Wikipedia:Education noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Purpose of this page Using this page

This page is for discussion of items that relate to student assignments and the Wikipedia Education Program. Please feel free to post, whether you're from a class, a potential class, or if you're a Wikipedia editor.

Topics for this board might include:

Of course, we should remain civil towards all participants and assume good faith.

There are other pages more appropriate for dealing with certain specific issues:

  • Click "Click here to start a new discussion thread" below to start a new thread.
  • Please start new threads under a level-2 heading, using double equals-signs and an informative title: ==Informative title==. If a thread is related to an ongoing discussion, consider placing it under a level-3 heading within that discussion.
  • You should generally notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{ping}} to do so, or simply link their username when you post your comment.
    It is not required to contact students when their edits are only being discussed in the context of a class-wide problem.
  • If no comments have been made within 30 days, your post and any responses will be automatically archived.
  • Please sign all contributions, using four tilde characters "~~~~".
  • If discussion is already ongoing elsewhere or if there is a more natural location for a discussion, please continue the discussion there, and put a short note with a link to the relevant location on this page.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, please place your comments on this page and they will be addressed.

Managing threads

By default, threads will be automatically archived by a bot after 30 days of inactivity. If you'd like to make sure a thread does not get archived, use {{Do not archive until}} at the top of the section. Use {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} within a section to have it archived (more or less) immediately. A brief Archives page lists them with the years in which those now inactive discussions took place.

See also


Copy-paste merging versus history-merging[edit]

Followup to the already archived Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 16#Proposal for update in the student instructions for moving drafts into mainspace. See Wikipedia talk:Merging#When to request a histmerge. You might consider making the archiving of this page a little less aggressive, so I'm not forced to create a fork of a discussion that's less than a month old. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: 7 days is rather aggressive, isn't it. I think that's a hold-over from when course announcements were all posted here rather than a subpage, making the page fairly unwieldy when not archived frequently. I've changed it to 30 days -- we'll see how that works. And thanks for the link. I'll take a look at this on Monday, but wanted to comment that this is definitely something we want to spend time on this summer, revising training materials prior to the fall 2017 courses starting. I've added DNAU to this thread to ensure it's here at that time. Also want to ping Shalor (Wiki Ed), the content expert working with that class in particular. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/688809 Memory/Archive. We need adequate notice of student editing, and course instructors shouldn't be assigning the task of writing multiple content forks of the same topic, leaving it for overworked volunteers to clean up. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I apologise for dropping the ball on that one, I started preparing the page about the course but didn't share it on the announcement noticeboard. Advance notice of editing would certainly have helped, but the students' accounts remain blocked. Please could the blocks be lifted? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think just an announcement on a noticeboard is sufficient. Most editors are not monitoring these noticeboards. There should be some indication on the editor's user or user talk page, such as Template:Student editor (e.g., like this). It should link to their assignment, so we can see what their objective is. wbm1058 (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note how Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Rutgers University/Languages in Peril Section II (Spring 2017) lists each student in the class, along with the titles of the Wikipedia articles that they are working on.
Wikipedia:Outreach Dashboard/Swansea University/LAA319 - Competition Law doesn't have a similar list of students and articles. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, I see that course runs until 28 June 2017. Can these closely related articles either be merged, or clearly differentiated using WP:summary style so that it's clear they are not forks covering the same topic? wbm1058 (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Just to comment on noticeboard announcements, though wbm1058 has since clarified that's not necessarily the question here, I don't think there's a formal process for announcing Education Program classes in general. Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Wiki Ed course submissions is a page of notices automatically (or semi-automatically) generated by the Wiki Ed Dashboard), but I don't think WMF has incorporated an equivalent into the Programs and Events Dashboard (classes outside the US/CA), so the best way to stay up on that would probably be to keep tabs on the Dashboard itself. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Btw, Wbm1058, I don't know if you saw this, but from the page you linked you can click the "Dashboard" link at the top and then go to the "students" tab to see the list of students and assigned articles (though it looks like most have not added an article yet -- perhaps that's what you mean). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, no I didn't find that until you pointed it out. But there I see "Assignment End: 2017-05-10", so it's not clear to me whether the course is still active, and whether the students will return to editing if their accounts are unlocked. Sockpuppet investigations isn't an area I'm active in administratively, so I'm unclear on proper procedures for reopening an investigation and unblocking editors... if we can wait on User:Bbb23 to do it then I'm sure it will be done the right way. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll keep an eye on students doing this. This summer we're going to be working on refining some of our handouts and instructions, so this will definitely be something we look at. :) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Frankly, folks, Wiki Ed drives me crazy. You have no idea how many cases are brought to WP:SPI from which, understandably, blocks ensue and then along comes someone to say, oh, these are students. How are we supposed to know that? There should be a clear notice on their userpage as to who they are and a link to the program. It would be better for you, the students, and the various unsuspecting editors at Wikipedia who become involved. I'm not going to spontaneously look at a Wiki Ed venue every time I evaluate a case. Unless you start cleaning up your procedures, this won't be the last time this happens. I will unblock the four accounts and remove the sock tags from their userpages (no need to reopen the case). Someone else can deal with the undeleting of any pages that were deleted. BTW, Richard, you should not have edited the SPI archive. Instead, you should have gone to Wbm1058, to me, or to an SPI clerk to make your request. I'm sure Wiki Ed is a lot of work and you, of course, provide a valuable service to Wikipedia and to the outside community, so I apologize for being, uh, brusque.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: Every class working with Wiki Ed (the Wiki Education Foundation) should have a list of students on the course page, a tag on every student's user page, and a tag on the articles they work on (there are some exceptions to the latter based on the way sandboxes are handled). I think that you're probably talking about the parts of the Education Program that aren't Wiki Ed? That seems like it could be addressed by incorporating the templating procedures into the P&E Dashboard. @Sage (Wiki Ed): who is the best person to ask about that at WMF (or otherwise)? --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • If the P&E Dashboard was set up to automatically create a page on-wiki listing editors involved that would be very helpful. Currently it has to be manually set up which relies on my (very much fallible) memory. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ryan (Wiki Ed): Are you saying that this program with these users was not part of Wiki Ed?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, I'll try to remember that. And here I thought the only Foundation I had to bitch about was the WMF. A new target for my irritation.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I see that m:Education is a disambiguation page. It would be nice, and less confusing for unaffiliated, independent editors and administrators, if the Wikipedia Education Program, a program of Wikimedia Outreach (why is that page tagged as "historical" if the Education Program still uses their logo and Outreach has its own wiki?), had all of their chapters, including WMUK, using the same standards and procedures developed by the Wiki Education Foundation, which I presume is no longer a proposed Wikimedia thematic organization, as the disambiguation page still claims? wbm1058 (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bbb23: WikiEd haven't done anything wrong here (and do an excellent job) this course is under my auspices rather than theirs. I agree that student accounts should include a note on their user page that they are taking part in an educational course and I will make sure that happens. Thank you for taking the time to unblock the accounts. I apologise for the extra work this has created and appreciate that it is taking up your volunteer time. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Richard Nevell (WMUK): Not to worry, many of my comments are tongue-in-cheek, although I have had some negative experiences in the past. This is the first time I've learned something useful, i.e., the division of responsibility. Happy teaching.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Yes, there are different hubs of activity. For future courses (not just this one but others I'm involved) I'll be making sure students have a notice on their user page and on talk pages as Ryan said is compulsory for WikiEd courses. Currently I recommend it for courses WMUK assists, but it should be a requirement rather than a recommendation. Please could 826540MAH (talk · contribs) 838181CDC (talk · contribs) 838463swanseauni (talk · contribs) Elinahh (talk · contribs) Nfyfe826276 (talk · contribs) also be unblocked? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
An important responsibility for any class assignment, no matter which program advises it, is to put Template:Educational assignment on the talk page of every article being worked on. That's the first and foremost way to let other editors know that these are student editors, and not something else. Then, as also mentioned above, students should put Template:Student editor on their own userpages – and of course there should be a course page that clearly identifies the instructor. These steps can go a long way towards preventing such problems as mistaking student edits for socking, and also help a lot with keeping communication open with other editors. I think that all programs that work with student assignments should try to make these things clear to all classes they work with. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Automatic edits from Programs & Events Dashboard[edit]

