Wikipedia talk:Student assignments/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:34, 15 April 2023

Latest revision as of 15:32, 26 February 2025

Line 142:

'''Note:''' Items in square brackets and footnotes are commentary on proposed changes.

'''Advice for <s>ambassadors</s> <u>volunteers</u>'''<ref>volunteer, aide or some other designation are editors who self-identify as wanting to help classes in general and want to make their availability to help known and would like help in finding appropriate classes by others like Bluerasberry and Wiki Ed who know where help might be needed.</ref><s>{{Shortcut|WP:CLASSAMBASS}}</s>

<s>{{Further|Wikipedia:Training/For ambassadors}}</s>

<s>{{See also|Wikipedia:Ambassadors/List of ambassadors/Online|Special:OnlineAmbassadors|Special:CampusAmbassadors}}</s>

<s>{{Space|5}}''For a list of current regional ambassadors, see [http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Regional_Ambassadors/Current here]''.</s>

You <s>represent</s> <u>give a face to</u> the editing community.<ref>Volunteers would not "represent" the community. But everyone who communicates with instructor and classes do create PR, so I think something should be said to indicate that. Not sure the best language.</ref> Please help <s>your</s> <u>instructors and</u> students <u>to</u> understand Wikipedia in a welcoming manner, so that student experiences are enjoyable and their contributions improve the encyclopedia. Please establish a good working relationship<u>s</u> with <s>the</s> instructor<u>s and students you engage with.</u><s> (perhaps by collaborating on the course page) so that you can help improve the assignment (even if only for future semesters), and make sure that it does not contradict Wikipedia's norms. Attempt to incorporate the requirement that students thoughtfully review each other's work on article talk pages, with enough time left in the course for students to address the comments.</s><ref>I think this oversteps the bounds of volunteers and should be the work of Wiki Ed. We could put in language about helping with course a syllabus ''if'' such advice is welcome.</ref>

Line 170:

::::::::Let's work collaboratively rather than unilaterally to make improvements to the page. I suggest we discuss one proposed bold revision at a time, probably in new sections or subsections. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 04:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::Discussing the changes individually is fine with me, and I'll be happy to set up that subsection right after making this comment. But you are framing the issue in a misleading manner by labeling it as being about civility. It's not like I removed the advice to treat students and instructors civilly. I did indeed remove the ambassador section, and what you quoted here was part of that section. It was advice ''to ambassadors'', not to editors. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

<p>{{pb}}{{ping|Tryptofish}} Please do not try to [[WP:ew|edit war]] in your prefer version and follow [[WP:BRD]]. I do understand you made numerous edits and may not want to lose all that work. I certainly don't oppose every single one of the individual edits. In the future, if you are going to make such sweeping changes, please considering discussing your [[WP:BOLD]] changes first. If you want me to, I can try to add back changes I agree with. Also, we are probably not as far off as you might think. This is not black/white. We are supposed to collaborate not impose our new versions on others. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 04:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

<p>{{pb}}{{ping|Ryan (Wiki Ed)}} It would have been better if you discussed potential changes to this page on this page rather than your talk page. Then we would have a record of the discussion where it belongs. Can you and {{u|Tryptofish}} copy that section over here and provide a permalink to what is relevant? {{pb}} When you say, {{tq|this is why I've demurred a bit when you've invited me to edit the page.}} I do understand your concern, but I do think you should speak fully at the talk page as a representative of Wiki Ed, when you are speaking in that capacity. I also hope you do not mean by "demurred" that you were "deferring" to Tryptofish's judgment. Although {{u|Tryptofish}} has worked for some time on these pages, he is not more equal that other editors. Deferring to the community I understand, but Tryptofish is only one member and does not represent the entire community. This must be a collaborative work per Wiki rules. I probably would have been working here long ago if I was aware of the program, as I have a background in education and feel these courses are a huge benefit to Wikipedia. I do intend to be more active with regard to Wiki Ed. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 04:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

