Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Saint Louis University/SLU Biology 4970 (Spring 2016)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This Course Wikipedia Resources Connect
Questions? Ask us:

contact@wikiedu.org

Course name
SLU Biology 4970
Institution
Saint Louis University
Instructor
Judy Ogilvie
Wikipedia Expert
Ian (Wiki Ed)
Subject
Independent Project
Course dates
2016-01-25 – 2016-05-12
Approximate number of student editors
2


This course is for independent/capstone projects by advanced Biology/Neuroscience majors.

Student Assigned Reviewing
Shannon.tai Respiratory arrest UNC13-1
SabatinoAL UNC13A Respiratory arrest

Timeline

Week 1

Course meetings
Friday, 29 January 2016
Assignment - Weeks 1 & 2
Wikipedia essentials & Editing basics
  • Overview of the course
  • Introduction to how Wikipedia will be used in the course
  • Wikipedia is a community: a brief overview of its rules, expectations, and etiquette
  • Basics of editing
  • Anatomy of Wikipedia articles, what makes a good article, how to distinguish between good and bad articles
  • Collaborating and engaging with the Wiki editing community 
  • Tips on finding the best articles to work on for class assignments
  • Handout: Editing Wikipedia (available in print or online from the Wiki Education Foundation)
  • Handouts: Using Talk Pages handout and Evaluating Wikipedia brochure

Assignment (due Feb 4, 2016, 9pm CST)

  • Create an account and then complete the online training for students. During this training, you will make edits in a sandbox and learn the basic rules of Wikipedia.
  • Create a User page, and then click the "enroll" button on the top left of this course page.
  • To practice editing and communicating on Wikipedia, introduce yourself on the user talk page of one of your classmates, who should also be enrolled in the table at the bottom of the page. 
  • Read and become familiar with the material in the handouts (see links above if the paper handouts have not arrived).
  • If you have not already done so as part of the online training, you should do the following:
    • Create your user page (so that your user name is no longer red like this). Make sure there is a link (see WP:CHEAT for basic linking advice) to the course page at the top. Your user page can be as simple as copy and pasting this: "I'm editing Wikipedia as part of this assignment and here's a link to my sandbox." don't copy and paste the quotes, just fill in "Your user name" with your user name and feel free to personalize.
    • Create your sandbox with a pretend article. Practice using brief edit summaries for each edit. Make a first sentence with bold letters, like Wikipedia articles. Add a reference section. Cite a source. Add a picture. Add a section heading. Use the citation tools you learned about in the tutorial. 
    • Remember to always make sure that you are logged in whenever you work on Wikipedia. This is the only way you can get credit for your edits!!
Milestones
  • You should be enrolled as a Student on the course page.
  • You should have completed online training. 
  • Your user page should link to the course page.
  • Your sandbox should contain at least one sentence with a bolded title, one formatted reference in cite journal format, and one possibly relevant picture.

Week 2

Course meetings
Friday, 5 February 2016

Week 3

Course meetings
Friday, 12 February 2016
Assignment - Assignment 2

Assignment (due Feb 11, 2016, 9PM CST)

  • Explore topics related to your topic area to get a feel for how Wikipedia is organized. What areas seem to be missing? As you explore, make a note of articles that seem like good candidates for improvement. Use the "choosing an article" handout for guidance.
  • Read the handout: Choosing an article.
  • Explore WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology. Check out their talk page and other links. In the right column, about half-way down, is a Statistics Table that includes links to thousands of Stub and Start Class articles that need to be expanded.
  • Read through this brochure on evaluating Wikipedia articles, especially pages 4-7. This will give you a good, brief overview of what to look for in other articles, and what other people will look for in your own.
  • For more depth (but still very shart overview), review the Grading Scheme for rating the quality and importance of an article.