@Richard Nevell (WMUK), Wbm1058, Bbb23, and Ryan (Wiki Ed): I'm currently mentoring User:Medhabansal for an internship project to enable edits from Programs & Events Dashboard, which would let us enable some of the edits that the Wiki Ed Dashboard makes on a wiki-by-wiki basis. The project just started, but hopefully within the next few months we can have the automatically-updated course pages and the userpage templates like for Wiki Ed courses. --Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a very encouraging development. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Online Ambassador application: Abdulrehimras[edit]

This extension was removed, nothing to do here. — xaosflux Talk 16:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abdulrehimras[edit]

Abdulrehimras (talk · contribs)

  1. Why do you want to be a Wikipedia Ambassador?
    To have a wider platform and larger knowledge pool to impart academia
  2. In three sentences or less, summarize your involvement with Wikimedia projects.
    YOUR ANSWER (OPTIONAL)
  3. Please indicate a few articles to which you have made significant content contributions. (e.g. DYK, GA, FA, major revisions/expansions/copyedits).
    Revisions
  4. How have you been involved with welcoming and helping new users on Wikipedia?
    Yes
  5. What do you see as the most important ways we could welcome newcomers or help new users become active contributors?
    Guide them through
  6. Have you had major conflicts with other editors? Blocks or bans? Involvement in arbitration? Feel free to offer context, if necessary.
    No
  7. How often do you edit Wikipedia and check in on ongoing discussions? Will you be available regularly for at least two hours per week, in your role as a mentor?
    Yes Am regularly available online
  8. How would you make sure your students were not violating copyright laws?
    Teach them right
  9. If one of your students had an issue with copyright violation how would you resolve it?
    As a legal expert I have many avenues to resolve this
  10. In your _own_ words describe what copyright violation is.
    It is the use of another's creation without permission
  11. What else should we know about you that is relevant to being a Wikipedia Ambassador?
    Am learned, vastly knowledged and intelligent...

Abdulrehimras (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Endorsements[edit]

(Two endorsements are needed for online ambassador approval.)

Not done Thank you for your interest, however we are currently phasing out the MediaWiki extension which uses the Online Ambassador user right - TNT 💖 19:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education's Monthly Report for September 2018 now available[edit]

You can find a report of Wiki Education's activities for September 2018 on Commons, meta, or our blog. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft Essays on Communism[edit]

Two essays on whether communism is dead or alive are in draft space and have been nominated for deletion as essays: Draft:Is Communism Dead? and Draft:Is Communism Dead or Alive. Both of them use the same sources, Danziger and Priestland. This is strongly suggestive of a class project. The two essays will probably be deleted, but if this is a class assignment, the instructor should be given better advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Wiki Education staff is currently trying to figure out if these two users are partaking in a class project. If they are, we will absolutely connect the instructor with our resources and best practices advice. Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Large genetics class off the rails[edit]

This class: Genetics 3250 has 68 students listed.

here are the articles they are working on so far:


Students are adding unsourced content, content about biomedical information sourced to primary sources (some of them predatory), and essay-like content, added to articles without any mind for the rest of the page. They are edit warring to keep it at the pages I have checked Actinin alpha 3 and Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3. I spot checked other pages and they appear to be editing this way across many pages.

