![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Please see:
I wonder if, here, we should strengthen what the page says about the problems of suddenly moving student assignments from a sandbox to the mainspace. Thoughts? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I have been reading a lot of neuroscience articles from beginning to end recently, and can immediately pick out the ones that were written as assignments, especially when reaching the mid-body of the article and towards the end, where it reads like obvious sophomoric crap written by somebody with a basic understanding of the subject. They have awkward, essay-like formatting which looks and reads unencyclopedic, and have other aberrations, like awkwardly placed, unnecessary quotations and poor referencing. Even in the case of ones that were "rated" well on the talk pages. This is even obvious for subjects that I know little about. I suppose further down the article are the areas that haven't been sufficiently seen by later editors, who give up after the first few sections. Is there anything that can be done about this? Is this part of the project really worthwhile?
142.25.33.105 ( talk) 06:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Johnbod, but most folks know I can no longer stomach editing Wikipedia because of what THIS program did to medical content and the negative impact IT had on US. I log in as unoften as possible. Best to my friends, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Many significant changes were made on May 11, 2017 without any discussion. Let's discuss first. The removal of all material related to "ambassadors" is quite significant. Let's hear some background on why this is "outdated".
Also, the presumption that an assignment didn't go as planned should not immediately cast blame on the instructor giving the course or students as being "disruptive". Editors who encounter students may react badly to WP:RS and expertise that contradicts their convictions and/or challenges their ownership of article(s) and content, or threatens their entrenched POV. After all, we are well aware that editors do come to wikipedia with both declared or undeclared WP:COI, create sockpuppets and do many unacceptable things to promote a COI agenda. That students and instructors coming in good faith might not be prepared for the incivility and biting of established Wikipedians, who might not afford these new editors the courtesy and assumption of good faith or who are violating policy themselves should not be blamed on the instructor and students, when they are not the cause of the drama. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 03:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Instead, I changed it to the WikiEd liaison for the class, because every class set up via the Education Program now has one- Wiki Ed is the Education Program at institutions in the US and Canada. WMF still runs the Global Education Program, which covers institutions everywhere else. The vast majority of classes on enwiki are in US/CA (off-hand, I'd estimate 90-95% of Education Program participants), but not all of them. In other words, it's not quite every class set up via the Education Program that has Wiki Ed staff working with them. That said, anyone can use the training materials. Most are on Commons, and the Programs and Events Dashboard is a version of the Dashboard software Wiki Ed developed, forked with the express purpose of anybody being able to use it. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 02:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
but there is a guarantee that a Wiki-Ed rep. will be assigned to the class- As I mentioned in my comment just above (perhaps not phrased clearly), this is not quite accurate. While anyone is free to use the various Wiki Ed training materials and the Programs and Events Dashboard, Wiki Ed (which in this case means Wiki Ed staff) only supports the Education Program at institutions in the United States and Canada (which is the majority of classes, but not all of them). -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 21:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
it was the convergence of several programs in 2011-12, each of which have their own history. Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy is most prominent for piloting the concept.This makes it sound like Wikipedians created it. Later you say
the WMF established it then turned it over to wiki community control without designating any leadership or chain of command. Can you explain?
the WMF established it, can you point me to the documentation and communication from/to WMF about what they created? And also to further communication/documentation about how it was going, how much money was dedicated to it, etc., whether they were withdrawing funding, renewing it, etc.?
@ Bluerasberry: Thanks again for your answers to the questions. I read them yesterday and am still contemplating how to respond. I honestly don't understand how your answer to question to Q1 above could be correct. I feel equally puzzled by the answer to Q2. What I have read seems to suggest editors really want to help and be involved in the Ambassador program and helping with these education programs and nearly everyone who showed interest at WP:ENB was rejected and turned away instead and not even thanked for showing their interest. I'm not really sure what it has to do with an empty store front. To me supporting students and instructors in an organized way is positive and completely doable, no matter what banner you put it under. Even if some particular program funded by WMF has disbanded a new one with similar goals can easily be recreated with the same editors encouraged to participate and new editors solicited and supported. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 03:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
To increase increase participation, I am pinging some of the people who are on the Ambassador lists, especially those that show an interest in helping newcomers or students and/or have a diverse set of interests.
Note: Items in square brackets and footnotes are commentary on proposed changes.
Advice for ambassadors volunteers
[1]
For a list of current regional ambassadors, see
here.
