Jump to content

User talk:Adam (Wiki Ed)/Archives/Summer 2015

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edu banner change?

Hey! Did not the Education Project banner originally lead back to the specific course instead of the general edu page? Or perhaps that is wishful thinking/memory on my part as it would really speed up my response time. HullIntegrity\ talk / 12:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

versus the badass version from last semester which actually has the link to the course. I would prefer editors are directed to my specific course. .
HullIntegrity\ talk / 22:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Ahh. I think I see the issue. Sorry. Three pairs of eyes pulled a dumb-ass on that one, but the directions for banners may need to be rewritten for clarity since the obvious banner is {{course assignment}} which is not the right one for us to use. But since it is first, and blue, it is an easy grab for students versus the later correct one and with one of me and twenty-eight of them it is easy to make that kind of mistake. HullIntegrity\ talk / 22:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@HullIntegrity: I'll take a look at the docs and the directions there. You're right that we should make things a bit more clear. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree that the banner isn't so good without parameters. For context, since education-related templates, help pages, etc. are kind of scattered and sometimes inconsistent (various educational programs, various purposes, various redundancies) and because changes to pages used outside of WikiEdu can be controversial, I think we tend to try to fix problems through technology we do have control over. Namely, the Assignment Design Wizard. This is why we made a big push for everyone to use it (save a handful of very experienced instructors). It automatically generates code including parameters for students to copy/paste into article talk pages. With the new course page system being rolled out for next term, however, article tagging will be automatic. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports

We are going to add back our section on Core Components because we feel like it is the information that you are asking for. What makes PBIS an evidence-based system is the reliance on the individual schools including each of the components in their programming. We will reword the section so it doesn't read like a manual.

While considering our revisions, PBIS is sourced based on one consortium of work. Each individual state has their own resources but they all link back to the central work of George Sugai.

If we add a section talking about the success of PBIS programs in schools, can we include statistical representations from the research? KMiller23 (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi KMiller23. I'm not sure what statistical representations means. You can report the results of particular studies if you like, but if you're referring to charts and graphs from the paper itself I would recommend that you avoid this. In almost all cases the content of a paper will be copyrighted, so uploading an image with a free license will be tough.
  • As for the content you've replaced, I think that's a good direction to go in. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Help with adding images

Hi, Adam. You are one of the online volunteers for my theatre history class's Wikipedia project. I am editing the article on Sophie Treadwell and I have been having a lot of trouble adding images to the page. I knew it would be difficult finding images to the page so the first image I added was from the Wikimedia Commons, a photo of a 1930's typewriter, which I felt was appropriate because Treadwell worked as a journalist during that era and the lead character in her best known play worked as a stenographer on a typewriter. You removed the image because you said that it was 'decorative'. I then spent weeks chasing down copyright holders for photos and artwork from the most recent New York production of her play Machinal. I got permission from both the playbill cover artist, and the production photographer to use two different specific images on the Wikipedia page. The images were taken down because they did not have the appropriate tags. Can you help me identify the appropriate tags for an image that is under copyright, but the artist has given permission for it to be used on Wikipedia? Thank you. Always Jessiechapman (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Jessiechapman. I'd be happy to help. I see this image. Was the other deleted? Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, images (and text) on Wikipedia have to be licensed as free content. There are a few licenses which we accept as standard (you'll see CC-BY and CC-BY-SA as options when you upload) but one thing which trips people up a lot is those license are for anyone. When asking for permission to use an image on wikipedia that permission cannot be only for use on Wikipedia and it cannot be a "non-commercial" license (because anyone can re-use wikipedia content for any reason so long as they provide attribution). I don't know if you've conveyed this to the artists you've spoken to and I apologize if this is remediating but it is often the first stumbling block in this kind of situation. Once we've got that figured out I can help with the tags and what-not. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Adam, thanks for getting back to me. Both images were deleted, I restored the photograph, but I believe it will be taken down again. I did only get permission from the artists to put their images on Wikipedia, so unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to use them. I'm following another lead on licensing information on photographs of the subject residing in the University of Arizona's special collections. They are confirming which images are free use. If that doesn't work though, can I put the typewriter image from Wikimedia commons back or is it not relevant enough? I need to have at least one image for full credit on the assignment. Thank you Jessiechapman (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Jessiechapman I don't think it's particularly relevant, unfortunately. However, I'm just one person! If you feel that including is important for the reader, then you can restore it; however, I would think hard about that. I'm also not sure you should be required to upload an image for credit, as that is much thornier than simply adding text (as you've found out). Amyehughes or Pharos may be able to give some clarification here. I will say that I've had success asking artists to donate individual images under a free license, though it is often difficult to convey the licensing requirements and many people are skeptical of broadly releasing content. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing Student from Course