They don't seem to have done the training.

Pinging User:Ian (Wiki Ed) and the instructor User: MSalem-MTSU.

I've also left a note at WT:MED and WT:MCB linking here. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Ian (Wiki Ed):, there is also some blanking of sections with no explanation (for example in the Microbial genetics article. The citations need to be added properly as well, not in a list in the beginning of the article. In this example, should we reverse these edits for now and move to the talk page? Thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
JenOttawa Thanks very much for bringing this to our attention. I've reached out to the instructor and asked that his students cease editing. We're in the process of going through their contributions and will update here when we hear back from the instructor.Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

And this one has 48 students listed and is also struggling.[1] Same instructor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, we're treating as the same class. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The instructor just got back to me and is asking his students to cease editing.Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. They just need more instruction on the types of sourcing they should be using and how to format. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
User:Doc James that isn't all. The content they are adding is self-contained and repeats things said elsewhere on the pages (eg. in describing genetic disorders they repeat information about where the gene is) and goes into excessive detail about disease. The writing is often too informal. And the edit warring. They are altogether aiming for wrong thing - "here is my self-contained essay for grading" not "here is a useful subsection in the whole article". But yes better sourcing and citation-formatting would make their content easier to edit down. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Yah when the students do not take the time to read the article first... Gah... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
As Jytdog said in the initial post - this class went off the rails, badly. Part of the problem was that it wasn't identified as editing medical content - we don't accept classes this large who want to edit biomedical content. We've relied on the instructor making the determination, but in light of this, I've started a conversation about modifying our procedures when it comes to large classes in some area of biology.
That said, I'm baffled by what happened. These kinds of problems used to be more common in the past, but we built our resources to try to address that. I'm hoping this was a one-off problem, a perfect storm, but I'm certainly going to dig into our trainings and resources once the term is done and things slow down. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Way too much work required cleaning up afterwards. This is burning me out. In addition to the sourcing and essay-like problems mentioned above, the students apparently do not understand the basics of how Wikipedia articles are structured (they start with leads, not introductions). Boghog (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You're right. It isn't ok to expect you to clean up after a class like this. That's why we asked them to stop. I personally feel awful about the demand this class in particular has put on you and Jytdog. I apologise, and speaking personally, I will do what I can to minimise the odds of this happening again. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Ian (Wiki Ed): for being so responsive here. This student needs some assistance. I feel horrible reverting the work, but I cannot keep up in any other way. These are good faith edits and the students are working hard. We expect them to make some errors as they learn (we all did/do), but it seems that they do have much support learning the guidelines. This user is a student editor in University_of_Cincinnati/Environmental_Public_Health_(Fall). Ian, I see here you are also doing your best to keep up with this student and have been helpful! JenOttawa (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ian (Wiki Ed): Thanks for your responsiveness above. Unfortunately students from the same instructor have started editing again (see for example Dermatopontin) with the same type of deficiencies (inserting redundant essay-like sections that are not supported by secondary sources). I would appreciate if would contact the instructor again. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. This isn't good at all. I have asked Helaine to get in touch with him again. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

A stray student editor who has never been greeted by a Wiki Ed liaison.[edit]

Hi everyone, I found a stray student editor who has never been greeted by a Wiki Ed liaison! I'm trying to connect them with the right people so that they can be successful, since I worry that they might be in the painful situation of having unrealistic expectations from their instructor. I left a note Shalor's talk page, since they're the only Wiki Ed liaison that I've ever encountered. You can see that message here: User_talk:Shalor_(Wiki_Ed)#I_found_a_stray_student_editor_(they've_never_been_greeted_by_a_Wiki_Ed_person_etc.). From there you'll see a link to their initial call for help on the tea house which is where they've indicated that their work is for a class assignment.

Thank you for the important work that you do. I want Wikipedia to be accessible to everyone who wants to contribute and I'd hate to see course expectations that contradict Wikipedia's expectations frustrate a new student editor out of their success. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 06:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

WishList Proposal for Script to Guide Students[edit]

Have proposed HERE.

In my opinion this will be a significant help for the increasing student loads we are seeing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This is interesting. I'd be interested in a script especially geared to preventing specific, common errors like the use of library proxy URLs. We could potentially install such a script automatically when students join a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. We want to build functionality like that into the Dashboard itself eventually — a general system for analyzing the content of edits before or immediately after they are made, to provide better 'just-in-time' feedback on Wikipedia's rules and best practices. But this would be a great way try out the concept and find out what works well and what doesn't.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions training for Wiki Ed professors[edit]

Something about Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions ought to be included in the Wiki Ed training for professors teaching courses in an area subject to sanctions.

I assume that Wiki Ed Content Experts are familiar with WP:AC/DS and when to apply it. But imho, new Wiki Ed professors should learn something about this in whatever training they take when onboarding to Wiki Ed. If the course they are teaching, as often seems to be the case, touches on one of the areas that ArbCom has designated as subject to Discretionary Sanctions (such as, anything related to gender, U.S. politics, the Balkans, and a dozen other subject areas), then the professor should be given a good deal more training about Sanctions, and what it implies for the students in their course. In brief, one thing it means is that it will be harder for their students to make sucessful edits to articles without being reverted, and secondly, that they will run a greater risk of being blocked if they edit war.