You represent give a face to the editing community.
[2] Please help your instructors and students to understand Wikipedia in a welcoming manner, so that student experiences are enjoyable and their contributions improve the encyclopedia. Please establish a good working relationships with the instructors and students you engage with. (perhaps by collaborating on the course page) so that you can help improve the assignment (even if only for future semesters), and make sure that it does not contradict Wikipedia's norms. Attempt to incorporate the requirement that students thoughtfully review each other's work on article talk pages, with enough time left in the course for students to address the comments.
[3]
Your help with plagiarism issues is welcomed. Early in the process, If you choose to help with plagiarism, try to dDiscuss with the instructor how you will notify them if plagiarism occurs or has likely occurred. You might also decide to give advice to students on article talk pages (or in peer reviews) to incorporate your suggestions into the assignment.
Although we all hope things will go smoothly, there is the chance that problems with copyright violations or student unresponsiveness to concerns will develop. Talk with the instructor about what possibilities exist if a student's contribution receives a poor reception., including grading the assignment from a sandbox.
[4] If non-student editors contact you with concerns about the class's editing, please try to help and respond as quickly as you canbe prepared to respond promptly, and please take those concerns seriously. Help editors, in turn, understand the class. Please facilitate the advice given in, and the general spirit of, this information page. Award the barnstar mentioned above if it is deserved.
[5] Thank you for volunteering to serve as a liaison between Wikipedia and a classroom!
As a volunteer, it is worth putting careful consideration into whether or not you would like to work with a particular class. It may be a good idea to come up with a mutual agreement between the instructor and yourself that deals with such issues as what actions the instructor will take if plagiarism or other problems are uncovered.
--END--
I'd like to see if any other editors support this proposed section.It's not a proposed section. It's already there. You are are seeking to change the language of the exiting section that is already there. This section is important because it distinguishes advice to editors who have volunteered specifically to help students from ordinary editors who might show up here because they are annoyed with the students and the instructor. It would be nice to assume that all editors want to help students, but from what I have seen that is not the case. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 22:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
You represent the editing community. Please help your students understand Wikipedia in a welcoming manner, so that student experiences are enjoyable and their contributions improve the encyclopedia. Please establish a good working relationship with the instructor (perhaps by collaborating on the course page) so that you can help improve the assignment (even if only for future semesters)Civility is one of the five pillars and we should remind editors to treat students this way rather than the open hostility that I have seen.
@ Tryptofish: Please do not try to edit war in your prefer version and follow WP:BRD. I do understand you made numerous edits and may not want to lose all that work. I certainly don't oppose every single one of the individual edits. In the future, if you are going to make such sweeping changes, please considering discussing your WP:BOLD changes first. If you want me to, I can try to add back changes I agree with. Also, we are probably not as far off as you might think. This is not black/white. We are supposed to collaborate not impose our new versions on others. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 04:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Ryan (Wiki Ed): It would have been better if you discussed potential changes to this page on this page rather than your talk page. Then we would have a record of the discussion where it belongs. Can you and Tryptofish copy that section over here and provide a permalink to what is relevant?
When you say, this is why I've demurred a bit when you've invited me to edit the page.
