Wikipedia talk:Student assignments/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Guidance on selecting a topic or article to improve

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)

"official"

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)

a few notes

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 outreach:Education/Countries for people in many parts of the world, and WMF staff who can help try to make connections with people who can help in those areas. "Wiki Ed" specifically refers to the Wiki Education Foundation, which is the separate organization that manages the US and Canada arm of the Education Program. I'd recommend splitting this sentence and rewording along these lines: "Instructors are expected to have a good working knowledge of Wikipedia, and should be willing to help address core content policy violations in student work. The Wikipedia Education Program has many resources that can help instructors and students learn about Wikipedia and avoid common pitfalls. There are people who will help you learn to run a successful assignment, and you may want to consider delaying your assignment until next semester if you have not coordinated with members of the Education Program. For classes at institutions in the United States and Canada, contact the Wiki Education Foundation. For all other countries, visit the Education Program on the Outreach Wiki. If you don't know where to turn or have other questions, ask at the 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)

examples of best practices section

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)

Unfocused

The page is unfocused. It can't seem to decide if it is about Student assignments, or about advice to all parties, as the sections #Advice for students, Advice for instructors, and Advice for editors would indicate, and as the {{WEP sidebar}} anchor "Advice to all parties" makes clear. As the {{Unfocused}} banner suggests, maybe it should be split into separate articles, each one covering one of the three topics. Alternatively, it could be renamed to something that better indicates what the article is about: Wikipedia:Advice for Instructors, Students, and Editors. The way it stands now, it is just confusing. Mathglot (talk) 01:56, 1 June 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)

Unrealistic timescales

A message on the help desk today related to a case where a student was nearing a course deadline and was waiting for a draft to be reviewed at AFC. It may be wise for the guidance to point out that there can often be long delays waiting for AFC review, and that instructors should bear this in mind when setting assignment timescales. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

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)

Minority Group Focused Articles

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 Randy in Boise and others like him edit here, they are all allowed to do so until they hit 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)

(edit conflict) Chris beat me to it. Restricting articles about minority groups to students in minority groups will happen right after we restrict the articles on the Kamrupi dialect and Limbu people to speakers and members of those communities. I.e., never. Or, to put it on more of a policy-based foundation: students with disabilities would be prohibited from writing about their own personal experiences, and might have to disclose a possible conflict of interest on their Talk page or the article Talk page when writing for those articles. It's far better for editors to have no stake or connection whatever to the articles they are writing about, other than a desire to improve the encyclopedia as best they know how, adhering to the 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.

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

All students left behind

The following snippet represents some text in the current version of section Examples of best practices :

Examples of instructors leading assignments that are good models to learn from include... and Biolorof, who had graduate students peer review each other's contributions multiple times, to help ensure that quality contributions were left behind. (emphasis added)

It was added in this edit six years ago. Biosthmors, I’m pretty sure that was not your intended meaning. Care to adjust it? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Mathglot for the notification but I will defer to you (or someone else) for the time being. Biosthmors (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done I fixed it to remove doubt as to meaning. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

First note to text

Ok, why do you disagree? · • SUM1 • · (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot · • SUM1 • · (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Footnoting it is a halfway measure; imho “left with a mess” is not the kind of language I often see on project or policy pages, and I’d rather see the entire sentence removed, or rewritten in a nonjudgmental way. One person’s mess is another’s “creative approach” or “thinking out of the box”. Which doesn’t mean I don’t agree with the sentiment behind it, but it is very poorly worded, whether it appears in the body or a footnote. Mathglot (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The messes with student editors happen, and more often than non-messes do. I prefer that the blunt, factual statement remain. It can also be worded more softly. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I know this discussion is kind of old... but I agree with Flyer22 Frozen. I made this edit (with correction on that edit summary here) bringing the first note into mainline text per SUM1, Flyer22 Frozen, and myself, and made this edit adding in a point about how we often have to clean up student editors' original research. I don't think the statement is excessive; it's both true and for their own good. It frankly often is a mess. Sometimes we have to clean up past student editing, and pointing to this page showing that bad student editing is a known issue is helpful. As for current student editors, they should know the common issues that crop up. Their classes clearly are not consistently telling them properly. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Gratis being italicised

Hi User:Tryptofish,

I'm glad that you approved of my second edit, but I'm wondering why you italicised the word gratis – while I'm not sure how much use it gets, I'm fairly certain that it's a legitimate word in English (albeit borrowed, of course). For instance, Wiktionary says that it was used in Shakespeare: wikt:gratis. If you think it doesn't have enough use in English to not be italicised though, then fair enough, but I just wanted to check to see what your reasoning here is. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for asking. It's not a big deal to me either way, but I just feel as though it's, to some degree, a foreign word, and, to some degree, being used here in a technical sense. It just looks better to me to put it in italics. But as issues on Wikipedia go, this is a very minor one. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Tryptofish: I don't really mind either way to be honest. We can leave it as it is if you think it should be that way, because I'm not sure about this myself. I'm just happy that this wording is fine, because the word "open" is one I always find quite frustrating to see, and seeing how Wikipedia itself says "The Free Encyclopedia", it feels wrong to me when I see a page talking about Wikipedia where somebody has written "open". Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Guideline proposal

There is a proposal to change this page from an information page to a guideline at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Converting Wikipedia:Student assignments into an actual guideline. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The archived discussion on the proposal is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_167#Converting_Wikipedia%3AStudent_assignments_into_an_actual_guideline Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Advice for students about bad assignments from instructors?

While having infrastructure set up to help instructors use editing Wikipedia for education purposes is great, it's inevitable that some teachers are going to give their students assignments which, likely unknowingly, require their students to break some rule of the site. For example, what if a well-meaning teacher were to ask their students to make a Wikipedia article for themselves, not knowing this violates WP:NOTE and WP:ORIGINAL? It seems wrong to bend the rules and have the site clogged up with junk articles, but it also seems wrong to fail an entire classroom of kids for something out of their control. Is this just an unfortunate circumstance we shouldn't be responsible for, or should we provide some guidance on this page for students in this sort of situation? --Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Via IRC Help I was informed about a student assignment from a political science class: Students were to deliberately inject false information into articles about living politicians and then observe if and how Wikipedia "healed" from this attack.

Of course, this is a terrible way to learn about how our anti-abuse policies work and I think we were able to convince this student to pass on the message to his professor. As far as we know this particular assignment never happened, but I am sure many like it have. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should give advice to students about that here, because it would involve telling them to disobey their instructor's requirements. Instead, the way to handle these situations as soon as they become apparent is to report them at WP:Education noticeboard. In my experience, this typically resolves the problem pretty efficiently. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)