Need help? Click the "Discussion" tab and leave a question or request, or #wikipedia-en-classroom connect |
Welcome, this is our Discussion Page.
Thanks so much for your note. Glad to have you on board! Jaobar ( talk) 22:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Once you have your content clear in your head, you might want to come to User talk: Wetman if you need help refining your text, in order for it to say what you mean.-- Wetman ( talk) 20:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to the online mentors who have made the changes on the course page, and have agreed to work with the class. We really appreciate your help.
Jaobar (
talk)
07:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to check on the timing. Having taught at the university level before, I know that plans and schedules have a tendency to be fluid, and that students are more likely than not to put off work, but I'm a bit concerned about the timeline listed on the page as compared to the timeline that we're actually following here. For instance, it looks like, from the project page, that students should have all registered usernames over a month ago. I'm a little concerned that, since this work is going to require coordination between the students and an outsider (i.e., myself and the other ambassadors), that the usual college plan of pulling an all-nighter the day before the assignment may not be plausible (please note I mean no disrespect to any of these students, but I remember how I used to work in college). So I'm just wondering if the Campus Ambassadors have had any recent contact with the class to know if things are still proceeding alright? Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see my recent edit on my own discussion page. The pace of the class has been my decision. I do not feel that it's appropriate to throw these students into a project (while at the same time teaching them course content) without properly engaging them in the material and teaching them the appropriate skills. Please be patient, the students will start editing in the next few weeks. Please also keep in mind that this is a class that has assignments that must be graded. To keep things organized and manageable, I have done my best to maintain the structure that you see on the page. I should also note that while I encourage you to push the students, please refrain from language like "will pester the stragglers" which I don't think will come off well with some. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Jaobar ( talk) 05:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Just an observation Prof. Obar. I too teach at the university level and understand both the student norm to procrastinate and also the instructor need to teach content before the "college-level writing" assignments begin. However, I would offer that in the course/Wikipedia project you have underway, there are a couple of major strands the students will be doing, and that these strands could profitably be done in parallel. The students must certainly write some sort of "telecommunications policy content" this term, and that content will be contributed to the Wikipedia mainspace article that each student is assigned, and the timing for the actual Wikipedia contribution can quite easily be later in the term as you have (quite rationally) structured the course.
However, there is also the matter of the students becoming facile with the technological institution that is Wikipedia, and contributing content that will have a good shot at staying in the encyclopedia over the medium to longer term (which I would think will be somewhat satisfying to students even after your policy course is over). For the second aspect, I think that the students will greatly benefit from more of an iterative and incremental process. That is to say, if the students are encouraged to hold off on the telecomm content edits (per your guidance on the course pace) while making ten (or 20 or 50) small edits on Wikipedia articles of their choice that may or may not be related to course content, they would have the opportunity to receive feedback from their mentor — and potentially, from the broader Wikicommunity if their edits are noticed/interacted-with by other editors — and learn firsthand a bit more about contributing to the encyclopedia. In my view, developing a small bit of facility with the second aspect will vastly improve the quality and staying power of the telecomm policy content they will eventually contribute.
Early edits could include such elements as a simple copyedit to improve readability, or adding a source with a good citation to an existing claim in an article, or fixing a typo, or updating information that is dated or may become dated, or adding time context in the prose of an article with information that will date quickly or is valid only at a specific moment in history. The opportunities are endless, and I'm sure the student's mentors would help guide them if they ask for help.
