Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classroom coordination/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Project initiated

Ten volunteers expressed interest in the proposal and a faculty member of Virginia Commonwealth University has requested guidance. So this project is going live.

• To faculty: Please read the links at the project page and post questions here.
• To volunteers: Thank you very much for your interest in getting this started. Please watchlist this page and share ideas here.

Durova^Charge! 12:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC-7)

Where can we help that faculty member? Are you taking care of it?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard back from her since I wrote to state that this has launched. Durova^Charge! 04:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Other target audiences

I'm not sure if there will be much difference, but another target audience would be youth organizations such as the Royal Canadian Air Cadets that might give members projects that involve improving or creating related articles (for the Air Cadets: aviation, or Canadian history, for example). Sancho 13:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC-7)

Good idea. Durova^Charge! 13:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC-7)

I'm a cadet, but not air. Wouldn't the other cadets, such as army or sea, be a possible target?--Canadianshoper 03:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly; I was just giving one example. Scouts, Sea Cadets, Army Cadets, and any other youth groups that might give their members projects involving contributing to Wikipedia can all come to this WikiProject for coordination. Sancho 04:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Award ideas

How's this for an award image?

I found an interesting image at Commons that we could use to thank instructors and/or students for outstanding classroom assignment contributions. Does this look good? Durova^Charge! 13:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC-7)

Very striking, I like it! JoeSmack ^Talk 14:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC-7)

I went ahead and put it on the project page. The formal nomination is at Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#WikiPen. Durova^Charge! 15:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC-7)

Experienced editor pairing

Much like Wikipedia:Adoption, I suggest that we offer to class projects the opportunity to be matched with an experienced editor to work more closely with the students/teachers involved with that specific class project. I know there aren't many of us right now, but the membership will grow, and I suspect that not all class projects will request a pairing. Sancho 21:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC-7)

What exactly do you have in mind with that? We need to make sure it doesn't cross the line into something improper. Durova^Charge! 06:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC-7)

This seems like a useful idea, although I don't entirely follow you, Durova. Is your concern that editors might be too helpful and end up providing answeres where only guidance is desireable? Carom 06:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC-7)

I just want to avoid any appearance of impropriety regarding underage students. Durova^Charge! 08:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC-7)

Umph. I must admit, that thought had not occurred to me, although it's certainly a valid concern. I think the key is (obviously) to conduct ourselves at least quasi-professionally. although I don't know how we could make sure that the volunteers in the project are doing so. Carom 09:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC-7)

Oh, no, I was just thinking that a one or two of us could associate ourselves with a particular class project if requested. Like if a history class was doing a set of class projects, maybe one of us that's a history major or involved with the historic articles on Wikipedia could be paired with the project just to be able to give more informed guidance (if only slightly). Something like: for questions regarding class project X, experienced editor Y is a good first contact. That editor could also just keep the class project article pages under her /his watchlist to make sure that the students aren't getting discouraged by wayward vandalism, etc. Or maybe we should just let the normal procedures that are already in place handle this kind of thing... there's already a Wikipedia:WikiProject_History, so students could just interact with members of that project if they have more detailed questions, vandalism is already handled fairly well, and the students involved with the projects might benefit from the full experience of Wikipedia — having to deal with vandals themselves. Also, the membership here might probably be enough to ensure that when students post questions here for guidance that somebody will respond fairly quickly. Sancho 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds excellent so long as we can implement the right safeguards. University students are no problem, but I want to make certain this remains a safe environment for the younger crowd. One solution to that would be to interact primarily with teachers on the pre-university level and perhaps set up a noticeboard where students can post questions, rather than invite students to interact directly with particular editors. Durova^Charge! 01:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Potentially a useful solution, although there is potentially a lot of overlap with the RefDesk and the HelpDesk - what, exactly, would we want to define as the parameters of such a noticeboard? (Incidentally, I think primary contact with teachers is probably the right way to go here). Carom 04:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The parameters of the noticeboard would be limited to classroom assignments. Students would be responsible for their own article research. We would answer their questions about site policies, wikimarkup, the difference between first person and third person - things like that. I imagine mostly a secondary school target audience. Durova^Charge! 07:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems workable, then. Is there any objection to creating such a noticeboard as a subpage of the project page. Carom 03:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that if we create too many subpages there will be no activity on them. Why not use a section on project mainpage for that; if the activity warrants it it can be split off.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, lots of subpages might be a problem, but I don't know if one or two will really be any trouble. However, I'm not opposed to using a section on the project mainpage, if you and others feel that's the best solution. Carom 17:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a good start to put it on the mainpage. We can always move it later. Sancho 18:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

