User talk:Wugapodes/WikiEd Brainstorm

Structure?

Thanks Wugapodes for starting this. I have added some. I assume at this point we're just collecting thoughts/ideas/questions and not weighing in to answer questions or debate possible solutions. Is that right? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: There can (should?) be debate, but it will probably be in a more indirect fashion. Ideas along with supporting arguments are great additions because the arguments give others something to build off of; if someone disagrees, they can post an alternative idea with a rationale that addresses the other argument, and if someone comes along they can edit the first argument to address the new proposal. The structure is just meant to avoid the problems threads cause when trying to develop a single text. I tried this format out at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Portals_guideline so you may find that page history and talk page interesting. The structure is meant to evolve as needed, so if there's something you want to try be bold! — Wug·a·po·des 21:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wug ... watchlisted, but have my hands full at the moment. But we really need to give some teeth to being able to wholesale delete drafts and content in the (many) egregious cases I have documented at the Edu Noticeboard, where the profs just aren't on board, and WikiEd staff seems more interested in promoting student editing than furthering editor retention. What I will need to do is go back and highlight all the examples I've posted in the past to the noticeboard. Advocates create another roadblock, because allegedly the UCSF program is a good one in medical editing. It's not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, this venture will not be complete without the good Jbmurray-- the first prof who championed student editing. The difference is that he was a knowledgeable editor and engaged with his students, who produced numerous FAs. There's been nothing like since his efforts spawned student editing, and he has much to say about how it should be done right. He isn't around a lot anymore, but I hope he'll see this and pop in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to give ideas when you have the time! A curated list of problems and examples is always useful when trying to develop goals and solutions. I think a CSD may be an uphill battle, but in thinking about it we may wind up realizing better solutions. Hopefully Jbmurray is willing to give some thoughts too as opinions from those who have led student editing would be great! — Wug·a·po·des 21:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Indeed, I haven't been around much recently, but will be again in the near future. Watchlisting for now, but I hope to come back and add thoughts before long. One question for @Wugapodes:: are there any recent incidents or events that have prompted this proposal? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jbmurray, it's of course ongoing but the creation of this was spurred specifically by {{u|Rosguill} at the education noticeboard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rumex beefs

I would like to echo the thanks given above. I saw the convo on the WikiEd noticeboard, but was loath to wade in there with negativity. But I'm afraid I was reminded about the effects I noticed on articles in Category: Rumex of Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Howard_University/Plant_Diversity_(Fall_2019).

I really didn't feel like getting involved at the time, but did go back and do a little cleanup on Rumex verticillatus just now. The student editor there really seemed to struggle with producing prose. I will look at Rumex skottsbergii sometime, where a life sciences student seems to have been unaware of the very basic communication skill of writing a Latin binomial correctly.

Are the people who are paid to supervise these students not looking at their work and advising them? Are course credits being earned for these efforts? Anyway, writing a species name correctly is a required competence that I've seen lacking before. A basic checklist for life science students could help avoid this problem and other frequent errors. It could not impart prose-writing skills. William Avery (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issues and ideas

I am going to wade in, although not as organized as I'd like, but just to get some things moving. I can't offer a lot of recent examples, because (thanks to the effect of student editing and other issues plaguing the medicine project), I unwatched a lot of article several years ago, and have many times given up on editing here. I will have to rely on the few current examples I have, and older ones in the archives here as I find them. Noting, though, that I only started editing quite actively again in November, and have already encountered more of same.

Copyvio is a huge problem with students, and we don't always find professors dealing with it. A student who commits copyvio on Wikipedia might not realize that editors here are likely to find it, and as soon as the prof realizes it, the student may get a big F. So, sometimes I hesitate to flag a student's copyvio. This is not a good situation. Since the student is likely to get an F, how can we best handle it? If we find more than one instance of copyvio from the same course, and with an unengaged prof (which is many of them), why do we not block all the students and revert all their edits? That may be extreme, and punishes all for the sins of a few, but it would not take much to get the word out that we need profs to start engaging and not expecting regular editors to be their tutors. I am referring to those courses where we frequently see the same issues occurring among more than one student.
Identity has been a real problem. Many students edit with their own full names. I have seen instances of copyvio from a student using their real name. How's that going to work out for them when they start applying for jobs, and this history is uncovered? What can we do? As soon as we find a course that allows real student names, why do we not aggressively insist they change? Meaning, or block the course and revert all their student edits somehow, right away? It only takes a couple times of dealing aggressively with problems to get the word out. We should face the fact that Wikipedia can be A Very Dangerous Place for a woman to use her own name. This worries me a lot.
Stealth courses like here. This is a recent example, but not as egregious as I have faced in the past (the only example I have for now, though). It had all the hallmarks of students trying desperately to get their edits in during the last week of the term (a blessing that I didn't have to deal with them all term and could wait them out). But, considering other more egregious examples, we need to a) define the characteristics of stealth student editing, and b) consider how to deal with them per MEAT. If we weren't coddling students, we'd be blocking them per MEAT.
Repeat offenders, I already raised the UCSF medical editing issue with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) versus Lewy body dementia (DLB). I've had issues with the UCSF program before. What are we to do when we have repeat problems with one course or program? By that I mean, how can the broader Wikipedia community take action in these cases where the WikiEd program has not seemed to be effective in dealing with problems? UCSF is no where near the worst example; I would have to dig back in to archives to find some.
Content fork articles are a frequent problem. We should have a category for deleting insane student content-fork articles, and be more aggressive in deleting them. I could dig back in the archives here to find examples, but probably everyone has seen them and examples aren't needed. We get garbage articles on some obscure sub-topic that says nothing, and aren't even worthy of a redirect to where they might have said something.
Repeating myself, we need to empower more enforcement per WP:MEAT
Misguided Wiki staff cleanup. When WikiEd staff attempts to clean up after student edits, often they make my cleanup harder. Although well intended, if the staff person doesn't know the medical content area, they may be cleaning up content that is only going to end up reverted. When they do this cleanup, and the bad and good edits get interspersed, it's harder to just revert the damage. (I think I'm using the term "WikiEd staff" incorrectly here -- I think actually each university or course has some sort of Wiki mentor on board who isn't really staff-- their well-intended efforts don't always help.)
Course tags, how to get courses to indicate on article talk they plan to edit, so we can head off problems. And, what guidance can we give on removing those blooming tags from article talk pages? They clutter talk even when the course made no improvement to the article.
Reliable sourcing in medicine, WP:MEDRS. Never happens. When we get repeat offenders from the same prof, how can we more aggressively stop them from disrupting?

I'll be back as I think of more, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Long reply from Wiki Education

Hi all, just wanted to flag that since the discussion was here and on WP:ENB, I posted my reply there so it could reach more editors: Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Long_reply_from_Wiki_Education. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, that is a response to more or less things that are under program control. On this page, we need to figure out a community response to the rest of the problem. Since we have been over this so many times in the last ten years, I hope we can come up with concrete proposals for the community to weigh, independently of what the Ed Program does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]