Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Chapman University/Jewish Life from Napoleon to Hitler (Spring 2023)
| This Course
|
Wikipedia Resources
|
Connect
Questions? Ask us:
contact |
 | This course page is an automatically-updated version of the main course page at dashboard.wikiedu.org. Please do not edit this page directly; any changes will be overwritten the next time the main course page gets updated. |
- Course name
- Jewish Life from Napoleon to Hitler
- Institution
- Chapman University
- Instructor
- Shira Klein
- Wikipedia Expert
- Ian (Wiki Ed)
- Subject
- Jewish history in France, Germany, and Italy
- Course dates
- 2023-01-29 00:00:00 UTC – 2023-05-21 23:59:59 UTC
- Approximate number of student editors
- 15
What was it like to be Jewish in Napoleon’s France, Hitler’s Germany, and Mussolini’s Italy? Spanning these three countries, the course progresses chrono-logically and thematically. The first third of this course exam-ines emancipation of the Jews in the 18th-19th centuries. The second third chronicles Jews’ experience of persecution and murder in WWII. The final third probes into the distortions of German, Italian, and French Holocaust memory.
Timeline
Week 1
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 31 January 2023 | Thursday, 2 February 2023
Week 2
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 7 February 2023 | Thursday, 9 February 2023
Week 3
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 14 February 2023 | Thursday, 16 February 2023
Week 4
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 21 February 2023 | Thursday, 23 February 2023
Week 5
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 28 February 2023 | Thursday, 2 March 2023
Week 6
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 7 March 2023 | Thursday, 9 March 2023
- Assignment - Wiki 1B
- Learning how to edit Wikipedia
- Create a user account: If you followed the link on Canvas, you already created a user account.
- Enroll in our course: If you followed the link on Canvas, you are already enrolled.
- While you are still logged in with your username, complete the training modules for this assignment (linked above).
- When you are still logged in, go to “Sandbox” in upper right corner. Experiment in your Sandbox, with the help of the Editing training module you just completed. In your Sandbox, write:
- One regular sentence (anything you want, but nothing personal or offensive)
- One heading
- One sub-heading
- A link to another Wikipedia page (any page)
- Words in bold and italics
- A reference (this can be a book we're reading in class)
NOTE: this should be a Wikipedia-generated reference, following the instructions in the Editing training module.
- When you are still logged in, leave a message on the Talk page of a classmate. How? Go to the list of enrolled students (Student tab above); under/next to each student name you'll see a username in parentheses (e.g. Vanessa1290). Copy-paste that name at the end of this url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user_talk: (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user_talk:Vanessa1290) On upper right, select Edit tab. Add your sentence at the bottom of editable box. Keep it anonymous and neutral (e.g. “Hi, I’m a new Wikipedia user”). At the end of your sentence, add 4 tildes Alex94543 (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC). That ties the contribution to your username, like a signature.
Week 7
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 14 March 2023 | Thursday, 16 March 2023
Week 8
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 21 March 2023 | Thursday, 23 March 2023
Week 9
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 28 March 2023 | Thursday, 30 March 2023
Week 10
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 4 April 2023 | Thursday, 6 April 2023
- Research Guidance for Wiki 2
To edit Wikipedia, you need secondary sources. Since Wikipedia is about notable information, not esoteric detail, look for broad secondary sources. For Wiki 2, you'll need two peer-reviewed secondary sources on your topic. Each of these should only be the length of a traditional book chapter - around 20-30 pages each. Both sources should be on the same topic. For instance, if you chose to write on Pius XI's approach towards Jews, both your sources should be on that topic.
Ensure your sources are reliable. That means 3 things:
* A source from the last 20 years (unless Dr Klein approved an earlier source)
- An author who holds a position at a university / museum
- A university press or equivalent (in case of a book chapter), or a peer-reviewed journal (in case of journal article)
- If Dr Klein recommended a source in her feedback on Wiki 1, use it as your first option.
- For your second option (or if Dr Klein didn't suggest a source), your best bet is peer-reviewed, scholarly books - pick a chapter. Introductions are often useful. If you find an edited book which has several essays (each by a different author), then your three choices of sources can all be from the same book.