University of Minnesota project

I've been alerted to a new assignment within the University of Minnesota. Full details are on the page of User talk:1013-josh (the instructor?). It appears to be mainly a writing assignment. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by. Yes, I'm the instructor. It's a pretty standard research paper assignment for an introductory composition course, except in this case the research "papers" will be posted on Wikipedia as new articles. Students will begin drafting the articles on their user pages and then will move the articles over to the mainspace for collaborative editing. They are graded 50% on the article, 25% on their participation in helping other students with their articles, and 25% on a reflective paper about how Wikipedia functions as a public space & mode of discourse. Feel free to stop by my talk page to leave notes for the class and to follow along with what we're up to. New assignments will be posted over the next few weeks, leading up to the final 1500-2000 word Wikipedia article. 1013-josh 17:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds wonderful. How can we help? Here are a couple of suggestions: we've initiated a project award - perhaps the volunteers here could evaluate the contributions and bestow the WikiPen upon the best contributor(s); also the students could post links to their draft versions from this talk page and our volunteers could evaluate and offer feedback. Durova^Charge! 01:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durova, thanks for your willingness to help. Here's how I'm planning this will go. STAGE ONE: Students propose a research topic. STAGE TWO: Students begin drafting articles on their user pages, with the first 500 words due on April 23. STAGE THREE: The first 1000 words are due on April 27, and then we will move the articles over to the mainspace of Wikipedia. At that time, I will post links here to the articles, and it might be appropriate for editors in WikiProject Classroom Coordination to stop by and offer (a) general suggestions for further research, (b) model articles students could follow in improving their organization, (c) additional bibliography suggestions, (d) category and wikifying suggestions. Students will be in collaborative working groups at that point, and they will spend the next week editing each other's articles. STAGE FOUR: May 4, we'll open the articles up to the general Wikipedia community to add their own research, do line edits, etc. STAGE FIVE: The "final" articles are due and will be graded on May 9. Obviously, I don't have much control over when Wikipedians choose to contribute or in what way, but it would be most helpful if you could help me follow these stages, beginning with general feedback and progressing to more rigorous line edits as the articles achieve fuller shape. You can also stop by student talk pages anytime to offer encouragement. I'll continue to post here as we go along and post links to students articles as appropriate. Thanks! 1013-josh 05:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent plan. I'd be glad to help and I hope the other volunteers here would be too. Remembering to my old freshman comp class, it certainly would have felt more meaningful if I'd had the opportunity to publish one of my assignments. Would a project award fit within that scheme? Durova^Charge! 06:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a group award to the workshop group that comes up with the best set of four articles? (to emphasize the collaborative nature of the process) 1013-josh 07:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. I hope other project volunteers are agreeable? Durova^Charge! 14:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

