Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Boston College/Classics in Linguistics (Spring 2017)
| This Course
|
Wikipedia Resources
|
Connect
Questions? Ask us:
contact |
 | This course page is an automatically-updated version of the main course page at dashboard.wikiedu.org. Please do not edit this page directly; any changes will be overwritten the next time the main course page gets updated. |
- Course name
- Classics in Linguistics
- Institution
- Boston College
- Instructor
- Margaret Thomas
- Wikipedia Expert
- Adam (Wiki Ed)
- Subject
- Linguistics
- Course dates
- 2017-01-17 00:00:00 UTC – 2017-05-04 23:59:59 UTC
- Approximate number of student editors
- 14
Timeline
Week 1
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 31 January 2017 | Thursday, 2 February 2017
- Assignment - Introduction to the Wikipedia project
Welcome to the Wikipedia project for ‘Classics in Linguistics’. This page will guide you through the steps we will folow as we complete this project.
This page breaks down writing a Wikipedia article into a series of steps, or milestones. These steps include online trainings to help you get started on Wikipedia.
Your course has also been assigned a Wikipedia Content Expert. Check your Talk page for notes from them. You can also reach them through the "Get Help" button on this page.
To get started, please review the following handouts, and bring questions to class on Thursday 2 February.
- Editing Wikipedia pages 1–5
- Evaluating Wikipedia
- Assignment - Create your account & take introductory training modules
Due Thursday Feb 2nd.
- Create an account and join this course page, using the enrollment link your instructor sent you.
- It's time to dive into Wikipedia. Below, you'll find the first set of online trainings you'll need to take. New modules will appear on this timeline as you get to new milestones. Be sure to check back and complete them! Incomplete trainings will be reflected in your grade.
- When you finish the trainings, practice by introducing yourself to a classmate on that classmate’s Talk page.
- Milestones
This week, everyone should have a Wikipedia account.
Week 2
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 7 February 2017 | Thursday, 9 February 2017
- Assignment - Critique existing Wikipedia biographies
Due Thursday Feb 9th.
It's time to think critically about Wikipedia articles. In this exercise, you'll survey and evaluate 3 Wikipedia articles about important figures in the history of linguistics. In material terms, you will carry out a close evaluation of 1 of those 3 articles, eventually leaving suggestions for improving it on the article's Talk page.
- Complete the ‘Evaluating Articles and Sources’ training (linked below).
- Find 1 biography in Wikipedia about any one of our ‘Fifty Key Thinkers’, and 2 other biographies on Wikipedia about other people in the history of linguistics whose work or reputation you are at least vaguely familiar with, but who are not among the 'Fifty Key Thinkers'. Read all 3 biographies.
- As you read, consider the following questions (but don't feel limited to them):
- Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
- Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
- Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
- Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
- What kinds of illustrations are included in the article?
- Check the "Talk" page - what kinds of discussions are happening behind the scenes about how to represent the person, their life, and their careers?
- Then select ONE of the 3 biographies to examine closely. Create a section in your sandbox and leave your evaluation and notes about this one biography there.
- Choose at least 1 of the questions above that you feel is particularly relevant to the article you have focused on. Comment on that issue on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — Sissilxy (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC).
- In class - Discussion
- What's a content gap?
Now that you're thinking about what makes a "good" Wikipedia article, consider some additional questions.
- Wikipedians often talk about "content gaps." What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them?
- What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them?
- Does it matter who writes Wikipedia?
- What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of "bias"?
Week 3
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 14 February 2017 | Thursday, 16 February 2017
- Assignment - Choose possible topics
Due Thursday Feb 16th.
- Review page 6 of your Editing Wikipedia guidebook.
- Then read this text: < https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability >, which will help you determine how to select appropriate figures to focus on
- Choose 3 to 5 potential language scholars whose works and lives you are interested in, and list them on your Wikipedia user page or sandbox so that other class members can see your choices.
- The priority goes to figures who do not already have entries in Wikipedia, or whose entries are labeled as ‘stubs’.
- If you are writing about a figure who is likely to have an entry in versions of Wikipedia written in other languages, be sure to search for their presence in those versions as well. If you feel strongly that you want to work with a figure who already has an existing article, check the Talk page to see what other Wikipedians might be doing with it.
- For each potential target you are considering, think about what kinds of sources are available for him or her. Do a quick google search and google scholar search about the person. If you can't find more than 3-4 references to them or their work, consider selecting a new person.
- For inspiration, check out Category:Linguist stubs on Wikipedia or the list of women in linguistics here (CAUTION: please do not edit or change the google doc). There's also a list of American linguist stubs, here: <https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:American_linguist_stubs>. I've spent some time cruising around these list and feel that there are many people included who would make excellent, accessible targets for your work; I'll email you all with some specific suggestions in a minute.
- Submit your list of 3 to 5 potential targets for your article, ordering them according to your first, second (etc.) choices. Below each name, list the most important the bibliographical resources you have found.
