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."

Comments

Student writing

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what the article that's all about NIGGERS will say?



nigger nigger nigger

Re:Student writing

[Anonymous Coward]

Loading...

What is this crazy fags thing?

Slashdot is currently experimenting with fagging articles. You are encouraged to use this feature to submit a handful of fags: brief labels that you think best describe this article. You might choose to say that this is an article about 'buttsecks' and 'Astroglide'.
This is all very gay. Currently, fagging is open to our users whose accounts are more than about six months old. If your account is more recent, you can still get fag access by becoming a Slashdot groupie.
We don't know exactly how this will all work, and a lot of it really depends on you. If you choose to add your own fags, be aware:
Your fags are public. Everyone will be able to see them! (omgz!!1)
Individual fags should not include spaces: a space is used to enter multiple fags. Use "bigdick", not "big dick".
For the opposite of a fag, prefix it with "!", e.g. "!fag" means "heterosexual."
Keep your fags briefs (you might want to sniff them later).
We provide a few example fags for you. Use them if you like.
Don't forget to click 'fag' to save your fags.
After you save, your current list of fags is put back into the text field for you. If you clear it and re-click fag, your old fags are undone. To add more fags, just add them to your list and re-click fag.
fags must be all-lowercase, no punctuation. Numbers can appear but can't be first. Smoosh them up: for "goatse.cx", fag "goatsecx". Max 64 chars.
Avoid plurals when possible: "hardon", not "hardons".
We're excited about this, and see huge potential for this gay system. From user feedback on articles, to comment moderation, to anal sex, the system is really limited only by your participation, and the soreness of our assholes!

Answered by: CmdrTaco
Last Modified: 11/02/06

Are fags objective or subjective? Can I abuse any fag I want?

Other fagging systems let users make up any fags they want, and punt on the issue of objective meaning. So the fag "tubgirl" means for each user whatever they want it to mean, and to the system it means nothing at all, it's just an identifier.
We're going to build the next generation of moderation on top of fags. That means we're going to poach your anus. Some fags will have a substantive effect on your digestive system right from the start (or very soon). Our article fagger knows about fags like "felch" or "snowball". When we roll out fagging on comments, we will teach it "buttsecks" and "teabag". These fags can have a meaning in the system. And when you cum on fags that we haven't anticipated, we will bring them into the system.
But your fags do not belong to you, they belong to everyone. We reserve the right to make changes that we think are necessary. Since this system is totally experimental, we don't know exactly what all of this might mean: it could mean one day we consolidate and change all "felch" to "rim" fags. It could mean we define some system fag and slurp another fag's asshole. This is the nature of a system in active development. Don't say we didn't warn you!

Fags elsewhere are your own personal playground and nobody cares if you mess around. On Slashdot, abusive uses of fags could have negative consequences. Precisely what that means, we don't know yet.

Yes, that's pretty arbitrary. We'll spell out policy as this evolves. For now, the deal is: fag in good faith, and if there's abuse, we'll deal with it in good faith.

Answered by: CmdrTaco
Last Modified: 2/10/06

Johnny, You Can Be The Editor! It's Fun to Learn!

[RobotRunAmok]

Maybe the school figures it will block the encyclopedia written by students so that its students can focus on the encyclopedias written by professors and other professional researchers? That makes sense to me.

The students aren't using text books written by the guy sitting at the desk next to them, why should their research sources be dorm-grown?

Re:Doublt benefit..

[unlametheweak]

I have a feeling a teacher who's on the ball enough to assign Wikipedia article writing to his students will understand the environment surrounding the wiki and will take such things into account. I think you've got it all wrong. I think a teacher who is MANDATING students to (not just submit, but) actually publish articles to an encyclopedia is an indication of arrogance and incompetence.

Why this is:
- Authors should WANT to write an article without being under duress
- Wikipedia (as a publishing medium) should not be used to learn or practice ones skills, but to actually help improve the knowledge of mankind (let the students use the sandboxes, sure)
- People should already have a good knowledge of what they will publish as a reference for the rest of the world. Research and referencing ones research should be secondary to the base knowledge. Using Wikipedia (for article submission) merely as an academic exercise diminishes the importance of Wikipedia

Expecting quality from an arbitrary sample of students who have time pressures to release something that SOUNDS intelligent is more akin to journalism. We all know that journalists have a tendency to make things up (fill in the gaps), or plagiarize because many just don't have the time (or attitude or aptitude) to spend a year researching or vetting their stories (on say, Cold Fusion), to produce anything of quality. (I was planning to reference an example here, but there is so much on Google that I will merely use Google as a general reference. An example search string: "times journalist lied".)

An encyclopedia, no matter how open it may be, is something of greater human interest and importance than to be used as merely an academic exercise for an arbitrary sample of students with unknown levels of experience, honesty, or intelligence.

It's yet another public embarrassment for an institution that has great ideals.

Because the core mission of /. and Wikipedia

[Per Abrahamsen]

... is to provide a outlet for self-important whiners.

Let's never forget that!