User talk:ZachMcDowell

Welcome!

Hello, Debaser42 and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Online Ambassador for Writing as Communication Fall 2011

I have added my user name to the list of online ambassadors for your course. My reasons are two fold, First, I believe I can help with understanding Wikipedia policy regarding collaborative writing, and I am interested in improving my own writing skills. I see this as a win win situation and am glad to assist where I can. I hope I can meet the expectations and needs of the class. I will incorporate my best effort in all regards. With esteem - My76Strat (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Added myself as well. I've six years of Wikipedia experience and have contributed to over 40 featured articles and lists. Happy to help. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi Zach, welcome to the Global Education Program! Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ZachMcDowell. You have new messages at My76Strat's talk page.
Message added 01:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

My76Strat (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope that medium coffee is not the median for medium. LOL - My76Strat (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Tim Horton's isn't a fan of "American" sized coffee. Unfortunately for me that morning. Debaser42 (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I did notice that you favor the serial comma, as do I. I was struck that you use contractions, and perhaps regard their use as appropriate in writing. It would be contrary to use contractions in the encyclopedia, unless they are part of a quote being cited in its [sic] form. WP:MOS covers some general specifics, and WP:CONTRACTION is more specific to the aforementioned. What are your thoughts to this regard? My76Strat (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You're [sic] completely right - but for my userpage I figured I'd just be more lax. I'll edit that for the students, as that is how I write all academic papers. Debaser42 (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A question on scope

Would a precept of international law be within the scope of writing for a participant in your class? I ask because I prepared an article as a stub specifically for a student participant to expand if they were so inclined. It is located at General Purpose Criterion if it could be of benefit. My76Strat (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Although I think students might be interested in working on an international law article, the scope of a communication studies article would be something that specifically dealt with a communicative event. For example, an article about the Wikileaks and International law would be a good assignment - I would envision something like this as a summary (think: literature review) of the academic literature as well as news coverage of the reaction to Wikileaks from the international legal community. Debaser42 (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand your distinction. Thanks - My76Strat (talk)

Thank you for all your help! Debaser42 (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. I am excited about this whole program, and the wholesome interaction that is generally associated. I did want to thank you for joining the irc classroom as well. I hope you'll return at times, and that I see you when you are there. And of course, if you do see me logged in, which is often, feel free to ping me to say hello. Cheers - My76Strat (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I logged in earlier today to show students. I saw you and specifically mentioned to them that you are someone to talk to and explained how (!ambassador). So you might get some of them saying hi. They were still a bit hesitant this morning but I think by the end of the class they were feeling at least confident enough to ask for help. Debaser42 (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Great!, does that imply your entire class is formed, and if so; where is the consolidated list of students? My76Strat (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes - they're all on the main course page here Debaser42 (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

I understand it now I think. Thanks for moving my note!Sabrina.roy (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries - if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask! Debaser42 (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Idea for topic

Hi Zach, I have an idea for a possible topic but there is no Wikipedia page on it already. For this assignment, how do I put it on my page?Sabrina.roy (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Find something similar and link it with the double brackets and the stuff past the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ - for example [[pokemon]] for Pokemon. Then type a sentence or two about what it is that you'd like to do. By the way - you can always come on over to the chat room and ask for help. The two Online Ambassadors (OAs) and myself are in there now just waiting to help - click here Debaser42 (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed my Topic's

Hi Zach, got your comments on my talk page and just want to let you know that I have fixed it accordingly. Krimsonshadow (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ZachMcDowell. You have new messages at Cindamuse's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question

I was trying to put the banner on top of the Propaganda Film page for the "war on terror" section and it's not showing up and I'm not sure why =/ Scriptgeek (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

- I can see it just fine? Its supposed to be on the talk page, not on the main page - and I see it there. Maybe your browser isn't caching right? Try opening and closing or resetting your browser cache (if you need help with this either post on the moodle page or call the OIT help desk). Debaser42 (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Project Idea

Hey! This is steph in your comm375 class...would this be an okay article for me to edit? You mentioned that my other articles may have been too broad earlier... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_film thanks! Scriptgeek (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steph - this would be a fine article, but its already pretty fleshed out - do you have a specific sub-topic regarding propaganda films that you'd like to write about? Have you found some research about propaganda films that you'd like to synthesize? Debaser42 (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"Quick Wikipedia Edit" & Citations