  • Critically evaluate two existing Wikipedia articles. 
  • Leave suggestions for improving it on the article's talk page.
    • A few questions to consider (don't feel limited to these):
      • 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 biased 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? 
  • Research 3-5 articles and then identify at least 2 of these that you are considering working on for your main project (more options is better). Make an initial assessment of these articles. Proposals for new articles are okay for the list. Many individual protein articles are stubs that need to be expanded.
  • Your assessment should include (but not be limited to):
    • Do a quick evaluation of the article according to the criteria in the Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria.
    • Look at the articles' talk pages to see if there has already been discussion among other Wikipedia editors about ways in which the article could be improved.
    • Begin to compile a bibliography of relevant research, at least one reference for each article. These should be reviews or other secondary sources such as textbooks.
    • Consider what pictures might improve the article. Know that pictures in open access journals (eg. PLoS and BMC journals) can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and incorporated into Wikipedia articles. See the essay Wikipedia:Pictures for medical articles for more information. 
  • Post your assessments on your sandbox page.
    • Start a new section in your sandbox, titled "Initial article assessments"
    • Use subsections for each article.
    • If possible, link to online versions (or abstracts) of the references you found.
    • Justify starting any new Wikipedia articles, if appropriate. 
  • Be sure to sign your postings.
  • Remember to always fill in the edit summary when you make an edit to an article page!
Milestones


  • Your contributions and user page will be reviewed to verify that you have edited two articles or talk pages. Use the history page of each of the two articles you edit to show the changes or "diffs" on your user page, like this. 
  • Your ideas for your topic will also be reviewed on your sandbox page.

Week 4

Course meetings
Friday, 19 February 2016
Assignment - Begin working on assignment due Week 5

 

Week 5

Course meetings
Friday, 26 February 2016
Assignment - Assignment 3
Finalizing Topics (due February 25, 2016, 9:59PM)
  • With your professor's input, select an article (or group of articles) to work on. 
  • Add your article to the class’s course page.
  • Mark your article's talk page with a banner to let other editors know you're working on it. Add this code in the top section of the talk page:


  • Put both the article and its talk page in your watchlist so you can respond in a timely manner to comments from other Wikipedians.


Milestones
  • Your article selection should be indicated on the course page and your user page. 
  • The course template should appear on the talk page of the article.

Week 6

Course meetings
Friday, 4 March 2016
Assignment - Assignment 4
Begin writing in your sandbox

Assignment (due March 15, 2016, 9:59PM)

  • Begin to compile a list of high-quality references and post them to the talk page of the article you are working on. Include links to online copies or abstracts when available. You will most likely start with review articles or other secondary sources. Please skim the essay about identifying reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. Begin reading the sources. Make sure to check in on the talk page (or watchlist) to see if anyone has advice on your bibliography. If so, thank them on their talk page. 
  • Read this handout on Understanding and avoiding plagiarism. Note, in particular, that Wikipedia has its own very stringent criteria concerning plagiarism and that plagiarism includes such subtle forms as using short phrases without attribution, or beginning from a copied text and simply rewording it while leaving the structure and meaning intact (i.e., close paraphrasing).
    • You should be able to explain close paraphrasing, plagiarism, and copyright violations on Wikipedia.
  • We will be using the Vancouver System (author-number) for citations. You are strongly encouraged to use one of the WP citation tools. Information can be found here:
  • Look over the following information and decide how you want to organize your article (or reorganize if appropriate).
    • Review the Wikipedia:WikiProject page indicated on the talk page of your article to determine whether that Wikiproject has style guidelines. If it is included in more than one WikiProject, look at both and you may decide which you think is more appropriate. Add a comment on the talk page for the article if you must choose between two style guidelines. 
  • Prepare a preliminary outline for the article, and write that in a new section of your sandbox page.
  • Add your ideas for how you would like to improve the article to the talk page of the article. This will open communication between you and other wiki editors who are interested in improving the article. Make sure to check back on the talk page often and engage with any responses.
  • Begin writing in your sandbox. Start with one or two paragraphs (approximately 200 - 500 words) with in-line citations. The primary purpose of this exercise is to learn to edit the wikipedia way rather than to write perfect prose. There will be ample opportunity to edit and improve.
Milestones
  • Your working sandbox should include a beginning bibliography and your edited paragraph(s).