In addition, as soon as students in their class have declared an intention to edit on a Wikipedia article that happens to be in a topic area subject to disretionary sanctions, somebody should add the standard {{Ds/alert}} notice on their talk page. If I were head of Wiki Ed, I would say that this would be the responsibility of the professor, that as part of whatever wiki-related training they give to their students in class, that they introduce the topic of ArbCom sanctions to their students if the course topic is in one of the D/S areas. Further, once assignments are handed out to their students, the professor should be responsible for adding the appropriate {{Ds/alert}} template to the talk page of every one of their students with an assignment to an article that is subject to sanctions. Content experts, or somebody at Wiki Ed, should ensure that the professors place this alert template on user Talk pages with the correct topic code (for example, |pa or |gg for gender-related assignments; see list of codes), and should follow up and place the alert themselves, if the professor does not. Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, Mathglot. Several terms ago, we ran a query on all the articles our student editors touched and cross checked it for the discretionary sanctions category, and discovered it was only a small percentage of students who actually are editing articles in that category. We've worked really hard to only include things in our trainings that are important for every participant in our program to pay attention to — things like what are reliable sources, for example. Every item we add to the training adds time required to complete it from our participants, and thus reduces the number who will give it their full attention. Since only a small percentage of students were actually touching discretionary sanctions articles, we decided to not include it in the training.
Instead, our Dashboard software automatically identifies any time one of our student editors makes an edit to an article in Category:Wikipedia pages under discretionary sanctions. It generates an email that goes out to the Wikipedia Expert (Ian, Shalor, or Elysia) assigned to that student. The Wikipedia Expert then personally evaluates the student's contributions and is ready to intervene on an individual basis when needed. We've found this to be a very effective way of addressing students editing articles under discretionary sanctions without unduly burdening everyone with longer trainings.
That being said, it's always good to know if something we think is working actually isn't! :) So please do let me know if you've seen problems in this area, and we can look at adjusting our processes. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
LiAnna (Wiki Ed), what you say makes a lot of sense, wrt only providing the information to the students that need it, and not overburdening their training; there's already enough stuff for them to learn about WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CONS that are important with every edit. I likely have a skewed view of the percentage of students involved in D/s areas, since I have a large number of such topics on my watchlist. The fact that you already have a system in place with auto-generated emails to handle this is great; glad to hear about that. That said, from where I sit, skewed as my PoV may be, there do seem to be a fair number of courses dealing with feminism, women, gender-related issues, and so on, with sometimes a dozen or two students all actively editing in areas under sanctions, but I don't think I've ever seen the Ds/alert template on those students' talk pages. It's possible I just missed them, because I only spend a small percentage of my time on WikiEd students' talk pages. Your technique of having the Content Experts stay on top of it seems like a good compromise, as long as it doesn't unduly burden them to do so.
All of that notwithstanding, my first instinct if I happened to notice a student editor editing in a D/s topic area, would be to add the {{Ds/alert}} to their talk page, just like I would for anybody else, student or not. The D/s alert is unlike many other types of templated notices, as the template isn't there primarily as a time-saver over writing a more personal, non-templated message. Posting a notification about D/s on a user's Talk page is optional, but as I understand it, if someone is to be notified, the template is a requirement and not just a time-saving option. So, once a content expert has decided to intervene and advise an editor about sanctions, at that point, they must use the template rather than (or in addition to) a hand-written message to the user. Mathglot (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Mathglot. I fairly frequently see students taking on GMO topics. In the past, I would look up which Wikipedia Expert worked with the course, leave them a message about what I saw, and let them take care of it. More recently, I have been giving the student a DS alert, as Mathglot does. I feel a little bit bad about doing that, because it seems to me to be somewhat WP:BITEy, but I also think it can a lot worse if the student makes a mistake and ends up blocked at WP:AE. My experience has been that when I leave these alert messages, the student quickly changes their choice of article, which ultimately is a good thing, at least from Wikipedia's perspective. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
We definitely encourage you to treat student editors as you would any other new editor, so please add the template as you see fit. If you do see any problematic edits, to DS articles or any others for that matter, please definitely do reach out to the Wikipedia Expert assigned to the class, so our staff can help take care of it. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Proper use of Assignment template[edit]

The Template {{Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment}} is used in Talk page headers to create a horizontal box notifying viewers that the article is or was the subject of a Wiki Edu course assignment. This is useful information for editors, and I'm glad to have it. OTOH, it's a bit annoying, when these notices are stacked up, with no indication if they're all ten years old, all current, or what. For example, look at this version of Talk:Genderqueer. If you look at the last three boxes in the Talk page header on that page right above the ToC, and containing mortarboard icons on the left, you'll see what the "Assignment" advice box usually looks like. There are three of them there, but no indication of date.

I have modified that page to add the course dates ("Fall 2016", and so on), and so now in this version, the course dates are included. This is much more useful, now.

I went to the Template page itself, with a view to adding a new "date" parameter to the template for general use, and found the documentation there to be very sparse. It seems that the template writers have included a generous number of parameters for use in the code of the template, but unfortunately, nobody knows how to use the template properly, because it is nearly entirely undocumented.

