Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of New Mexico/Introduction to Information Studies (Fall 2022)
| 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
- Introduction to Information Studies
- Institution
- University of New Mexico
- Instructor
- Lori Townsend
- Wikipedia Expert
- Ian (Wiki Ed)
- Subject
- information studies
- Course dates
- 2022-10-16 00:00:00 UTC – 2023-01-10 23:59:59 UTC
- Approximate number of student editors
- 24
In this course, we explore systems of information and how they impact our current social and cultural life. Using Wikipedia as one such system, students will evaluate and edit Wikipedia articles to explore the information creation process of this information format. Students will also consider how authority is constructed and contextual, and recognize the value of information as a commodity.
Timeline
Week 1
- Course meetings
-
- Sunday, 16 October 2022 | Monday, 17 October 2022 | Tuesday, 18 October 2022 | Wednesday, 19 October 2022 | Thursday, 20 October 2022
- Introduction to Wikipedia
Welcome to the OILS 101 Wikipedia course page!
This page guides you through the steps you'll need to complete for your Mini-Research Projects (MRPs), with links to training modules and your classmates' workspaces.
Your course has been assigned a Wikipedia Expert. You can reach them through the Get Help button at the top of this page. You can also email Glenn if you have questions.
Create an account and join this course page, using the enrollment link your instructor sent you. (Because of Wikipedia's technical restraints, you may receive a message that you cannot create an account. To resolve this, please try again off campus or the next day.)
Resources:
- Editing Wikipedia, pages 1–5
- Evaluating Wikipedia
- Milestones
This week, everyone should have a Wikipedia account and finish the training modules.
- Assignment - Get started on Wikipedia
You'll be editing a Wikipedia article next week, so these trainings are important prep.
Week 2
- Course meetings
-
- Sunday, 23 October 2022 | Monday, 24 October 2022 | Tuesday, 25 October 2022 | Wednesday, 26 October 2022 | Thursday, 27 October 2022
- Assignment - Add a fact
For this assignment you will add one fact to a Wikipedia article of your choice. Due dates and details in Canvas.
Week 3
- Course meetings
-
- Sunday, 30 October 2022 | Monday, 31 October 2022 | Tuesday, 1 November 2022 | Wednesday, 2 November 2022 | Thursday, 3 November 2022
- Assignment - MRP #1 Wikipedia Article Analysis Due
For this assignment, you will select two Wikipedia articles to analyze: a really good article and an article you will be improving during this course.
For the really good article, choose any from this list of featured articles in Wikipedia. You’ll be reading the whole thing, so pick something you don’t mind reading! You might want to choose one that is a similar topic to the article you’ll be working on to get ideas of what you might add.
For the article you’ll be improving, select one from the list of articles in our WikiEd course and assign it to yourself. You may also choose one of your own, but you must get instructor approval beforehand. Respond to the guiding questions as they apply to your article (some questions do not apply to all Wikipedia articles). Write in complete sentences and paragraphs when applicable.
Analysis Worksheet (please see Canvas for downloadable version of worksheet):
Part 1: Fill out the questions below.
1. Featured Article Title & URL:
2. Article to Improve Title & URL:
Part 2: Featured Article Analysis: Answer the questions below.
1. Click on the “Talk” tab.
a. What are people talking about? Give a summary of the main points.
b. What is the tone of the discussions on the talk pages? (i.e. is there a lot of debate? Does it stick to the facts? Is it opinionated?)
c. What information about the quality of this article does the talk page give you?
2. Click on the “View History” tab
a. When did the majority of work on this article happen? (i.e. is it limited to a couple years or spread out over a span of time?)
b. Looking at who made the edits, choose one editor with a username (not a bot or IP address) to click on. What information can you find out about this editor? (Check out the “user page” and the “talk” page on their user page).
3. Scroll down to the citations.
a. What information formats does this article rely on?
b. Are there weblinks/URLs in the citations? Click on a few. Do they open? Can you verify the claim used in Wikipedia? Explain.