Someone enrolled themselves in my class (who isn't at my school) and I don't know how to remove them. Can you remove the person and consider adding an easy way (perhaps in the drop down menu by the student's name in the wikiedu portal) for instructors to do this themselves? Thank you. Bellicist (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bellicist: Hi there. It looks like when we set up your course page we didn't add the "course instructor" right to your account, which explains why you can't remove this student. You should be able to now. You can also create a password (or "token") that students must provide when trying to enroll, though it may be late for that this time around. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Appreciate you. I figured it out and I'm all set now. Bellicist (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Help with Misogyny in Sports

Hey Adam! I was wondering if you could share your thoughts on some ideas for my article, Misogyny in Sports, that I'm working on. First of all, I'm having trouble expanding some of my sections on the gender gap. I have statistics in there, but do i just keep adding stats, or what else can I add to really show the gender gap? Secondly,I was wondering if a section on floyd mayweather would be relevant, due to the fact that he is the highest paid athlete in the world but has a history of domestic violence, and recently attempted to ban women reporters, Rachel Nichols and Michelle Beadle, from attending his fight with Manny Pacquiao. Thanks! Jakdsmith (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Jakdsmith. I'll try and answer the second question first. I don't think a section on Mayweather is the best idea. I think we're looking to show the reader the subject broadly and that incident isn't yet something that has an impact equivalent to Title IX, for example.
  • As for improvements I would make 3 suggestions:
    • There are a number of articles on gender gaps in sports broadly which don't just list statistics. Remember that as an encyclopedia, readers aren't necessarily coming here for stats alone (though stats are great sometimes!). Summarizing articles like this (there's a chapter in there) or this (just as two examples of a gender gap in sports viewing) can help offer some context which individual statistics might miss. There are a number of academic papers on the subject looking at a number of different angles.
    • Remember that a reader isn't expecting a position paper. Misogyny is bad, but a section such as "benefits of diversity" isn't really necessary. I would integrate that section into another one.
    • I would also find some more sources which differentiate between misogyny and disparate impact in sports.
  • Do those suggestions make sense? Sorry if they're a bit terse. Let me know if you've got any questions. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Help with Zoot Suit Summary

Hi Adam, I have been working on cutting down the plot summary on the Zoot Suit (play) page, per your suggestion, but have not managed to cut it down very much. I have also added additional sections. I also had a classmate suggest I add a synopsis as well, as a smaller version of the summary for those who do not want to read the whole thing. I went ahead and added this, but I am not sure it adheres to the Wikipedia style guidelines. If you could take a look and let me know if I need to remove the synopsis, keeping cutting the summary, or if it is more balanced now, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you, Jcbjaw12 (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jcbjaw12. I can help, but let me suggest something radical. Write the synopsis and then delete the rest of the summary. Take a look at the article and see how it reads to you. If it seems like the plot detail is too thin, add a few sentences to the synopsis. Then read it over again. My suspicion is that it will read better with a much, much shorter summary. However, if that looks crazy (and it might) or if you feel you can't get across what you want to get across with a very short synopsis, go back to the plot summary you have now (and edit from there). Try that and see what you think. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Adam! I will give it a try!Jcbjaw12 (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
One last question, . Can you take a look at the source for this claim? It's cited to Obituary and dated, but is there any other information that a reader could use to track that down? An archive link (to the paper's if they have one or a paywalled source if necessary)? Obits aren't usually bylined, but some are titled, usually those written by the newspaper staff. Shorter ones are submitted by friends or family and charged in a manner similar to the classifieds (by column-inch). If it is the latter, there probably isn't a title. But if it was written by the paper, there will (usually) be one. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I forgot to {{ping}} you, @Jcbjaw12. Whoops. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Q

