This is an archive of past discussions about User:JimmyButler. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Not caring about the Wiki :)
Hi, I'm also almost back.
I noticed you went through almost hell, and I'm sorry I wasn't there during that FAC. I really really had to leave the Wiki as the way I was editing was taking too much time (in a way that would have had very serious real life consequences). Also, I was not contributing in a very constructive way.
On the latter point, I wish I had spent more time editing articles and writing reviews. I wish I had spent a lot less time arguing and insisting on having things my way. I think we both would benefit from caring less about Wiki.
Thanks for helping out. It's a freaking mess, and it's an FA. I threw in something about how H pylori evolved out of Africa with human migration, about 58,000 years ago, so Ken Ham and other YEC'ers are going to be kicking both of our manuses. Manusi? Hmmmm. Help out more, if you've got the time. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions05:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Assignment
Wikipedia Project:
The dreaded “Research Paper” is a standard hurdle for most AP Programs. Rightfully so - being that many college courses require such publication to validate your existence. As a consequence, I have graded literally hundreds of papers with the same enthusiasm as my students proclaimed during their creation.
In the end, they were rewarded for their effort or destroyed for their incompetency. The papers themselves merely contributed to our overly bloated landfills.
Hence, my excitement over my new approach to constructing a scientific document using Wikipedia. As all of you are aware, Wikipedia is an information data base framed around the encyclopedia concept that is open for anyone to edit. Rather than researching for a paper that is destined to the circular bin… let us contribute to the world-wide data base for others to benefit.
The assignment:
1) Construct an entry in Wikipedia covering any biological topic. Survive the “speedy” deletions, and critical reviews that have thus far ensured Wikipedia is both current and accurate.
2) To receive a (93) … the article must reach Good Article status.
3) To reach the level of perfection with a grade of (100)… Featured Article status is in order.
4) Finding yourself banned from Wikipedia makes completing this project somewhat challenging.
You may create your article from the bottom – up or adopt an existing article that is not already at FA or GA status.
To find me in the Wiki-World: [1]
Where the answers are: [2]
Step 4: Apply for GA status. If you pass that hurdle and truly want the challenge - attempt FA.
Notes:
Clearly procrastination would be self-destructive. The challenge is formidable; perhaps even more than you may realize. The key is an early start; allowing you multiple attempts at the GA / FA status. My editing on Introduction to Evolution survived three efforts to delete and two failed GA attempts before finally reaching the FA mark.
Collaboration is the key, Wikipedia is a community project. Success or failure hinges very much on alliances. There are brilliant people involved in the project – collaborate with them. Of course, you must navigate the minefield of personalities to make that happen.
Warning: I can track all your actions. Nothing is ever truly deleted since your “history” on Wikipedia is a matter of public record. The account you provide for me to monitor is an extension of this school and reflects on this class. You are not immune to my persecution. If wish to go rogue; I highly recommend creating a different account for that purpose.
Maintain anonymity. You are not here to find a relationship – that would represent a new level of nerd-dom.
Keep me posted; if you encounter an antagonist that is not following Wikipedia policy then there are resolutions. At no point have I thrown you to the wolves. --JimmyButler (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess you know about the success in the spring of a university class whose professor - User:jbmurray - did just what you've assigned. see Wikipedia:WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem. The fellow has written a couple of essays on his experience.
I was involved in the experience and it was neat to see non-wikipedians confront some of the weirdness of Wikipedia ...and survive. They produced several FA articles.
I hope your AP class has as much fun...especially if they produce several GA and FA biology articles. Good luck. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You might want to give a heads-up to the FA-Team. Through pure luck, they got involved very early in Jbmurray's project ... and actually spent more time getting the articles through the GA process than the FA...I'd also give a shout-out to every relevant project talk page. The earliest problems were the expected ones...deletion of stubs. Also, you might want to start a project page. Of course, you might have known or done all of these things already! I haven't been looking too carefully. Starting in Sept... ie in a week...I'll be spending more time on Wikipedia so then I will ramp up and help where I can. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually had an old friend from Seattle help me with that! Ha! I am not that computer savvy to come up with such a neat bio on my own. FoodPuma (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, sorry i never did this... actually i just saw it... but could you help me make a page for my anaconda topic... i dont know how to make a page in which i can start typing on... thank you and i look forward to seeing you in class tommorrow...
Dorkstar17 (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course! What could be more exciting thn the biological study of one of the biggest snakes in the world that squeezes the life out of its victims.
Dorkstar17 (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Your class is moving much faster than the university students...I'll stop with the comments for now and will become active as material gets close to B class. On the project page, it would help if all the articles that are being worked on were wiki-linked. On the weekend, I'll create a AP Biology 2008 Project banner that you can plaster on every article's talk page. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Optimistic - me too!
Thanks for the message. I've been watching (stalking you?), and I am eager to see how it develops. I'll make sure to do some interacting with some of them (in the nicest possible way, of course). BTW, what age are these kids? I'm afraid terms like "AP Biology" and "10th grade" mean SFA over here (though I notice that particular meaning of SFA does not appear at SFA - must do something about that). Now, if only there was a good online encyclopedia where I could look up those funny foreign terms ... Oh - and congratulations on the initiative! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful project!
I think this is a great idea! I'm sure you already know about Jbmurray and his successful Latin-American literature project. You might talk to him to get some pointers about a class wikiproject. You might suggest a list of potential articles that you think the students are capable of writing and researching within the allotted time. Notice also this workshop in December. Wouldn't it be cool to connect the students with real scientists? I'll leave a note on Proteins page and see what we can do. Awadewit (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the encouragement and the links! I'm very excited about the project myself. The GA status is a lofty goal. I felt we needed some standard to measure our progress. I promised them a parade if any of them make FA. Of course, the real-world experiences in research and composition are the primary motivations from my perspective as the teacher. One has broken out of the gate at a full gallop FoodPuma with his efforts on Osteochondritis dissecans. I expect others will soon follow? --JimmyButler (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
You might like to take a look at the Croatan High School article: "However, they only spend about $1.04 worth of food for each student's lunch, resulting a cardboard taste and texture." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I was slightly confused when adding book citations. Under the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) it says to list Book Citations under "Further Reading" instead of "References" - however citing the material in-article automatically puts it into the reference list... I will check with you tomorrow if placing Book references in a separate section (EG: "Further Reading") is necessary. FoodPuma (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
"Further reading" ought to be sources a reader will consult after having read the wikipedia article...sort of a next level. "References" are for in-line citations. Note that Manual of Styles can change too ..like everything else on Wikipedia...and the various sub-MoS can offer contraditory advice. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me butting in -- among medical wiki editors, the preference is usually to discourage adding unlinked items at the end of the article, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Citing_medical_sources. Instead, whether it is a book, journal, or website, you should try to find a specific statement in the wiki page that the resource supports (or add a new statement if none exists), and then add a reference to that resource using ref tags. (This website can save a lot of time -- for example, you can type in an ISBN number for a book and get back every field but the page number.) --Arcadian (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh my.... all those hours of pain painstakingly keying in the references in Introduction to Evolution entry ... never knowing these existed! I'll try not to be bitter. This is a major bit of knowledge for the students that I will certainly share. I've transferred the information to the Project's discussion page for student viewing... thanks. --JimmyButler (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
If it is any consolation, we've all been there. I can sympathise more than you know. I'm sorry I didn't know about you and your projects before. KillerChihuahua?!?01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
If anyone needs a "practice" article to hone your editing skills, let me suggest this one. Croatan High School It is in sad shape so I doubt if you can do it any harm. At least upload a picture or something. Some references to the enormous number of academic achievement --- cited ---- or just a reference to the school's phenomenal Biology Department would be nice!? --JimmyButler (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Its good to be back... surrounded by my army of enthusiastic editors (whether they like it or not). Delighted to see that you are still fighting the good fight.
That is disappointing; but I suspected as much. The article, Evolution on Simple Wikipedia, that he was instrumental in development, has transformed into a rather strange (my opinion) commentary on historical controversy of evolution. I was curious as to his thoughts. Maybe his Wiki break will be only temporary.--JimmyButler (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The College to High School component may make this a bit weighted! But what my students lack in experience, they will more than make up in dedication! I took a quick look at their user pages... sure, I'll take the challenge. --JimmyButler (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying our user pages are... less than brilliant?! Heh. Maybe. But try submitting a user page to WP:FAC!! Anyhow, a big shout-out to Wassupwestcoast, though of course I'm disappointed that a fellow west-coaster should be defecting to the East (not to mention the South!). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
This is very cool, Jimmy! I've been mostly lurking in the background, because I found myself wasting too much time here instead of learning and contributing. On the other hand, this project of yours is truly a wonderful example of how one should spend time on the Wiki. :)
I was so hoping you were out there watching. If the little buggers weren't intimidated before; they sure will be when I tell them on Monday about the challenge!!! It should be fun thou... feel free to jump in anytime.--JimmyButler (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure he caught your post and no doubt agreed that there is much similarity. User:Wassupwestcoast posted the merger tag. The merger seems like the best solution from my perspective as well. I'll need to carefully compare the two before commenting on the discussion page. I think Chris is for the merger as well and it is his topic choice. You may want to lend your support as well.--JimmyButler (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, after reading through both articles, I don't think they require a merge! Seems to me like Human Anatomy could be a sub-topic of Human Body... —Preceding unsigned comment added by FoodPuma (talk • contribs) 02:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think the article I am currently editing (I am careful not to call it my article) is thorough in most sections (some, EG: "Surgical Treatment," definitely need help). I know it's information needs to be expanded with more references, but do you think it appropriate to start asking for informal reviews/peer reviews? I had added it to the peer review list after seeing that most articles are blacklisted several weeks... What are your ideas? FoodPuma (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I searched around and found this article on the same topic: Coronary artery disease It is just under a different name, like you had said it might be. This one has a lot more information, but I am guessing this is not considered a stub article for me to edit...?--LNG123 (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Request to Change Article Selection
Hello Mr. Butler.