So I would urge you to consider the potential benefits of a dual-track approach, with the second part being ungraded by the instructor while being (hopefully) fun for the students. If the idea has any merit to you, I'm sure that Epistemophiliac could expand on it when s/he talks to your students on March 3rd. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 13:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
As the coordinating online ambassador for this project, please let me know how I can help you and your mentees or if any problems arise. I will be glad to help out. Take Care... Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
On your TC 210 post, this one, you comment that one of the Professor's lesson plans is a "waste of time", that isn't the best idea. With all due respect to the Professor and his students, they are new and need our help and patience, not criticism. Especially not telling, on the project page, that the lesson the Professor has made is a "waste of time". Please be more "gentle" in your responses and please use the talk page, per usual. Again, thank you for your continued help in the TC 210 Online Mentor project. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, I recently had a student contact me who told met that they attempted to start Assignment 8, which requires that students make about 10 edits to articles of interest on Wikipedia. The student made a contribution to a very popular page, and had their edit reverted within minutes by someone who noted that the edit was without citation and did not contribute anything new to the article. The recommendation was also made that all potential edits be discussed first on the article talk page. Can someone add some material to the TC 210 course page that addresses this issue? Perhaps a step-by-step guide that describes how students should approach articles of varying popularity. I've made some edits to articles in the last few days myself (perhaps articles not as popular) and have not encountered this problem. Thanks! Jaobar ( talk) 04:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
My rule of thumb:
My rule of thumb:
If there is no talk page, or it has just assess templates: never
If there are no comments from a last year, or there are no replies to question asked: never
If there are comments from last year, but not last 3 months, and they have been replied to: possible, but not guaranteed, that somebody will notice student's editing
If there are comments with replies from the last 1-3 months: more likely
Comments with replies within one months: very likely
The same holds true for substantive mainspace edits to the article.
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
In addition if the article is a GA or FA your edits are more likely to be reverted because they "aren't good enough". (Somehow if a long term user makes the same exact edit it is not reverted.....) --
Guerillero |
My Talk
23:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Best, Chzz ► 09:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello ambassadors, just as an update, students are slowly starting to work on Assignment 8, and so far 3 of 4 edits have been reverted. Two attempts were made today on the Almond article, and both were reverted. I recognize that in class I'm going to have to go over strategies for approaching popular articles or articles in general... For example, making sure that citations are used properly, making sure that information isn't being repeated, picking articles that aren't being heavily debated, and so forth. That being said, I have to say that while I am happy that there is so much quality control being exercised, I do have to say that this environment does not appear to be as newbie-friendly as I thought it would be. Perhaps that's a good thing in terms of requiring quality edits, but this will certainly be a challenge for some of the newer editors who are just trying to learn your system. Jaobar ( talk) 22:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Greetings. First of all, let me thank you again for your help. We are currently in the calm before the storm... in the next week you can expect students to start uploading their work.
That being said, I would ask that you please do not move material from the student pages to the articles without my permission. This is not a power-trip, but rather an attempt to do two things:
1) Make grading easier (I must communicate a few things to the students this week now that spring break is over), and 2) Quality control - most other classes can have a real back and forth dialogue with the professors due to the class size. I know that other classes even have students review the work of their classmates. These are things that we are not doing in TC 210 due to the size and structure of the class. So, my TA and I are pretty much responsible for doing all of the reviewing... something we'd like to do before the first big chunks are added to the pages.
If you have already moved material over, that's fine. I would ask that the rest please wait for the students to make the move. Thanks again. Jaobar ( talk) 16:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Greetings,
We now have a new group. They will be working on the Metallica v. Napster, Inc. case, and we will need to hook them up with an online mentor. Anyone available? Jaobar ( talk) 14:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
A student received this notice when attempting to cite a website:
The link is www(dot)suite101(dot)com
Can somebody explain please? Thanks. Jaobar ( talk) 14:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Still need one more online mentor. Please see our course page. The Metallica vs. Napster case. Thanks. Jaobar ( talk) 19:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a note to the online ambassadors and other administrators assisting with this class from afar. Students have completed assignment 6, which required them to write 250 words about their topic. They were asked to include as many citations as possible, hopefully taken from the annotated bibliographies that they completed earlier in the semester. I am now in the process of grading each of the assignments, providing individual feedback and in some instances, meeting with groups - though I plan to meet with each group at least once before the semester is over. Those that are ready are being asked to start moving their work into the mainspace. Some are being asked to revisit their work before doing so (though all are being asked to continue editing). I should note that the final project will require groups to add a minimum of 1250 words to their articles, an amount that I feel is appropriate considering the other course requirements (some which are not related to Wikipedia).
