Slashdot Mirror
Students Assigned to Write Wikipedia Articles
openfrog writes "An inspired professor at University of Washington-Bothell, Martha Groom, made an interesting pedagogical experiment. Instead of vilifying Wikipedia as some academics are prone to do, she assigned the students enrolled in her environmental history course to contribute articles. The result has proven "transformative" to her students. They were no longer spending their time writing for one reader, says Groom, but were doing work of consequence in a "peer reviewed" environment, which enhanced the quality of their output."
I remember reading an article about one of the top contributors on Wikipedia - he started out by writing entries as a study aid. Makes sense to me.
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
As opposed to books? Last I checked, anybody can write a book, and the only thing required to get it bound and distributed is money. Either a publishers, or your own. It doesn't say much for the school when they either don't understand how books are published, or are encouraging the idea that "money makes right".
Even better, you get modded up when posting anonymous, and down when logged in.
- The students thought the assignments were more meaningful because they weren't just thrown away at the end of the assignment.
- The fact that assignments were written for the public instead of just one professor gave a whole other level of meaning to the assignments, and meant that they were getting another level of feedback. It is a touch of what peer-review is like.
- Selecting the assignments was often very difficult, because by the time the article had been written, the article would have already been filled in. Also, a lot of topics are already taken.
- She taught some classes where she allowed them to fill in already existing articles, and some where they had to come up with something new entirely.
- She had to prepare them when there were controversial topics, and in one case she actually had to intervene because people were being so rude to a student (I guess the student was also new to wikis). There was a fair amount of orientation into the wiki community.
- She partnered with a technical person during the project. I think it might have been his idea actually.
- Some students had lasting connections with their topics even after the assignments finished. One student was written by a researcher in the field he or she had written the article about, praising them for doing such a thorough, well-written article. That type of validation is hard to get from conventional articles.
- Students generally thought writing a wiki article would be easy, but were not very well prepared for doing so. Writing a well-researched, well-documented summary is very different than typical persuasive essays.
- Original research doesn't belong on Wikipedia unless it's published elsewhere first.
- Grading seems like it would be very difficult. How do you account for what the student contributes, and what other people contribute. Also, how would the student write the article over a course of a few weeks, incrementally, or all at once, and what kind of version control issues would ensue?
So imagine if more schools did this. What would Wikipedia look like then? Any different? It seems like it would encourage a lot more citations if nothing else. It also seems like you would reach a point where it gets increasingly difficult to find a topic that's not incredibly obscure. And then it would be exactly like academia todayGuess what? Academics are often "MANDATED" to "(not just submit, but) actually publish articles" in peer-reviewed journals, or at least publish their findings in other area-specific literature (perhaps books, etc.). Is that an "indication of arrogance and incompetence" on the part of the university/college that employs them? Hell no - it's a condition of their employment that they produce a quantity of quality writing and original research. Or, to look at it another way, it's what academics do.
Such writing is often under time pressure - that doesn't mean it ends up being plagiarized, or a pack of lies, or 'just' journalism as you imply.
One reason this project works - one reason it's a good exercise to put students through - is that it forces them to synthesize their knowledge on a subject and practice writing in a vigorous, academic style, with the benefits of peer-review, but without the pressure of formal publication.
=w=
Here's the original Associated Press article without the annoying Physorg ads. (Google finally cut out the middlemen and started hosting Associated Press content themselves.)
Articles tagged for speedy deletion aren't voted on in the Wikipedia. As long as you're not the person who created the article, you can dump the speedy deletion tag if you want, which prevents the speedy deletion from taking place. You're probably thinking of the AFD process, which gives the community a week to come up with a consensus. Technically, it's not a vote; a proposed deletion that has 5 people opposed to the deletion with sound reasons and 10 people for the deletion with crappy or no reasons should result in the article being kept, even though the ones against are in the minority. I've seen it happen a few times. It's not common, but it's not unheard of.
The World's Worst Webcomic!
At the risk of pointing you to the work of a five year old, perhaps you should check out this Wikipedia article on the slippery slope and why it can be a fallacy. Its use in conjunction with a straw man argument seems particularly relevant to your post.
unreferenced facts are subject to removal
You must be new here.
[Joking aside, the gp post was talking about the development of pidgins and creoles. I remember reading a discussion of it The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond.]
A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
This is not the first assignment of its type. There have been more than 40 such projects; there are at least 10 more in progress. The students and the professors need to be aware of the "No original research" policy. Many university-level assignments involve original research, and Wikipedia is not the right place for publishing original research.
Here are some of the articles created as a part of the assignments we're talking about:
Most of us have enough sense, however, to have our students write the articles on a closed media wiki, and then after peer review and evaluation in the course, students are 'allowed' to up load them. Filling wikipedia with student's practice work does not make sense, but letting them think in that direction and practice elsewhere works. There are a lot of areas in wikipedia that get ignored, because the typicalwikipedite (or slashdotty perhaps :) does't consider it worthy, and this is a way to fix that.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2013.808365