- Essays in anthologies tend to be good and broad. Consider "Routledge Handbook of", "Routledge History of", "Oxford Handbook of", "Cambridge Handbook of"
- Second-best are peer-reviewed, scholarly journal articles - pick an article. Make sure it's not esoteric or too narrow. E.g. an article about one particular woman who met Pius XI - that's too narrow.
Finding secondary sources
Books
There are three main search engines to look for books:
- Search through Google Scholar. scholar.google.com
- Though this is a FANTASTIC search engine, there is no way to tell if an item is held by Chapman or not. Once you locate an item you want, put the title in Discover (see below) to see if it is held by Chapman or if it requires an interlibrary loan.
- Search through WorldCat
- Go to https://www.chapman.edu/library/services/interlibrary-loan.aspx
- Scroll down to "WorldCat"
- Search through Discover (limit to scholarly books).
- Go to https://www.chapman.edu/library/ and scroll down to the search boxes. Under "Start Your Search," meaning the first search box, enter your keywords.
- How to refine results: On the left, there is a "Refine Results" section. Limiting to "fulltext" means you will only get items that Chapman carries, both digital and physical. Limiting to "ebooks" will mean you only get books that you can view online. To do that, on the left, scroll down to "Source Types" and then click "Show More". E-books will be one of the options.
If Chapman holds the item
- Either go to the shelf to locate it, or locate it in the online catalogue and click "place a hold" (top left). You can come to pick it up. The turnaround is about 24 hours.
If the library doesn't hold the item:
You can request through Interlibrary Loan.
On WorldCat, once you have located a book, click the title so as to expand the item details. Scroll down to you "Check Availability" (in blue) and click the "Request item through interlibrary loan" button (also in blue).
On Discover, click "Request through Interlibrary Loan."
If you want to request an ILL manually (not through Discover or WorldCat), go to https://www.chapman.edu/library/services/interlibrary-loan.aspx, and scroll down to "Logon to request an interlibrary loan."
Articles and Book Essays - remember, these are second best
- Search through Discover (limit to scholarly journals) and, if Chapman doesn't hold these, then request through Interlibrary Loan.
- Make sure article is in a peer-reviewed journal or peer-reviewed edited book. Watch out for magazines and newsletters.
- Assignment - Wiki 2 - Reading Summary
"Wiki 2" Wikipedia Assignment – Reading Summary
By now you have chosen a topic and possibly teamed up with one or more classmates. For Wiki 2, follow the above guidance on how to find reliable, peer-reviewed secondary sources. Each source should be 20-30 pages, as described in the research guidance, so if you choose a book, be sure to specify which chapter you used. Aim for clean writing, as in all work you submit. Submit as a Word doc or a PDF.
If you are working in a team, the assignment is still the same (no need to submit double the sources), but include a URL to a Google Doc or other evidence that demonstrates you worked on this together. This evidence should show that all team members have done the reading and participated in the write-up. How you divvy up the work is up to you, but if I get a sense that the work was distributed unevenly, that will harm the grade of all group members.
Submit a document with the following:
- The topic that all your sources have in common.
- A full bibliographic reference for your top-choice secondary source. This needs to include page numbers. Also include url (if it is online). Write a summary of 300 words (not including citations) of that source. Use proper citations throughout your summary to show what pages you draw on (you can use in-text or footnotes, whichever you prefer). Provide a word count (not including citations). Be comprehensive, summarizing the entire reading you chose, not just the first page or two. Focus on crafting a cohesive narrative rather than stringing disconnected facts together. Use your own words; no quoting from the secondary source.
Explain why this secondary source is reliable. That means a source from the last 20 years (unless Dr Klein approved an earlier source), an author who holds a position at a university or museum, (in case of a book) a university press or equivalent, or (in case of journal article) a peer-reviewed journal.
- One "backup" secondary source in case first source doesn't end up working out. Do the exact same thing as for your previous source but with a 100-word summary.
- Write down the URLs of 2-3 Wiki pages that you will be able to edit with the help of this secondary source. An example of a Wiki page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals. At this point, no need to say how you will edit them.
Week 11
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 11 April 2023 | Thursday, 13 April 2023
Week 12
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 18 April 2023 | Thursday, 20 April 2023
Week 13
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 25 April 2023 | Thursday, 27 April 2023
- Assignment - Wiki 3 - Planning your edits
- Complete the training modules for this assignment (Finding your article, Evaluating Articles and Sources), linked above.