Part 3: Article to Improve Analysis. Answer the questions below.
1. Click on the “Talk” tab.
a. What are people talking about? Give a summary of the main points.
b. What is the tone of the discussions on the talk pages? (i.e. is there a lot of debate? Does it stick to the facts? Is it opinionated?)
c. What information about the quality of this article does the talk page give you?
2. Click on the “View History” tab
a. When did the majority of work on this article happen? (i.e. is it limited to a couple years or spread out over a span of time?)
b. Looking at who made the edits, choose one editor with a username (not a bot or IP address) to click on. What information can you find out about this editor? (Check out the “user page” and the “talk” page on their user page).
3. Scroll down to the citations.
a. What information formats does this article rely on?
b. Are there weblinks/URLs in the citations? Click on a few. Are they all functional or are some outdated? Can you verify the claim used in Wikipedia? Explain.
4. Check for elements of quality articles :
a. Describe the lead section.
b. Describe the structure of the article – are there headings/subheadings? Images? Citations?
c. Describe the aspects and/or viewpoints of the article’s subject. What’s left out? What’s underdeveloped? What seems unnecessary?
d. Describe the tone. It should be neutral and read like an encyclopedia article.
5. Assess the accuracy, reliability, and credibility of the article.
a. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
b. How is the information organized? Is this an effective way of organizing the information? Why or why not?
c. Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
d. Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
e. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
f. Has the entry been “flagged” in any way (for being incomplete, biased, unreferenced, etc.)? This flag may appear on the main page or on the “discussion” page. How does this “flag” affect the article?
6. What specific recommendations would you make for changes to this article that would lead to it becoming a featured article? Check out the Featured Article Criteria. Write about a paragraph. Be as specific as you can.
Part 4: Compare the two.
1. Now that you’ve seen an example of a good article and an example of one that needs work, what stands out to you about the difference between the quality of the two articles. Please make sure to explain your assertions and provide specific examples form the articles to illustrate your points. Aim for about 200 words.
Remember:
- You are not making any Wikipedia edits for this assignment.
- Please see the rubric in Canvas for details on how your work will be evaluated. You may submit your paper as many times as you like, we will only grade the last version submitted before the due date.
- See Canvas for due date and to submit this assignment.
Week 4
- Course meetings
-
- Sunday, 6 November 2022 | Monday, 7 November 2022 | Tuesday, 8 November 2022 | Wednesday, 9 November 2022 | Thursday, 10 November 2022
Week 5
- Course meetings
-
- Sunday, 13 November 2022 | Monday, 14 November 2022 | Tuesday, 15 November 2022 | Wednesday, 16 November 2022 | Thursday, 17 November 2022
- Assignment - MRP #2 Proposed Article Edits Due
Hypothetical Wikipedia Edits
For this MRP, you'll be suggesting 8 substantive edits to a Wikipedia article. These will not be live edits -- you'll be turning in an edit log of proposed changes. *Do not make these edits live yet* (you'll do this in MRP #3).
By "substantive" we mean significant changes that help develop the Wikipedia page, such as: adding a missing citation, adding a fact, rewording for clarity, reorganizing information on the page (for example, adding a section, moving information to more appropriate sections), fixing broken links, fixing out of date information, writing or rewriting a lead to more accurately reflect the contents of the article, adding images (make sure they are okay to add). Remember, the talk page can give you an idea of where to start.
You will record these suggested edits in an MRP 2 Edit Log (see link below).
Details:
- If you need to change your article from MRP #1, you must get it approved from by me.
- Suggest 8 substantive changes: At least 4 edits must be adding new facts from at least 2 new sources found via the library. Make sure to tell us how you found the sources in your explanation (i.e. clearly identify it as a library source, explain what database you used, keywords, etc.)
- Fill out and submit the MRP 2 Edit log -- available for download in Canvas.