After conferring with you yesterday about my topic, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, I concluded that I may need to reconsider my topic selection due to its obscurity and limited access, in terms of information availability. My alternative topic choices are Introduction to Metabolism or Introduction to Bacteria. Would you suggest that I pursue one of these two topics of interest? If not, I can always continue perusing or work with what I already have.
If I may intrude -- getting Mycobacterium tuberculosis up to FA would be of much greater benefit to mankind, and finding free sources will be easier than you think. The following URL will limit your search to free, English-language review journal articles with "Mycobacterium tuberculosis" in the title (because the URL has a bracket in it, you will need to copy-and-paste it into your browser, rather than just click on it):
I saw you Biology Assignment wikiproject and was amazed beyond measure. Not only is it a brilliant idea but if the outcome is a good at what we all think it will be you would have done a great service for wikipedia. It is nice to see some more of the younger generations getting involved in this project. Many Thanks Prom3th3an (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
PS: This may come in useful for the Students editors
Thank you for your kind words. My task has been easy; the challenge to the students is formidable. Only time will tell if a significant number rise up and prevail. I'm optimistic. The help template could indeed be handy -- I'll pass on the information to the Project page. --JimmyButler (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you be dismissed for root beer? In BC probably, pop has been banned from school vending machines :-) Anyway, the point system and the deadline look pretty good to me... (at UBC apparently because of liquor advertising laws...beer nights are always advertised bzzr nights....beer BAD ...bzzr GOOD) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
GA Nomination
Well, I nominated OCD for "GA" status and ended the short-lived peer review. Any suggestions on getting people to review it faster? Ha! FoodPuma (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Well... just from browsing FA articles on WP:MED I have found that they usually contain in upwards of 100 sources, as well as through sections on the history of the disease, prognosis, cultural impact etc... Unfortunatly OCD is not quite as well known (as you noted) and is a relatively new discovery (first surgery to correct it was in the 50's or 60's if memory serves). Its also quite unknown even within the orthopedic community... as you may have noticed, I had to include "uncertain etiology" even though I had 6 or 7 sources because each case study I've come across can never seem to definitively list a set of causes (and they contradict each other sometimes).
The one thing I have going for me is it's incidence in animals - as most of the other sections (excluding prognosis... which is clearly lacking) have most of their respective finite information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FoodPuma (talk • contribs) 00:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
CSD :(
Seems like one of your students articles got CSD'ed. The Reason was "01:59, 21 September 2008 Wassupwestcoast (Talk | contribs) deleted "Petella femoral syndrome" (G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible: mis-spelled title. no content) "
I see where the article was deleted; however, I do not see a record of such an article being created or edited by my student in their contribs. record. I'll investigate --JimmyButler (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks! The short answer regarding B-class: it is meaningless. They are assigned without oversight. Only FA class has a rigourous process. GA has a process with assessment oversight. There is also a recall process and a regular 'sweep' of the articles to catch the bad ones. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading your comments...your surprise - aka enlightment- at some of the reference choices should be mitigated by the experience of the university class in the spring. They originally did no better. It wasn't until the FA process did the university students really began to look critically at a reference. I don't know if you can influence your lot but they really should do a GA review themselves and even offer comments at FA. Not only will they build a lot of Wiki-good-will but their article building will go faster with a bit of experience. Some of the criticism of the university students and the time spent by some very good Wiki editors is summed up here:
My concern, as I expressed earlier elsewhere, is that y'all spent a lot of time grooming editors who won't stay on Wiki, and won't take advantage of the priviliege of having learned from Wiki's finest FA writers ...
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
As for GA and FA reviewing myself, I doubt I'll do any at this project because I won't have time until mid-Nov and I agree with you about conflict-of-interest. I think I'll play the role of sheep dog...mostly snoozing and every so often herding a stray sheep. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I used the template shown to us in class to cite i think my second sentance on thursday night. i dont know why it didnt show up. should i do it again or cite a different sentance? i made sure it worked on thursday and it did.--Mmc cyclone (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Article Citation Correction
Mr. Butler,
I ventured out and cited an article on the Acerbo Law. My reference is the only one for that article, so it should be listed as the first citation. Thank you again for the opportunity to fix the mistake.
I was perusing Wikipedia, and I determined that there are two Start Class articles of Top Importance that I find very intriguing. They are Cell Theory and Protein biosynthesis. Would you suggest staying with Introduction to Metabolism, the article I have pending, or could I select one of these topics? Would Cell Theory be more of a lucrative opportunity for FA status?
Hmmm...picking a common and easy to research creature is a lucrative opportunity for FA status. Intro to Metabolism, Cell Theory and Protein biosynthesis are the opposite...they are comparative nightmares. All three are going to require a considerable amount of sophisticated reading and analysis to end up writing a comprehensive overview of the topic chosen...which is what an encyclopedia article is. Keep the topic simple. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I too am perplexed by the topic selections. If I had assigned a "simple" research paper for class I would not be seeing these rather highly specialized, overly complex topics. First and fore-most pick a topic that you are interested in. If protein biosynthesis is your passion ... then so be it. Otherwise, find a cute, warm, fuzzy little creature. Naked Mole Rat. --JimmyButler (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
<undent>I wandered by this page (as I do from time to time) and have to agree with JB. Naked mole rats are incredibly interesting, and their article here stinks. Also, the Damaraland mole rat article is in even worse shape. I think students might be making their lives far more difficult than they need to be by choosing such complicated topics, and ignoring the low hanging fruit in some of these other areas.
Naked mole rats for example are not really naked, are not moles, and are not rats. Naked mole rats have colonies like ants (which is quite unusual for mammals). Naked mole rats are essentially cold-blooded mammals (again, extremely unusual). Naked mole rats often eat their own poop and feed it to their babies. Naked mole rats have wars when one colony encounters another. Naked mole rats have extremely efficient metabolisms that raise many scientific questions. Naked mole rats live in environments with very little oxygen. Naked mole rats eat mainly vegetable fiber which is digested by bacteria in their guts, so I would expect them to be doing a lot of farting in close quarters underground with no fresh air. Naked mole rats are essentially blind and feel almost no pain. Naked mole rats are extremely long lived for rodents and can live almost 30 years. Naked mole rats like to visit the colony bathroom chamber and roll in the poop and urine there, presumably to get the scent of the colony on them so they can feel part of the group; without this scent, they might not be recognized and will be attacked. There are lots of scientific mysteries associated with naked mole rats. There are lots of great sources about them in libraries and on the internet. The current Wikipedia article barely scratches the surface!--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The FA-Team wants to start a mission which includes your project. Since many of the mentors are already FA-Team members, this would just be a way to keep track of the support that already exists. Several of us (beyond mentors) have been helping your students anyway. If you have any objections, please let us know. Geometry guy21:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello JimmyButler. I've just recently signed on alongside the FA-Team to collaborate with your Biology-AP Project (I've already watchlisted and done some minor format copyediting on Cannonball Jellyfish) Just for my own knowledge (and because it will determine how I assist the students working on that page), what are the restrictions placed on me in terms of assistance? In previous projects for the FA-Team, restrictions were placed on our ability to assist in the finding sources. Would I be correct to assume that the same is true here? I look forward to working alongside your AP-Biology class for the next while. All the best, Cam(Chat)06:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a comment, as wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, what a teacher or professor does in his or her classroom is irrelevant to the wiki community. Evaluating the students' contributions to wikipedia has nothing to do with the wikipedia community. As long as a wiki editor follows, at a minimum, the policies of wikipedia then they are free to contribute. From the wiki side of things, restrictions on editors is a no go zone. Cheers. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't mean "restrictions" in that manner, but as an example, the FA-Team sort of has an unspoken rule that our job is to provide technical assistance in the areas of MoS, Copyediting, Copyright etc; not to add significant content to the pages we are assisting. I'm simply wondering if those same rules would apply to mentors and FA-Team assistants in this instance. It's not an official rule, it's just sort of unspoken. In this case, our job is to provide support, not research and write the article for them. That's my question to JimmyButler, not whether I'm fully banned from doing something or not. Cam(Chat)22:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
My deepest appreciation to those who are willing to offer the students assistance on this AP Biology project. It is my intent for the students to be responsible for the lion's share of the content as well as the necessary citations. Formatting, writing style, general organization, and grammar are the areas in which guidance would be greatly appreciated. It's a fine line between assistance and enablement!! I personally like the idea creating a list of concerns and allowing the the students to address the problems - much like is done during GA attempts. This project would be a substitution of a typical "research paper"; therefore, I'm hoping they don't get overwhelmed with html codes and citation generators. The focus from my perspective, is bringing credible content to the entries that is well sourced. That is their assigned task. If they fail to do that ... then they fail. Admittedly I am shooting from the hip here --- but I'm confident a balance can be achieved that assures this is a learning process for the students and that they will feel a sense of accomplishment when the project ends. I am very excited about the prospect of my students working with the brilliant and dedicated members of the Wikipedia community. This is an incredible learning opportunity for which I am most grateful. It may be challenging to shift from the editor mode to the mentor mode. There is a difference however; the latter requiring considerable patience. Please note, some of them are rather nervous and suffer self-doubt. They would likely appreciate a "list" to address as opposed to staring at a blank slate. But as I say, this is experimental; at least on my side. I can say, my students have already gained new respect for the challenges of literature reviews and the importance of credibility; therefore,the project in a major respect has already been successful from a teaching standpoint.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, in that regard you have indeed been successful, and I do commend you for it. Due to my somewhat above-average writing abilities (for a 16-year old, that is), I inevitably end up copyediting and/or proofreading many of my classmate's papers before the due date, and it surprises me, to this day, how few of them have learned that lesson. The more people who learn that lesson...the better. IMO, Wikipedia is likely the best place to learn it. Not to worry, I will definitely begin creating lists of "concerns/suggestions". I do a lot of Peer Reviewing through MILHIST, so the idea is somewhat familiar to me. Cam(Chat)05:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The FoodPuma