- Hunt around Wikipedia for a page related to our course material which you, with the help of the secondary source you read last week, can improve. This could be an article that is lacking key information, is wrong, or lacks references. In some cases, you already identified the Wiki page you wish to work on, back in Wiki 2. In other cases, you may find a Wiki page that you can contribute to more meaningfully. If Dr Klein gave you feedback on Wiki 2, incorporate that.
Note: if the Wiki page you choose is very long (e.g. "Holocaust" or "Vietnam"), you should only commit to working on a section of it, and clarify in this assignment what that section is. Don’t commit to working on an entire Wiki page if it is long, because you will be overwhelmed by the task.
Sign up for that article by visiting the 'Students' tab of this website while logged in, and finding your name in the list of students.
- Then write a 300-500 word essay answering:
- Which Wiki page you chose (include URL) and why it is problematic.
- How you will use the scholarly essay (the one you summarized in Wiki 2) to solve some of the problems. What you will do to make the Wiki page better: will you add content? Rearrange content? Delete content? Add references to existing content? Be concrete regarding specific changes you will make ("I'll make it less biased" - that's vague. "I'll add information on the number of Daca arrivals in 2015" - that's concrete). Make sure you explain why these changes are important.
- The changes you plan need to be substantive. Though that's a bit vague, ask yourself "Is this really important to add to the article? Is the article much weaker without this information?"
In this assignment, use parentheses within the text to specify the page numbers from the secondary source you plan to use. Provide the full reference of the secondary source you will use.
You may want to add a *bit* to several Wiki pages, or a *lot* to one Wiki page.
If you are working in a team, the assignment is still the same (no need to submit double the sources), but include a URL to a Google Doc or other evidence that demonstrates you worked on this together. This evidence should show that all team members have done the reading and participated in the write-up. How you divvy up the work is up to you, but if I get a sense that the work was distributed unevenly, that will harm the grade of all group members.
Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for primary-source analysis or primary research or new arguments. It is a place to summarize the findings of published works. On the rationale behind this rule, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
Week 14
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 2 May 2023 | Thursday, 4 May 2023
- Assignment - Wiki 4 - Inform the Wikipedia Community
- Complete the training module for this assignment (Adding Citations), link above.
- By now you have received substantive feedback from me and have a clear idea of what you will edit. The next stage is to inform the Wikipedia community of your plans.
- In the article’s Talk Page, write several sentences on what you intend to do. How to find the Talk Page? Every Wiki article, on the top left, has an "Article" tab and a "Talk" tab. You need the latter. If you're still confused, go back to the initial tutorial, which speaks about Talk Pages in general.
- Be detailed regarding what needs adding, what needs correcting, and what sources you'll add. This is a shorter description than in Wiki 3, but aim for a meaty paragraph with concrete details. State your exact references (not "The Stillman-Cohen debate" or a Canvas URL, because nobody outside of our class will know what you mean). State who the author of your secondary source is and why that author is credible (professor of... a peer-reviewed publication... an expert on...).
- Be courteous (not "this article is rambling" but "this article could use some clarification").
- Be neutral (not “this is biased and I’m going to fix it,” which suggests you have the opposite bias – but rather “there is wrong or missing information here and I’m going to correct or add it”).
- State the scope of your changes ("altogether I'll add about x sentences").
- End your plan with an invitation to other Wiki editors to weigh in on your changes, e.g. “If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page.” Make sure you do this while you’re logged in, and sign after your post (Alex94543 (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)).
If you're working in a team: only one of you needs to submit this on Wikipedia. The expectation is that you'll still collaborate on the wording of what you put on the Talk Page, but no need to show me proof this time.
Week 15
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 9 May 2023 | Thursday, 11 May 2023
- Assignment - Wiki 5 - Improve the article or article section
- Complete the training modules for this assignment (Sandbox and Plagiarism), linked above. If you're working in a group, complete the modules on group work too.
- If you received a comment on your Talk Page or on the article's Talk Page asking you for changes, consult with the instructor on whether/how to respond to it.
- Improve the Wikipedia article you chose. Note: you may use readings from the syllabus too, but you must primarily use the reading you summarized in Wiki 2.
- It’s recommended to use your Sandbox first, preview what you’ve done, and then copy and paste from Sandbox into the article.