Week 7

Course meetings
Friday, 18 March 2016

Week 8

Course meetings
Friday, 1 April 2016
Assignment - Assignment 5
First Contribution
  • Move the content from the working sandbox into your article. Remember to check your watchlist to look for feedback or changes made by other Wikipedians.
    • If you are making many small edits, save after each edit before you make the next one. Do NOT paste over the entire existing article, or large sections of the existing article. Editors typically revert an edit that they see as problematic, so if you have one large edit they will revert the entire content. 
    • NOTE: You may opt out of incorporating your work into Wikipedia, keeping the assignment entirely within the working sandbox. If you are interested in this option, please talk with the instructor.
  • Make a substantial contribution to your article. This contribution will vary depending on the amount and quality of the content at the beginning of your project. General guidelines:
    • If you focus your assignment on adding prose, try to add approximately 8 to 10 paragraphs of new sourced content. As an approximate minimum, each paragraph should be based on one new source. As a theoretical (and very tedious and unrecommended maximum) each sentence could be based upon two separate sources (but this raises questions on text-source integrity if you don't place inline citations carefully). Please be sure that the content is appropriate for an encyclopedia, that is concise, with no fluff.
    • If necessary, do not hesitate to remove existing content that is of poor quality, unsourced, or that does not fit into your plans for the article. Remember to be bold. Removing poorly written or poorly sourced content often does result in a net improvement to an article. If in doubt, you could first suggest the deletion on the talk page first, wait a couple of days for feedback, and then delete it if no one objects. 
    • Review the previous content of your article for any indications of plagiarism. Rewrite or remove any inappropriate text. If you remove it, explain why on the Talk page.
    • Instead of words, you may add or update one or more infoboxes, figures, graphs, and/or tables. Creation of an original figure will count for more than adding an existing figure. You may find the handouts on “Uploading images” to be helpful.
    • Since there will be so much variation, you are advised to discuss your plans and expectations with your instructor as soon as your article has been selected.
  • Be sure to include headings. Wikipedia prefers relatively short chunks of text, 200 to 600 words. Headings are key to helping readers navigate through the page. If your headings are formatted correctly, they should automatically appear in the Table of Contents at the beginning of the entry.
  • Here are some of the most common mistakes and ones that you should avoid:
    • Per WP:REFPUNC, punctuation is placed before citations and should not be separated from the previous word or punctuation by a space. Some of the tools automatically insert a space and you must delete it.
    • Per WP:HEAD, headings are sentence case (first letter of the first word capitalized, but subsequent words lower case). 
  • You may edit live or start in your sandbox. There are pros and cons to each approach:
    • The sandbox allows you to edit without the pressure of experienced Wikipedians reading your drafts or altering your writing while you try to learn Wikipedia rules and structure. Spending more than a week or two in sandboxes is strongly discouraged.
    • Editing live is exciting because you can see your changes to the articles immediately and experience the collaborative editing process throughout the assignment. Edits to your work will help you to learn the Wikipedia rules.
Milestones
  • Share experiences and discuss problems on the course talk page.
  • Your wikipedia entry should start to take form. 
  • Use the history page to show the "diffs" on your user page as you did for Assignment 2.

Week 9

Course meetings
Friday, 8 April 2016
Assignment - Assignment 6
First peer-review

Assignment due Sat, 4 April 2016, 9:59PM 
NOTE: YOU CAN BE WORKING ON ASSIGNMENT 7 CONCURRENTLY