He hasn't edited since the 26th, so I'm assuming that he's not coming back for whatever reason (didn't like it, homework, friends, w/e =])... So will you just tell him to enjoy his 100? :D Thanks, —Ed17(Talk / Contribs)00:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Amazing commentary considering the enormous amount of work Max has invested in the article. Someone fail it for GA -- list the problems --- and he will fix them. --JimmyButler (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, JimmyButler. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I don't believe he meant it in spite or malice Mr. Butler, however I do believe we shall see it passed or failed within the week as Axl is now reviewing and I have addressed many of the issues he presented. Perhaps I shouldl sacrifice a lamb to appease the Wiki Gods in this quest of mine! FoodPuma21:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia AP Biology Project
I know someone with an interest in birth, so HannahSharpe would be a good choice. Otherwise any student who is interested in getting feedback and improving their article would be fine. Wronkiew (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Scholastic attrition
Just realized I was replying to a comment of yours on a third party talk page. Anyway, it is super OK to delete the project banner on talk pages if no longer appropriate. Deleting peer review requests is fairly straight forward. I closed the peer review on the 'knee' article. The other peer review was closed by another admin. Condolences on the scholastic attrition. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Black mamba PR
Thanks for the kind note. Not to worry. I suspect that quite a few of the PRs I do may not be acted on or may be acted on in slapdash fashion. Even so, nothing is wasted. The articles and the reviews, even the ones that are ignored, still exist, and future editors may pick up where the old ones left off. I'm glad you are encouraging and empowering your students. You never know when one of them who seemed to have dropped out will reappear and take hold. Finetooth (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding that, I had came about a page on wikipedia that stated google image search provided free content images, and was unsure of the appropriate license to choose. I understand that this gives me no right to upload them but I deduced that if it was free then must have GNU license. If I could get any help regarding the subject please let me know. Such as how to use the images I had previously used.--Dondevoy01 (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
RE: AP Biology 2008 update
Hey, hope you're handling the drop-rate fine. don't worry, the same thing happened to my classes with IB Physics HL (47 @ start of year, now there's 16 of us) & IB Chemistry HL (55 @ start of year, there's now 23 of us). Smaller class sizes are good for IB and AP. In the meantime, I'll try and get some comments in on the GANs and B-class articles that the project has. Excellent work so far! Cam(Chat)00:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this minor issue over citation might be interesting for your class, because on Wikipedia, the style of the first major editor is usually respected, and so their viewpoint is paramount. In other words, here is a situation where they can overrule teacher if they have good reason :-). But to do so requires taking responsibility. There's plenty to learn (beyond biology) there! Geometry guy23:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
In regards to the multiple citations for the microbiological threats to the Northern river otter, that piece of information came from the IUCN redlist website.
North American river otters host numerous endoparasites such as nematodes (Hoberg et al. 1997), cestodes (Greer 1955), trematodes (Hoover et al. 1984), the sporozoan Isopora (Hoover et al. 1984), and acanthocephalans (Hoberg et al. 1997; Hoover et al. 1984). Ectoparasites include ticks (Eley 1977; Serfass et al. 1992), sucking lice Latagophthirus rauschi (Kim and Emerson 1974), and the flea Oropsylla arctomys (Serfass et al. 1992).
For some reason, the passage is a conglomerate of various sources. As a result, I could perhaps look for similar information that can be traced to one source or cite the bundle as "IUCN Redlist..." since that was where the fragments were compiled. Here's the link to the website: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/12302
Thank you for the input. The points you have brought up are now my priority. I'll get the article cleaned up (deletion of lists, reduce redundant citations, etc. – all that good stuff) and hopefully I can get it promoted...
I forgot to mention–my more specific responses to your advice are posted below where you left them on the river otter talk page (standard response style). This is to just note that the messages have been received and the suggestions have been used to improve the article.
I think I have put it up for GA Review. I would have done it earlier but I have been doing a lot of family stuff over the holidays. Hopefully it will go as quickly as Endomembrane System. Eulemur2008 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I seem to have been swept up in the otter vortex. If all goes well, I should be able to stick with the otters until march. Comparing the other two otter articles, and seriously exploring the literature, I think FA is within reach...without me becoming anything but a Wikisloth :-) Happy New Year. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you've confused me. My edit was made at 10:42 am my time. I don't think I've made any edits in the past year at 3 in the morning. The earliest are about 5 am when I get up! Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Meant for future reference - in case you do get sucked into the vortex! Although 5 am may constitute a Wiki sickness of some sort!--JimmyButler (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I finally received a review on North American River Otter. [User:DanaBoomer|DanaBoomer] conducted a very fine review. The examination was very thorough and precise. The only downside to that is that it will take more time to meet the standards than I originally anticipated. I presume on the final stretch...
Much thanks for fixing the very immature vandalism on my page. Also, is there a way to edit the main title of an article, I was told that renameing my article "Human" musculoskeletal system would narrow my topic and better my chances for a review when being reviewed for GA.
Cheers! Dondevoy01 (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome!
I am a teacher by neither trade nor inclination, but I will take your comments on my possible success in that field as compliments! I have enjoyed working with both Yohmom and Wikitrevor - their interactions on and contributions to Wikipedia seem intelligent and mature, far beyond many 10th graders I come into contact with in my real life. There is not much work left to do before River Otter makes it to GA, and I would love to see Yohmom try for an FA with Banker Horse. Both of these students take criticism and comments better than some adults I've interacted with on Wikipedia, and their contributions have only made Wikipedia better. I hope they have enjoyed their experience, and that they continue their contributions after the assignment is over. Dana boomer (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
River Otter GA
Hello Mr. Butler.
Thank you very much for the Barnstar. This project has been unparalled; it's like no other. I have had the best time writing an article for the world's most heavily utilized encyclopedia. Thank you for your guidance and assistance along the way.
I realize that you indicated you helped bring the article to FA status, but 10 edits? I'm not quite sure about the significance of your edits (how much they added, etc.), but still, 10 edits? And also, the river otter article is at FAC. Ceran→//forge01:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Interesting comment to leave on ones user page. I guess the response should be: Thank you for your concern over my involvement with Wikipedia. Please review the history of the article under user name User talk:Random Replicator or view this user page where I reference my somewhat turbulent past efforts on Wikipedia. --JimmyButler (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)--Random Replicator (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the reassurance, I was very glad to hear it. I will try to continue this project with my best efforts and proper, polite acknowledgement of helpful critique. My adverse reaction to the user was, in part, due to my inclination that it was a classic case of sock puppetry, but I suppose it was rather a user just trying to help. I'm normally able to "take the heat," and I am not sure why I couldn't keep it together this time (apart from "assuming" vandalism, even though it was just a good review). Again, thank you for your advice and support.
Yes... Well, I think your change is more than adequate. But what was with all that stuff about adding long Darwin quotes about morality? And I notice some serious rewriting and extending going on in the lead. I fear over-complication creep, born of a need to get everything 100% accurate, at the expense of clarity and ease of reading. Reminds me somewhat of events a year ago, and there is at times a rather combative tone in the talk-page comments, too. I think the new arrival on the block is genuinely well-intentioned, but I'm not sure he has grasped the concept of an introductory article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
IQ and populations
To support my claims!It would seem that even though this does not show birthrate per say, it does indicate a higher birthrate via higher populations: Check me out! :-) FoodPuma23:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Before you take up the banner for social engineering --- read this [5] I was thinking that Taiwan had actually enacted such an experiment.--JimmyButler (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi... I have left some comments at User talk:Strombollii which I hope are helpful. You're right - you cannot make the student's grade depend solely on the actions of complete (and sometimes incompetent) strangers - but you surely can use what happens on WP as part of a grading system that you yourself retain ultimate control of. And the fact that the article has now been delisted, and has attracted some more attention from interested physicians and the like can only be a good thing - both for WP and for the student. The checks and balances in the WP system will surely mean that in the end the assessment of the WP community will be an accurate and useful means of grading. Yes, it's subjective, but no more so than most things in life. The main trouble, as I see it, is one of deadlines. You presumably have to assign a grade now, but it will take some time more for the WP process to run its course. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This was very careless of me, but regarding the necessary edits per week, it seems as if I forgot to logon to my account when editing... Therefore my most recent edit was done by my IP: 24.25.45.161...