I thought that I would write this note because I do not intend to provide detailed feedback to the students on Wikipedia at this stage, as I feel it is more appropriate to provide feedback privately over our course management system. I recognize that this is probably not what you expected, as it shields the feedback from the public, moves the debate (and thus, the students) away from WP. That being said, after much thought, I didn't feel that it was appropriate at this time to provide feedback out in the open. Many students are still learning what it means to cite properly, present information effectively, as well as how to do all of this on WP. To encourage those that need help in a positive manner, I feel that privacy needs to be protected. As the work develops and becomes more advanced, perhaps I will begin to engage in debate on the discussion pages. For now however, I will leave it to the WP community to provide feedback in the open.
I welcome your constructive criticism. Many thanks again for all of your help. The students are certainly benefiting from your generosity and patience. Regards, Jonathan Obar, aka Jaobar ( talk) 22:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
ONCE AGAIN. You should not be moving material from the student sandboxes into the main space for them. You should be getting them to do it. When you do the work for them you make it increasingly difficult for those of us who want to evaluate how the students are doing. You also are not teaching the students, but rather, doing the work for them. Please get on board with this, I received no responses to my previous post on this subject. Jaobar ( talk) 05:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Jaobar, can you please explain why this is a cause for concern? I can understand you wanting students to learn to do things, but clicking the 'move' button doesn't seem a huge deal; plus, the actual contributions in the history are, of course, unchanged.
Whilst, absolutely, I will refrain from moving any such pages - we cannot prevent other helpers from doing so - and they'd probably think they were doing a good thing.
Can you please clarify the actual issue? Thanks, Chzz ► 09:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Please write your group's name next to one of the one-hour lab spots.
LOCATION: 405 CAS
Jonathan
Friday 4/1
9-10 - Tying of Apple Products - Peter Rifel, Devan Sayles, Blake Workman
10:30-11:30 - Chris Long, Marissa Berman, Jared Schmeichel
12:30-1:30 - Rob Murphy, Kyle Parr, Alex Steiphan
2-3 - Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. FCC - Alexandra Brito and Matthew Cavanaugh
Tuesday 4/5
10:30-11:30
12-1 Minority Representation In The Media -- AestheticFriends ( talk) 12:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1:30-2:30
3-4 - Free Press - Ricky Whidby, Brandon Banks, Ashley Mcclellan, Elaina Wilson
Wednesday 4/6
10-11 - Metallica v. Napster - Brad Abel, James Silvers, Eric Cook
11:30-12:30 - Internet Backbone - Nick Pingtella
1-2 - Grassroots Lobbying - Jaclyn, Laura, Courtney
2:30-3:30 - Comm Act of 1934 - Andrew Wardell, Derek Schlau, Sung-Ki Shin
4-5 - Direct Lobbying - Anna, Daniel, Jake
Thursday 4/7
10:30-11:30 - Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act - Hunter Baum, Allen Moy, Sam Mills
12-1 - Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC James Komara, Brittany Albaugh, Idowu (Tinu) Adams
1:30-2 - Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 - Chris Buller, Robert Cortez, Michael Williams
2:30-3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaobar ( talk • contribs) 18:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Elif
"Wednesday 4/13"
2:30-3:30
3:30-4:30
Thursday 4/14
1-2
3-4
Friday 4/1
2:30-3:30
4:30-5:30
David and Allie
Thursday 3/31
3-4
5-6 Media Access Project - Alex, Kyle, Rob
Friday 4/1
12-1
2-3
Tuesday 4/5
11-12
1-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaobar ( talk • contribs) 07:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Wednesday 3/30 12-2pm 408 CAS
Thursday 3/31 12-2pm 408 CAS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaobar ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
While Dr. Obar was correct to ask that mentors not move articles into mainspace, I think that we also should encourage the students not to move articles into mainspace by themselves without first talking to their mentor. One of my groups just moved Media Access Project into mainspace, and probably should not have done so. In the article's current state, I don't believe it meets our requirements for a stand-alone article (specifically the notability guideline); had I come upon this article in any other context, I may well have nominated it for deletion. I may still do that at a later date.
