User talk:Eryk (Wiki Ed)

Welcome to your talk page

Just creating your talk page. Glad to have you around! Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology Handout

Just in case you didn't see it, I've left some comments at User talk:Eryk (Wiki Ed)/Sociology Handout. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Eryk (Wiki Ed), may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Course page on evaluating an article

Eryk, thanks for your response here. (I didn't want to reply on that page since it had already been archived -- I took a Wiki break over the holidays, so didn't see your response until today.) In terms of prompts for students evaluating the reliability of articles, in the library world a lot of folks use the CRAAP test. This is, I think, one of the original formulations, and here's an update. Those questions aren't perfectly suited to a Wikipedia article, but I think the general areas apply well. And could even be used in an exercise where students evaluate not the article but first the sources used in a Wikipedia article. Again, thanks for your response! AmandaRR123 (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor

I have made a few changes to your training materials. The location of the prefs switch was wrong (for the English Wikipedia; it's correct for, say, the French Wikipedia), and I added links. Please feel free to remove them if links won't work in your context. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Experience Editing Wikipedia with GIS3614 Feminist Theory

Thank you for reaching out about sharing my experience with editing "Feminist Digital Humanities" as part of Professor Koh's course this year. I would be happy to be share with your blog and appreciate the opportunity! I just emailed you with a response. Thanks, Alicia Pileggi (talk)

WP:ASSIGN

Hi. I was a bit surprised by these two edits. Perhaps you should take it up with Tryptofish, in particular, in that he has spent a lot of time on the page that you call "outdated." If it really is outdated, then I suggest you either bring it up to date or add a suitable template. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to jbmurray for noticing these edits and asking about them. I do not consider ASSIGN to literally be outdated, but if there is something to update, then let's do that. I think that ASSIGN actually reflects the views of the Wikipedia editing community as a whole somewhat better than, at least historically, pages and training modules from WikiEd have done. Therefore, I'd like to see more links to it, not fewer. However, there probably could be better ways to link it. In particular, the one at Course pages seems a bit Easter eggy to me. If we disagree, perhaps this should be discussed with more editors, at WP:ENB. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbmurray and Tryptofish: You're right - I removed those links in error and was just coming back now to revert my own edits, sorry you had to do it for me. Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women's studies handout

Hey Eryk, just wanted to let you know that I updated the brochure, with these edits, largely because I think its missing some of the more "humanities" oriented solutions for getting students engaged. Topics like individual novels, pieces of performance art, or books of important scholarly or critical theory are very easy to write as new editors, and includes the arts and literary studies more: something that I think you all have been strategically moving towards. Hope it helps! Sadads (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads: Thanks so much! And in time for them to make it to print. :) Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation

Hello! Thank you so much for reaching out to me about my experiences as a student editing Wikipedia articles. I would be happy to answer some questions. Just let me know what I need to do next! Rgalts (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation

Hi! Thank you so much for the kind words! I'd be happy to answer any questions for the blog! let me know what works best for you! I also emailed you. Gilliark (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gilliark! Thanks for the response. I got your e-mail too, look for a follow-up soon! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT [[]]== initial comments ==

I have posted a few comments about "page one" of the brochure - my aim is to suggest we use clear and simple language and, at all costs, seek to prevent any student as seeing this as either in "lecture mode" or as in "Dr. Seuss mode." Collect (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now can you get rid of "daunting" ad "newbies"? <g> Ask any teenage gamer what "newbie" or "noob" means to others. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eryk, I just came across User:Eryk (Wiki Ed)/Biographies from a link at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Wiki Education Foundation is seeking input on a Biographies training guide for students. Will you be attending WikiCon in a couple of weeks? If you are, I'd to speak with about the work you're doing and see if I can incorporate it with the work some of us are doing at WP:Women in Red. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosiestep I will be! Feel free to send an e-mail ahead of time! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Rosiestep, not sure if you've seen this? Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Ping! --Rosiestep (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry

Thanks for the note at the chemistry project. Just curious: how much content have you contributed to chemistry?--Smokefoot (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Smokefoot: I had a pretty big hand in putting that together; if it's comprehensible, blame Eryk, but the content complaints should probably go my way. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any editing history in chemistry, I'm afraid! That's precisely why I'm actively seeking (or have sought) more experienced editors, and experienced chemistry instructors who have taught with Wikipedia, to review this handbook. I don't want people to reinvent the wheel, so I drafted the current draft alongside our Content Expert in the sciences User: Ian (Wiki Ed), who has already chimed in). Much of this content has been curated or distilled from the many project guides available at WikiProject Chemistry; MOS:CHEM, and WP:CHEMBOX, for example. If there are additional resources you'd like us to review, or specific comments on the content of the brochure, please share them! It's especially helpful at the handbook's Talk page, where they can be of use to others who might come along to offer similar suggestions. Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Chem project has gotten to such a high level, and then these undergrads get lured into contributing and their stuff is almost uniformly rejected. Read: slaughterhouse. The #1 requirement for contributing to the project is a high level knowledge of chemistry, which no undergrad has. To make matters worse, the students think that they are getting close by passing some sort of wiki-training about Wiki-ettiquette and mark-up and "being bold" and all that, but then they get eaten alive by Chem editors. Very occasionally their instructors wade in and then THEY get eaten alive because they dont know their stuff well enough or dont want to take the time to learn the breadth and context of the info that we seek in this project. And then we have a slew of editors who have no patience playing wet-nurse or homework assistant.