It turns out that there are 18 parameters available, 12 named parameters and 6 'extra' numbered params. It turns out one of the existing params, the "date" param, fulfills the function I wanted to add with a new "date" param. Wiki Ed training should instruct students to add at least the |term= param when using the template. So, instead of whatever they are doing now, they might code on the article talk page:

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment |course= Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Slobovia/Sociology_171_Gender_Studies |assignments=[[User:UserName123]], [[User:OtherUser456]] |term=Fall 2018}}

and that would already be a big improvement, even without taking advantage of any of the other dozen or so parameters.

In addition, the doc page for the template should be expanded to document all of the parameters. I've added the description of the term param to the doc page as a model of how to do this. Mathglot (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)   updated to link named/numbered params, by Mathglot (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot. Most of those unused parameters were copied over from an earlier template that was added manually, but this template is intended to be completely automated; all the edits that add it or update its parameters happen whenever users add or remove assignments on their dashboard.wikiedu.org courses. We could definitely add more parameters based on data that the Dashboard has. We do have 'term' for each course, but it gets used somewhat inconsistently; it's often simply "Spring" or similar. But maybe the most relevant thing to add would be the end date of the course, so that it's easy to tell which classes are done working on it (and remove or archive or hide the templates, if desired).--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Sage, thanks for the reply. If the params were copied over from an earlier template and don't really apply to this one, you might consider removing the ones that you don't expect to be used, as too many params can discourage a new user from using the template at all. If the template is added automatically when users add/remove assignments, then if it defaults to "Spring" or similar, that would be ideal, because we can make it default the year to {{CURRENTYEAR}}. I agree that end date would be the most useful data item to have; but if it's a choice between having no term info, vs. only the beginning date and no end date, then please let's add the beginning date at least; readers viewing the template can draw their own conclusions based on a start date. The main thing is, to avoid worrying about courses that started (and therefore presumably ended) a year ago or more. The current year could easily be added, and that might be a good enough proxy for start date, as a first approximation. I could mock up a copy of the Assignment template in my sandbox, with the current year defaulting into the term field, if you'd like to try it out, and see how that works, by invoking it from your talk page or sandbox. A cleverer template could look at the course name, which often contains the term name as a season (Fall, Spring, etc.) coded right into the course name, as is the case with the current course at Talk:Genderqueer, extract the value, and combine it with {{CURRENTYEAR}} to give a complete value for term. But year alone would be a huge improvement over what we have now, and it's possible to do that automatically, with no user intervention. Mathglot (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Sage, you can try a mocked-up template which defaults term to {{CURRENTYEAR}} here. Mathglot (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Mathglot: I just rolled out an update to the data that is included in the template — start_date and end_date parameters — and I also updated the template to cut out the unused stuff, and updated the documentation. You can see it in action with the new params here, for example. Any new or updated assignments from here onward will include those params, so it'll be easy to see when the expected end date of the assignment is. (And we'll be able to assume that templates without those params are old ones. Sometime in early 2019, once all current assignments are using the params, the template could be updated to put it in past tense whenever the start_date param is missing.)--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Sage (Wiki Ed) & Mathglot. I think this revised template will be really useful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Sage, great job (and fast, too). This will help considerably, thanks! Also, nice bennie about adding "was" to the ones without start_date later on, and thanks for updating the doc, and removing all the unused cruft—much more streamlined now. Mathglot (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Sage, a couple of things: see comment about a new template at Template talk:WikiEd banner shell#Creation of new template. Secondly, I'd like to keep the "term" param in the course template, even if start_date/end_date default automatically. I see it's still in the code, so I've added it back to the doc page. Once the course is a year old, nobody will care anymore what the dates were. I'm thinking that we could let "term" param be used as a manual override for the dates. So at first, we could let the start_ and end_dates default as you described, and then if someone comes along after the course is over and cares enough to manually add a "term=Spring 2015" or whatever, then for display purposes, it would suppress the display of start and end dates, and just put up the term value instead. (If desired, a date calc could ensure that the end_date is in the past, before displaying the term value override.) In the case of Talk:Feminization (sociology), I've added "term" params manually to the collapsed courses, to show what it might look like with "term", but haven't added any "override" code to the course template yet, so if there are dates, they would display as well and not be overriden currently. You can see this in the case of the last of the three courses. Mathglot (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Mathglot: Thanks! That all looks good to me.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Political Philosophy of the Enlightenment[edit]

I've come across Link Between Enlightenment and Imperialism as a new article. It's clearly an essay that is not suitable for an article at this time. It's part of the class Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/College of the Holy Cross/Political Philosophy of the Enlightenment (Fall 2018). Some of the other changes by this class ([2]) may need attention as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for bringing this to our attention. We're looking into it now and will report back. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I reached out to the instructor, and he will be addressing these issues with his students. Thanks. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Long Term Metrics[edit]

Do we have any metrics on how much added by coursework is well sourced and actually remains in the wiki? I would be interested to see detailed reports on the efficacy of the program. I see the blog post points out some nice articles that were created from "thin air", which is good- but I've also seen that forcing students to edit the wiki results in a lot of essays(WP:NOTESSAY) and WP:SYNTH being introduced. The promotional material such as report has a few issues.

  • 67% of students were up-to-date with their assigned training modules but doesn't this means that 1/3 of all students are editing without keeping up with the courseware.
  • Students edited 1,130 articles, created 20 new entries, and added more than 160K words. Ok but were those words any good e.g. Link Between Enlightenment and Imperialism is a whole bunch of words about what wikipedia is WP:NOT.