My apologies, Dondevoy01 (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hullo! If you haven't taken a look (recently) at osteochondritis dissecans, I suggest you mossey on over and check out some crafty new images I've uploaded! Also, fancy new copyediting and tables (with regards to Malleus Fatuorum, Mccready and Axl.) Oh, and before I forget, more info and citations! Yay! It seems FA is not too far to grasp! FoodPuma20:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Not only are the attempting to strike down those diagram (images) on the assumption that the doctor who gave me permission to publish them here is not the author or sole copyright holder, now they attack my own personal images I uploaded! Take a look at this and tell me that is not "bs". I can't believe I am possibly "in the wrong" on this one - I mean, it was released to me by my doctor after surgery and I have the original (there are no copies)... can I not upload this file and, as the author and sole copyright holder, release it to the public? Apparently they think I took it off a website and am claiming it as my own... when will the madness end?! Argh! FoodPuma01:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Max. The release email - formalizes the rights of use to protect Wikipedia from copy vio. Your best bet is to email a copy of the permission letter to the owner and get a written as opposed to a verbal statement of release. It does beg the question as to who is the legal owner of the photograph. The x-ray tech? the hospital? the doctor who authorized the image? or the person who actual paid the bill? Crap maybe you need a release from your insurance company. Have your father - (assuming you are covered under his policy) complete the email permission form and submit it. They just need something on record. --JimmyButler (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
He actually referenced the dilemia of "who is the true copyright holder" in his response (on his talk page). Check it out if you have time, I posted what I thought was a pretty good defense for my status as owner of the films: Trypohn's talk page thread on my image. FoodPuma20:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I just got image rights (of the diagrams) approved by the author for OTRS and sent the forwarded copy in to permissions. Hopefully we'll have verification complete within the next couple days and I can go ahead and nominate it. In the mean time, if you wouldn't mind looking for MoS issues and/or things like sentence fluency, I would appreciate it. I find myself in a bind for time between school and work (what a paradox, one and the same for you!), so any help is always a sight for sore eyes. Amazing how far we've come, eh? :-) FoodPuma01:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
With all image permissions taken care of, and OTRS verification awaiting only the 4 diagrams left (as well as support by my "[6]." I'll "jump the cliff" this weekend, image restrictions permitting. Cheers! FoodPuma22:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I very much appreciate the way the discussion on endomembrane system turned out. Wanted to warn about a complication in Human musculoskeletal system. I have entered similar criticism for both articles. Since this was after GA for one of them and before for the other, this may create differences in the opposition they receive in their GA evaluations. --Ettrig (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
[[7]] Refers to a case similar to the one that I mentioned in class today. Or maybe it's the same and wasn't nearly as recent as I thought. Strombollii (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Had to revert one of Una Smith'sedits tonight. She went back and made an additional fix to something I overlooked (reverting it completely back to my original work). She then edited the caption twice: first moving "sow" (non-contributing/helpful edit) and then creating a strange grammar catch by moving "arrow indicates..."
I already posted on both her talk page and Montanabw(talk)'s; hopefully she won't derail my FA by causing a quick-fail based on too many edits/edit wars and/or Montanabw will ask an admin to limit her damage. FoodPuma02:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
FoodPuma, some people who represent themselves as your friend are not your friend and do not act in your best interest; instead, they try to use you. You seem to think my many constructive contributions to the OCD article equal edit warring. In fact, my contributions represent many hours of hard work to save a sinking FAC from failure. You asked WP:MED for help; I helped. WP:MED participants include many admins, and many contributors to the OCD article are admins. Your remarks on numerous user talk pages on Feb 21 were more than enough to sabotage the FAC. Lucky for you, I disengaged for several weeks, and during that time no decision was made on the FA. (I was surprised, frankly, to find the FAC still open when I returned.) Do you think the article would have made it to FA without my help and my forbearance? You nearly sabotaged the FAC a second time this weekend, with your "asinine" remark (diff). Why? Someone offered you poison, a dose of hate, and you drank it.
From your contributions, here is just a small selection:
02:34, 21 February 2009 User talk:JimmyButler (→Edit wars for the lose: Una Smith)
02:34, 21 February 2009 User talk:JimmyButler (→Edit wars for the lose: I. Hate. Una Smith.)
02:27, 21 February 2009 User talk:JimmyButler (→There seems to be a war in our midst)
02:18, 21 February 2009 User talk:Una Smith (→Suggestions for you that might help me: new section)
02:12, 21 February 2009 User talk:Montanabw (→Osteochondritis dissecans FAC (and Una))
02:11, 21 February 2009 User talk:Una Smith (→Disambiguation pages)
00:43, 21 February 2009 User talk:Montanabw (→Osteochondritis dissecans FAC (and Una): new section)
For the record, the "war in our midst" was referring to an edit feature (seeing past pages, not the most recent page... I believe) I read up on after looking at another editors page. It had nothing to do with you. Any who, that is besides the point and a formal apology is waiting at your talk page. FoodPuma19:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Star of barns
For encouraging young minds to explore knowledge and share information, a well-deserved barnstar! JFW / T@lk21:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
On Humility
One of the multitude of outcomes this project hopes to develop is the gaining of experience on navigating the mine-field of personalities that form this community. The ability to stay focused on the message and not the messenger is a social skill that requires cultivating. Many opt not to attempt FA status because of the conflicts of ego and attitude that occasionally crop up during the process. Ironically, some of the most talented and aggressive editors are "very confident people". FoodPuma commentaries and quips regarding the contributions of Una Smith were extremely out of line. To some degree they were influenced by those around him and to some degree an aspect of inexperience and youth. Fortunately, I saw where he addressed this short-coming on the talk page. Hopefully, his apology was sincere.
The combination of Wikipedia and Class assignment has posed some interesting challenges. The students were encouraged to locate "fringe articles" ie. stubs or low profile subjects; thinking perhaps they could take some degree of ownership without offending other editors. Could you image this project if a student adopted heavily edited - high profile articles. Foodpumas selection allowed him to take an article which essentially was one or two lines and develop it to a FA candidate. In doing so; he perhaps got caught up in ownership issues.
From a teacher's perspective, I had hoped that more experience editors would come in an offer suggestions for improvement - which may or may not be successfully incorporated in the article by my students. For the most part, this is exactly what has happened. In this case, this situation shifted from coaching the student through the process, to aggressive editing directly to the article. From the standpoint of a teacher; this is disappointing. The students success or failure would best be judged on their own merits. From the standpoint of a student who had carried the article from a stub to full text - direct edits were intrusive and intimidating. Of course, there is absolutely no guidelines or protocol that limits editing of an article adopted by such a project as this. In fact, the banner at the top makes no claim of ownership. The reality is - the students do feel a sense of ownership. So when suggestions become direct changes -even as they protest - during the FA process, the frustrations develop. When claims are made that the student's efforts would have failed dismally if not for a particular editor's intervention; then the entire point of the educational process is lost and the merit behind the student's accomplishment is gravely diminished. It takes patience to guide students; it is far easier to intervene and influence outcome. It's unfortunate that you feel FoodPuma's effort fell short and your skills were essential in making the article FA.
What I found - and my students are discovering for themselves - is that there is no shortage of "confident individuals" in the academic world. Perhaps they will grasp the value of a little humility before this is all over.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment This has been on my mind all day and some things are clear to me.
First, Wikipedia would not have a featured article on Osteochondritis dissecans if FoodPuma had not chosen a neglected little stub and worked so hard improving it.
Second, and to answer Una's question, yes I think it would have achieved FA without her input—actually, I think it would have been promoted sooner. Una's style of collaborating is often very difficult to accommodate and to be blunt, my spirits sank when her first review appeared at FAC. It is unfortunate that whenever our paths cross on Wikipedia, I mainly see acrimony in her wake—and this has not been an exception. Mr. Butler, I would have chosen another expression for "confident individual" and the word "bully" immediately springs to mind. I saw FoodPumas edit summaries and they did not bother me. If she/he had written (Osteochondritis dissecans (and Graham)), I would have taken it as a compliment. Had one said (I hate Graham), given the age difference, I would have interpreted this positively too. I have lost count of the number of times my students have said "I hate you" when I have pointed-out mistakes. Una, for someone who speaks her mind, you seem to have a very thin skin. What is nasty is your accusing another editor of offering "a dose of hate". This is unforgivable. It is ironic that despite your seeming to enjoy the success of this FAC on other pages, you never withdrew your opposition.
Third, substantial edits by "third parties" are not uncommon at FAC. I think they can be very positive, after all this is much better than being ignored, and to me it shows that editors who may have opposed still think that the article can succeed. Everyone, well everyone I have interacted with on Wikipedia, loves to see articles promoted to FA. I felt on occasions that FoodPuma was slow to respond and this might have encouraged others to be bold and she/he was a little dismissive at times. Mr. Butler, you called this tenacity, I recall. This is a good thing; stubbornness is not.
What is not entirely clear to me is what the Project expects from Wikipedia. We are not a free publishing house just for authors to present their work to the world. Wikipedia is about passing on knowledge freely and effectively. To achieve this all thoughts of ownership must be cast aside. I remember, fondly, another (annoyed) editor telling Tim Vickers that someone had published DNA as a book. Tim's response was something along the lines of "Cool, I'm glad someone found it useful". Today, Hepatitis B virus (on which I have worked very hard) was split in two without my knowledge and who knows, where there was once one GA perhaps two FAs will emerge. But I digress, there are other articles by the project still in the pipeline and I am particularly interested in the progress of Phagocyte. But there is no doubt in my mind that the eventual FA version of this article will be radically different from the present GA. Once an article is nominated for FA the Rubicon has been crossed and ego has to be left behind.
