User:ProfGray/ExerciseIntroEdit

Wikipedia Assignment 2: Introductory edits
Due: t/b/d 2015
Return to the course page

Goals, principles, and data for this assignment

Learning outcomes

• Enjoy and become comfortable with online WP interactions with classmates and other users
• Critical reading and thinking, such as:
  • Analyze academic sources: Coogan, JSB apparatus, selected scholarly writing on a topic
  • Identify omissions or errors on Wikipedia articles
• Develop technical writing skills, including
  • Editing on WP
  • Fulfilling the responsibility of the WP Editor role
  • Avoid incivility and plagiarism
• Gain knowledge of selected topics through Coogan, academic sources, and JSB

Principles behind the assigned steps

Why so many steps? In the long run, you'll see that the process can be flexible. Wikipedia collaboration varies with each Article's intellectual content and editing atmosphere. For the purposes of this introductory assignment, the steps are broken down in detail. The order below is recommended -- let's see what works for you and your Team.

The assigned procedure is built upon the following principles:

1. Talk to people. Raise questions or proposing improvements before editing on Talk pages. (Though other approached can work, too. Wikipedia runs more smoothly when people chat about a topic and develop good working relationships.
2. Know your stuff and back it up. Do initial work to get your citations in order. Master the intellectual content!
3. Find where you can add value. Evaluate existing WP article sections in comparison to selected academic sources:
   • Examine a WP article against a small section of the Coogan textbook, or the JSB critical apparatus, or similar academic source,
   • Identify WP article omissions, missing references, potential mistakes, or POV discrepancies, then
4. Take small steps. Do low stakes WP editing, such as single sentences with verifiable citations.
   • You'll avoid frustration and get better feedback or collaborative input to the article.
   • Better to write in a sandbox, practice good paraphrasing and citing, and get vetted by peers, rather than commit plagiarism on this public website
5. Be responsive to other WP editors, or classmates, who want to modify, dispute, or add to your contributions. Check the Article Talk page.
   • You are part of a Big Project. If your specific words get deleted or revised, let it go. You will find ways to contribute much more down the road.

Data: Your topic and sources

For weeks 2-3, students do small, discrete practice edits based on coursework and class discussions about, for instance, JEDP, The Flood, and Babel.

• See steps 1-7.

For weeks 3-5, bigger intro assignment:

• Topic: Students will work in teams on a single Article, Wife-sister narratives in Genesis, or linked Articles, such as Abimelech, Sarah, Rebekah, or Genesis.
• Sources: Each team will receive 2 or more academic sources on this topic. You can also utilize Coogan, JSB, and other sources listed by the Instructor

• ^{At the Instructor's discretion, individuals or teams with sufficient Wikipedia and research skills may be welcome to edit alternative Articles}

• Objective: Each team will collaborate to place its sources' facts, findings, and claims into the Article(s) in a fair (WP:UNDUE) and neutral way

Alternative topics: Suitable WP Articles may include specific Pentateuch verses or phrases with weak little or no Wikipedia coverage, or discrete themes drawn from the concomitant Genesis/Coogan readings, such as Babel, Abrahamic covenant, Jacob wrestling with an angel, or Dinah. Peer-reviewed academic sources must be read and utilized. Wikipedia volunteers may be helpful in finding Genesis-related articles that need improvement. Please discuss alternative choices with the instructor, in advance.

Step 1: Work as a Team player: Week 2/3

Choose a Team name and create a Team page.

• Choose one only person to create your Team page at User:ProfGray/312/team-name-here and tell the Team after it's created! Or ProfGray can create it for you!

Then, for the rest of our course:

• Coordinate and peer review work through your Team page (and User Talk pages), hence
• Create your watchlist:
  • You MUST keep watch over any Article that you are editing, especially Article Talk
  • Keep watch over your Team page
  • Check your watchlist once a day, please!