  • Each student peer review the article that the other student is editing. Post the article to be peer reviewed in the table at the top of the course page. 
  • Before you start, you should review “Evaluating Wikipedia article quality.” 
  • This is your chance to critically evaluate your classmate's topic and writing. Use your knowledge of Wikipedia to generate comments about how the article might be improved. 
  • Start a new section on the article's talk page with the title "Comments from ..." and add your user name. Please feel free to make minor or uncontroversial edits to the article you are reviewing yourself, but if the suggestions are more substantive or ones that could generate disagreement, please comment on the talk page. Some specific things to say or do to assist in this assignment include:
    • verifying that random portions of the article accurately represent their cited sources, 
    • proposing new ways of phrasing the material to make it more clear and to reduce unnecessary words,
    • identifing any text that may be close paraphrasing,
    • suggesting ways to make the lead section follow Style Guidelines more closely, 
    • identifying potential gaps in knowledge that should be contained in a well-written encyclopedic entry on the subject, 
    • identifying places where there is ambiguity or inaccuracy over which sources are supporting what content,
    • suggesting alterations in the order of prose, sentences, paragraphs or sections for organizational purposes,
    • leaving questions on parts of the article that could arise in the mind of a reader that should be clarified,
    • ensuring that the content is within Wikipedia's guidelines (such as neutral point of view) and avoids plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
    • make sure the article incorporates into Wikipedia well by striking the right balance between underlinking, overlinking, and by not being an "orphan".
  • Your peer review should facilitate progress. Each point or suggestion should be a separate item on a bulleted list so that the editors can easily respond to each comment individually. It is surprisingly easy for comments and responses to become a confusing mush of text. In order to avoid this, your comments (and responses to the ones you receive) should follow the clear format shown in  this example. You may get constructive ideas of the kinds of comments to make from this example as well.
  • Throughout the remainder of the course, continue to interact on the talk page, as appropriate, in relation to your feedback.
Milestones
  • Your talk page section and your edits to the article will be evaluated to judge the quality, thoroughness, and thoughtfulness of your feedback. 
  • Your review should be separated into clear bulleted list as shown in the example cited above. 
  • Comments that demonstrate you were reading the sources (and potential sources) for the article and comparing them against the content of the article to generate feedback are valued.

Week 10

Course meetings
Friday, 15 April 2016

Week 11

Course meetings
Friday, 22 April 2016
Assignment - Assignment 7
Second contribution

Due Sat, 23 April 2016, 9:59PM

In this assignment you will further use your expertise in biology to improve Wikipedia. Focus on extending the entry that you have chosen in Assignment 4. Remember to follow the general format of Wikipedia with lots of headings. Push the article closer to Good Article quality. 

  • Address peer review comments, revise issues you now see in your first 8 to 10 paragraphs, and add another 4 to 8 paragraphs. Remember that it is better for you to add fewer words with quality content than an arbitrary paragraph count. Instead of words, you may add or update one or more infoboxes, figures/graphs/tables, and pictures from open access sources. 
  • What if the topic I chose for the first 8 to 10 paragraphs does not have enough information for another 4 to 8 paragraphs? If you run into trouble, discuss options with your instructor. Maybe you could add content to another related article or upload pictures, add tables or figures as is described in assignment 4. 
  • What do I do with the peer review comments my colleague put on my entry's talk page? You should respond to every comment by either taking the suggestions or explaining why you disagree with the suggestion. Note the clear format for your responses as shown in the example above.
  • What if other Wikipedians have taken down or totally changed my first 8 to 10 paragraph entry? Look at why they did this. If it is because there were serious problems with it, fix them. If it is because the others felt the material did not fit, and you disagree, discuss with them and make your arguments. Get help from our class Ambassador and others in the class to participate. Do your best to modify your material so that it can be maintained. Try to understand what is going on. Ask us. But ultimately, this assignment is about contributing additional content on different information from the first contribution. Try to learn from your experience so the new words stick.
Milestones
  • Your responses to each peer review comment on the article's talk page will be evaluated. 
  • The progress on your Wikipedia entry will also be evaluated. 
  • Use the history page to show the "diffs" on your user page as you did for Assignment 2.

