:
- Critiquing articles: What did you learn about Wikipedia during the article evaluation? How did you approach critiquing the article you selected for this assignment? How did you decide what to add to your chosen article?
- Summarizing your contributions: Include a summary of your edits and why you felt they were a valuable addition to the article. How does your article compare to earlier versions?
- Connections to the classroom: Did you include information we covered in class? What new scientific information did you write about?
- Peer Review: What did you contribute in your review of your peer's article? What did your peers recommend you change on your article?
- Feedback: Did you receive feedback from other Wikipedia editors, and if so, how did you respond to and handle that feedback?
- Wikipedia generally: What did you learn from contributing to Wikipedia? How does a Wikipedia assignment compare to other assignments you've done in the past? How can Wikipedia be used to improve public understanding of our field/your topic? Why is this important?
Assignment Grading (7 pts possible):
1 pt: Student presented a 5-minute PowerPoint presentation during assigned lecture period.
1 pt: PowerPoint slides are well organized and contain no spelling mistakes.
1 pt: Presentation summarized student contributions to the text.
1 pt: Presentation covered any connections between article topic and EAS 6122/4602 content.
1 pt: Presentation summarized peer review process.
1 pt: Presentation summarized Wikipedia editor feedback (if any).
1 pt: Presentation summarized student’s experience with Wikipedia Project as a whole.
- Milestones
Everyone should have finished all of the work they'll do on Wikipedia, and be ready for grading.