Hey Adam, how are you? Thanks for helping out with the Education Program. The two of you are growing old together, haha. Listen, I have a question. Can I get "back" to that wizard that created User:Dr Aaij/ENGL 1020D, CRN 3372 and add things? Thanks, Dr Aaij (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a great question for Sage (Wiki Ed) (who should be along shortly to help answer it). And to answer your other question, I'm doing well (or well enough, along the continuum of human experience). Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You can go through the wizard again, and it will overwrite the first version. (You can copy from the old version and adjust the new one as needed, if necessary.)--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Dr Aaij ^ --Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, it's done, and it's significantly bigger. One thing though: the automatic syllabus builder (an impressive piece of work!) failed to take one thing into account: I am not here for the first week. Can you (Adam, Sage) help me tweak this to make the first week consist of online activities, so that it is not wasted? Thank you both so much for your help... Dr Aaij (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Dr Aaij: The markup is pretty minimal, so you should be able to edit that page and shuffle or rewrite the content to to fit your class. If you have any trouble, give me a ping.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Done--thanks Sage. Do either of you know what happened to my Dashboard button? Dr Aaij (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Dr Aaij: Fixed.--ragesoss (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about editing conventions

In the class LAE6389 Scott raises the question if Wikipedia has a policy about linking the same word in one article more than one time. For example, if Surinam is mentioned more than once, do we create a wikipedia link more than once? And Micah raises the question how to link back from the page linked to the article you are editing. For example, if Aphra Behn is linked to Charles II, can we link back Charles II to Behn? Are there links that answer these questions? Thanks. LLRungegordon (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi, LLRungegordon. There is a section in the manual of style on multiple links to the same article within a given page (WP:OVERLINKING). It basically says that we should normally link only once, but for longer articles or for articles where a link is needed in the intro and again in the body linking twice is usually fine. Your second question is a little easier. Each wikipedia article should link out where it is useful and appropriate for the context. Don't worry about what links to a wikipedia article when you're trying to determine where you should link out. There's no need for reciprocity, strict or otherwise. Does that answer your question? Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll pass this information along. LLRungegordon (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about sandboxes

Hi Adam, I'm from the class LAE 6389. I'm not sure how to use my sandbox, and I tried looking on two pdfs on how to use it (one says how to move stuff out of a sandbox, but not much more than that). Some of my classmates have put in whole articles in their sandbox to edit, and I wasn't sure how to do this... Can you offer some advice?

Also, I'm the person that wants to edit the article on Tomboy, which you had commented on. Thanks for the advice about how some articles are carefully monitored... I wasn't sure if edits were welcomed there or not, but hopefully they will like the information I want to add. Thanks for you help :) Beachmirage (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Beachmirage. There are two basic ways editors use the sandbox. One is like I do (see the history), as a scratch pad for work they plan to commit elsewhere or something they want to try out. Add references there to store them somewhere, play with templates, that sort of thing. Most students will end up using their sandbox or any other sub-page as a draft space (you can create a page like User:Beachmirage/Tomboy or use the sandbox, it's up to you).
so let's say I want to improve an article like Vintage Sports-Car Club, but I want to make sure everything is right before I actually add it to the article. I can copy the "wikitext" (What you see in the edit window) into my sandbox and save it. Not everything will work perfectly, but you can see this is most of the article copied (without the info box, image or the external links). If you don't copy the wikitext but instead copy over the page itself as you see it in your browser, you'll see something like this. quick rule: if you see "blah blah[1]" in your sandbox, you've copied the output, not the code to make the page.
Once you have it copied you can work on your sandbox however you like, adding/removing/whatever. When you're done you now have to get it back on to the article. Sometimes this is pretty easy. Normally if I do this I will copy nearly everything over by opening the edit window in my sandbox and copy/pasting it into the article I've improved. It is really easy to mess this last step up, so don't forget to hit preview to make sure you haven't broken references or removed something important. But once you get it right you can hit save and you're done.
If you want to create a brand new article from your sandbox, the process is even easier. There is a button on the top of the page which will allow you to move your sandbox entirely to a new name. So User:Beachmirage/New awesome thing could be moved to New awesome thing without worrying about copying and pasting wikitext. Unfortunately this only readily works for new articles. You can't move your sandbox over an existing article.
Does that answer your question? Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Adam (Wiki Ed), thanks for replying so quickly! Your explanation is much easier to understand than the one I found on the Help Editing resources. I am going to try what you said now... fingers crossed it works! Thanks, Beachmirage (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to Enhance Student Learning: A Case Study in Economics