I do understand your concern, but I do think you should speak fully at the talk page as a representative of Wiki Ed, when you are speaking in that capacity. I also hope you do not mean by "demurred" that you were "deferring" to Tryptofish's judgment. Although
Tryptofish has worked for some time on these pages, he is not more equal that other editors. Deferring to the community I understand, but Tryptofish is only one member and does not represent the entire community. This must be a collaborative work per Wiki rules. I probably would have been working here long ago if I was aware of the program, as I have a background in education and feel these courses are a huge benefit to Wikipedia. I do intend to be more active with regard to Wiki Ed. --
David Tornheim (
talk)
04:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
It would have been better if you discussed potential changes to this page on this page rather than your talk pageI wasn't referring to any particular proposed change(s). Sometimes this page comes up on ENB or one of the other venues where Education Program-related matters come up. The most recent instance, if I recall correctly, was simply concerning linking to this page in general -- Tryptofish suggested including a link to this page in another student editing resource, and I left a message saying this page has a few things out of date, and asking whether there are things covered here that should also be covered in other student editing resources. He invited me to edit the page, and I demurred (in the sense of being reluctant). You didn't miss out on anything particularly substantial. :) That said, Tryptofish (along with, for a while, Biosthmors) has been the driving force behind this page, so I have typically closely associated them with it. Tryptofish is also one of a very small number of people consistently engaged with the Education Program for many years, and I've come to value his opinion, which I find is typically reflective of a large swath of the community. But you are entirely right that this page, being in projectspace, is not his, and when I do discuss changes to this page, I will be more mindful to do so here. Always a good thing to have more people involved, I think/ :) -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 20:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I suggest we set an example on this page by adhering to WP:BRD rather than edit warring over a disagreement that may well be more muted than it appears. Also, it's best to discuss matters pertaining to this page on this page's talk page rather than elsewhere. *** So, in the interest of clarity, we ought to get the items that are under agreement out of the way first. Then, with that done, we can break down what's under contention, dealing with each component one at a time. Sounds like a plan? El_C 06:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Tryptofish: This edit is not helpful IMHO. We should be collaborating and seeking resolution as suggested above by El C, which we both agreed to do, which is why I chose that header. It's not some "self congratulatory" title. Why you want to focus on "discussing the dispute" rather than resolving it and moving forward? I am trying to work with you and everyone else who is interested in improving the page. Let's discuss the content and proposed changes and seek agreement and consensus for changes as per El C's proposed resolution strategy. I took a break and am about to fill in the sections we created below. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to make that list, so we can discuss each one of them in a thoughtful manner. I created this section header as a placeholder, because it will take me a bit of time to assemble the list, but it is coming shortly. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is the list of edits, with diffs, and my reasoning. I'm numbering them. Anyone with concerns may refer to edits by those numbers. I would appreciate it if you do so below the list, instead of inserted into the list, in order to keep the discussion readable. Thanks.
And that's it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Edit 1 has been implemented in this edit |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
01:01, 11 May 2017 (35,964 bytes) (-1) (Advice for instructors: clarify)
1
|
A consensus has been reached and a modification of Edit 2 has been implemented |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
01:07, 11 May 2017 (36,256 bytes) (+292) (Advice for instructors: from discussion at ENB)
2:
Concrete Proposal: Tryptofish's splitting creates two paragraphs, the first of which is:
I have suggested modifying the last sentence, which David supported. I wonder if a compromise on the article talk page materials might also work, something like:
Tryptofish and David (and anyone else interested), how does this sound? EdChem ( talk) 06:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
All of our guidelines and policies apply (including AGF and DONTBITE) regardless what you agree here. If you want to allow homework to be turned in via posting to article talk, even though the posting editor has zero intention of improving the encyclopedia, you'll need to get consensus for that at WP:PUMP or Wikipedia_talk:Talk page guidelines. I applaud editors trying to improve this project, but I'm don't have time to join you in the nitty gritty. Good luck. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Due to poor indentation this thread is very hard to follow and know who is speaking when. So I'm not sure who I am replying to but I'd like to clarify my position. We agree homework unrelated to article content does not belong here. I mean... well duh, do we need to say that out loud? That's not the point I am raising. Instead, I believe a critical review of our article content that is written up as homework with an intention of getting a grade is not the same thing as commentary intended to improve the encyclopedia. Instead, it is intended to complete the assignment and get a grade. Such commentary about our article content is abundant across the web, both on and off wiki. No one is suggesting we import every review piece from every source, just in case it helps some future editor later. I see no reason to welcome such material when it appears here first instead of somewhere else, or when it is written by students instead of someone else. If it is not intended to improve the encyclopedia, it's clutter. That's true even if one of these posts happens to contain the magic text that four years from now inspires an edit that is so awesome it is the equivalent of winning the powerball lottery. I mean, that would be a lucky accident, not an effort to improve anything. Such homework, even when it is about article content, does not belong on article talk pages. The intended audience is the professor, who gives the grade....or in rare instances other students who review the review. Serious article editors with pages watchlisted should not be buggered with classroom noise. It's easy enough to put that stuff in user space or the course page. IF someone here disagrees, then the point should be RFCd or better yet written up in a separate query at the V-PUMP. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