Are there systems in place to monitor the goodness of edits? At the end of a course is there a post-mortem procedure to go through and check edits? Do we have any metrics other than words added, such as words added which remain after 6 months (we'd need a bot for this). It seems some courses involve a lot of peer review, but somehow essays pop up like Link Between Enlightenment and Imperialism, which continues to exist, despite the fact that the course will end on December 7th 2018, effectively rendering all this work void. Editors are getting around to deleting it, but it makes me question the oversight of the program, that it has somehow managed to exist in mainspace at all.

It might be that on the whole having students edit the wiki is better than the edits of the general public on the whole. I just wonder if we have the statistics on the matter. It would also be nice to know that there are systems in place for putting students into tiers, for example the oversight needed in descending order would go post-docs, graduate students, 4th year undergrads - 1st year undergrads. Probably 4th year undergrads need very little oversight, but a great many students wash out of 2nd year (otherwise known as gatekeeper courses).Ethanpet113 (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Those are good questions, and I'm interested too. What makes student editing somewhat unique, relative to editing in general, is that very large numbers of edits show up all at once, and that it is sometimes awkward to deal with edits by persons who are being graded for their editing and who are editing as a requirement instead of as a purely volunteer activity. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Ethanpet113 and Tryptofish. Sorry for the tangent and let me know if I should move this to its own heading.
I would like to see an essay written, or Wiki Ed material written, for student editors that takes them back to the basics of composition terminology so that they can do some conceptual reframing of the difference between 1) the type of writing done on Wikipedia vs. 2) the typical type of writing that they are trained to do in higher education (essays). It could even list other commonly assigned types of writing in higher ed to compare and contrast from to help make this conceptual distinction even clearer: lab reports, annotated bibliographies, book reviews, etc. As a new editor, I had to struggle for a bit the first few weeks to really keep that difference in the type of writing at the forefront of my mind and whenever I give feedback to student editors I try to emphasize the difference in these types of writing to them to encourage them to try to make this conceptual difference.
Perhaps there is a Wiki Ed staff member who has a degree in English or some related sub field who has the expertise to effectively write this kind of training material? Or perhaps there is a professor (or group of professors) that we could reach out to to help us effectively create this training material? It would improve the project a lot I think, because it would also help us to better communicate with non-student new editors too! Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ethanpet113, thank you for your questions.
About training completion percentage: A certain percentage of students will fall behind in the term; that's normal student behavior. Many of these students who are behind on the training modules are also behind on actually doing their Wikipedia assignments too, or they end up not actually doing the assignment, etc. So while it does mean 1/3rd of students aren't up to date, it also doesn't mean that those 1/3rd are actually going to edit. We don't have good data to answer this question.
About quality of edits: We've run several studies around quality of student work. In 2010–11, the pilot year of our program, we conducted an extensive research study. We brought in subject matter experts and Wikipedians, and asked them to assess student articles on a 26-point scale, based on the English Wikipedia's 1.0 Assessment scale. The results showed that students make substantive improvements to articles through their work. We repeated this study again in spring 2012; again, the results showed significant quality improvement. But both of these studies took an immense amount of volunteer time to assess articles. It was not scalable to keep asking Wikipedians to assess before and after articles each term. In 2016, we attempted to automate the process; see this Meta page for results. That research found that students are effective in bringing low quality articles up to higher quality and that they accounted for 2% of the low-to-high quality leaps observed within the given period. A year ago, we also looked at student edits from the spring 2017 term (so around six months out from when they were done editing), and we found that only 2.6% of our students' mainspace edits were reverted and only 1.9% were deleted. Does that mean every edit is good? Obviously not, but we feel like our program is making an overwhelmingly positive difference to the quality of Wikipedia content.
And yes, we do provide oversight, although this current month – November 15 to December 15 – is literally the busiest time in the year for us, as students at both quarter system and semester system schools are all editing at the exact same time (the spring term's difference in calendars between the two systems spreads the busiest part of the term out between March and June). So we definitely aren't catching everything right now, but here's what we do: (1) We have honed our requirements for support over the years to ensure the right type of courses (e.g., not large 100-level classes) attempt Wikipedia assignments. This heads off a lot of the potential problems. (2) We have a system of automated alerts that monitor student work through our Dashboard software. The Dashboard alerts our staff (and the relevant instructor) if students add copyright-violating or plagiarized content and we work together with the course to remove and resolve the issue. There are also alerts in place if articles are nominated for deletion, or if students begin editing articles with discretionary sanctions. This push notification to our Wikipedia Experts on staff enables us to handle the most egregious problems proactively. (3) As they can, our Wikipedia Experts (Ian (Wiki Ed), Shalor (Wiki Ed), and Elysia (Wiki Ed)) monitor course edits. They are able to monitor nearly all edits at the beginning of the term when there are few edits, but as I mentioned, now is our busiest time so they aren't reading all edits as they're made in real time. (4) At the end of each term, our Wikipedia Experts review student work, checking to see if contributions are of high quality, are coherently organized, are integrated into the existing text, and are supported by reliable sourcing. This close-out process happens for about a month to two months after the end of the term. That means things like plagiarism we handle immediately vs tone issues we'll handle in the next month or two.
To respond to your point, too, Shashi Sushila Murray, our training materials attempt to prepare students to avoid original research and write in an appropriate tone. While there are some students who simply will not follow training guidelines, we have found that for the many thousands who we support each year, many find the preparation adequate. If not, our Wikipedia Experts are available to answer an individual’s questions. Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Cassidy, thank you very much for the thoughtful and detailed answer. And I want to acknowledge that the Wiki Experts do indeed work very, very hard on this important work. Shashi Sushila Murray, it might be worth considering whether there are things that should either be added to WP:ASSIGN or to the Wiki Ed materials. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Cassidy (Wiki Ed):, that was very informative. I'm happy to know that the program is effective, and not just advocacy for advocacy's sake- or at worst actually detrimental. If I may make a suggestion, then I would say in future monthly reports to prevent this question from needing to be answered again, a section or note on "adjusted edit value" should be included. The "this much text added" approach of current promotional material just makes me naturally uneasy because it seems like one of those marketing statements, that isn't telling the whole story. I understand the process isn't scalable, so just a note extrapolating from the 2011 and 2012 studies would be good. For example