Week 4
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 21 February 2017 | Thursday, 23 February 2017
- Assignment - Think about these about issues as you work on this week's installment
- Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?
- What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?
- What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?
- What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?
- Assignment - Start your outline & find your sources; get ready to launch your article
Due Thursday 2/23.
Once I have confirmed your 1st choice of target figure for your article (probably by email, and I hope before Monday 20 February), assign that person to yourself the Students tab.
- In your sandbox, write a few sentences about what you plan to contribute by calling attention to this figure in the history of linguistics.
- Think back to when you did an article critique. What do you most you add to Wikipedia by constructing this entry?
- What kinds of sections are most necessary in a biography? Read the Editing Wikipedia Articles on Biographies handout and create sections for the necessary parts of the biography in your sandbox space.
- Start compiling a full list of relevant, reliable, books, journal articles, or other sources. Post that bibliography to the talk page of the article you'll be working on. Make sure to check in on the Talk page to see if anyone has advice on your bibliography.
- Then, in your sandbox, post that same working list of your sources, giving full bibliographical information for each source.
- Under each entry in your list, label the nature of the book / article / whatever. For example, 'biography of Humboldt up to 1800'; 'collection of Whitney's letters to Max Müller'; 'obituary'; 'collection of his most famous publications in the U Chicago years'; etc.
- Then under each entry provide information about what you hope to find in that source, and its significance overall to your entry
- Note any particular doubts or worries you have about its value to you
- Read the training module "Sources and Citations" to get up to speed on where you will get info for your article
- Assignment - Some additional supports as you proceed into Week 4
Will you be writing a bio of a LIVING linguist? If so, Wikipedia asks you to take special precautions. Make sure you have read the text 'Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons' (shortcut: within Wikipedia, type 'WP:BLP'). And the training module from Week 1 (re-)linked below is worth re-reading, whether your bio is about a living or a dead figure
Do you know how to use Google Scholar? This is an essential source at this point. Use the 'Advanced search' function to get more relevant leads. Aim to assemble a library of publications by, and about, your target figure, which balances a range of assessments of his or her contributions.
Week 5
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 28 February 2017 | Thursday, 2 March 2017
- Assignment - Start drafting your article
Due Thursday 3/2.
You've picked a topic and found at least some basic sources. I understand that this a busy week, but let's just push the project forward a little bit. Before going off on Spring Break...
First, make sure you are up-to-date with the tasks posted under Weeks 1 through 4, including the 'training modules' and other texts you need to read as linked above
Second, IF you haven't done so already—and several of you already have...
- Create an outline for the major sub-sections of your article. Move that from your sandbox into "mainspace"
- Also move from your sandbox into mainspace your working bibliography, the sources you have already read and digested, and the sources you are still assessing for use in writing your article
- DON'T move everything from your sandbox into the mainspace. Recall the email I sent out late last week, pointing out that some of you inadvertently moved your notes from Week 3, about possible target figures, into the mainspace dedicated to the single figure you have decided to focus on. Check to ensure that you haven't posted anything irrelevant like this
- In your sandbox, write a decently polished draft of the "lead section", expanding on your outline. Note that a Wikipedia lead section has a standard format:
- A "lead" section is not a traditional introduction. It should summarize, very briefly, what the rest of the article will say in detail. The first paragraph should include important, broad facts about the subject. A good example is Ada Lovelace. See Editing Wikipedia page 9 for more ideas.
- Once you are pretty happy with your lead section, move it into mainspace.
- Keep searching for, and reading, new sources, too, as you prepare to write the body of the article. Take the two trainings linked below, "Sandboxes & Mainspaces" and "Plagiarism".
- At some time during Spring Break, check back to see if anyone has posted anything on the "Talk" page of your article. If they have, count it as a success—no matter what they say!
Resources: Editing Wikipedia pages 7–9
- Milestones
Everyone has begun writing their article drafts.
Week 6
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 14 March 2017 | Thursday, 16 March 2017
- Assignment - Welcome back! This week
- Expand your outline into a full draft
Due Thursday 3/16.
Important! Make sure that before beginning work this week, you:
Type 'Wikipedia:No original research" into the Wikipedia search function. Scrutinize this text closely, as we will discuss it in class. We all need to master the distinctions Wikipedia points out here.
Is your target figure still living? If so make sure you read the email I received back from WikiEdu in response to my query about using interviews as sources for Wikipedia articles. I posted it in Canvas under Wikipedia assignment > Response to my Q to WikiEdu abt...
Now, about Week 7...
- Still struggling with locating or getting your hands on sources? Contact our Dept. Librarian, Ms. Nina Bogdanovsky <nina.bodanovsky
bc.edu> ASAP. Set up an appointment to meet with her this week if she is available. - Create and post the "Infobox" that appears to the right of the article
- Transform your outline into a complete first draft posted in "Mainspace"
- WikiEdu suggests that if you'd like a Content Expert to review your draft, now is the time! Click the "Get Help" button in your sandbox to request notes.