Options/ideas:

• Keep track of Team accomplishments
• Keep a separate section, or subpage, for peer review discussions

Alternatives: Students are permitted to use a Niihka Forum, Google Document, FB, face-to-face meetings, etc., to coordinate. I recommend using Wikipedia because you will develop your technical skills there, perhaps collaborate with WP volunteers, and work directly on texts that can inserted into WP Articles. Let me know what you use! ProfGray (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Step 2: Prepare your list of reliable sources: Week 2

• On your Team page, write a list of sources (bibliography) that could be used as references in WP article(s).
• Your sources should include Coogan and JSB. Later, you'll add academic articles.
  • Use Wikipedia citation tools, if that's helpful.

• Do not include any non-academic sources.
  • Optional: if you are working on quite different Article topics, divide your bibliography by topic
  • Optional: you can list relevant Biblical texts; however, except for a synopsis of a Biblical narrative, do NOT write sentences that are supported only by a verse WP:OR

Step 3: Analyze sources and compare to WP articles: Week 2-3

1. Read assigned sources (Coogan and JSB)
2. Take proper notes from our readings
   • Find key facts and explanatory/analytical points in the sources
   • Outline arguments (evidence, reasons, claim) by scholars
   • Keep track of quotations in " " or QQ marks
3. Find gaps and errors in WP articles, find where you can make a contribution with your notes!
   • For recommended articles, Go to Niihka > Forums > Editing Wikipedia

♥ Bring a printout of your notes to class. Student analysis and identified gaps/errors will be discussed in class!

• Never put raw notes into Article or Article Talk pages. You can use your sandbox, or another user subpage, the Team page, or simply keep notes off Wikipedia.

Step 4: Write your sentences with refs, sandboxed: Week 3 by Monday, Feb. 9

1. Write up 1 to 5 sentences for Wikipedia article(s):
   • Put the sentences in your personal Sandbox or your Team page
   • Each sentence MUST include a reference to a reliable source. Sentences can share a source, of course.
   • References must include the page number(s) in the source.
   • RECOMMENDED: To ease peer review, provide the "exact quotations" from the page that supports your sentence!
2. After your sentences are vetted (peer reviewed), put them in your portfolio and -- if feasible -- into the Article(s)
   • It is feasible if the sentence won't be rejected by other Wikipedia users. That's why it's wise to discuss your ideas on Article Talk pages. Regardless: Your grade does NOT depend on whether your contributions are actually accepted in Wikipedia.

Step 5: Introduce your ideas and role on Article Talk page(s): Week 3 by Wednesday, Feb. 11

1. Introduce yourself! Each individual should mention their involvement and propose edits.
   • Option: Introduce yourself to WP Projects or active editors
2. Put the Course Banner (assignment template) at the top of the Article Talk page, if it's not there already!
   • To do this, copy the following -- with the squiggly brackets -- and insert at the top of the article's Talk page: {{course assignment | course = User:ProfGray/Religions of the Hebrew Bible | term = Spring 2015 }}

• All proposed specific edits could include both the sentence(s) and mention your reliable source, Coogan.

Step 6: Peer review each other's sentences and references: Week 3

Review another student's sentence and ref, and comment in their sandbox (or sandbox Talk):

• Check the reference for all its elements (e.g., author, title, publication, date) and page number

• Explain any discrepancy clearly

• Look at the cited page yourself. Does the sentence fit the author's intended meaning?

• Or look at the exact quotations provided by your Team member! (See "recommended" above)
• Explain clearly if the sentence(s) do not fit the source

• Does the sentence describe the source's intent in a NEUTRAL (see WP:Neutraily) manner? If the content is controversial or disputed, does the sentence attribute the idea to the source?
• Now check the Wikipedia Article. Does this sentence belong in that topic? Is the content missing or wrong there?

Step 7: Edit the assigned Article(s) with vetted sentences, due: Week 3/4

1. Your first number of edits must be vetted (peer reviewed) with your Team.
2. All specific edits must include a reference to a reliable source or be inserted among sentences with a reliable source)

• For now, only use sources approved by our course
• Exception: feel free to write section "lead" sentences that summarize the rest of the section. These can often simply rely on the sources cited below.

♥ Place all your substantive edits, i.e., sentences and references, in your Portfolio page for grading. Or print them out. Or provide permanent links. Note: you do NOT have to edit the actual articles for a grade. You can submit proposed edits instead.