Hi Zach, This is Brittany from Comm375. I just did the "Quick Wikipedia Edit" assignment, but I had a hard time doing the citation for the article I used. I think I was able to properly cite it, but I just wanted to make sure. My citation is #20 on the Body image page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aja99 Thank you. Aja99 (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Aja99

Hi Brittany - looks great! Check the flow of the paragraph you added to, you might want to copy edit a bit as you put your sentence right in the beginning, but otherwise it appears to be a good citation! Debaser42 (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Youth Marketing: modified my section title/research focus

Hi Zach,

I decided to rename my section on the Youth Marketing page from "Social Effects of Youth Marketing" to "Targeting the Demographic." I've been finding that researching ways in which marketers actually reach the youth has been more successful, whereas when researching the social effects of youth marketing, the main results I was getting were alcohol or smoking related. My article and info that is on this section doesn't change, it's more that this title is more fitting for the research discussed in it. I will continue to develop what is there over the next week until it's due on Friday.

Does this seem ok?

Jules2013 (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems better. I look forward to its development. Debaser42 (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Zach! This is in regards to the note on my personal reflection essay, which I just saw... :D Anyway, I asked the class ambassador what exactly our essays had to say and she said anything, so I wrote just that- anything! I couldn't access Moodle for awhile as you know, and apparently ignored the proper prompt. I swear I follow directions. And I figured the informal tone would be alright considering the class is pretty laid back. Thanks for the feedback! Also, I watched the Christmas special of Downton Abbey again. It slipped my mind that Bates is longer going to be hanged and instead has a life sentence. Yay! (I mean, life sentences still suck..but still.) How amazing is the theme song, by the way? I want to buy the soundtrack. Chalbeis (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries - it was fine, I was just commenting on what I saw - the intro is supposed to be about why you want to be a comm major, and I didn't see much of that there. The idea is to get you thinking about why you're interested in Communication Studies so you can focus on something you're interested in for this class. Debaser42 (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Zach,

Just wanted to let you know I decided to change my topic. I didn't want you to think you were going crazy if you have down that I am researching men and women in communication while my proposal is about media education and literacy. Just a heads up!

thanks! Jcidado (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Student Assignments

There is an issue with some assignments from the Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Writing As Communication Spring 2012. A student has written a draft, moved it to Main and has told me and some adminstrators in IRC/-en-help that they are supposed to have one working paragraph in Main by midnight Eastern time tonight, meaning within one hour. The draft has now been moved from Main back to User:Happyfriend77/The Transition of Identity Through the Wearing of Masks by an administrator to protect the content from possible deletion. Please contact this editor User talk:Happyfriend77 and give them some assistance, and also take a look at their contributions. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for giving this student assistance. This article was definitely not ready for main wiki space, and my instructions were not for "one working paragraph," they were for "a good start to an article," which this, clearly, was not (I had mentioned a few times that "a few good paragraphs" was ok). Students have been working in their sandboxes for two weeks now and this article obviously should have been much further along, as well as not had a title that seemed so personal-essay-ish. I appreciate the help you gave this student and I am sorry if things were difficult. Debaser42 (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we've resolved that one for now.©Geni 05:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking through the titles chosen on your course and I think the students could do with a little more guidance. Most of the titles are more suitable for an essay then an encyclopedia article ans some duplicate existing content.

Too essayish

• Sexualizing Children Through Beauty Pageants
• Media Depictions of Body Ideals and Eating Disorders ‎
• Sexualized Violence of Women in Slasher Films
• Social Media's Affect on Television
• Childrens Relationships with Consumer-Brands
• Media Impact on the Thin Ideal

we already cover it

• The Male Gaze
• Sexting Communications
• Media Education ‎
• BrandLoyaltyTwentyFirstCentury

Difficult but somewhat valid

• Gender representation in video games
• Media Portrayals of Autism Spectrum Disorders ‎
• African American Representation in Hollywood