As a side note, for the future, this is one of the reasons I advocated before this project began that students should probably work on existing articles rather than new ones, as working on new articles means they have to face the potential of deletion. Note that this has nothing to do with the quality of the student work--it's just that, invariably, some "interesting" subjects (academically speaking) don't meet Wikipedia's rules for having a stand-alone article; others do, but are very difficult to get to that level due to a lack of reliable sources. This can't even be easily predicted prior to starting the work, so it's not a matter of just doing a "better" job. Qwyrxian ( talk) 03:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
a) Articles shouldn't be made live until they are unlikely to be deleted b) Articles should be made live ASAP, so that students will get more involved in communal editing
These are not contradictory.
For an article to avoid deletion, all * it needs is, to be about a notable subject - demonstrated through some reliable sources.
For example:
Assuming those are RS, that three-line article would be perfectly acceptable. It would not be in danger of deletion.
There is no need to indicate that a live article is a "Work in progress". Absolutely all articles on wikipedia are works in progress. No article is 'finished'. Chzz ► 12:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Greetings,
This is a note to all online mentors. If you are having trouble connecting with anyone from your group, please let me know and I will provide you with their email addresses. With only a little more than a month left in the semester, let's be as aggressive as we can to make sure that we can make the biggest contribution possible! Also feel free to email me directly if you have questions (or need to speak privately) Thanks. My email is:obar@msu.edu. Jaobar ( talk) 14:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I tagged all the remaining pages in this course. Most need to fill in their mentor, or try to get one. Follow the link to the available mentors. Also if your sandbox line is red, you can click the link and it will make one for you. My76Strat ( talk) 10:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Question 1: After speaking with a number of the groups, I think a lot of students are interested in adding pictures to their articles. Some have found books that have diagrams that are relevant, others would like to use logos from websites, others want to add images of individuals. What should I be telling students to do? Can you put an image from a book on Wikipedia as long as the image is sourced? What about images of individuals? How do we do this? Jaobar ( talk) 16:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Logos aren't that controversial as long as you follow some rules on resolution, etc. See WP:Logos . ManishEarth Talk • Stalk 09:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. Jaobar ( talk) 18:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
If any group wants to get personal help from me, please sign up here. I am available:
Tuesdays: 10:30-2, 5:15-8 Wednesday: 5:15-10 Thursday: 2:30-6 Friday: 11:30-3:30, 5:30-late
D guz ( talk) 07:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Greetings,
Just removed the "low-importance" rating and the "C-class" grade assigned to the Direct lobbying page. Maybe it's just me, but again, I don't see how negative feedback will motivate students to contribute. In fact, I would argue that it likely does the opposite. Considering that the direct lobbying article has just been approved for DYK status and will be appearing in the feed in the next few days, I think the the ratings that were assigned are ridiculous. I will be congratulating the students in class for a job well-done (though not done!), I encourage you to do the same. Jaobar ( talk) 21:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I am thrilled to announce that our direct lobbying page will be appearing in the "Did You Know" feed in the next few days. I would encourage all online mentors to communicate with their groups about this award and to nominate those that are ready. Thanks! Jaobar ( talk) 21:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it is great when a draft is ready to move from the location where it was developed into the main encyclopedia. Mentors are standing by to assist you or give the best guidance to get it done correctly. What concerns me is that I have seen some examples where the content is copy pasted to the new title, and this causes a loss of attribution. The corrective action is much more tedious than a proper move at first. I am not picking on the group I worked with 0n Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 This edit was the edit which brought in the original content. It is the exact content as it was first developed here So the article history is missing these attributions It is important to move the draft with all its history to the new location and then build on the article. Please do not copy the text and paste it in as this cuts the contente away from its history. If this is not clear, please ask a follow on because it is important. My76Strat ( talk) 00:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Law professor John F. Banzhaf III has influenced U.S. regulation of cigarette advertising, particularly on television, and has many other notable contributions.
Perhaps one of your students could improve his article?