140k new words were added^[note 1] . Note 1: 133k words after adjusting for an approximate success rate of 95% as found by studies performed in 2011 and again in spring 2012

I would also advise that as the 10 year aniversary of the origional study is upcoming, it might be time to repeat it to detect if the program has improved or diminished in value, because there's enough of a reproducibility crisis in academia, we don't need to add to it.

Ethanpet113 (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for all that you do.[edit]

I wanted to recognize Wiki Ed, students, and teachers for all of the hard work that you do in improving Wikipedia.

Without students and teachers many notable, yet niche, topics would be hopelessly neglected. You are helping to improve the quality coverage of Wikipedia against the inevitable systemic bias that results from the demographics of Wikipedia and Wikipedia's nature as a volunteer project.

Furthermore, the Wiki Ed organization is doing such important work. Your training materials are, in my opinion as a new editor myself, of higher quality through user friendliness, friendliness in tone of writing, and clarity of explanation, than the standard training material and documentation for new editors (I recommend them when I dip into the Teahouse so that other new editors can learn how to edit faster). Additionally, the feedback and training that you give to students while working on their assignments is of higher quality than what I typically see among volunteer editors (so far) who seem to not understand how to write to communicate with clarity and respect.

Thank you, Wiki Ed, students, and teachers, for all of your hard work in improving Wikipedia and (this specifically to Wiki Ed) in making Wikipedia accessible to editors who have some of the greatest potential improvements! Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You should probably be instead thanking all the people that cleanup after the WikiEd students come through. Natureium (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Just spitballing here, but that is something that might also be worth quantifying. Perhaps WikiEd could examine how many student edits get reverted or taken to deletion discussions such as WP:AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Or how many create articles that resemble essays (lots), how many have to be greatly cleaned up (lots), how many make edits that don't comply with MEDRS even though that should have been stressed to them (lots), how many students complain that they are going to fail because their article doesn't meet the requisite standard to not be deleted (lots), how much time people spend moving their articles to draft (lots), how many create articles that are copyvios (lots)... Natureium (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I've certainly had my share of those kinds of aggravations, but I'm also trying to walk a line here, between pointing out some very real problems, and not totally dumping on the Wiki Ed people who really do work very hard with very limited resources. I do think it could be worthwhile to compile some statistics on:
  1. Student edits that get reverted.
  2. Student pages that get WP:PRODed or taken to WP:AfD.
  3. Student pages that get moved back into draft space.
There can be a pitfall in collecting data, such as having experts examine content added, that are sort of predisposed to demonstrating the value of the program, a sort of confirmation bias. It would be useful to quantify what are, in effect, the worst-case scenarios, in part because such data can be useful in identifying areas and methods of improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I am going to suggest (perhaps engaging in my own confirmation bias) that the data one section up supports my general idea that WikiEd is most successful when improving existing articles rather than writing new articles. This is for any number of reasons, including existing articles perhaps having eyes on them to help course correct. Writing a new article is beyond a beginner's skill, it's why we don't give out autopatrol to everyone and make true beginners go through AfC, but also something beginner's frequently want to try. Editors who try creating an article right away end up stuck, fairly or not, at AfC because they don't know that after they become confirmed they could create in mainspace. WikiEd students and teachers do know better so their new articles appear in mainspace which presents its own challenges. I think WikiED students are on the whole more clueful than the average new editor (see the fact that they source) but don't on the whole generate higher quality new articles - frequently they just generate articles which are longer.
I think WikiED students are, on the whole, improving the encyclopedia. On the whole they're choosing topics more likely to be notable than the average AfC submission, on the whole they're less likely to COPYVIO, on the whole they're more likely to source (though I do not know they take advantage of the superior access to sourcing they have over the average new editor). They are less likely (perhaps even MUCH less likely) to write using an encyclopedic tone and more likely to create longer articles where a gap in Wiki knowledge can be compounded many times. This trend towards longer articles with numerous issues makes it hard and time consuming for a different editor to fix it. It's this intensity and depth of problem that causes, I think, some of the concerns here while the benefits I've enumerated are less strongly felt and more widely dispersed. So I too will thank WikiED for all that they do - I think their efforts ensure that teachers who would be using Wikipedia anyway have support and through their promotional work of recruiting professors helps get some amount of content that wouldn't otherwise exist to be written. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, Tryptofish I think WikiEd has value, I think it's just poorly executed on Wiki-ed's end. We shouldn't have creative writing classes putting their "creative" writing on Wikipeida and that should be be "How To" 101 instructions given by the Wiki-ed staff member that is liaising with the class. Also my creative writing example is just one of many, this is a much broader but common issue with these classes where they (WikiEd) are taking on classes that just aren't appropriate or wildly misinformed. Praxidicae (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your specific suggestions and comments Tryptofish and Natureium. Questions of what content sticks and what gets removed are ones we’d like to address in the future with more research. As I mentioned above, a year ago we ran Spring 2017 contributions about six months after the end of the term and found only 2.6% of our students’ mainspace edits were reverted and 1.9% were deleted. I know we are supporting large numbers of students, so even 2.6% of them can seem overwhelming to an individual volunteer, but please always feel free to reach out to one of our Wikipedia Experts (Ian (Wiki Ed), Shalor (Wiki Ed), or Elysia (Wiki Ed)) and they can address any issues rather than relying on volunteers like you. Continuing to understand how our student editors impact Wikipedia is a priority for our organization and we will keep you updated as we seek the best ways to measure that further.
To speak to your points, Barkeep49, the majority of our students work on existing articles rather than creating new ones. For example, in the current Fall 2018 term, our students have edited about 5,800 articles, and created only 517 new articles, meaning new articles account for about 9% of student articles. This ratio has been relatively consistent across terms.
We do have an extensive onboarding system to ensure all our faculty are teaching appropriate courses for Wikipedia articles (not creative writing courses, certainly!) and that students are being assigned to write neutral, fact-based encyclopedia articles, not essays. Do some students ignore their instructors' instructions and create essays anyway? Yes. But again, if you see work from students in our program that needs cleaning up, you are always welcome to ping the Wikipedia Expert assigned to the class. We don’t expect that volunteers clean up that work, but if you do see it before our staff does, a quick ping is immensely helpful. Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Those findings of 2.6% and 1.9% surprise me, even allowing for the fact that these are percentages of large numbers. I'm pretty sure that I, by myself, revert more than that from among just those edits that cross my watchlist. Maybe my experience is atypical (possible), or I'm more prone to revert than are other editors (unlikely). I get the feeling that there's something here that doesn't add up. Perhaps there are a lot of edits that get largely reverted but with a little bit kept and revised (I know I do that frequently), and those don't get counted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, I'm sure there are pages that get PRODed but contested, or taken to AfD and moved out of mainspace, or blanked and redirected, instead of being deleted, and those probably were not counted as "deleted". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Tryptofish, You bring up some good points. You're correct that the 'reverted' percent only counts 'true' reverts. We acknowledge that there are limitations with these specific numbers, i.e. there can be a lot of variability between terms and the standard tools for calculating such things don't account for the complexity of real wiki work. Figuring out a way to account for these limitations in such reports is something we hope to be able to do in the future. Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
So I was a little surprised by the numbers Cassidy (Wiki Ed) presented partially because of the reasons Tryptofish stated in terms of lasting edit quality and partially because 9% of student articles being new felt low. So I did a spot check and the spot check gave me every assurance that 9% is correct. However, it feels like that 9% accounts for a disproportionate amount of the problems. Do teachers and instructors receive additional training/support if they identify new article creation as a goal? If they don't, could they? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Poor use of named refs[edit]