One minor thing - user pages are usually for users to write information about themselves, if they desire to. If they do want to leave a little bit of info here, they can always begin working on one of their articles at a sandbox in their user space. For example, they could have a link to Special:Mypage/1013 assignment (or anything similar), which then allows them to organize their user space a bit better. It's not necessary, but it is something your students may want to consider. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I started User:Mypage/Draft pages for each of them. 1013-josh 19:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My students have selected their research topics. They will be working individually in their userspace before moving articles over to the mainspace on Friday, April 27. In the meantime, feel free to comment on their talk pages to offer suggestions or guidance on their research topics. 1013-josh 03:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I was a bit disappointed that some of the topics constitute existing article/stubs. Seems that if everyone was going to get off to an equal start, they would have all tackled brand new topics. However, all in all, I'm seeing this as an outstanding project, and I applaud you, Josh. --WikiGnosis 04:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, WikiGnosis. We'll have to see how it goes. The students who are working with longer stubs are expected to generate a final product that comes in on the long side. But it's hard to know what an equal start is. Some of the projects will be harder than the others because of scope and availability of sources, regardless of whether they are stubs or new articles. I'll see how it works out & maybe do it differently next time. 1013-josh 00:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've followed up with topic suggestions for the two students who hadn't chosen topics yet. I hope the suggestion fits within the scope of your assignment. Durova^Charge! 17:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: We've "gone live" with our "workshop" stage. Most of the articles have now been moved to the mainspace of Wikipedia. They are still in a rough draft state, and students would welcome comments about how to improve them. Students are organized into four-person groups, and they are working on these tasks over the next week. A good place to leave comments is in the "Workshop" section of the author's talk page, where students will be conferring about what needs to be done. You can also use the article talk page, of course. See the box at the top of my talk page for links to all 23 articles and the associated student talk pages. 1013-josh 22:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE II: Articles are nearing the end of their workshop phase, and now students have a week to make their "final" revisions. They are starting to get the hang of it, but many of the articles could still use help: wikilinking, depth & quality of references, NPOV, copyediting, etc. Students are also looking for more content to bring the articles up to 1500-2000 words. Thanks for all your help so far! Most of the articles made it to the DYK on the main page, so we had some strangers stopping by, and students are learning much from their experiences interacting with other Wikipedians. Please help keep an eye on them over the next week, and feel free to edit as boldly as you would any other Wikipedia article. Students are watching their page histories and talk pages, so notes left in the edit summary boxes are particularly helpful as they continue to learn what works and what doesn't. 1013-josh 07:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts about what we can do

1. Those of us who thought or took part in wiki assignments can write about their experiences. This could be at some point a guide or an article for a signpost.
2. The introductory sections to SUP need a cleanup. Give them a shake :)
3. Suggested excercises. Are they feasible? Can we think of any others?
4. We should look at instruction pages of past projects and create a category for them as well. In case they are on userpage we may want to create a page in project space where they'd be copied. This would allow easy browsing of excercises, and a read through them should be interesting in terms of compiling 'what is really being done' section or addition to suggested excercises.
5. Think about how to cooperate with Wikiversity.
6. I think there are quite a few educational projects that we don't list, because their creators didn't know about WP:SUP. They are possibly mentioned on user pages, talk pages or article pages. We should search for them and categorize appopriatly.
7. Consider syntax for User:AlexNewArtBot that would detect new user pages and user talk pages with words like student, instructor, university, assignment...
8. Clean up current projects. Truman State University is fall 2006, has it ended? University of Leiden, The Netherlands has no date. And what is 'Commonwealth of Learning's Wikieducator' doing there?
9. Clean up planned projects. What is their status?
10. Contact all identified instructors, ask them about their experiences, whether they will do it again, what help would they like. Make sure to ask them if we can quote them on site if using email.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, excellent ideas! Would you like to move those over to the project page? Cheers, Durova^Charge! 03:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you think they are good, plase move them! I posted them here for discussion - perhaps not all of them are excellent? :D -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind tweaking a few? The first, for example, could be rewritten as create and categorize essays about personal experiences in classroom assignments that required Wikipedia editing. Durova^Charge! 16:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how to rewrite them - feel free to create rewritten/updated list below...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway we can get a link to this project or SUP on the main page of Wikiversity under the "Related Pages" section?↔NMajdan•talk 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, my post from last night must not have taken. I've contacted Wikiversity and we're already among their external links. I've also copied Piotrus's list almost verbatim onto the project page here. These are good ideas that don't require much tweaking. Let's get going with them. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 17:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• The only one I'm kind of iffy about is #7, as "student", "professor", "university", and the like are very common words. Have a look at my user page. It mentions that I'm a university student, but last time I checked, I wasn't receiving anything for making 30,000 edits... ;) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What NOT to do