JimmyButler, I was concerned from the outset about how your game rules put your students in conflict with Wikipedia norms. A great Wikipedia article usually is a team effort, and it is asking a lot, perhaps too much, to expect Wikipedians to ever so gently guide your students into writing something, rather than writing it ourselves. Good measures of success in collaborative work differ from those usually applied to individual work. One measure of success in collaborative work is the ability to recruit and retain helpers. FoodPuma asked for help, but when help came in the form of editing the article, FoodPuma became hostile, which is understandable if FoodPuma's grade was at risk. That is where your rules put your students in conflict with our customs. Your rules created a built-in conflict of interest for your students. So, if there is a next time, please think about how to align your rules with Wikipedia's own values. --Una Smith (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm being overly defensive - but - I'm not entirely certain that your approach was in the spirit of Wikipedia and collaboration. Collaboration would have been more discussion and far less editing. Changes made in content and organization without dialog and against the protest of the lead editor is not collaboration. If such an approach had been taken with more experienced editors; their responses would have been no less antagonistic - only more sophisticated. What I have seen in this project - with this one exception - are editors who offer suggestions on the talk page; then patiently wait for them to be discussed before they are incorporated into the article. Not because of any rules of the game - but merely because that is collaboration.--JimmyButler (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Yohmom, your experience of Wikipedia is not the norm here. It is not the norm to do as you describe, which in effect is to seek permission from an owner or gatekeeper. What you describe is accommodation for your project. At some point your project ends. In fact, I thought it had ended. --Una Smith (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Seems like I never logged out when I used Mr. Butler's computer today. The comment you responded to was authored by him. I'll fix the signatures to avoid any further confusion. --Yohmom (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
There are many aspects to this "problem". But I don't think good edits by collaborators are in conflict with the students interest. As soon as "ownership" has been established, the goals are GA and FA. There are many ways to get lucky. One seems to be that others do a large part of the job. And then there are even more ways to get unlucky. My general view of this project is that it is one of the pioneers in a potentially extremely valuable movement in Wikipedia. We should therefore be open to changes in the Wikipedia culture that might be needed to provide a good environment for such projects. --Ettrig (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Now that's a good point and so well put and that I going to quote it "this project is one of the pioneers in a potentially extremely valuable movement in Wikipedia. We should therefore be open to changes in the Wikipedia culture that might be needed to provide a good environment for such projects". Graham ColmTalk21:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
A tad lengthy - but should shed some light - or skip to the last paragraph
My own expectations for the project were not exactly clear,in that I have never traveled this road before. My attempt to offer guidance to the mentors from the Project page - I will re-state here in an effort to even further muddy the waters.
My deepest appreciation to those who are willing to offer the students assistance on this AP Biology project. It is my intent for the students to be responsible for the lion's share of the content as well as the necessary citations. Formatting, writing style, general organization, and grammar are the areas in which guidance would be greatly appreciated. It's a fine line between assistance and enablement!! I personally like the idea creating a list of concerns and allowing the students to address the problems. Admittedly I am shooting from the hip here --- but I'm confident a balance can be achieved that assures this is a learning process for the students and that they will feel a sense of accomplishment when the project ends.
I trust that the students will conduct themselves in an appropriate manner and at no time will their behavior be problematic. They do understand that their actions reflect on the class and school and they are being held accountable. Should any concerns arise, please contact me through the email option. I am very excited about the prospect of my students working with the brilliant and dedicated members of the Wikipedia community. This is an incredible learning opportunity for which I am most grateful. Please note, some of them are rather nervous and have considerable self-doubt. In time, they will overcome ... just a little patience! If you have adopted one of my lost souls; I will add your user name next to theirs on this page along with the topic.
Due to the nature of Wikipedia - my control over editing is non-existent; hence my reluctance to invoke powers I don't have. I had envisioned minimal editing by mentors - which I'm glad I did not insist upon. The collaboration and mutual editing has been a more satisfactory experience for all concerned. Sharing the battle for FA / GA with allies has worked out better than I would have anticipate - phagocytosis is a stellar example. Those who have not been fortunate enough to discover a collaborator are the ones with diminishing edits.
The problems arise when major edits and/or reverts of students work occur without explanation or consultation. Even worse is when their perspective is disregard out-right. That is the "confidence" to which I refer. In my tracking of the student's work that has been minimal.
In the rare case where a student is adamant their way is better - then I would prefer (assuming it's not content related) that we let them proceed and fail - if that is the predicted outcome. That aspect of the project unfortunately is in conflict with Wiki principles. But that aspect is part of the "teaching process". Mentors exhibiting "extreme confidence" fall short of the teaching process by taking control of the article - perhaps assuming that FA is the project's ultimate goal. It is not the goal - it is the incentive.
I will, in future attempts, reduce the amount of time for the project. Having students drift in and out has likely lead to frustrations on the mentors part - so much so that some have lost interest - as I stated above, I'm shooting from the hip this time around. I noticed that JMurrays crew (college students) worked sporadically until the very last minute - which frankly surprised me. Why my motley crew looks less polished may be attributed to the sporadic part being stretched out over a much longer span of time.
I think perhaps the exciting aspect for my students is the social interactions and the dynamics of so many personalities that involve themselves in the project. Perhaps, my minimal control of the outside influences may be what separates this from just another boring research paper. The students are as much interested in the talk pages as they are in editing. Case in point: User:Malleus Fatuorum has departed from Wikipedia; a topic of discussion and disappointment among my students! I think you would be amused and pleased at the level of regard they hold for their mentors/collaborators. As long as that is the case, I am willing to avoid micro-managing those relationships. I say --- lets see what we can all do for Banker Horse and let the fun continue!--JimmyButler (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
"I noticed that JMurrays crew (college students) worked sporadically until the very last minute - which frankly surprised me." Heh. College students are (or think they are) masters of waiting until the deadline kicks. Ideally, working on Wikipedia would teach them other habits. It doesn't always happen... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Any solutions - other than a compressed time-line? I've tried minimum edits per week .. to my amusement. "Large" becomes "Big" which is then edited to "Massive" ... etc. Have you found it hard to maintain the interest of their mentors; when editing is sporadic? Has there been any cases where they have lost "control" of their articles; because their collaborators got tired of waiting? Have you made any attempt to define "The Lion's Share" or is a measure of success in part your skills (luck) in recruiting active collaborators? You also mentioned your surprise that we are working solo. The concern over who actually contributed to the success/failure is already blurred between mentor and student - would it be even more so with the group approach? Just random thoughts - I'll revisit your page that likely addresses these issues in detail.--JimmyButler (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You know, I tried to implement some of these things on the second iteration. That second iteration, however, was significantly not as successful as the first. I plan to write up something about the less successful version at some point; I don't think NRG was overall a failure, but it certainly wasn't the all-round success that the MMM was. There are many reasons for this, not least that I myself didn't have so much time (especially towards the end of the semester). Though that goes to show that the exercise is indeed a big time investment. Anyhow, I'm still musing about this. Meanwhile, however, congrats on your guys' successes! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Can there be more checkpoints? Less content required per checkpoint. Just to get started: Two GA counts as one FA. Only one GA per term. That would halve the time period per article. Smaller change: Only if GA is achieved in first term can points for FA be scored in second term. The constraint to existing Wikipedia concepts is very constraining. --Ettrig (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
How about more endpoints and restarts, and smaller projects? For example, the objective for all students/teams is DYK or GA or whatever, until the first one achieves it. Then they all start over, and do it again. That way, they get to try some things over again, abandon what didn't work before, and refine what did work. I think that would be a richer learning experience and would engage more of the students. Also, it would somewhat remove the luck factor: when there is only one large project, some students will have far greater luck than others. With restarts, the luck may be spread a little more evenly. --Una Smith (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Una, I don't agree. I feel like I'm far more interested and attached to the topic I have now in that I'm stuck with it: there's no turning back, and in a way, I have no choice but to pursue it. To the above posts: I don't think there's much you can do, aside from alerting students that there will be "progress checks," much like the ones which have been established throughout the APBio08 project. It's a fact that students are going to procrastinate. Sure, certain things such as shorter time periods, assigned topics, mandatory edits, etc. would make the project appear to progress faster. But a flurry of work would still be done at 3 in the morning the day before the checkpoint. I feel like just saying "you need a PR by (x) date, or you get a 0" and "you need to have applied for GA by (y) date" is not only more fun for the student, who progresses on his own time, but more relative to a real-world experience. Such experience, I would argue, is vital for a student about to graduate high school, who actually will have to contend with (gasp) deadlines that may or may not be reasonable.
Essentially, my argument is that the way the project was structured was superb, and representative of a standard bell curve. You have the exemplary students, such as FoodPuma, who are dedicated from the get-go, the large clump in the middle (which I present myself as a fore-runner of), and the stragglers who have hardly made any progress. I see no reason to change it, except to inflate grades and boost egos -- neither of which should actually be present in an academic environment. Strombollii (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
YO! Don't complain against grade inflation! I need all of the extra fluff I can get!...but now that I think about it, I won't need any grade inflation next year. I'll no longer be a part of the project...so down with their GPA's!!--Yohmom (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
(@ Yohmom) - LOL.