In any case, those are unvarnished, admittedly snotty comments that are only slightly exaggerated. What you are doing is highly admirable, my point is that there might be places where the students could have a more satisfying experience. Hope that I dont come across as a complete jerk. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Smokefoot: Question: Are there any articles in the Wikipedia chemistry universe that you think are doable for students? If there are many, maybe we could suggest them to some instructors. So, for example, I'm thinking about biographies of chemists, articles about the more prominent academic programs/departments/associations, the history of chemistry, maybe even historical chemistry subjects, even alchemy, etc. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now those are good ideas, the ones I like are biographies of chemists and historical chemistry subjects. One approach would be to review lists of members of national academies - UK, US, Russia, Germany, France, Canada all have them. Do we have biographies of all the members? Often the biographies fail to actually cite real contributions (a place where primary sources would be desirable).

- List of female Fellows of the Royal Society
- List of Fellows of the Royal Society (much more elevated that Fellows or the Royal Society of Chemistry, only a subset of FRS are chemists)
- Academy of Sciences Leopoldina - I did not see a list
- US National Academy of Sciences
- US National Academy of Engineering
- Collège de France, this article needs some help

ANOTHER major direction was suggested on the Chemistry project page, that students contribute chemistry into these venues: Wikiversity, Wikisource, Simple English Wikipedia.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Smokefoot: Thanks for the ideas. As you can imagine, a lot of the time instructors have particular outcomes they want to achieve that would necessitate students working on more complex topics, but we do try to talk with instructors about expectations, so it's good to have these easier projects at the ready. Also, it's probably worth mentioning that in 2016 we'll be making a big push to improve articles about women scientists as part of our Year of Science campaign.

I want to reframe Eryk's pitch soliciting feedback about this brochure in two ways. I also want to add that although not all feedback will be incorporated into the brochure, it will all be heard and considered when we actually provide support for classes.

Chemistry is a difficult area to edit. Classes will attempt it anyway, even if we do try to steer them towards low-hanging fruit. When classes edit, there's a variety/spectrum of good/bad results, and I understand your experience has been that the spectrum is heavily weighted on the not-so-good side. So the question of this brochure is, given that it'll happen with or without us, what can we do in a support role to maximize the odds they'll make positive contributions and minimize negative impacts on the rest of the community (e.g. cleanup time)?
What if we pretend the advice is for academics rather than students? What advice would you give them (or, perhaps, what help pages would you point them to)? Maybe the most effective way to help the students is actually to give the instructor information on that higher level that is then their responsibility to communicate/interpret for class purposes (or else to decide standards are too high).

Regarding the other Wikimedia projects: Organizationally, we're committed to Wikipedia. I don't think we have the experience or capacity to support Wikiversity or Wikisource projects at this time, although I think Simplewiki is something we should, at some point, look into more (this was floated as an idea by a couple WikiProject Medicine folks, too). The biggest problem with these, however, is that a big appeal of working on Wikipedia for instructors as well as students is its impact and reputation (and, of course, that's why standards are high). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for being so open and consultative. The women scientists in the academies are prime territory. And it is not just fluff: for chemists, we like to see the technical aspects of (women's and others) contributions explained within the bio. One repeated suggestion is that your guidelines emphasize that the Wiki-Ed students/instructors should be mindful of notability and WP:SECONDARY. My worry is that there is no low-hanging fruit. And I also worry that many of the active chem editors have totally lost patience with these homework assignments. We often just revert a lot of their contributions wholesale. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Student profile blog

Hi, Eryk. I would be glad to answer some questions about my Wikipedia Education experience. Let me know about next steps. Mcraab123 (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental sciences student guide

Hi Eryk, Thanks again for your efforts with the above-referenced guide. If possible, for consistency with the others with whom you consulted, please change my listing in the Acknowledgements section to "David A. Sonnenfeld, SUNY Environmental Science and Forestry". Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DA Sonnenfeld, I'll be happy to do so on subsequent printings! --Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Eryk. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]