Week 7
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 21 March 2017 | Thursday, 23 March 2017
- Assignment - Polish your posted article
Due Thursday 3/23.
- Polish your article. Consider in particular:
- Is the content of the lead appropriate?
- Have you observed NPOV ? "No original research"?
- Would re-organizing the sections provide more insight?
- Are all the relevant citations in place? Re-read the training module "Plagiarism", linked below. One can never be too sure!
- Pay attention to the TONE of the article. Is it encyclopedic?
- Continue reading, incorporating newly-accessible materials, and if necessary searching for additional resources
- Think ahead to Week 10: are the (audio-)visual resources that could be linked to the article, and that would enrich its content? Where might you find them? Are they available for posting on Wikipedia?
Week 8
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 28 March 2017 | Thursday, 30 March 2017
- Assignment - Peer Review
Due Thursday 3/30.
- First, take the "Peer Review" online training.
- Read all 14 articles that our class is creating
- Then concentrate on the specific two that I have assigned you to edit (Which specific two? See the posting on Canvas under Modules > Assignments > Wikipedia assignment > List of...editing partners). On the Articles tab, find the articles that you will review, and then assign them to yourself in the Review column
- For EACH of the two articles, write a 1-page evaluation addressed to the author. Point out what you think are the strengths and weakness of the text. Suggest concrete steps for how it could be improved.
- Email the two evaluations to me, and to their authors
- Then go to the Talk page for each of the two articles, and enter at least a couple concrete suggestions (e.g. point out misspelled words, missing citations, etc.)
- [Optional: Enter feedback and suggestions on the Talk pages of any other of the 14 articles our class is producing]
- Other editors will be reviewing your own work, so look for their comments! Acknowledge whatever feedback they leave on the Talk page
Week 9
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 4 April 2017 | Thursday, 6 April 2017
- Assignment - Edit in response to peer review; post graphics
Due Thursday 4/6.
Follow up on peer editing
Re-read Editing Wikipedia pages 12 and 14.
Return to your article and think about the suggestions of MT and your peer editors. Decide which ones to start implementing, and do so. Reach out to MT or your Content Expert if you have questions.
Hints from WikiEdu for editing your article
- NEVER copy and paste your draft of an article over the entire article. Instead, edit small sections at a time.
- Copy your edits into the article. Make as many small edits as necessary, saving each time, and leaving an edit summary. Never replace more than one to two sentences without saving!
Add images
Read the training module "Contributing Images and Media Files". Then find and post at least one relevant graphic inside your article: a photo, chart, figure, drawing, map, etc.
Add links
Read Editing Wikipedia page 12 to see how to create links from your article to others, and from other articles to your own. Try to link to 3–5 articles, and link to your article from 2–3 other articles.
Week 10
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 11 April 2017
- Assignment - Work for this (shortened) week continues that assigned for Week 10 above
Due Thursday April 11th.
Before you go off on Easter Break ensure that you have completed ALL of the steps up to listed under Week 10—and any earlier steps as well!
Week 11
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 18 April 2017 | Thursday, 20 April 2017
- Assignment - Perfect your work
Due Thursday April 20th.
Continue to expand and improve your article, and to format it to match Wikipedia's tone and standards.
- Read Editing Wikipedia page 15 to review a final check-list
- Remember to contact your Content Expert at any time if you need further help!
Revisit the two classmates' articles that you peer-edited. Leave a message on the Talk page if you see anything amiss—or congratulate the authors on a job well done!
Week 12
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 25 April 2017 | Thursday, 27 April 2017
- Assignment - Reflective essay
Due Thursday April 27th
Write a reflective essay (2–4 pages) on your Wikipedia contributions. Hand this text in to me in class.
WikiEdu asks you to organize your reflection on this Wikipedia assignment around the following questions. But I present them merely as as suggestions: you may focus your essay on any subset of these questions about which you feel you have the most valuable feedback to contribute
- Critiquing articles: What did you learn about Wikipedia during the article evaluation? How did you approach critiquing the article you selected for this assignment? How did you decide what to add to your chosen article?
- Summarizing your contributions: include a summary of your edits and why you felt they were a valuable addition to the article. How does your article compare to earlier versions?
- Peer Review: If your class did peer review, include information about the peer review process. What did you contribute in your review of your peers article? What did your peers recommend you change on your article?
- Feedback: Did you receive feedback from other Wikipedia editors, and if so, how did you respond to and handle that feedback?
- Wikipedia generally: What did you learn from contributing to Wikipedia? How does a Wikipedia assignment compare to other assignments you've done in the past? How can Wikipedia be used to improve public understanding of our field/your topic? Why is this important?
- Note: Be candid! The blemishes in this assignment are just as useful to reflect on as its successes.
Check to see if there is any new activity on your Talk page, and if so, respond
- Milestones
Everyone should have finished all of the work they'll do on Wikipedia, and be ready for grading.