Wikipedia talk:Education program archive/Ball State University/Introduction to Digital Literacies (2013 Q1)/Grading
Guidelines
[edit]Collaboratively identify a topic of your choosing for a group contribution to Wikipedia. It can be over any topic, but it must conform to Wikipedia guidelines and all members of the group need to agree to work on this topic. This is CRUCIAL to the success of your project! Please clear the topic with me before you start.
Using Web or print resources (including Bracken Library databases and card cat), identify and actively use at least 2 sources contributed by each member; these should ultimately appear in the References section of the article. (Or, if the group is dividing up jobs, there should be at least twice as many sources as there are people in the group.)
The step-by-step process the class will go through is described in the Wikipedia course page timeline
Evaluation
[edit]Project will be evaluated in three parts
- The article itself 100 points
- A reflective memo 100 points
- Peer evaluation 50 points
The Article
[edit]The article itself will be judged on Wikipedia standards, normal research standards, and style. Especially important will be:
- Notability
- Objectivity
- Number and use of reliable sources
- Timely completion
Rubric
| Point range (out of 100) | Notability (WP:N) (suitable for an encyclopedia) | Objectivity (WP:POV) | Sources (WP:Sources and WP:INCITE) | Timely completion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90-100 | Clear and extensive "significant coverage" from reliable secondary sources | Coverage is completely fair, unbiased, and disinterested; discussion is fully balanced | Reliable sources fully and clearly support content; they are cited according to WP standards; quantity meets or exceeds project target | Article goes live on or ahead of schedule; topic deadlines met or exceeded |
| 80-89 | Adequate "significant coverage" | Coverage is fair, but not complete enough to be balanced | Sources are generally reliable and used accurately | Article and/or topic deadlines moderately late (1-3 days) |
| 70-79 | Questionable "significant coverage" | Generally unbiased, balanced, and without self-interest | More sources needed and/or sources cited inadequately | Article and/or topic deadlines 3-7 days late |
| 0-69 | Little or no "significant coverage" | Contains bias or self-interest | Sources do not support content | Article and/or topic deadlines more than 7 days late |
The Reflective Memo
[edit]Points will be earned according to how fully and thoughtfully, and with how much detail, you answer these questions:
- What you did within the project—the part of the topic you worked with and contributed most to. Discuss your specific contributions and give examples.
- Talk about your work with the topic and sources: How did your group arrive at an article topic and how did it work out? Did you personally find useful, quality information? What types of sources did you work with? What gives you confidence that your contribution has a reliable foundation?
- What was the quality of the collaborative work within your group? did the group function well to pool knowledge and resources? Did everyone contribute? Did you pull your weight? What could have made it better?
- Did you connect productively with folks outside your group (other WP contributors, WP staff, the Online Ambassador)? If there were problems, how could they have been avoided?
- What you learned about this social media environment. Show that you understand Shirky’s concept of collaborative production and compare it with your experience in Wikipedia.
- Will your own use of or involvement with Wikipedia change in the future?
Length: At least 500 words; normally, memos that receive highest credit are 600 words or more
Peer Evaluation
[edit]Rubric for Peer Evaluation—each person will evaluate others in his/her group
- Quality of contribution to project (research, composing text, designing pages, etc.)
- Quality of contribution to group dynamics
- Overall Effort
Pathfinders (group coordinators)
[edit]Expectations
Be the communications coordinator for your group
- make sure you know how to best get in touch with each member
- be aware of next step in project and make sure everyone knows what that is
- let instructor know right away if problems or issues develop
- be the liaison with your online ambassador as needed
Get as familiar as possible with basic editing practices; encourage members to help each other
Use your Sandbox (or other page in your user area) as central point for discussions about your article
Rubric for Pathfinder evaluation
- Quality of contribution to project (research, composing text, designing pages, etc.)
- Quality of contribution to group dynamics
- Overall Effort
- Effectiveness in communication and leadership