Occasionally, we will get a teacher/academic who will try to disrupt Wikipedia, to prove a point (sometimes he will even encourage students to do so). I think we should gather examples of that, including of how it was dealt with, and make a note on the project page - as well as an easy reference case for future problems (which may only become more common, as more educators become interested in this project). See: most recent case from WP:ANI. A famous example from the past (ANI on that). Another infamous example were an educator encouraged vandalism. A related issue: examples of student work that got deleted (see what links to SUP from deletion pages, as well as AN/ANI and similar pages - they are quite interesting, and interested editors should be probably msg about this WikiProject). Actually, somebody should go through all of Wikipedia namespace pages that link to WP:SUP - there are not that many, and see what interesting stuff comes up (for example, a related template - Template:Schoolblock?). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. Positive examples are better. Durova^Charge! 07:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Related?

I wonder if this would fall under this WikiProject, but often, when I encounter an account which I know would likely correspond to an academic, I would spend more time with the account and generally follow them around until they seem up to speed with how the Wiki works. Is this what we are aiming for here? Or simply providing a coordination effort/network to support instructors and students who actively edit Wikipedia as part of their assignments? --HappyCamper 14:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the second is closer. We are of course willing to help academics too - I believe such 'mentorship' idea was proposed above, too. After all, academics and similar experts are much needed in this project - but the primary goal is "classroom projects coordination".-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The first goal you mention --- following somebody and helping them with their edits --- seems closer to Wikipedia:Mentorship or Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Sancho 16:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia club

Hey guys, a few friends of mine have tossed around the idea of starting a "Wikipedia Club" at my school, where we would attempt to improve one article to featured (or at first, maybe just good) article status a month. An alternate idea would be collaborating at WP:ACID. We're not sure yet if this will go through, but it would tentatively be for the 2007-08 school year starting in September. Any suggestions just to get started? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea. Do you have a faculty advisor? Durova^Charge! 07:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Second Durova. See if you can get some extra credit from that - creating a featured article takes as much work as writing a proper graduate-level paper. Plus the extra cred would be a good reward/motivation. If you write about something local (your school, town, etc.) you may also get some support from various places (school, city council, etc.) - maybe a newspaper article or some kind of award... think big :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's just been an idea, so no faculty advisor yet. But I'm sure I could get one -- even if they aren't involved in it, you do need one teacher for it to be an official club at the school. As for extra credit -- maybe not at first, because I don't know how convincing "edit Wikipedia for extra credit" would sound to teachers, but perhaps once they see the work they might change their mind. I'll ask around this week. --Fbv65edel // _t * _c || 00:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You can try phrasing it along the lines of "writing articles and publishing them on Wikipedia" and note that you would be applying for peer review quality statuses like WP:GAC, A-classes, WP:FAC and so on.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think you have a fantastic idea and I hope you keep in touch about how it progresses. Partly with your club idea in mind I started the college recommendation thread below: I happen to be a graduate of Columbia College of Columbia University. If anyone in your club becomes a major contributor to a featured article and decides to apply to my alma mater I'd be willing to write a letter of recommendation to the admissions office on that student's behalf. Maybe that offer will help you drum up interest in the club proposal. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 04:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I rather like the idea of a Wikipedia club at my school as well. Currently I have a class project centered on writing for Wikipedia. Im hoping that it might take off to something of the sort. I also like below the idea of letters of recommendation for those who participate. Ill keep that in mind! FBV, I wouldnt mind keeping in touch to see how it goes for you. Thelmadatter 15:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Thelamdatatter

School will be starting up again in about two and a half weeks. I'll see if the friends I spoke to about it are still interested -- it would be a major time commitment, which for me is already tough with the unorganized work I do. But if anything comes to fruition I'll let you guys know. The college recommendation thing would be a major selling point to seniors. :) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Motivation?