:{{ping|David Tornheim}} {{tq|It would have been better if you discussed potential changes to this page on this page rather than your talk page}} I wasn't referring to any particular proposed change(s). Sometimes this page comes up on ENB or one of the other venues where Education Program-related matters come up. The most recent instance, if I recall correctly, was simply concerning linking to this page in general -- Tryptofish suggested including a link to this page in another student editing resource, and I left a message saying this page has a few things out of date, and asking whether there are things covered here that should also be covered in other student editing resources. He invited me to edit the page, and I demurred (in the sense of being reluctant). You didn't miss out on anything particularly substantial. :) That said, Tryptofish (along with, for a while, Biosthmors) has been the driving force behind this page, so I have typically closely associated them with it. Tryptofish is also one of a very small number of people consistently engaged with the Education Program for many years, and I've come to value his opinion, which I find is typically reflective of a large swath of the community. But you are entirely right that this page, being in projectspace, is not his, and when I do discuss changes to this page, I will be more mindful to do so here. Always a good thing to have more people involved, I think/ :) --[[User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)|Ryan (Wiki Ed)]] ([[User talk:Ryan (Wiki Ed)|talk]]) 20:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

:The discussion between Ryan and me is at [[User talk:Tryptofish#WP:STUDENTS]]. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Line 181:

:::*I'm fine with BRD, but let's get the facts right about who is edit warring. I made a series of edits, and what I edited was non-controversial (beyond maybe needing to correct a few details via the normal editing process), except in the view of one editor. After that one editor reverted it wholesale, an IP editor reverted it back. That IP editor is NOT me. I made ONE revert. ONE. Period. David, on the other hand has reverted repeatedly, despite getting zero support from other editors on this talk page. I'll respond about content issues next. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

:::*{{ping|Doc James}} As you can see from my comments below about each of the 11 edits, some individual edits I was okay with, others I was not okay with, and some were a mixed bag. The problem is that Tryptofish had mixed additions of new material that was clearly needed with deletion of the Ambassador program and other changes, e.g. [[#Edit 8]] and [[#Edit 9]]. It took over an hour to tease out the various kinds of edits into different categories of concern. If Ambassador removals were consolidated or completely sequential, then I probably would have just reverted that sequence, along with the other edits, but because Edits 8 and 9 mixed things, I could see there was no simple way to handle it, and as you know, often individual reverts cannot be done because of subsequent changes in the text. I do appreciate that Tryptofish made a number of individual edits rather than one huge edit--that would been even worse to discuss! Hopefully all is clear now, and we can move forward by restoring changes that are not a problem, and discuss those that are or might be a problem and work towards an agreement. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 05:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

<p>{{pb}}{{ping|Tryptofish}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AStudent_assignments&type=revision&diff=780088320&oldid=780085602 This edit] is not helpful IMHO. We should be collaborating and seeking resolution as suggested above by {{u|El C}}, which we both agreed to do, which is why I chose that header. It's not some "self congratulatory" title. Why you want to focus on "discussing the dispute" rather than resolving it and moving forward? I am trying to work <i>with</i> you and everyone else who is interested in improving the page. Let's discuss the content and proposed changes and seek agreement and consensus for changes as per {{u|El C}}'s proposed resolution strategy. I took a break and am about to fill in the sections we created below. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 23:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

:Seems to me that you are the one who is discussing the dispute instead of seeking consensus by making that comment. Anyway, to give you a serious answer, you had rearranged the comments in this talk and put your own list of complaints at the top of a section that you then labeled as if you were the editor seeking a resolution. I'm pretty sure that you are the editor who started this discussion in the first place. Nobody else seems to be complaining that there is a major problem. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

::Okay, I see where you are coming from now. I will put the section header where El C's comment is. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 00:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Line 264:

:::There is my proposed revision (in redline with notes):