There has also been a tweak to the move button interface that appears to have confused your students (in fairness it confused me) although that may have been for the best since a lot weren't really ready for the article namespace.©Geni 05:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good I will talk to everyone. I asked them specifically to a) ensure that these topics did not exist elsewhere (and the way they were pitched to me, they were not - this was very specific - and b) to request help from CAs and OAs. One of the things I've seen less of this semester than this is the students reaching out and talking to the community, which is evident by what they decided to move forward into main space. Debaser42 (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Article

Hi Zach,

I used the online chat to get help from one of the ambassadors. The problem with my article was that it had been suggested that I merge my topic of "Media Education" with "Media Studies" and after talking with the ambassadors, that seems to be my best option. So instead of having a sole article only about media education, I will merge my article into a subsection of the article of Media Studies. Does that make sense? Can I even do that? Jcidado (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello! You are welcome to merge your article into a subsection of any article. Although including it in Media studies would be fine as a subsection, you should take note that (as we discussed before) the Media literacy article covers much of what you are hoping to accomplish, although that article is terribly riddled with problems. You need to be careful because that article seems to be exactly what you are doing, as we discussed before. If you have specific things to add to Media literacy I would suggest the best course of action is to create a subsection there, as well as work on improving that article. I believe that is probably your best bet, but you can make your decisions about this. Run this by the ambassadors if you like, I think they would be supportive of this project. Debaser42 (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about student assignments

Hi Zach,

I've noticed a number of assignments from the Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Writing As Communication Spring 2012 being moved into mainspace (and project space, and user space, and all over the place - I've fixed the redirects where I could...) recently. So far, I've yet to see one which doesn't contain serious violations of WP:ESSAY and WP:SYNTH; most are on unencyclopedic topics and many are already covered. There's likely to be rash of deletions as other editors pick up on these (I'm personally holding off tagging anything until I hear back from you and MikeLynch, but I see numerous reasons to delete several of them). Please could you talk to your students and their professor about what constitutes original research at the earliest opportunity, because as things stand, the net outcome of this project is going to be a lot of frustrated editors and students, and a lot of deleted content. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The students who put their papers in the wrong areas were not following directions. As I stated above to another editor, I have given very specific directions, some of which was either not understood or ignored. We have had a long talk about this today and we are working to fix this issue. It wasn't such an issue last semester, so I did not anticipate there being such a problem with moving articles. Although some of the articles were obviously not ready to be moved, I think that with slight guidance most of them will be in good shape given time. Also, for your knowledge, I am the professor. Debaser42 (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

My mistake; I assumed you were part of the ambassadorial team. Glad to hear you're on the case; let me know if I can be of any assistance. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I am both a teacher and a CA, I went to the training and try to get more people involved. We're working through the issues but its a learning process - it is impossible to fully regulate what students decide to submit on their own, but we're taking steps to improve the process and turn this into a teaching moment. Debaser42 (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Article

Hi Zach. My article got moved by a Wiki contributor named "Geni" to redirect to a pre-existing article about body image. I reverted the changes, but I am afraid it will happen again. Do you have any suggestions about what I should do? Do you think my article should be combined with that article? Thank you (Channinged5 (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC))

You should send the editor a message asking why they believe these articles should be merged. Having a conversation with them might help to smooth out the differences. I think your article is different at the moment from the changes proposed - media impact is not the same as media depictions. However, there might be a point in the future where you can merge them, but at the moment I personally think they should be different. Also copy and paste this comment over to Mike's talk page to see what he suggests. Debaser42 (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zach- I merged my article and am still waiting to hear back to further edit the article. Should I delete the #REDIRECT Internet Relations and copy and paste the other article into my sandbox? Or should I just delete my sandbox? I put the article title on the list with everyone else's so people can click on it now. I have pinged ambassadors and asked them my questions but haven't gotten any responses yet. Thank you. Eewalsh (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Eewalsh

I think you should take whatever you have left and put it back in your sandbox. The Wikipedia:Internet Relations should be deleted I think. Debaser42 (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The Project - Food trends