Here's an idea I've considered to motivate secondary school students: suppose students who become major contributors to a featured article could earn letters of recommendation from established editors for university admission. I doubt a word from me would matter anywhere except my own alma mater, but I happen to have attended an Ivy League university. Extracurricular achievements often augment an application to United States institutions of higher learning. Although the potential for help is inherently U.S.-centric, people from around the world do compete for seats in these classes.

My main concern is that I'd like to structure this as a safe environment since some of these applicants are still underage. I'd send any recommendation directly to the admissions office. Should we recommend that requests for these letters come through parents or guidance counselors? Durova^Charge! 20:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. We have faculty members editing Wiki, and some of us will become them in the future. However I have no idea how to deal with the underage issue, since honestly I consider stuff like that 90% bureaucratic PITA :) Maybe somebody at WP:LAW would know the answer, and haven't the Foundation hired a salaried lawyer?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm certainly not going to communicate anything inappropriate and I'd like to set this up in a way that encourages a safe environment. Perhaps if others join me in this offer we could start a list page at this project. The page's introduction could recommend contact come through parents or school staff if the applicant is underage. Durova^Charge! 04:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, the OVERALL project is a great idea, and I wouldn't mind participating (write me on how). As for writing letters for admission to anywhere, I would strongly discourage it. From what I have seen, Wikipedia editors come from everywhere, have a large variety of backgrounds, and a wide variety of educational backrounds. This is one of Wikipedia's strengths - it's not limited to academics. On the other hand (there's always an other hand, isn't there), a letter to a university admission committee from "Esseh", or "whomever" from Wikipedia is very likely to be dismissed out of hand. It's anonymous, and cites no credentials. Or, you could sign your name, but an academic administrator would not likely accept a recommendation from a twelve-year-old Wikipedian any more than any other twelve-year-old, or (for that matter) a seventy-year-old with no academic credentials. To be acceptable in the ivory tower, such a message would have to be properly signed, with your real name, address, and academic qualifications, or it's useless. And most times a University will ask the simple question: "how long have you known the candidate?" Honestly... even Wikipedians for who have long contributed, how do you know their father or little sister didn't add the really good part, using their alias?
I suggest instead that any students participating in a project download (and print) the article when they have finished (it WILL change), and any comments (good or bad) to that date, and use that as their evidence of contribution. Opening Wikipedians to use as referees adds far too much complication, and calls for a public display of academic credentials. Just my thoughts. Esseh 06:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My letters would disclose my real name and year of graduation to the admissions committee. I've conducted alumni interviews for prospective students in the past and served on the board of directors of one of the local alumni associations. Durova^Charge! 20:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Its interesting that you're talking about motivation. I would suggest that there are already thousands of high school editors on WP; rather than being concerned with getting more on board, I think it would be appropriate to just let other editors know that this project exists, and that they're encouraged to participate - particularly if they're students. Those current editors should be supported in healthy ways; I've seen a lot of editors called out and talked down to, probably because their userpage said they are 16 or a boy scout or whatever. Rather than worrying about extrinsic rewards to motivate students to come to WP, let's focus on creating a quality experience for folks once they get here. That is what is within our ability to change and control; whether a college admissions officer is going to accept a letter of recommendation from a stranger WP editor is not. - Freechild 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The specific motivation I'd like to provide with this offer is to encourage students to raise articles to featured status. That's good preparation for university level work in research, citation, and composition. Since featured content at this website also provides informative value to a worldwide audience, I'm prepared to back up the ones who apply to my alma mater with some words of support. Nearly everyone who applies is already near the top of their class in academics so distinctive extracurricular activities can make a difference. In my opinion, featured contributions as a Wikipedia editor are comparable to editing a school yearbook or newspaper. Homeschooled students in particular might not have those other options at their disposal. The admissions office of my college has paid attention to my previous recommendations and I see no reason why they would value my opinion less in this context. Durova^Charge! 05:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)