(@ JimmyButler) - it was a very interesting experience, trying to help out an editor going to FA with a medical article (I'm a MILHIST guy, not medical at all (last bio class was freshman year in high school, I'm a sophomore in college now!)). Thank goodness I had Puma, who virtually taught himself everything. :/ So, I don't think that I would offer to mentor a bio student again (I really feel guilty about the lack of help I gave to Puma), but please point them my way for any of the beginning "how-to" stages (e.g. wikimarkup stuff). Actually, if you want, feel free to steal or link to this in the beginning days of the next project. :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs)04:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Ed, the summation provided will be most helpful. I'm now struggling between the roles of mentor vs. collaborator. However, I am very certain that having someone interested in their success has been a major motivator. There is a social dynamic to this project that is apparent when you listen to the classroom conversations. Your impact extends beyond the article itself - Foodpuma valued your encouragement as did I.--JimmyButler (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If the issue is over references; unfortunately yes. From what I can gather - some of the information did not align with the sources.I would perform a thorough references check to ascertain if the specific claim in the article is verified in that specific resource.--JimmyButler (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone seems to think that I've made a personal attack on, presumably, your student who took the Macaroni Penguin article through GAN.[8] I hope that (s)he isn't upset by anything I said, but please let him/her know that if I'd intended to make a personal attack the scorch marks would have gone down in legend. I was just trying to be a little laconic, with perhaps a touch of irony. --MalleusFatuorum03:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I even understand the thread - too cryptic for me I guess. The conversation / concern was not generated from my crew; their skin (feathers)are way thicker than that! Besides - I'm confident she is smart enough to get your humor. I can assure you we are all smiling on this side of the keyboard and are highly appreciative of your edits. When she stops celebrating - I'll remind her to acknowledge those who contributed to her success. --JimmyButler (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to invite you to this podcast about using Wikipedia as an educational tool. I thought your expertise would be an asset to the discussion! Awadewit (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy, I have deleted the AP Biology template from Talk:Phagocyte but feel sad that there is now no record of the AP Biology project. We need a template for successfully completed projects giving the dates. Graham. Graham ColmTalk17:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree - Perhaps something like this as a start:
This is great, I would prefer "intensively" to "actively" and is it possible to centre the middle line and use an endash instead of the forward slash? Graham. Graham ColmTalk19:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I dorked around with the formatting:
If anyone see a better way to achieve the same outcome -- feel free. My formatting skills are very primitive.
If you know how to adapt this to a template so that it can be saved as such - that would be nice too.
If you have a FA article, then insert the correct date and replace the current with this one. A legacy of your contributions!
If you have a GA; you too can use this template. However, leave the original until you are no longer editing for an FA attempt--JimmyButler (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It was selected by a student during the first semester of this course. Unfortunately, they dropped the course and with it their interest in Wikipedia. At least they are familiar and perhaps will return some day to edit. So by all means, embrace the Black Mamba! --JimmyButler (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Replication
Thanks for a glorious Wikipedia project. I hope you and your students are as proud of your achievements as you should be. One high school class added one per mille to the high quality material in the worlds by far largest encyclopedia. I had very much hoped that this pattern should be replicated to other educational entities. It is mind-blowing to think of what a resource the educational system could be to itself if a considerable percentage did what you did. Your idea of involving the English teacher is a very good one. The students could rightly be rewarded with double credits. I keep my hope that you will be back at a later time. --Ettrig (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The quality criteria and levels chosen in Wikipedia are surely not chosen to be suitable to US high school grading. One of the problems you mention is that students found the requirements too demanding. Could it be that they are right? In that case we might consider more rewards for a lesser achievement. I think you had GA=1 & FA=3. How about GA=2 & additional GA=3. This would be easier and at the same time increas exposure to biological content (less formalities and less English). --Ettrig (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Good Evolution video from Youtube. Perhaps something for next year, if you so please.
For promoting and motivating your real world students to enter the surreal world of Wikipedia, and to have done so with such great success. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Debriefing
Reading your latest note on the AP Biology 2008 project page, I imagine you are going to take another hiatus from Wikipedia. I'm amazed at the work you have put into Wikipedia. First, with the Intro to Evol article, and now with the latest project, you've had frustrations but great success, too. Thank you for spending time here.
Have you considered writing a joint paper with JBMurray on your wiki experience with a high school class and his wih a university class? I should think it would be interesting, and very timely.
While it is becoming trite to say that Wikipedia has influence, I just discovered how so the other day. While talking to friends, one doubted what I said was correct. So, she checked it up on Wikipedia. Well, it was really hard not to laugh. I had to maintain the best poker face I could manage. The Wikipedia article was one I had contributed quite a bit to.
For some reason, the real world takes Wikipedia very seriously. You and I, and your students all know now, that Wikipedia is a bit of a strange place. I'm glad you took the effort to bring your class here.
I hope your students also know that adolescents like them are responsible for a large part of the maintenance and the content of Wikipedia.
I predict that in twenty years, a good many serious intellectuals, academics, writers and journalists will credit Wikipedia for nurturing and training their early research and writing skills. There are an awful lot of diligent adolescents and young adults who progress from wiki-vandal from their first edits, to accomplished editor and researcher within a year and several thousand edits. Wikipedia is indeed a strange place.
I hope you return in a few months with another good Wiki idea. Maybe, something that doesn't take too much work or cause you too much stress. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
In that vein, especially with regard to the last paragraph, I have to admit, Mr. Butler, that I'm incredibly depressed that you're withdrawing from Wikipedia as a class project. For me, at least, the project seems far more rooted and practical in the realm of biology (a point of view no doubt influenced by your reputation for difficult work that is rivaled by none but a certain Calc teacher), and to see it transfer spheres is, without a doubt, a travesty in my mind.
You have a pronounced tendency to speak in ideals: of teachers who are young, energetic, and determined to make a "difference." And, you see, it's sort of ironic, because I know, without a doubt, that you've inspired countless students, including myself. I mean, I'm considering a career in the medical field solely because of this project.
I'm not sure, exactly, the point of posting this to your talk page. There's no real reason on my behalf to convince you to not pass on the wiki-torch. I'm done with high school. And if the project moves to the English department next year, I'll probably come back and mentor -- in a field I'm at least somewhat knowledgeable in. A scientist, I am not. I guess this is a stab at being both pseudo-motivational and disgustingly sentimental (a dual-role comprised of ideals I admittedly do not possess).
Then, this exists, I suppose, as more of a "thank-you" than anything else. Because, for all of its headaches and obscene challenges, Wikipedia is, above all else, a sublimely encouraging and informative experience. I'm reluctant to see it go in the same sense. Croatan's AP Biology legacy is one that is appealing in its horrific challenge. The guarantee that failure is not only possible, but inherent, is a major allure of the class. And let's face it, the Wiki project just furthered that experience -- it made failure loom on the horizon, but also makes success (which I have yet to achieve =]) an actually noble goal. It's an experience that definitely transcends the classroom. Strombollii (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Solar urticaria
I realize that it is a little late, but I was checking just for kicks and it turns out that my article was promoted to GA after all on June 12th. I would just like to thank you for letting me have the opportunity to do the project. I probably never would have even considered working on wikipedia unless we had done it in class.NYYfan1 (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts on pros and cons of a limited topic list? I'm reluctant to limit only because I gave Noah hell over phagocytes as a selection and it turned out to be a remarkable success - everyone in the class had to respect the boy's knowledge on phagocytes - although it was annoying at times :) However, there is the distinct risk that some topic selections are "over-the-heads" of these young biologist. There is also a group dynamic to this that might create problems if the list is as broad as "biology".--JimmyButler (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the idea is brilliant: though, of course, my vote is a bit easier to reign in seeing as how I don't have to deal with the parental/slacking student/administrative/etc. crap such a project would (and does) incur. I understand that my personal experience was vastly different than the majority of our class, and as a result, I suppose that I may cast a somewhat biased opinion.
I really enjoyed my role in the project, and probably learned more through WikiProject Bio than I did via most classes I took throughout High School. It's about time that students are forced to actually work with a community (not just in the incredibly misguided and overtly transparent attempts at "group work" one normally encounters).
Second of all, Wikipedia forces one to actually research. It's the one research project that actually requires one to find reliable sources -- and deciphering endless scientific papers is great preparation for the mindless research, studying, and writing you'll be forced to do for the rest of your life.
Additionally, if one is mature enough to actually accept the terms of the project and do the work, the criticism alone is sufficient reward. Assuming your class for this year is marginally more motivated than ours, and of the same age-group (i.e. nearly all sophomores), I'd say full steam ahead, if only for the ego-boost a GA brings as well as the (excuse the cheesy-motivational line) sheer magnitude of educational benefit the project carries.