|
Rather than the see also originally proposed, edit 3 has become a longer comment in a footnote |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
01:21, 11 May 2017 (36,424 bytes) (+168) (See also: add)
3:
@ David Tornheim: Tryptofish and I have worked comment into a footnote in the lede. I believe this addresses this edit for this page, at least until a separate page (such as you suggest) is developed. Please comment (and Tryptofish and anyone else, of course) on whether this edit proposal can be closed off. Thanks, EdChem ( talk) 23:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
|
Edit 4 implemented in this edit |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
01:24, 11 May 2017 (36,289 bytes) (-135) (Advice for ambassadors: inactive)
4:
|
Edit 5 has been returned to the page in this edit and a subsequent edit adds mention of help templates and notes the likely rapid removal of non-compliant article content |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
01:29, 11 May 2017 (36,158 bytes) (-131) (Advice for students: inactive)
5:
|
Instead of removing the section on Ambassadors as Edit 6 did, the section has been commented out in this edit and it is thus available for modification / integration elsewhere on the page. It is not, and should not be, visible as it is out of date and inaccurate. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
6:
|
Edit 7 implemented in this edit |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
01:36, 11 May 2017 (33,891 bytes) (-42) (top: update)
7:
|
Edit 8 has been implemented in this edit |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
01:46, 11 May 2017 (33,834 bytes) (-57) (Course pages, user pages, and user names: update)
8:
|
Edit 9: First change has consensus and has been implemented in this edit, sequence change subsequently gained consensus |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
02:05, 11 May 2017 (33,905 bytes) (+71) (Advice for instructors: update)
9:
References
I have added to the clean up template ref and related it to both students and instructors. If there are no objections, I think edit 9 can be closed as reolved. David Tornheim, are you comfortable with this as it stands now? EdChem ( talk) 00:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC) David Tornheim and Tryptofish are you both comfortable with my additions to the comments on templates on article pages being related to instructors and students? If so, can the edits on this proposal can be closed off? Thanks, EdChem ( talk) 23:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
|
Edit 10 has been implemented in this edit |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
02:09, 11 May 2017 (34,008 bytes) (+103) (Course pages, user pages, and user names: tweak)
10:
|
Edit 11 has been implemented in this edit |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
02:13, 11 May 2017 (34,130 bytes) (+122) (top: add)
11:
|
I've been, for the most part, just having a two-editor discussion with David for several days now, and it has the potential to just keep going on and on. I've yet to see significant support for David's concerns, and I am getting worried that other editors have just given up or lost interest. So I'm going to ping the other editors who have previously expressed opinions in this discussion: Doc James, Chris troutman, Bluerasberry, EdChem, and a courtesy ping to El C. And of course if anyone else who is watching would like to comment, please do. I'd appreciate it very much if you could indicate your views of #DT's Proposed changes to Ambassador Language. I would also like you to indicate any of the list of 11 edits that I made and were reverted, where you feel the edit should remain reverted or should be modified in any way. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Tryptofish and David, I have implemented changes as follows:
All other edits are invited to comment, of course, and I hope this advances us much closer to resolution. Regards. EdChem ( talk) 06:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
This was a Wikipedia community discussion about an extreme example of a class assignment that went wrong. In a course about a controversial topic, discussions with the instructor and students about the WP:NPOV policy failed to reach an understanding, and the community ultimately responded by blocking the instructor from future class projects.That's shorter than your version, but I think that it covers the most important points, and I would not want to make it significantly longer than that, although I'm fine with revising it.
On the other hand, when an assignment is not aligned with these norms, significant problems can arise. In an extreme example of this (link to AN discussion) that may serve as a cautionary tale...The footnote could then go on at greater length and in more detail that what I proposed in the first option, and we could largely cover what you put in red font in this way.
PS: Now home from hospital, pain much reduced, but what happened still unknown. EdChem ( talk) 22:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@
Tryptofish: Two quick things regarding your edits today: and the course should be
listed as a class assignment.
- That page is updated automatically when someone creates a course page on the Wiki Ed Dashboard. Few people actually watch it, since it's entirely semi-automated edits, so it might be confusing to link to it. (At present, the WikiEd Program is available only in the US and Canada, but the Dashboard tool is available to everyone.)