- If working in a team: you should each make edits when you are logged into your respective Wikipedia accounts, preferably within the same few hours, because that will enable me to clearly see your edits all at once. And go over one another’s edit to make sure they are good – that too is part of the collaboration. If needed, correct your classmate's contribution. As with previous assignments, you are accountable for your classmates' work, as you all get the same grade.
Exercise
Grading Rubric:
Responding to feedback (20 points)
____ I have incorporated all of the instructor’s comments on my previous Wiki assignments
Use of Evidence (20 points)
____ I have used a secondary source approved by the instructor, and provided a full reference to it
____ When drawing on secondary source, I have paraphrased, i.e. I’ve used my own words. Beware violations of academic integrity (copy-pasting, too-close paraphrasing, etc).
____ I have footnoted everything I paraphrased (no need to footnote each sentence, 1 per every few consecutive sentences is fine. If you split your contribution into various chunks, provide a footnote at the end of each chunk.
Substantive Contribution (20 points)
____ I made a real difference by correcting misinformation and/or adding crucial information
____ If I didn't have enough crucial information to add to one article, I contributed to more than one article. It is all right to add the same type of information to more than one article, if said information is crucial to more than one article.
___
Relevant Argumentation (20 points)
____ All the information I pull out of my secondary sources is directly relevant to the Wikipedia article
____ My contributions fit well into the article. That means there is a good match between section title and text, I don't repeat something that has been said elsewhere in the article, and there is a smooth transition between the article sections preceding and following my contribution.
____ I stick to what I can prove and avoid generalizing (“All immigrants did XYZ…”) or judging ("Unfortunately..." / "This was horrible")
Style (20 points)
____ I avoid quotes or minimize them to very short extracts. Quotes never stand alone.
____ In the section I chose to edit, I corrected all sloppy writing, typos, grammar mistakes, run-on sentences, slang, repetitions, awkward phrases, and tense confusions, including those that have been made by previous Wikipedians.
- Assignment - Wiki 6 - Reflection paper on your Wiki experience
Write a 300-500 word reflection paper. In it, first jot down
- The number of daily views your article gets. To check that, go to the article you edited. In the menu on the left, click "Page Information". Scroll down to the end and click "Page View Statistics". On the left under "Date Type" select "Daily". All the way to the right of the page, you will see the average of daily views. Copy it to your paper.
- Whether other editors changed your edits, and if so, what they changed. To check that, go to the article you edited. On the top right, near the "Edit" tab, you will see a "View history" tab. Click it. This is a list of all recent edits made to the article. Each line shows when someone saved a change in the article, and each line shows the username that made that change. Find the line where you made your last contribution. Select the left-column radio button for that line. Then select the right-column radio button for the topmost line in the list, which is the current version. Click the "Compare selected revisions" button. On the right half of the page, you'll be able to see what changes (if any) were made to your edits.
If you're the last person who edited your article, your change will be the topmost line, which means nobody changed your contributions.
Then write your reflection. The goal of this assignment is to deeply engage, in the most subjective way, with the experience you had in this project. This paper will be evaluated for its thoughtfulness, meaningfulness, and originality. Provide an insightful analysis, with clear, detailed examples of what you are saying. First person is recommended for this paper. This is a chance for you to reflect creatively. Embrace it!
Here are some questions which could inspire you but you could also go in another direction. If you do use these questions, aim for an in-depth reflection of 1-2 questions maximum (so pick those you have the most to say about). Do not write a grocery list of answers.
- Was the topic you chose important to you for personal/family reasons?
- Was your topic something you knew a lot about already?
- Did you have any fears going into this project? Were they confirmed/dispelled?
- Did you feel you were making a difference by editing Wikipedia, if so how?
- What did you learn from this project?
- What surprised you about this project?
- What did you like or dislike about this project?
- Did your Wikipedia submission differ from your initial plans? Why?
- If other Wikipedia users edited your submission, did you agree with those edits? If nobody edited your changes, would you like someone to edit them in the future?
- If you had to give advice to someone about to take this class, what tips would you give them about the Wikipedia assignment?
- How do you feel about writing something that gets viewed x number of times? Would you like to see more assignments which have this global an impact, or fewer?
- Do you think you will ever edit Wikipedia again, in your own free time? Why or why not?