I archived your talk page as well. If you'd like to change the parameters, drop me a note, and I'll fish up the page that helped me with mine.Strombollii (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
(addendum) You had mentioned at the conclusion of the project, that you'd limit the scope of the articles chosen. I'm not sure I completely agree with this idea. Half of the FA nominees were absurdly technical (OCD and Phagocyte), and two, if not three of the five GANs. I feel as though excessive limitations sort of dampen the student spirit. Perhaps instead offer a more rigid set of guidelines for choosing a topic? Such as a half page submission on why the article is interesting and viable? Strombollii (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the encouraging feedback. I will relay to my current AP class that the decision to continue may be squarely placed on your shoulders! They will be given the assignment to create an account tomorrow. I'm hoping to hear from Wassup... I've be studying the Project Page formatting and could use his assistance on a re-creation for AP Biology Project 09. --JimmyButler (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
If all else fails, you could copy the formatting from the last page and just change a few things around. And that's a heck of a responsibility. Perhaps Yohmom or FP are willing to assist? Strombollii (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
This is wonderful news! If you think FA is too cumbersome a goal for a high school student, an alternative might be to request a second GA for the top score. If this is considered too easy, then the second article could be required to be chosen from a list that the teacher has compiled. It could be limited to subjects that are really included in the scope of AP biology. --Ettrig (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
User:JimmyButler/Sandbox I took a stab at it here. Followed the same general format - because I like the original. Just need to read up on how to make it a real page for the 2009 season. Also modified the template /banner for the 2009 on the sand box talk page - which needs to be uploaded?????? Again - I need to read the instruction manual that came with wikipedia! I think we will stick with the same goals --- ie GA / FA with similar rewards system here at home. I'm going to go with your idea Chris on the brief essay/summary as to why this topic. That should eliminate "what-ever" approach to the selection process.--JimmyButler (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jimmy, I have read this very quickly, but it looks as though you are considering another AP project this coming year. If this be the case, I would be very keen to contribute—despite Phagocyte's being described as "absurdly technical" :) If you think I can help, you know where I live. Best wishes, Graham. Graham ColmTalk21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Other than my AP alumni - I've been reluctant to recruit. I'm not certain if there would be joy or a collective groan within the community if we returned. I am very open to any and all assistance - it was the collaboration component that made last years efforts so meaningful. Graham and Ettrig, feel free to assist in any capacity. My class is only 15 students; but a very select group. your feedback on topic options would be greatly appreciated as we ease them into the "world of wikipedia".--JimmyButler (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I think there would be more joy than groans. Yohmom's efforts with Banker horse for instance, a topic she obviously felt passionately about, were quite inspirational. And what's more she ended up writing what is probably the best single article on the subject to be found anywhere. That's surely something to be justifiably proud of. --MalleusFatuorum03:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Like the idea
I think your new course format would work better on Wikipedia. I still like the idea of tackling North Carolina state flora and fauna. Also, come September, I'll be on Wikipedia much more. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree, I have to first apologize for the ranting and raving on my user page, the anticipation of this coming “storm” of late night studying and countless hours doing homework has been tearing at my mind for quite some time. Thankfully, you have allowed us to work in groups for our project which, I hope, will relieve some of this senior angst. Not meaning to speak redundantly, but I have some worries as to whether group are truly going to easier. I understand the workload has been dissipated through the use of a group, but the planning, coordination, and cooperation that come with the use of these groups seem to be a whole new beast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddevil1421 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Small comment from across the Atlantic, if I may – I think the issues surrounding "planning, coordination, and cooperation" are a key part of the project - and if this applies within the group of three students as well as between the student(s) and the Wikipedia community, so much the better! Just a thought ... SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - the group has the potential to be far greater than three. There is also the distinct possibility that some of these new found members may in fact make the task more challenging (to be polite). On the upside - with a Wiki format - there is very little logistical coordination necessary to keep the group project moving. Regardless, you are in the tank with the sharks; there is no plan B - so you may as well start swimming!--JimmyButler (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
To add my $0.02: while the project may not, in fact, be easier ("easy" is such a stubbornly subjective term anyhow), the prospect of having a "team" of pseudo-advisors, who would (ideally) share the workload and look over each other's shoulders is worth its weight in gold. You are, in essence, getting the much-talked-about notion of "real world teamwork" so sought-after in schools (including, unfortunately, as I have come to find out just today, college as well) in a format that will actually, at least in some way, be beneficial. Sure, it'll absolutely suck at times to have to strike a balance between differing chunks of information, or, I'm sure, bicker over topic-selection, but the fact that there are three sets of eyes consistently copy-editing and revising an article (without much of the pretension that can oftentimes be found on the Wiki) should eventually prove beneficial. Sorry for the long-winded comment -- I'm hiding in the library and procrastinating. Strombollii (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I am excited about this project! With that said, I am ready to put forth the effort to achieve a GA article and possibly FA. This conversation shall be my first stroke in many to committing and integrating myself into the Wiki community and becoming adjusted to the Wiki format. All I can say is thanks; the overwhelming amount of support that I am already seeing is going to make this project one that I will remember throughout my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddevil1421 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 September 2009
What do you mean by "3 hours behind"? I think the east coasters get up and go to work at a time when those on the west coast are still fast asleap. --Ettrig (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I have a question about your vandalism discussion on Friday. Would it have been pertaining to the spelling correction I made on the project page? I didn't know if the focus of that lesson was directed at me.
KatieW1992 (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
No, correcting a misspelling is definitely not considered vandalism. Vandalism is to make a page less good on purpose. Improvements are encouraged almost everywhere on Wikipedia. One of the exceptions to this norm is that one should not normally edit other persons user pages. But even this can be done sometimes, when the editor knows that the user really would like this change to be made, for example when the user page has been vandalized. I consider this edit a borderline case. Does the teacher really know that the student wants to get their mispellings corrected? --Ettrig (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this reflects part of the problem of combining Wikipedia with a class project. The students are bound by the guidelines for Wikipedia; yet, must also conform to the contractual agreements of the class itself. This includes conforming to my expectations and being subjected to my "instructional feedback". In other words... I retain the right to make corrections or point out errors as they pertain to my expectations. The fact that they are required a user page is not in conformance with Wikipedia; but is a requirement for the class. My request to use the "userboxes" as a tool to provide insights to the Wikipedia community is also not within the demands of Wikipedia; yet are required for the course. They also agree to limit their editing to specific topics; while operating with an account linked to this project. My zero tolerance for vandalism is markedly different from the greater tolerance exercised by the Wikipedia Admins. In essence; the students have forfeited some personal freedoms in exchange for course credit and a grade. I do hope that I'm judicious in my guidance and hopefully will not destroy the spirit of the project - I will remain open minded to criticisms in that area. None-the-less; the students will need to conform to the Wikipedia guidelines as well as the rules laid out in class. The solution may be to simply make the demands and suggestions for improvement off the pages and within the classroom rather than in the open forum. We (teachers) are trained to make correction on the paper ... that option may need to be modified as in the case with the use of lower case i. "Billy ... you will use of capital "I" except in the most informal settings. We do not use text speech." (Constantly battled by our English department).
The students may create an account independent from the project and edit topics on pornography (if there are any) or lol and cya all they wish. This conflict between teacher expectations and Wikipedia protocol may need to be analyzed more closely as we continue to expand on the notion of integrating Wikipedia into the class curriculum. It is a fine line - I have much to think about!!!!--JimmyButler (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Addendum. Expectations regarding grammar are limited to the User Page - not rapid fire discussions on talk pages where mistakes are inevitable. So guys - don't fear - I'm not running around checking every comment you leave! However, direct changing of content of your user page would be inappropriate - although I may request modification to which you're expected to conform. --JimmyButler (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Avoiding Past Mistakes
I was reading over the initial Osteitis fibrosa cystica GAR, and the ensuing pass-fail-fallout discussion that was prompted by a revoked GA pass. Perhaps you'd like to establish some sort of rule now: i.e. "I have to review the article and GA review to qualify it before you get your 100, etc, etc"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strombollii (talk • contribs) 01:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
That was a very difficult moment. A not so careful GA promotion which was later demoted. Again, it gets into a similar concern raised above. How much authority do I wish to exercise as the teacher? I'm reluctant to be the the ultimate authority over the legitimacy of a GA. However, I guess I could utilized the standards set for GA and declare that I must validate the GA status using those same standards. If I can document specific failures then it could be over-ruled? However, one begins to contemplate that maybe I should "grade" the article myself and simply do the GA reviews if I'm going to over-rule as it relates to our class goal. There is also the element of excitement (perhaps over-stated) that would be lost if the teacher is judging your efforts as opposed to the Experts on Wikipedia. Bottom line - I never felt that I has a good solution to the problem then nor do I now. Help!--JimmyButler (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, instead of explicitly stating that you have the final authority, you could simply assert (ahead of time) that if the review is questioned (and I feel that, in most cases, a questionable review will be blatantly obvious), and the objections raised are valid (possibly also include that they must be raised by an established member of Wikipedia/academia... i.e. not a jealous parent/envious student/GPA-chasing freak), then the possibility exists that the 100 will also, per your personal review, be in question. Certain other stipulations could include that
There is no time limit to the review process. If someone (see: User: Jmh649 =]) decides that the GAN is fraudulent within say, the scope of the project, the grade is null.
You still have final say in extreme situations. If someone creates a sockpuppet and somehow frauds the GAR without being detected, even though the article sucks, you can call the review into question.
I will copy / paste the above into the guidelines ... less the "sucks" and etc... etc... part. At least it will cover the project for these contingencies.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It appears that there is an effort to delist this FA article. Any assistance or comments you could offer would be appreciated. Thanks. --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy,
Thanks for your message.
Q ->"I'm curious, did you feel you were closed out from input or that your views and input were unwelcome?"
I did not feel left out of the discussion and felt your comments were really helpful and encouraging. I fully admit that my wording can be too complex at times, but I felt that there were conceptual errors being made in the article for the sake of simplicity. I'm in agreement about making an article simple and accessible - and I might not be the best person for doing so, however - I read through the content and I see lots of mistakes on what evolution is.