Greetings, Professor! I ran across one of the student articles on an Article for Deletion Page and evaluated the article as warranting deletion. I later found that it was part of the project your students are working on. That doesn't change my initial evaluation of the article as now constituted, but it does pique my interest enough to send this note to your userpage. I applaud the project, but I'm concerned that the student involved, Chalbeis, may lose the article before it can be brought up to standard. It seems to me that it was moved to article space prematurely and that it should be incubating in a sandbox in userspace so that it can be improved without being under the deletion "gun." Hate to lose a potential new editor! Best regards, Geoff ^{Who, me?} 00:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for for the concern and the note - I appreciate the communication. I agree it was moved prematurely. It seems that the student has started a different page and I'm not really sure what is going on at the moment because the amount of work that has gone into it does not seem adequate for the amount of time working on the page. I will send the student an email to discuss with them, as I have already left a note on their talk page. Debaser42 (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Student editing and copyvio

Please inform your students of WP:COPYVIO and WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:MEDRS; I am finding them unresponsive, ongoing copyvio, and I've gotten no responses on your course talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for the note. Which students have been unresponsive? No one has talked much on the course talk page. Students have tended to talk on their own talk pages, I do not believe they monitor the course talk page. I have alerted them to your note on the course talk page, but I wasn't sure exactly which students have the issues in general, but without pointing out what is going on I too might be a little lost. Plagarism is very serious and I would very much like to know of any allegations. I have informed them about copyright issues. As for MEDRS, no one is writing a medecine article that I know of, they are all writing (for the most part) media studies articles and cultural studies articles. So how can I help? Debaser42 (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's your job to monitor your students and your course talk page, and not mine to inform you which are plagiarizing and which are adding medical statements not compliant with MEDRS. Informing on faulty student editing usually only leads one place-- accusations of biting newbies. Do you monitor your student work at all? If not, how do you intend to grade them with respect to copyvio and plagiarism? Rely on editors doing the cleanup to let you know? And beyond MEDRS and MEDMOS, have you explained to your students the proper use of primary, secondary and tertiary sources per Wikipedia policies? MEDRS merely explains the correct use of them in the medical realm, but correct use of secondary sources is a general principle that applies to all editing, and using primary studies to source articles is typically inappropriate, even outside of the medical realm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

My students should be using academic sources as their main source of their articles, backing them up with other sources. I cannot watch every single thing everyone writes all the time - I read what they write briefly throughout the semester and try to guide them. When they do not comply, I try to encourage their improvement. Copyright violations, such as images, we have talked about - many of them are relying on fair use. If you see plagarism I very much would like to know because I am unaware of it. It am unaware of proper ways to check for this on Wikipedia - I can spot check things but usually I do not do that until the assignment is due (at the end of next week). Honestly I find your insinuation that I do not monitor my student work at all offensive, and completely unhelpful. Apparently I do not understand what you are specifically referring to, and I asked you an honest question but have received no helpful information other than repeating the very general problems. My class does not only take place in Wikipedia and most of my students do not communicate through this - I announced what you had posted in my physical classroom. They are still working on their articles and if these violations continue I absolutely need help to identify them - I am aware that some students are still struggling, and seriously need to improve their articles, but plagarism is something I absolutely was not aware of. Debaser42 (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding journal studies that are nonetheless primary and not secondary sources, please review WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY; it would help if you instructed your students in the correct use of secondary, not primary sources to avoid original research. Wikipedia does not publish original research by stringing together data from primary studies to draw conclusions.