The reason I added the qualifier "Wiki Ed Dashboard" above is that there's the original Dashboard at dashboard.wikiedu.org which is used by institutions in the US + CA. Then there's the
Programs and Events Dashboard hosted by wmflabs. The basic functionality is present in both, but the Wiki Ed version has some Wiki Ed-specific elements built in (incorporating staff roles, for example) while the wmflabs version has a broader audience in mind, geared towards programs in general rather than just classroom assignments. I don't know that you'd want to go into detail, but it seems useful to distinguish in some way. --
Ryan (Wiki Ed) (
talk)
22:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Please see:
I wonder if, here, we should strengthen what the page says about the problems of suddenly moving student assignments from a sandbox to the mainspace. Thoughts? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I have been reading a lot of neuroscience articles from beginning to end recently, and can immediately pick out the ones that were written as assignments, especially when reaching the mid-body of the article and towards the end, where it reads like obvious sophomoric crap written by somebody with a basic understanding of the subject. They have awkward, essay-like formatting which looks and reads unencyclopedic, and have other aberrations, like awkwardly placed, unnecessary quotations and poor referencing. Even in the case of ones that were "rated" well on the talk pages. This is even obvious for subjects that I know little about. I suppose further down the article are the areas that haven't been sufficiently seen by later editors, who give up after the first few sections. Is there anything that can be done about this? Is this part of the project really worthwhile?
142.25.33.105 ( talk) 06:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Johnbod, but most folks know I can no longer stomach editing Wikipedia because of what THIS program did to medical content and the negative impact IT had on US. I log in as unoften as possible. Best to my friends, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Many significant changes were made on May 11, 2017 without any discussion. Let's discuss first. The removal of all material related to "ambassadors" is quite significant. Let's hear some background on why this is "outdated".
Also, the presumption that an assignment didn't go as planned should not immediately cast blame on the instructor giving the course or students as being "disruptive". Editors who encounter students may react badly to WP:RS and expertise that contradicts their convictions and/or challenges their ownership of article(s) and content, or threatens their entrenched POV. After all, we are well aware that editors do come to wikipedia with both declared or undeclared WP:COI, create sockpuppets and do many unacceptable things to promote a COI agenda. That students and instructors coming in good faith might not be prepared for the incivility and biting of established Wikipedians, who might not afford these new editors the courtesy and assumption of good faith or who are violating policy themselves should not be blamed on the instructor and students, when they are not the cause of the drama. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 03:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Instead, I changed it to the WikiEd liaison for the class, because every class set up via the Education Program now has one- Wiki Ed is the Education Program at institutions in the US and Canada. WMF still runs the Global Education Program, which covers institutions everywhere else. The vast majority of classes on enwiki are in US/CA (off-hand, I'd estimate 90-95% of Education Program participants), but not all of them. In other words, it's not quite every class set up via the Education Program that has Wiki Ed staff working with them. That said, anyone can use the training materials. Most are on Commons, and the Programs and Events Dashboard is a version of the Dashboard software Wiki Ed developed, forked with the express purpose of anybody being able to use it. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 02:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
but there is a guarantee that a Wiki-Ed rep. will be assigned to the class- As I mentioned in my comment just above (perhaps not phrased clearly), this is not quite accurate. While anyone is free to use the various Wiki Ed training materials and the Programs and Events Dashboard, Wiki Ed (which in this case means Wiki Ed staff) only supports the Education Program at institutions in the United States and Canada (which is the majority of classes, but not all of them). -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 21:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
it was the convergence of several programs in 2011-12, each of which have their own history. Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy is most prominent for piloting the concept.This makes it sound like Wikipedians created it. Later you say
the WMF established it then turned it over to wiki community control without designating any leadership or chain of command. Can you explain?
the WMF established it, can you point me to the documentation and communication from/to WMF about what they created? And also to further communication/documentation about how it was going, how much money was dedicated to it, etc., whether they were withdrawing funding, renewing it, etc.?
@ Bluerasberry: Thanks again for your answers to the questions. I read them yesterday and am still contemplating how to respond. I honestly don't understand how your answer to question to Q1 above could be correct. I feel equally puzzled by the answer to Q2. What I have read seems to suggest editors really want to help and be involved in the Ambassador program and helping with these education programs and nearly everyone who showed interest at WP:ENB was rejected and turned away instead and not even thanked for showing their interest. I'm not really sure what it has to do with an empty store front. To me supporting students and instructors in an organized way is positive and completely doable, no matter what banner you put it under. Even if some particular program funded by WMF has disbanded a new one with similar goals can easily be recreated with the same editors encouraged to participate and new editors solicited and supported. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 03:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
To increase increase participation, I am pinging some of the people who are on the Ambassador lists, especially those that show an interest in helping newcomers or students and/or have a diverse set of interests.
Note: Items in square brackets and footnotes are commentary on proposed changes.
Advice for ambassadors volunteers
[1]
For a list of current regional ambassadors, see
here.