Best regards, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 20:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Need help? Click the "Discussion" tab and leave a question or request, or #wikipedia-en-classroom connect |
Welcome, this is our Discussion Page.
Thanks so much for your note. Glad to have you on board! Jaobar ( talk) 22:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Once you have your content clear in your head, you might want to come to User talk: Wetman if you need help refining your text, in order for it to say what you mean.-- Wetman ( talk) 20:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to the online mentors who have made the changes on the course page, and have agreed to work with the class. We really appreciate your help.
Jaobar (
talk)
07:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to check on the timing. Having taught at the university level before, I know that plans and schedules have a tendency to be fluid, and that students are more likely than not to put off work, but I'm a bit concerned about the timeline listed on the page as compared to the timeline that we're actually following here. For instance, it looks like, from the project page, that students should have all registered usernames over a month ago. I'm a little concerned that, since this work is going to require coordination between the students and an outsider (i.e., myself and the other ambassadors), that the usual college plan of pulling an all-nighter the day before the assignment may not be plausible (please note I mean no disrespect to any of these students, but I remember how I used to work in college). So I'm just wondering if the Campus Ambassadors have had any recent contact with the class to know if things are still proceeding alright? Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see my recent edit on my own discussion page. The pace of the class has been my decision. I do not feel that it's appropriate to throw these students into a project (while at the same time teaching them course content) without properly engaging them in the material and teaching them the appropriate skills. Please be patient, the students will start editing in the next few weeks. Please also keep in mind that this is a class that has assignments that must be graded. To keep things organized and manageable, I have done my best to maintain the structure that you see on the page. I should also note that while I encourage you to push the students, please refrain from language like "will pester the stragglers" which I don't think will come off well with some. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Jaobar ( talk) 05:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Just an observation Prof. Obar. I too teach at the university level and understand both the student norm to procrastinate and also the instructor need to teach content before the "college-level writing" assignments begin. However, I would offer that in the course/Wikipedia project you have underway, there are a couple of major strands the students will be doing, and that these strands could profitably be done in parallel. The students must certainly write some sort of "telecommunications policy content" this term, and that content will be contributed to the Wikipedia mainspace article that each student is assigned, and the timing for the actual Wikipedia contribution can quite easily be later in the term as you have (quite rationally) structured the course.
However, there is also the matter of the students becoming facile with the technological institution that is Wikipedia, and contributing content that will have a good shot at staying in the encyclopedia over the medium to longer term (which I would think will be somewhat satisfying to students even after your policy course is over). For the second aspect, I think that the students will greatly benefit from more of an iterative and incremental process. That is to say, if the students are encouraged to hold off on the telecomm content edits (per your guidance on the course pace) while making ten (or 20 or 50) small edits on Wikipedia articles of their choice that may or may not be related to course content, they would have the opportunity to receive feedback from their mentor — and potentially, from the broader Wikicommunity if their edits are noticed/interacted-with by other editors — and learn firsthand a bit more about contributing to the encyclopedia. In my view, developing a small bit of facility with the second aspect will vastly improve the quality and staying power of the telecomm policy content they will eventually contribute.
Early edits could include such elements as a simple copyedit to improve readability, or adding a source with a good citation to an existing claim in an article, or fixing a typo, or updating information that is dated or may become dated, or adding time context in the prose of an article with information that will date quickly or is valid only at a specific moment in history. The opportunities are endless, and I'm sure the student's mentors would help guide them if they ask for help.