- For due dates and to submit the assignment, please see Canvas.
As always:
- Please see the rubric in Canvas for details on how your work will be evaluated.
- You may submit your MRP as many times as you like. We will only grade the last version submitted before the due date.
- Please email me if you have questions.
Week 6
- Course meetings
-
- Sunday, 20 November 2022 | Monday, 21 November 2022 | Tuesday, 22 November 2022 | Wednesday, 23 November 2022 | Thursday, 24 November 2022
Week 7
- Course meetings
-
- Sunday, 27 November 2022 | Monday, 28 November 2022 | Tuesday, 29 November 2022 | Wednesday, 30 November 2022 | Thursday, 1 December 2022
Week 8
- Course meetings
-
- Sunday, 4 December 2022 | Monday, 5 December 2022 | Tuesday, 6 December 2022 | Wednesday, 7 December 2022 | Thursday, 8 December 2022
- Assignment - MRP #3 Live Edits & Reflection Due
Part 1 - Live edits to your Wikipedia article
By now you will have gotten back your MRP #2 edits with feedback from Lori and Glenn. For this final MRP, you will be addressing that feedback and making edits live by moving your work from the Edit Log and into the Main Space (editing directly on the article). We will be looking specifically to make sure you took our feedback into account as you make these edits live. Additionally, you will be continuing to improve the article by adding another 2 facts. So when all is said and done, here's what we'll be looking for in MRP #3:
· 10 significant edits total, 6 of which are additions of facts
o **Important**: Make each edit *separately* instead of all at once in case someone wants to undo one of your edits.
· You have addressed our comments for your 8 suggested edits from MRP #2.
· All requirements from MRP #2 carry over (i.e. 2 library sources and 4 facts).
· Make sure you are logged in with your Wikipedia ID that you’ve used for this class so we can track your edits.
Part 2 - Reflective Portion
This reflective portion will ask you to write about your understandings and experiences using Wikipedia in this course. Similar to MRP 1, you’ll fill this out as a worksheet with essay questions, putting your answers in the spots indicated below using full sentences and examples as appropriate. Thinking deeply and critically about your experiences, please address all points in the following sections at a minimum. You might have other observations of your own that you are welcome to add:
1. Before/After:
a. Describe your process from casual consumer to critical consumer. How has the shift from consumer to creator of Wikipedia impacted your understanding and experiences? How has this class changed your understanding of Wikipedia? What do you now know that you didn't know before? How did this assignment change your feelings about using the content from Wikipedia articles in other classes?
b. Your answer:
2. Summary of Contributions:
a. Include a summary of your edits and why you felt they were a valuable addition to the article.
b. Your answer:
3. Evaluation of Sources:
a. Briefly describe your research process. Be specific – don’t just say “library website”. Tell us what part(s) you used; e.g. catalog search, specific databases, etc. What keywords worked for you? What dead-ends or challenges did you have in your research?
b. Your answer:
c. Explain why you decided to use the sources you used. Think back to our discussions about how we as humans determine authority and trust.
d. Your answer:
4. Wikipedia Generally:
a. We have defined authority as "a form of intellectual trust granted by an individual or community to an information source." Based on your own experiences using and editing Wikipedia, in addition to the readings and lectures this semester about Wikipedia — how much authority do you, as an individual, grant Wikipedia? There is no right or wrong answer to this question — the best answers will be those that provide sound arguments and evidence (which can include personal experiences) in support of their position.
b. Your answer:
c. How does a Wikipedia assignment compare to other assignments you've done in the past? How can Wikipedia be used to improve public understanding of your field/your topic? Why is this important?
d. Your answer:
As always:
· Font size 10-12 point. Double-spaced. .doc or .docx or .rtf or .pdf.
· Please see the rubric in Canvas for details on how your work will be evaluated.
· You may submit your essay as many times as you like; we will only grade the last version submitted before the due date.
· Due date: For due date and to submit the assignment, see Canvas.