You represent give a face to the editing community.
[2] Please help your instructors and students to understand Wikipedia in a welcoming manner, so that student experiences are enjoyable and their contributions improve the encyclopedia. Please establish a good working relationships with the instructors and students you engage with. (perhaps by collaborating on the course page) so that you can help improve the assignment (even if only for future semesters), and make sure that it does not contradict Wikipedia's norms. Attempt to incorporate the requirement that students thoughtfully review each other's work on article talk pages, with enough time left in the course for students to address the comments.
[3]
Your help with plagiarism issues is welcomed. Early in the process, If you choose to help with plagiarism, try to dDiscuss with the instructor how you will notify them if plagiarism occurs or has likely occurred. You might also decide to give advice to students on article talk pages (or in peer reviews) to incorporate your suggestions into the assignment.
Although we all hope things will go smoothly, there is the chance that problems with copyright violations or student unresponsiveness to concerns will develop. Talk with the instructor about what possibilities exist if a student's contribution receives a poor reception., including grading the assignment from a sandbox.
[4] If non-student editors contact you with concerns about the class's editing, please try to help and respond as quickly as you canbe prepared to respond promptly, and please take those concerns seriously. Help editors, in turn, understand the class. Please facilitate the advice given in, and the general spirit of, this information page. Award the barnstar mentioned above if it is deserved.
[5] Thank you for volunteering to serve as a liaison between Wikipedia and a classroom!
As a volunteer, it is worth putting careful consideration into whether or not you would like to work with a particular class. It may be a good idea to come up with a mutual agreement between the instructor and yourself that deals with such issues as what actions the instructor will take if plagiarism or other problems are uncovered.
--END--
I'd like to see if any other editors support this proposed section.It's not a proposed section. It's already there. You are are seeking to change the language of the exiting section that is already there. This section is important because it distinguishes advice to editors who have volunteered specifically to help students from ordinary editors who might show up here because they are annoyed with the students and the instructor. It would be nice to assume that all editors want to help students, but from what I have seen that is not the case. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 22:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
You represent the editing community. Please help your students understand Wikipedia in a welcoming manner, so that student experiences are enjoyable and their contributions improve the encyclopedia. Please establish a good working relationship with the instructor (perhaps by collaborating on the course page) so that you can help improve the assignment (even if only for future semesters)Civility is one of the five pillars and we should remind editors to treat students this way rather than the open hostility that I have seen.
@ Tryptofish: Please do not try to edit war in your prefer version and follow WP:BRD. I do understand you made numerous edits and may not want to lose all that work. I certainly don't oppose every single one of the individual edits. In the future, if you are going to make such sweeping changes, please considering discussing your WP:BOLD changes first. If you want me to, I can try to add back changes I agree with. Also, we are probably not as far off as you might think. This is not black/white. We are supposed to collaborate not impose our new versions on others. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 04:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Ryan (Wiki Ed): It would have been better if you discussed potential changes to this page on this page rather than your talk page. Then we would have a record of the discussion where it belongs. Can you and Tryptofish copy that section over here and provide a permalink to what is relevant?
When you say, this is why I've demurred a bit when you've invited me to edit the page.