:::{{quote frame|text=Your assignment and grading rubric should reinforce (and certainly not contradict) Wikipedia's norms, and your class should seek to improve the encyclopedia. Assignments sometimes include student comments about existing Wikipedia content, rather than changes to the articles themselves, or include comments on article changes made by other students. If so, those comments need to be in line with [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page guidelines]], focusing on article content in a constructive and objective manner. Pointing out missing content (preferably with [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]) is welcome, as is noting areas where there is [[WP:DUE|undue weight]], inappropriate [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]] of sources, [[WP:POV|bias]], etc. However, "reviews" in which students only praise each other, or comments that debate the topic <u>without reliance on [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]</u>, are inappropriate.<u> (Please see: ''Guide to student reviews''.<ref>This will be on another page and we will make recommendations of what should or should not be in a student review. WikiEd may already have something like this.</ref>)<p>{{pb}}¶</u>Please consider carefully whether you are asking for edits <u>or discussion</u> that <u>is</u><s>are</s> contrary to Wikipedia policies, such as posting personal opinions or [[WP:OR|original research]]. <u>If any portion of your assignment involves asking students to express personal opinions or [[WP:OR|original research]] (rather than opinion about what is in the [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]),</u><ref>I know this is repetitive. I want to be clear that ''only'' the portion of which is not appropriate for the talk page should be moved, and that portion that ''is appropriate'' can stay. There may be a way to simplify.</ref><s>In such cases, it may instead be better to give an off-site assignment, or have the students post only to draft pages</s> <u>that portion of the discussion would be better in user space<ref name=":1">I'm not sure that it is a good idea to encourage that discussion to take place even in user space or user draft space. To me [[WP:OR]] really is generally to be avoided everywhere as it is distracting and irrelevant.</ref>, student draft page(s)<ref name=":1"/><ref>Also, discussion in draft space may be an issue too, because the student may want to move the article to mainspace and then that discussion would be on the article talk page.</ref>or off-site</u>.<u><p>{{pb}}¶</u>If the assignment involves editing Wikipedia, compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is expected (though occasional lapses by newcomers are recognized as part of the learning experience)<s>, and n</s><u>; N</u>on-compliant edits are likely to be <s>reverted</s><u>[[WP:reverted|reverted]]</u>.

}}

:::Notes:

Line 270:

:::Here is the revised version without notes or redline:

:::{{quote frame|text=Your assignment and grading rubric should reinforce (and certainly not contradict) Wikipedia's norms, and your class should seek to improve the encyclopedia. Assignments sometimes include student comments about existing Wikipedia content, rather than changes to the articles themselves, or include comments on article changes made by other students. If so, those comments need to be in line with [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page guidelines]], focusing on article content in a constructive and objective manner. Pointing out missing content (preferably with [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]) is welcome, as is noting areas where there is [[WP:DUE|undue weight]], inappropriate [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]] of sources, [[WP:POV|bias]], etc. However, "reviews" in which students only praise each other, or comments that debate the topic without reliance on [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], are inappropriate. (Please see: ''Guide to student reviews''.)<p>{{pb}}Please consider carefully whether you are asking for edits or discussion that is contrary to Wikipedia policies, such as posting personal opinions or [[WP:OR|original research]]. If any portion of your assignment involves asking students to express personal opinions or [[WP:OR|original research]] (rather than opinion about what is in the [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]), that portion of the discussion would be better in user space, student draft page(s) or off-site.<p>{{pb}}If the assignment involves editing Wikipedia, compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is expected (though occasional lapses by newcomers are recognized as part of the learning experience); Non-compliant edits are likely to be [[WP:reverted|reverted]].

}}

:::--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 10:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Line 541:

:::::::::{{ping|Tryptofish}} I did see it, I even have an edit window where I started a response. I'm in hospital at present... went in for a minor day procedure, returned that evening with pain and some complication, and am still here having been told by my surgeon that "it'll either start to improve, or it won't... and if it doesn't, he'll do some more tests, but he doesn't know what is happening." My WP attention has gone to the easy, I guess you can understand why. :) I was inclined to the footnote approach, so I'll have a look. Ultimately a separate page is justifiable but I'm not itching to write it and waiting for one is not sensible. I think we've made good progress here, and there is reason for feeling a level of achievement and satisfaction. [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 00:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::Oh my, I'm so sorry about that, and I wish you a very rapid recovery. And you deserve commendation for editing at all under those circumstances. I too think that the issues have largely been worked out. Any corrections you (or anyone else) want to make to my edits: [[WP:There is no deadline]]. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 00:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::::Thanks, Tryptofish. I have tweaked your comment, including a link to the successful example of [[Talk:Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration/Archives/2017/April]] and added some context. See what you think? [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 22:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)<p>{{pb}}PS: Now home from hospital, pain much reduced, but what happened still unknown. [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 22:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::::It's good to have you back! And I think the expansion of the footnote was a good idea (which, inevitably, I fussed with further). It's been a bit of a long slog since the initial complaints, but I think that we now have a page that looks good, and I'm quite content with it. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I like your fussings, I think they make the text stronger. It's almost like editors working together can lead to a better outcome than anyone working individually... do you think we should write that down in policy and guidelines somewhere? I did wonder about highlighting some of the less successful article talk or user talk discussions, but I wasn't sure that that wouldn't highlight individuals too much. Should we link to at least one AfD? I think we are progressing well now, though we haven't had comment from David in a while, so whether we have consensus is unclear, and I want to continue to work with Ryan's input. [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 23:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)