Hi Adam, I've been asked to help review [1] and I have agreed to do so, but I would like to ask you to collaborate. Would you please comment on that paper, as much or as little as you like, for publication? Ping me. Please see also [2]. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi EllenCT. I'll take a look this weekend. Thanks for the heads up. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Please let me know your thoughts. EllenCT (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@EllenCT:

  • Nits:
    • There are a few more papers looking at using wikipedia in the classroom (see here for a sentinel example). I'm hesitant to recommend a long list of things which will be referenced in the first few sections, then forgotten, but that one might be worthwhile.
    • From an editorial standpoint, I don't think the authors delineate clearly enough the use of wikipedia as a resource vs. an output. The verb 'use' is, well, used interchangeably for students/faculty mining WP for resources and students writing articles. This shows up in the intro, but it also leads to some needless comments about how students might "use" wikipedia (where they and the sources they reference both mean "cite") (page 4)
    • "When assessing the work of 121 students..." not sure how useful the start of this paragraph is.
    • "Therefore, they had to use primary sources that were subsequently cited on Wikipedia" This doesn't follow from the previous sentences, or make sense to me.
    • " we informed students that when grading their assignments, we would follow the same standards as Wikipedia." The GA criteria aren't the standards of wikipedia. Good articles are a vanishingly small percentage of total articles, and the paper should note this. They're good standards to give new students, but they are a specific set for a specific process.
    • The WEF's expectation for professors is that they not make grades contingent upon mainspace contributions. While this might dampen the 'public' effect, it limits the real risk of a student getting blocked because they repeatedly re-insert their content after it has been reverted. Those are my recommendations, not theirs, obviously, but it's not a good pattern.
  • Bigger issues:
    • Did we just have one class in the second term which replaced one essay w/ a WP article? If so, that's not much of a check against cohort/semester/class effects.
    • Were the instructions for essay 1 and essay 2 really that radically different? They note in a followup that they told students the GA criteria would be the rubric, was that included in the original instructions?
    • I'm also not sure I follow the argument that student learning was measurably improved. Grades were higher for the WP assignment, but midterm and final grades for the second semester were lower. That may be evidence (as they state) that the students in the second semester were not smarter than in the first, but it's not evidence for increased learning (unless you think the tests are bad measures of learning).
    • I follow the logic behind the public -> higher quality claim (and indeed that same claim is central to USPP), but I don't think the evidence for it here is terribly strong. It would be trivial to check if the students replied to or acted on feedback (and indeed they ask the reader to do that on their own in the footnotes), and although that's going to be a subset of students who looked for feedback, it strikes me as more persuasive than student reports that they checked.

I hope this helps. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Help reviewing new article by first-time participants in Wikipedia course

Hi Adam,

I'm helping a class working on a summer research project for which the students have written a new article. We are all new to Wikipedia and to the Wikipedia for Education program. Here is our course page on Wikipedia and our course talk page. This is the article the students have created: Rotherwas Room. Since this is the first time the students have written the new article, we'd love to get some feedback and advice on whether the article meets Wikipedia guidelines. Could you please have a look and let us know if there are things we should change or write differently? Thanks so much! Hariteach (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Hariteach. I'll take a closer look in a bit but at first glance it looks great. I've made an edit removing bolded phrases from the article. Bolding is used only rarely for emphasis or to denote important terms within wikipedia articles (instead we rely on linking between articles). Most articles you read should only have the title of the article bolded in the first sentence of the introduction.
  • If you like you can use {{Infobox room}} in the article, which may allow you to put the "general information" into a more standardized format. However that's not necessary and if Infobox room doesn't meet your needs you are under no obligation to use it. :)
  • One thing I would suggest you edit out of the article are references to the graduating classes of various people mentioned in the article. For a page which primarily served readers interested in Amherst College, that may be helpful, but it's less useful for a general audience. I think there are only a few points where this is added to the text.
  • Since you have a number of sources which you reference repeatedly at different page numbers, you might want to experiment with a different citation style (see 10 Story Fantasy for an example) where you make the full citation only once and use shortened footnotes (just author-date) for each inline citation. The current citation formation is perfectly appropriate, but I've found a hybrid style to be very useful.
  • If you need a hand with any of the above please let me know. Good work! Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply and great suggestions Adam! We'll be sure to follow up as needed! Hariteach (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