I do understand your concern, but I do think you should speak fully at the talk page as a representative of Wiki Ed, when you are speaking in that capacity. I also hope you do not mean by "demurred" that you were "deferring" to Tryptofish's judgment. Although
Tryptofish has worked for some time on these pages, he is not more equal that other editors. Deferring to the community I understand, but Tryptofish is only one member and does not represent the entire community. This must be a collaborative work per Wiki rules. I probably would have been working here long ago if I was aware of the program, as I have a background in education and feel these courses are a huge benefit to Wikipedia. I do intend to be more active with regard to Wiki Ed. --
David Tornheim (
talk)
04:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
It would have been better if you discussed potential changes to this page on this page rather than your talk pageI wasn't referring to any particular proposed change(s). Sometimes this page comes up on ENB or one of the other venues where Education Program-related matters come up. The most recent instance, if I recall correctly, was simply concerning linking to this page in general -- Tryptofish suggested including a link to this page in another student editing resource, and I left a message saying this page has a few things out of date, and asking whether there are things covered here that should also be covered in other student editing resources. He invited me to edit the page, and I demurred (in the sense of being reluctant). You didn't miss out on anything particularly substantial. :) That said, Tryptofish (along with, for a while, Biosthmors) has been the driving force behind this page, so I have typically closely associated them with it. Tryptofish is also one of a very small number of people consistently engaged with the Education Program for many years, and I've come to value his opinion, which I find is typically reflective of a large swath of the community. But you are entirely right that this page, being in projectspace, is not his, and when I do discuss changes to this page, I will be more mindful to do so here. Always a good thing to have more people involved, I think/ :) -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 20:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I suggest we set an example on this page by adhering to WP:BRD rather than edit warring over a disagreement that may well be more muted than it appears. Also, it's best to discuss matters pertaining to this page on this page's talk page rather than elsewhere. *** So, in the interest of clarity, we ought to get the items that are under agreement out of the way first. Then, with that done, we can break down what's under contention, dealing with each component one at a time. Sounds like a plan? El_C 06:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Tryptofish: This edit is not helpful IMHO. We should be collaborating and seeking resolution as suggested above by El C, which we both agreed to do, which is why I chose that header. It's not some "self congratulatory" title. Why you want to focus on "discussing the dispute" rather than resolving it and moving forward? I am trying to work with you and everyone else who is interested in improving the page. Let's discuss the content and proposed changes and seek agreement and consensus for changes as per El C's proposed resolution strategy. I took a break and am about to fill in the sections we created below. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to make that list, so we can discuss each one of them in a thoughtful manner. I created this section header as a placeholder, because it will take me a bit of time to assemble the list, but it is coming shortly. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is the list of edits, with diffs, and my reasoning. I'm numbering them. Anyone with concerns may refer to edits by those numbers. I would appreciate it if you do so below the list, instead of inserted into the list, in order to keep the discussion readable. Thanks.
And that's it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Edit 1 has been implemented in this edit |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
01:01, 11 May 2017 (35,964 bytes) (-1) (Advice for instructors: clarify)
1
|
A consensus has been reached and a modification of Edit 2 has been implemented |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
01:07, 11 May 2017 (36,256 bytes) (+292) (Advice for instructors: from discussion at ENB)
2:
Concrete Proposal: Tryptofish's splitting creates two paragraphs, the first of which is:
I have suggested modifying the last sentence, which David supported. I wonder if a compromise on the article talk page materials might also work, something like:
Tryptofish and David (and anyone else interested), how does this sound? EdChem ( talk) 06:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
All of our guidelines and policies apply (including AGF and DONTBITE) regardless what you agree here. If you want to allow homework to be turned in via posting to article talk, even though the posting editor has zero intention of improving the encyclopedia, you'll need to get consensus for that at WP:PUMP or Wikipedia_talk:Talk page guidelines. I applaud editors trying to improve this project, but I'm don't have time to join you in the nitty gritty. Good luck. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Due to poor indentation this thread is very hard to follow and know who is speaking when. So I'm not sure who I am replying to but I'd like to clarify my position. We agree homework unrelated to article content does not belong here. I mean... well duh, do we need to say that out loud? That's not the point I am raising. Instead, I believe a critical review of our article content that is written up as homework with an intention of getting a grade is not the same thing as commentary intended to improve the encyclopedia. Instead, it is intended to complete the assignment and get a grade. Such commentary about our article content is abundant across the web, both on and off wiki. No one is suggesting we import every review piece from every source, just in case it helps some future editor later. I see no reason to welcome such material when it appears here first instead of somewhere else, or when it is written by students instead of someone else. If it is not intended to improve the encyclopedia, it's clutter. That's true even if one of these posts happens to contain the magic text that four years from now inspires an edit that is so awesome it is the equivalent of winning the powerball lottery. I mean, that would be a lucky accident, not an effort to improve anything. Such homework, even when it is about article content, does not belong on article talk pages. The intended audience is the professor, who gives the grade....or in rare instances other students who review the review. Serious article editors with pages watchlisted should not be buggered with classroom noise. It's easy enough to put that stuff in user space or the course page. IF someone here disagrees, then the point should be RFCd or better yet written up in a separate query at the V-PUMP. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