Comment -> "I truly have no concerns over accusation that the article sucks; but it is most distressing to be portrayed as a POV pusher who has hijacked the article to their own end...If you feel that the discussion page was a place of open and honest dialog by a group of editors who have a common goal and that allegation has no basis; then as the only editor to contribute to the article since Fa - could you please state so on your FA de-listing"
I don't think that the article 'sucks' - it just isn't up to FA quality at this point, it needs work. I don't know where I gave the impression in the FA de-listing that the article was hijacked, rather I went through the FA listing criteria and found that the article did not meet those criteria. Nowhere do I way that there was a POV pusher - I think that the mistakes that are being made on the page are honest mis-understandings of the concepts of evolution that I see and read about all the time. I'm involved in projects through my studies here at UNBC where we have been constructing conceptual inventory tests and looking at the deeper understandings in biology - evolution included. It becomes quite clear in the tests of alternative concepts and recorded interviews that many people feel confident that they grasp the issues, but when we dig deeper there are fundamental gaps that differ from what Charles Darwin had to say. Natural selection, for example, probably can't be defined in a single sentence. Here are two quotes from a paper dealing with this particular topic (on the semantic pitfalls of evolution)[9]:
"This and other observations convinced us that the key to comprehension of this complex domain lies in the details, and that understanding the process of natural selection is just as important as understanding the outcome."
Yes...the preceding quote is correct and explains why the concepts are so difficult to convey, it require dedication on part of the reader to understand the fundamentals. Hence, it is a very, very difficult task to create an introductory page on this concept. The second quote from the paper is surprising:
"Natural selection is the principal mechanism of evolution, and the theory of evolution is of
great importance as a unifying theory in biology education according to the National Science
Standards (National Research Council, 1996)."
Is natural selection THE principal mechanism of evolution? It is not - so even the professionals who are testing the conceptual notions of the topic get this mixed up!!! The neutral theory of molecular evolution and experimental results have shown that the principal mechanism of change is through selectively neutral drift, which is the baseline model used for setting the molecular clock. This does not mean to say, however, that natural selection is unimportant.
Here is what I suggested in the revised article:
The natural world is a dangerous place and there are forces to be reckoned with. Charles Darwin called these forces natural selection. Natural selection is not as simple a concept to grasp as one might think, even many professionals make mistakes about this fundamental notion of evolution. The concept cannot be summarized or defined in single sentence, it is the larger context of evolutionary biology that makes it clear what natural selection really is. However, in a world of limiting environmental resources only some individuals are lucky enough to find a mate, reproduce and start a family. Over time and in the struggle to stay alive there is a natural sorting process among individuals surviving in a population. Natural selection describes the forces at play in the struggle for existence.
Returning back to your comment..I will go to the FA de-listing and will clarify that the discussion pages for the article were open and I apologize if I came across as suggesting that you (or anyone else was a POV pusher - I really don't how or why this came across in my wording. I do not wish to ruffle any feathers here - I just feel that the article does not quality for FA and I am concerned because these pages are used as teaching resources.Thompsma (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy - yes it is hard to keep track of all the comments. I realize that I am stirring up a hornets nest here. This is a controversial subject matter - but one of great importance. Nobody is to blame here - the topic of evolution seems so elementary, yet it is a very complex.Thompsma (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Topic Selection
Did you scare the bejeebus out of them? I'm going to be heartbroken if there aren't any fringe medical articles this go around. =] Strombollii (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep ... a little house cleaning which I think is for the best; there has to be an element of fun to pursue this (or a grade!!!). There are enough lines from the original to justify the hours of late night edits. Your brief comment has made me feel better - thanks--JimmyButler (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully, it will merely serve as a place to build confidence. At some point they will need to "grab the bull by the horns"' but for now they seemed convinced that something profoundly bad will happen if they edit the actual article. Honestly - I had to muster up the courage to make an edit myself and likely would have never done so if not for what I thought was a relatively safe introductory article plus the encouragement from Filll. JimmyButler (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
So, now that I don't attend Croatan--your place of work--would you enlighten me as to how you believe in both God and Darwin's theory of evolution? I really, REALLY, want to know!
Also, I should be coming home for fall break so I hope you don't mind if I sit in on your AP class.
Hi Jimmy, I see you have a new class and a new year. If you have any more horse-crazy kids, WPEQ is in DESPERATE need of cleanup on Gypsy vanner horse which is just not well done at all (and hence wouldn't be too tough to fix), and if someone wanted to do some serious research and work on laminitis, that's a high-importance article that all we adults look at and go "um, later..." because it needs some serious research. Montanabw(talk)03:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
As you may have noticed - they are procrastinating as expected. That aside, I hope they are as capable as the group from last year. I do not think there are any horse people in the mob - apparently they like reptiles? Which is really too bad - the banker horse article was such a perfect example of the collaboration theme - along with the frustrations. Feel free to offer encouragement or share concerns. JimmyButler (talk)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Introduction to evolution. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I've done what I can do. I went through and put in ref names so it cuts down on the edit page clutter. There appears to be stuff in the reference section that isn't even used in the article? Also, there seems to be some basic typos (Why does Karen Swain have a # before her name, etc...?).--Yohmom (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Helping out
Hello there Mr. Butler. I've been watching the progress that your students have been making, and I have to say, I'm quite impressed. However, there is obviously still quite a bit of work that could be done. I don't want to do work that your students should be doing themselves, but I do wish to help out. Is there anything that you think your students need help with in particular at the moment? Cheers, NW(Talk)23:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
As a member of last years project, I would have killed for help with general formatting (albeit, I couldn't have asked for better mentors :D ). Perhaps lend a hand with converstion templates in articles like Pudú?--Yohmom (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I - like my students- appreciate all the help we can get!!!Perhaps not the weekend to be away from the machine; however, things seemed to have taken a big leap forward. Nothing like a deadline to instill motivation. What I am now hoping for is a sincere and thorough critique of all four articles regarding their GA potential. I suspect (hope) that the experts will hold them to the highest expectations leaving suggestions that will guide them to a truly GA product and if time permits something to consider for FA. (Copied on Project Page).--JimmyButler (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Scotch Bonnet
Hi Jimmy Butler, I wanted to say that the article on the Scotch Bonnet snail Semicassis granulata falls under WikiProject Gastropods, as is noted on the talk page. There are two or three of us editors who are very active contributors in the gastropod project, and when we look at the article in its current stage, we see a huge amount of things we can do to improve it, both major and minor. Normally when a gastropod article comes up for Good Article review, we would be all over it fixing it up intensively. However we are reluctant to interfere too much in this interesting educational process. Do you suggest that we confine ourselves to suggestions? Normally we cannot be reviewers for an article that is within our own project. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
As a matter of information Invertzoo you certainly can be a reviewer for articles within your own project, so long as you have not contributed significantly to them. One way forward might be for you to undertake the GA review, and make your suggestions there. --MalleusFatuorum14:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks Malleus, two of us from Project Gastropods will go ahead and help review the article, but unless Jimmy Butler tells us anything to the contrary, we will try to confine ourselves to doing only minor edits. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Also on (User talk:Invertzoo) page. Thank you for your willingness to provide attention to the Scotch Bonnet article. First, I recognize that no one holds ownership over any content within Wikipedia; therefore this is only a humble request. It is my hopes that the students will perform the lions share of work especially in the area of content research. They would likely need guidance on formatting issues and organization. It is a fine line between help and enabling; especially with this crew - who wait for the dead lines and respond to help request with phrases like "all of it". Perhaps pointing out the errors and forcing them to seek solutions where-ever possible - the fewer direct edits the better. Hopefully, the GA review process will be both brutal and thorough - holding them accountable for their short comings. I don't believe the current GA nomination represents their true potential - in fact - I sense they are throwing a hail Mary pass and hoping for divine intervention. Again, thanks for exercising patience; eventually they should catch on that this project requires an expenditure of time and effort! Feel free to prod them in that direction. Cheers! --JimmyButler (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your message. I do hope they can pull it together for their sake. I left a note telling them the text really needs a huge amount of work. We will try to keep an eye on the article and reviews right up to the final deadline. If they can't manage to get it up to GA status we will go ahead and do that after they are finished. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Butler, I am working on the bog turtle page and have been trying super hard to put in as much references as possible to ensure reliability, but in the macaroni penguin (FA) article there are absolutely no references in the lead...at all. What should this tell me?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The guidelines say that there should be no significant information in the lead that is not also in the main part of the article. This means that if all parts of the guideline are followed, any needed reference can be found in the main part of the article. If there is a complaint about a missing reference in the lead, the answer should be a pointer to the reference in the main article. If this is missing, it should be added in the main article. If the statement is missing in the main article, then it should be added there, together with the requested reference. --Ettrig (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
So if we have something in the lead that is not "sighted," than we can put it in the main content of the article and cite it their? But isn't that a little redundant, something not acceptable and GA or FA status?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
No, not really. The basic idea is that as the lead is a summary of the article, then anything said there would also be said (and cited) in the article itself, so to cite it again in the lead would be redundant. One of the few exceptions to that rule of thumb is direct quotations, which must always be cited when they appear. --MalleusFatuorum00:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I want to thank you for your attempts to involve your AP Biology class in contributing to Wiki. It's a great idea. For the past year I have been trying to get a former instructor in animal ethics to do the same with Animal Rights and Animal Welfare articles. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to convince him to try it despite my offer to act as a mentor for his students. I just wish more instructors would take this approach (as long as they understand what's involved and learn to do it well).
If you want, you can learn more about me on my Wiki page. I am primarily interested in re-writing all the lemur articles and getting as many of them to FA status. (Therefore if your students decide to target those articles, it would be worth coordinating with me beforehand.) Specifically, my current project involves a massive re-write of the Lemur article – something that has taken over 200 hours so far (offline) and will require at least another 100 hours to complete. Again, you can read a little more about it on my Wiki page.
Yes .... with such a small group. I was wondering when they would return. Wow - very challenging options - I think we need to stay over here and just focus on sea shells for now! Two of them are repeat offenders; with impressive Wiki edit history already. --JimmyButler (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