On plagiarism or other copyvio, if you don't know how to or aren't reviewing your students' edits on Wikipedia by checking their contribs or the history of their articls or by following their talk pages, I'm not sure why you are unleashing them to write on Wikipedia, which is published in real time. When your students are cutting and pasting full sentences from sources, you should be watching. If you're unware of how to check your students contribs, you can ask your online ambassador for help, but if I had to keep up with all the faulty student editing I encounter, it would be a full-time job, and I haven't signed on for that-- I'm interested in keeping the suites of articles that I watch well sourced and free of plagiarism, but I really don't have time to do your grading job for you. Please make sure you're aware of WIkipedia's sourcing policies and following your students' talk pages and articles. If you need help identifying them, and aren't monitoring your students yourself, I suggest you need a more active Online Ambassador, or you might refrain from conducting your coursework online in real time, where other uninvolved editors' time is used to do the work that should be part of your work in grading assignments. Your students have talk pages; do you monitor them? You have a course page: I posted to it weeks ago, and got no response from you. Do you monitor your course page or your students ? By the way, are you aware that every one of your course article titles were was set up incorectly, per WP:MSH? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you telling me that Journals that are peer reviewed and published are considered "original research"? Because this is against everything I have ever learned. There should be no conclusions that are found outside of the research that the students cited, only summarization of the work. I will check through for plagiarism and speak with my ambassadors about how to check for this. Plagiarism is intolerable for any work and my students should be citing nonstop. If they are not doing this, they will have serious problems at the end of the semester. I never asked you to "do my grading" - I only asked if you could help report any major violations you saw because I haven't seen them yet (mostly due to my ignorance and partially due to the fact that I give my students a lot of free reign to continue to edit and improve their articles before they are "due"). Debaser42 (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is one relevant policy-page excerpt (you can read more by following the links above):

• WP:OR:

  Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.

  Wikipedia reports mainly secondary sources, with primary sources used cautiously and rarely. Do you think your students, new to editing Wikipedia, know when they are using original data from studies unreviewed by third party or unrelated independent sources correctly, even if published in journals? We leave synthesis of primary data to professionals, and report what secondary sources say. Experienced editors may know how to use primary sources correctly: in my editing I almost never need to use original studies, and if/when I do, I know how to qualify the use of them. Did you just unleash them (your students) on a University database, without explaining to them how to distinguish primary studies from secondary accounts of those studies and interpretation of data from primary studies? Stringing together data from primary journal studies is original research, and stating as fact findings of individual studies unreviewed by third parties is incorrect sourcing. That one study found X rarely has any use on Wikipedia, depending on the importance of that study and what secondary sources have to say about that primary study.

  "Everything you have ever learned" is precisely the problem we're seeing everywhere on Wikipedia from these Education Program courses, because it (Wikipedia) publishes no original thought, which is precisely the opposite of what is done in most academic writing, and I'm sorry the WMF hasn't made this more clear in these Education Programs. There are other problems with incorrect use of primary vs. secondary sources, but that should be enough to give you an indication that you should do more homework before leasing undergrad students on a journal database and expecting them to know how to write for Wikipedia, which primarily reports what secondary sources say.

  The reason I'm uninterested in letting you know which students are causing problems is that I consider all of these problems with the US and Canada Education Programs to be the fault of the professors, online ambassadors, and WMF-- the students are the victims of poor guidance and I have no interest in blowing the whistle on the hapless victims. I would like the articles I edit to retain some integrity wrt Wikipedia policies, yet student editing seems to impact my editing time wherever I go in my routine editing.

  I hope this helps you understand why I don't consider it my job to take my time to report the problems with your course. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a brand spanking new noticeboard for discussing all of the issues with these Education Progams, so I've raised this as an example there of how the WMF has failed to educate professors and students on the differences between typical academic writing, and writing for Wikipedia. See WP:ENB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I feel that it's unfair that you continue to make general complaints while still having not brought forth any issues in specific. Please can you give detail on where precisely you see copyvios occurring so we can fix them? Maximilianklein (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel it's unfair for you to expect me to do your job, when you can quite easily check your students' contribs to see where the issues are occuring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

ENB discussion

Please see this discussion at the Education Noticeboard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

EduWiki Conference 5-6 September in Leicester, UK

I am writing to you as you have signed up to the Education Meetup at Wikimania 2012 and perhaps are interested in how Wikipedia links to education. Wikimedia UK is now running a education related event that may be of interest to you: the EduWiki Conference on 5-6 September in Leicester. This event will be looking at Wikipedia and related charitable projects in terms of educational practice, including good faith collaboration, open review, and global participation. It's a chance to talk about innovative work in your institution or online community, and shape the future of Wikimedia UK's work in this area!

The conference will be of interest to educators, scholarly societies members, contributors to Wikipedia and other open education projects, and students.

For details please visit the UK Chapter Wiki.

Please feel welcome to register or promote within your network.

Thank you, Daria Cybulska (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)