So I would urge you to consider the potential benefits of a dual-track approach, with the second part being ungraded by the instructor while being (hopefully) fun for the students. If the idea has any merit to you, I'm sure that Epistemophiliac could expand on it when s/he talks to your students on March 3rd. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 13:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
As the coordinating online ambassador for this project, please let me know how I can help you and your mentees or if any problems arise. I will be glad to help out. Take Care... Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
On your TC 210 post, this one, you comment that one of the Professor's lesson plans is a "waste of time", that isn't the best idea. With all due respect to the Professor and his students, they are new and need our help and patience, not criticism. Especially not telling, on the project page, that the lesson the Professor has made is a "waste of time". Please be more "gentle" in your responses and please use the talk page, per usual. Again, thank you for your continued help in the TC 210 Online Mentor project. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, I recently had a student contact me who told met that they attempted to start Assignment 8, which requires that students make about 10 edits to articles of interest on Wikipedia. The student made a contribution to a very popular page, and had their edit reverted within minutes by someone who noted that the edit was without citation and did not contribute anything new to the article. The recommendation was also made that all potential edits be discussed first on the article talk page. Can someone add some material to the TC 210 course page that addresses this issue? Perhaps a step-by-step guide that describes how students should approach articles of varying popularity. I've made some edits to articles in the last few days myself (perhaps articles not as popular) and have not encountered this problem. Thanks! Jaobar ( talk) 04:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
My rule of thumb:
My rule of thumb:
If there is no talk page, or it has just assess templates: never
If there are no comments from a last year, or there are no replies to question asked: never
If there are comments from last year, but not last 3 months, and they have been replied to: possible, but not guaranteed, that somebody will notice student's editing
If there are comments with replies from the last 1-3 months: more likely
Comments with replies within one months: very likely
The same holds true for substantive mainspace edits to the article.
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
In addition if the article is a GA or FA your edits are more likely to be reverted because they "aren't good enough". (Somehow if a long term user makes the same exact edit it is not reverted.....) --
Guerillero |
My Talk
23:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Best, Chzz ► 09:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello ambassadors, just as an update, students are slowly starting to work on Assignment 8, and so far 3 of 4 edits have been reverted. Two attempts were made today on the Almond article, and both were reverted. I recognize that in class I'm going to have to go over strategies for approaching popular articles or articles in general... For example, making sure that citations are used properly, making sure that information isn't being repeated, picking articles that aren't being heavily debated, and so forth. That being said, I have to say that while I am happy that there is so much quality control being exercised, I do have to say that this environment does not appear to be as newbie-friendly as I thought it would be. Perhaps that's a good thing in terms of requiring quality edits, but this will certainly be a challenge for some of the newer editors who are just trying to learn your system. Jaobar ( talk) 22:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Greetings. First of all, let me thank you again for your help. We are currently in the calm before the storm... in the next week you can expect students to start uploading their work.
That being said, I would ask that you please do not move material from the student pages to the articles without my permission. This is not a power-trip, but rather an attempt to do two things:
1) Make grading easier (I must communicate a few things to the students this week now that spring break is over), and 2) Quality control - most other classes can have a real back and forth dialogue with the professors due to the class size. I know that other classes even have students review the work of their classmates. These are things that we are not doing in TC 210 due to the size and structure of the class. So, my TA and I are pretty much responsible for doing all of the reviewing... something we'd like to do before the first big chunks are added to the pages.
If you have already moved material over, that's fine. I would ask that the rest please wait for the students to make the move. Thanks again. Jaobar ( talk) 16:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Greetings,
We now have a new group. They will be working on the Metallica v. Napster, Inc. case, and we will need to hook them up with an online mentor. Anyone available? Jaobar ( talk) 14:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
A student received this notice when attempting to cite a website:
The link is www(dot)suite101(dot)com
Can somebody explain please? Thanks. Jaobar ( talk) 14:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Still need one more online mentor. Please see our course page. The Metallica vs. Napster case. Thanks. Jaobar ( talk) 19:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a note to the online ambassadors and other administrators assisting with this class from afar. Students have completed assignment 6, which required them to write 250 words about their topic. They were asked to include as many citations as possible, hopefully taken from the annotated bibliographies that they completed earlier in the semester. I am now in the process of grading each of the assignments, providing individual feedback and in some instances, meeting with groups - though I plan to meet with each group at least once before the semester is over. Those that are ready are being asked to start moving their work into the mainspace. Some are being asked to revisit their work before doing so (though all are being asked to continue editing). I should note that the final project will require groups to add a minimum of 1250 words to their articles, an amount that I feel is appropriate considering the other course requirements (some which are not related to Wikipedia).