|
Rather than the see also originally proposed, edit 3 has become a longer comment in a footnote |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
01:21, 11 May 2017 (36,424 bytes) (+168) (See also: add)
3:
@ David Tornheim: Tryptofish and I have worked comment into a footnote in the lede. I believe this addresses this edit for this page, at least until a separate page (such as you suggest) is developed. Please comment (and Tryptofish and anyone else, of course) on whether this edit proposal can be closed off. Thanks, EdChem ( talk) 23:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
|
Edit 4 implemented in this edit |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
01:24, 11 May 2017 (36,289 bytes) (-135) (Advice for ambassadors: inactive)
4:
|
Edit 5 has been returned to the page in this edit and a subsequent edit adds mention of help templates and notes the likely rapid removal of non-compliant article content |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
01:29, 11 May 2017 (36,158 bytes) (-131) (Advice for students: inactive)
5:
|
Instead of removing the section on Ambassadors as Edit 6 did, the section has been commented out in this edit and it is thus available for modification / integration elsewhere on the page. It is not, and should not be, visible as it is out of date and inaccurate. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
6:
|
Edit 7 implemented in this edit |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
01:36, 11 May 2017 (33,891 bytes) (-42) (top: update)
7:
|
Edit 8 has been implemented in this edit |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
01:46, 11 May 2017 (33,834 bytes) (-57) (Course pages, user pages, and user names: update)
8:
|
Edit 9: First change has consensus and has been implemented in this edit, sequence change subsequently gained consensus |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
02:05, 11 May 2017 (33,905 bytes) (+71) (Advice for instructors: update)
9:
References
I have added to the clean up template ref and related it to both students and instructors. If there are no objections, I think edit 9 can be closed as reolved. David Tornheim, are you comfortable with this as it stands now? EdChem ( talk) 00:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC) David Tornheim and Tryptofish are you both comfortable with my additions to the comments on templates on article pages being related to instructors and students? If so, can the edits on this proposal can be closed off? Thanks, EdChem ( talk) 23:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
|
Edit 10 has been implemented in this edit |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
02:09, 11 May 2017 (34,008 bytes) (+103) (Course pages, user pages, and user names: tweak)
10:
|
Edit 11 has been implemented in this edit |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
02:13, 11 May 2017 (34,130 bytes) (+122) (top: add)
11:
|
I've been, for the most part, just having a two-editor discussion with David for several days now, and it has the potential to just keep going on and on. I've yet to see significant support for David's concerns, and I am getting worried that other editors have just given up or lost interest. So I'm going to ping the other editors who have previously expressed opinions in this discussion: Doc James, Chris troutman, Bluerasberry, EdChem, and a courtesy ping to El C. And of course if anyone else who is watching would like to comment, please do. I'd appreciate it very much if you could indicate your views of #DT's Proposed changes to Ambassador Language. I would also like you to indicate any of the list of 11 edits that I made and were reverted, where you feel the edit should remain reverted or should be modified in any way. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Tryptofish and David, I have implemented changes as follows:
All other edits are invited to comment, of course, and I hope this advances us much closer to resolution. Regards. EdChem ( talk) 06:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
This was a Wikipedia community discussion about an extreme example of a class assignment that went wrong. In a course about a controversial topic, discussions with the instructor and students about the WP:NPOV policy failed to reach an understanding, and the community ultimately responded by blocking the instructor from future class projects.That's shorter than your version, but I think that it covers the most important points, and I would not want to make it significantly longer than that, although I'm fine with revising it.
On the other hand, when an assignment is not aligned with these norms, significant problems can arise. In an extreme example of this (link to AN discussion) that may serve as a cautionary tale...The footnote could then go on at greater length and in more detail that what I proposed in the first option, and we could largely cover what you put in red font in this way.
PS: Now home from hospital, pain much reduced, but what happened still unknown. EdChem ( talk) 22:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@
Tryptofish: Two quick things regarding your edits today: and the course should be
listed as a class assignment.
- That page is updated automatically when someone creates a course page on the Wiki Ed Dashboard. Few people actually watch it, since it's entirely semi-automated edits, so it might be confusing to link to it. (At present, the WikiEd Program is available only in the US and Canada, but the Dashboard tool is available to everyone.)
The reason I added the qualifier "Wiki Ed Dashboard" above is that there's the original Dashboard at dashboard.wikiedu.org which is used by institutions in the US + CA. Then there's the
Programs and Events Dashboard hosted by wmflabs. The basic functionality is present in both, but the Wiki Ed version has some Wiki Ed-specific elements built in (incorporating staff roles, for example) while the wmflabs version has a broader audience in mind, geared towards programs in general rather than just classroom assignments. I don't know that you'd want to go into detail, but it seems useful to distinguish in some way. --
Ryan (Wiki Ed) (
talk)
22:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)