Help editing sources on Article page

Hi Adam,

I am in the ENG 353 course at MSU, "Growing Up Girl-Coming of Age in Women's Literature and Film" and as part of our course I will be editing the Suzan-Lori Parks article page. But as you can see, my sources are incomplete and I am not able to find the remaining portions of the sources that are needed. I believe it's the pulishing author's and dates. Could you tell me how I can find these or site the sources correctly? Thank you!

Sauvieta (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sauvieta: I fixed the error in those references. You were missing a field called "title", which is for the title of the article. I added |title = "name of article" (using the actual name of the reference) in each case, which fixed the problem. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ian and Adam, thank you for your help and feedback! Sauvieta (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Images question for a course

Hi Adam! It's nice to meet you. You are listed as one of our class helpers in my Growing Up Girl Course from Michigan State University. I am working on the Connie Porter page, and I want to add an image, but I do not believe I can. I've gone over the wikipedia policies and I cannot not find an image that is for public use. Someone once told me that you can use an image, as long as you cite it correctly. Is that true, because I might go with that route if it is? And if that is true, how do I do that? Thanks for you help, and I like the whale image you have on your page! Sherrod7 (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi, Sherrod7. There are a few questions you've asked here, so Id like to unpack them:
    • Wikipedia strongly prefers images released under a free license--just like the text of the encyclopedia. If you go to Wikimedia Commons (our global image repository) you'll see that all of the images there are released under a license that allows any downstream use. As you've discovered, this excludes a lot of the images floating around on the internet--all of which are copyrighted by default and most of which are explicitly copyrighted.
    • For some images, we recognize that finding a free image may be very difficult. It's hard to include the cover of a book or a still from a video without non-free images, so we have a (somewhat complicated) process for that. See Wikipedia:Non-free content. This is the process I think you're referring to when you have to cite it appropriately. Rather than citing, what you need to do is justify why a non-free image is necessary. Smith medallion portrait.jpg is an example. Not all "fair use rationales" need to be that complicated or detailed. There is an unfortunate wrinkle for the Connie Porter--we don't generally allow non-free images of living people because technically someone could go out and take a free image of that person at any time.
    • One option which works occasionally is finding a non-free image where the creator is willing to license that image freely. We've had students do this before with images taken by university staff (see Rotherwas Room Full View.jpg for an example--the file was originally copyrighted by the Mead Art Museum but the students in that class got them to release the image). That process is actually fairly simple, if a little daunting. In a case like this, it might be fun to send an email to the author's publicist and see if they'll release one photo. Sometimes showing people the nice work you've done on wikipedia is enough to get them to release a headshot or a shot of the author at a reading. Like I said, the process is daunting but pretty simple. It's one form letter.
  • I'm happy to help resolve these issues if possible. I hope I've shown some light on the issue. Also that picture of mine is not a whale, sad to say. It's an attack submarine. :) Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for the information Adam. It is still a nice picture. I will think about what I should do and maybe refer back to you in the near future to look over the page if that is okay. Thanks Sherrod7 (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice work!

The WikiCookie
You've learned how to use basic wikicode in your sandbox. You can always return there to experiment more.

Posted automatically via sandbox guided tour. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Online Communities

Hi there! I hope your Fall is starting off well. (I can say it's Fall now, right?) I just thought I'd stop by and let you know that I am also helping out this class on-ground, so if there's anything I can do please let me know. (I don't actually see any way to add myself to the course in the new system, except as a student.) AmandaRR123 (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi AmandaRR123. I'll keep a look out. The new dashboard doesn't have a login for online volunteers, but you'll be able to track the same stuff I can. The 'activity' and 'articles' section are really helpful for getting a quick glance at a class. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adam_(Wiki_Ed)/Archives/Summer_2015&oldid=683806095"