I thought that I would write this note because I do not intend to provide detailed feedback to the students on Wikipedia at this stage, as I feel it is more appropriate to provide feedback privately over our course management system. I recognize that this is probably not what you expected, as it shields the feedback from the public, moves the debate (and thus, the students) away from WP. That being said, after much thought, I didn't feel that it was appropriate at this time to provide feedback out in the open. Many students are still learning what it means to cite properly, present information effectively, as well as how to do all of this on WP. To encourage those that need help in a positive manner, I feel that privacy needs to be protected. As the work develops and becomes more advanced, perhaps I will begin to engage in debate on the discussion pages. For now however, I will leave it to the WP community to provide feedback in the open.
I welcome your constructive criticism. Many thanks again for all of your help. The students are certainly benefiting from your generosity and patience. Regards, Jonathan Obar, aka Jaobar ( talk) 22:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
ONCE AGAIN. You should not be moving material from the student sandboxes into the main space for them. You should be getting them to do it. When you do the work for them you make it increasingly difficult for those of us who want to evaluate how the students are doing. You also are not teaching the students, but rather, doing the work for them. Please get on board with this, I received no responses to my previous post on this subject. Jaobar ( talk) 05:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Jaobar, can you please explain why this is a cause for concern? I can understand you wanting students to learn to do things, but clicking the 'move' button doesn't seem a huge deal; plus, the actual contributions in the history are, of course, unchanged.
Whilst, absolutely, I will refrain from moving any such pages - we cannot prevent other helpers from doing so - and they'd probably think they were doing a good thing.
Can you please clarify the actual issue? Thanks, Chzz ► 09:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Please write your group's name next to one of the one-hour lab spots.
LOCATION: 405 CAS
Jonathan
Friday 4/1
9-10 - Tying of Apple Products - Peter Rifel, Devan Sayles, Blake Workman
10:30-11:30 - Chris Long, Marissa Berman, Jared Schmeichel
12:30-1:30 - Rob Murphy, Kyle Parr, Alex Steiphan
2-3 - Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. FCC - Alexandra Brito and Matthew Cavanaugh
Tuesday 4/5
10:30-11:30
12-1 Minority Representation In The Media -- AestheticFriends ( talk) 12:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1:30-2:30
3-4 - Free Press - Ricky Whidby, Brandon Banks, Ashley Mcclellan, Elaina Wilson
Wednesday 4/6
10-11 - Metallica v. Napster - Brad Abel, James Silvers, Eric Cook
11:30-12:30 - Internet Backbone - Nick Pingtella
1-2 - Grassroots Lobbying - Jaclyn, Laura, Courtney
2:30-3:30 - Comm Act of 1934 - Andrew Wardell, Derek Schlau, Sung-Ki Shin
4-5 - Direct Lobbying - Anna, Daniel, Jake
Thursday 4/7
10:30-11:30 - Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act - Hunter Baum, Allen Moy, Sam Mills
12-1 - Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC James Komara, Brittany Albaugh, Idowu (Tinu) Adams
1:30-2 - Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 - Chris Buller, Robert Cortez, Michael Williams
2:30-3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaobar ( talk • contribs) 18:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Elif
"Wednesday 4/13"
2:30-3:30
3:30-4:30
Thursday 4/14
1-2
3-4
Friday 4/1
2:30-3:30
4:30-5:30
David and Allie
Thursday 3/31
3-4
5-6 Media Access Project - Alex, Kyle, Rob
Friday 4/1
12-1
2-3
Tuesday 4/5
11-12
1-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaobar ( talk • contribs) 07:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Wednesday 3/30 12-2pm 408 CAS
Thursday 3/31 12-2pm 408 CAS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaobar ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
While Dr. Obar was correct to ask that mentors not move articles into mainspace, I think that we also should encourage the students not to move articles into mainspace by themselves without first talking to their mentor. One of my groups just moved Media Access Project into mainspace, and probably should not have done so. In the article's current state, I don't believe it meets our requirements for a stand-alone article (specifically the notability guideline); had I come upon this article in any other context, I may well have nominated it for deletion. I may still do that at a later date.