Week 12

Course meetings
Friday, 29 April 2016
Assignment - Assignment 8
Second peer review

Due Sat. 30 April 2016, 9:59PM


  • Once again, you should review “Evaluating Wikipedia article quality.” 
  • This is your chance to critically evaluate your classmates' topic and writing. Use your knowledge of Wikipedia and your knowledge of Biology to generate comments about how the article might be improved. Start a new section on the article's talk page with the title "Comments from ..." and add your user name. Please feel free to make minor or uncontroversial edits to the article you are reviewing yourself, but if the suggestions are more substantive or ones that could generate disagreement, please make a comment on the talk page about how the article might be improved. Some specific things to say or do to assist in this assignment include:
    • verifying that random portions of the article accurately represent their cited sources, 
    • proposing new ways of phrasing the material to make it more clear and to reduce unnecessary words,
    • identifing any text that may be close paraphrasing,
    • suggesting ways to make the lead section follow Style Guidelines more closely, 
    • identifying potential gaps in knowledge that should be contained in a well-written encyclopedic entry on the subject, 
    • identifying places where there is ambiguity or inaccuracy over which sources are supporting what content,
    • suggesting alterations in the order of prose, sentences, paragraphs or sections for organizational purposes,
    • leaving questions on parts of the article that could arise in the mind of a reader that should be clarified,
    • ensuring that the content is within Wikipedia's guidelines (such as neutral point of view) and avoids plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
    • make sure the article incorporates into Wikipedia well by striking the right balance between underlinking, overlinking, and by not being an "orphan".
  • Your peer review should facilitate progress. Each point or suggestion should be a separate item on a bulleted list so that the editors can easily respond to each comment individually. It is surprisingly easy for comments and responses to become a confusing mush of text. In order to avoid this, your comments (and responses to the ones you receive) should follow the clear format shown in the example here.
  • Throughout the remainder of the course, continue to interact on the talk page, as appropriate, in relation to your feedback.
Milestones
  • Your talk page section and your edits to the article will be evaluated to judge the quality, thoroughness, and thoughtfulness of your feedback. 
  • Your review should be separated into clear bulleted list as shown in the example above.
  • Comments that demonstrate you were reading the sources (and potential sources) for the article and comparing them against the content of the article to generate feedback are valued.

Week 13

Course meetings
Friday, 6 May 2016
Assignment - Assignment 9
Final contribution

Due Mon., 9 May 2016, 9:59 PM. 

In this assignment you will put the final touches on your entry, responding to all comments, pushing it towards Good Article status. You will also visit your colleagues' articles and talk pages, helping the entire class achieve their best possible work.

  • In this assignment you continue to modify your entry, responding further to reader comments. You may want to add links, references, headers, images, polish the entry, and work hard to move your article toward GA status. You should also help your colleagues by commenting further on their articles, helping them attain GA status. Look back through all the comments, do some more reading, bring the piece up to your highest possible level.
  • Respond to the peer review comments and edits from your colleagues. Use them to improve your article. Do not ignore them. As you fix your piece, you should also put comments in the Talk section explaining your response as you did in Assignment 6.
  • Why are links so important? Where should I add them? You should add links both in your piece and in other pieces so they link to your piece. The internet in general and Wikipedia in particular are all about links. Links in other articles will attract potential reviewers and interested readers to your page.
  • What if other Wikipedians have taken down or totally changed my previous entries? Look at why they did this. If it is because there were serious problems with it, fix them. If it is because the others felt the material did not fit, and you disagree, present your arguments to them. Get help from our class Ambassador and others in the class to participate. Do your best to modify your material so that it can be maintained. Try to understand what is going on. Ask us. But ultimately, this assignment is about improving content for the entire article. Try to learn from your experience so the new words stick.
  • Can I make changes after the due date? The entire Wikipedian community will be grateful if you continue to make contributions to improve Wikipedia after the assignment is complete.
  • When you are finished with your assignment, replace the template you put on the talk page of your article in Assignment 3 with this template: <center>This article was part of an assignment from Saint Louis University in Spring 2016 (see   Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Saint_Louis_University/SLU_Biology_4970_(Spring_2016) for more details).</center>. It should appear directly below the templates on the talk page and look like this:

This article was part of an assignment from Saint Louis University in Spring 2016 (see  Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Saint_Louis_University/SLU_Biology_4970_(Spring_2016) for more details).

Milestones
  • Your substantial contribution to a wikipedia entry and your contributions to your classmates.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Saint_Louis_University/SLU_Biology_4970_(Spring_2016)&oldid=714768473"