As a side note, for the future, this is one of the reasons I advocated before this project began that students should probably work on existing articles rather than new ones, as working on new articles means they have to face the potential of deletion. Note that this has nothing to do with the quality of the student work--it's just that, invariably, some "interesting" subjects (academically speaking) don't meet Wikipedia's rules for having a stand-alone article; others do, but are very difficult to get to that level due to a lack of reliable sources. This can't even be easily predicted prior to starting the work, so it's not a matter of just doing a "better" job. Qwyrxian ( talk) 03:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
a) Articles shouldn't be made live until they are unlikely to be deleted b) Articles should be made live ASAP, so that students will get more involved in communal editing
These are not contradictory.
For an article to avoid deletion, all * it needs is, to be about a notable subject - demonstrated through some reliable sources.
For example:
Assuming those are RS, that three-line article would be perfectly acceptable. It would not be in danger of deletion.
There is no need to indicate that a live article is a "Work in progress". Absolutely all articles on wikipedia are works in progress. No article is 'finished'. Chzz ► 12:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Greetings,
This is a note to all online mentors. If you are having trouble connecting with anyone from your group, please let me know and I will provide you with their email addresses. With only a little more than a month left in the semester, let's be as aggressive as we can to make sure that we can make the biggest contribution possible! Also feel free to email me directly if you have questions (or need to speak privately) Thanks. My email is:obar@msu.edu. Jaobar ( talk) 14:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I tagged all the remaining pages in this course. Most need to fill in their mentor, or try to get one. Follow the link to the available mentors. Also if your sandbox line is red, you can click the link and it will make one for you. My76Strat ( talk) 10:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Question 1: After speaking with a number of the groups, I think a lot of students are interested in adding pictures to their articles. Some have found books that have diagrams that are relevant, others would like to use logos from websites, others want to add images of individuals. What should I be telling students to do? Can you put an image from a book on Wikipedia as long as the image is sourced? What about images of individuals? How do we do this? Jaobar ( talk) 16:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Logos aren't that controversial as long as you follow some rules on resolution, etc. See WP:Logos . ManishEarth Talk • Stalk 09:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. Jaobar ( talk) 18:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
If any group wants to get personal help from me, please sign up here. I am available:
Tuesdays: 10:30-2, 5:15-8 Wednesday: 5:15-10 Thursday: 2:30-6 Friday: 11:30-3:30, 5:30-late
D guz ( talk) 07:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Greetings,
Just removed the "low-importance" rating and the "C-class" grade assigned to the Direct lobbying page. Maybe it's just me, but again, I don't see how negative feedback will motivate students to contribute. In fact, I would argue that it likely does the opposite. Considering that the direct lobbying article has just been approved for DYK status and will be appearing in the feed in the next few days, I think the the ratings that were assigned are ridiculous. I will be congratulating the students in class for a job well-done (though not done!), I encourage you to do the same. Jaobar ( talk) 21:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I am thrilled to announce that our direct lobbying page will be appearing in the "Did You Know" feed in the next few days. I would encourage all online mentors to communicate with their groups about this award and to nominate those that are ready. Thanks! Jaobar ( talk) 21:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it is great when a draft is ready to move from the location where it was developed into the main encyclopedia. Mentors are standing by to assist you or give the best guidance to get it done correctly. What concerns me is that I have seen some examples where the content is copy pasted to the new title, and this causes a loss of attribution. The corrective action is much more tedious than a proper move at first. I am not picking on the group I worked with 0n Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 This edit was the edit which brought in the original content. It is the exact content as it was first developed here So the article history is missing these attributions It is important to move the draft with all its history to the new location and then build on the article. Please do not copy the text and paste it in as this cuts the contente away from its history. If this is not clear, please ask a follow on because it is important. My76Strat ( talk) 00:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Law professor John F. Banzhaf III has influenced U.S. regulation of cigarette advertising, particularly on television, and has many other notable contributions.
Perhaps one of your students could improve his article?
Best regards, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 20:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)