Students are by and large doing a good job writing citations when they write them, including the use of templates like {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} which keeps them standardized, and helps them avoid errors of omission. So kudos for that. One problem I see that keeps cropping up, however, is the poor choice of names in named refs. Names should be something like "Bernstein-1974", i.e., author's last name and year, or some other mnemonic that makes sense in the context of the given citation. Reference names like <ref name=":4"> are very editor-unfriendly, when trying to change the wikicode. Ref names like that used to be used in the early days, but are really discouraged now. WP:NAMEDREF says, Names must not be purely numeric; they should have semantic value so that they can be more easily distinguished from each other by human editors. I don't think they meant that by adding a colon, it's no longer purely numeric. In any case, it's highly un-menomnic.

I have a feeling there must be some rogue training module out there that is teaching them to use colon + digit for ref names, because it keeps cropping up over and over, and I don't know where else they would be getting it from. Can someone try and figure it out, or at least, point them to Help:Footnotes for when they want to create a named reference? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

That's the way visual editor is designed, and last I asked, it wasn't a priority for them to change. Or even provide an easy way to edit refnames. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Yup, that's not really the student's fault - it's the default naming done by the Visual Editor. Naturally students tend to be quite happy with letting the software handle that part (I doubt many waste any consideration on future-proofing the code...) Pain in the derriere, and I vaguely recall some discussions about how to make this less of one, but they have not so far lead anywhere productive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This looks like phab:T52568 and/or phab:T169841 and isn't really a education problem, its an everyone problem with visual editor as mentioned above. — xaosflux Talk 13:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Mathglot, this has been a longstanding complaint about Visual Editor. You have to go into the source editor to name references anything but :n or to rename them. However see the results of the Community Wishlist survey this year. The request to allow Visual Editor to name references came in 5th, putting it in the top 10. It is now listed as pending investigation. The only problem is that it is going to be tricky to implement. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@StarryGrandma and Xaosflux: Thanks. Aha, so as someone who never uses VE, I was unaware of that issue; students and training modules absolved. That's a shame. One thing though: even if VE doesn't even give them an easy way to edit Refnames, does it allow linkage to pre-existing refs with mnemonic names that don't look like the colon+digits pattern? Meanwhile, glad it made the top 10 list. Mathglot (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Yes, thankfully. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I've definitely seen it from non-student editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Assignment template wasn't added to article's talk page[edit]

Hello, just a regular editor here and not a student. For some reason, the {{Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment}} template was never added to Talk:Bakemono no e for this course. Opencooper (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Opencooper: Maybe they're only just getting started updating the talk pages, as many of the other articles listed for that course also don't have anything on the talk page yet. The one I found that did (Talk:Nurarihyon) was just edited yesterday to add the template, and the assigned editor's first article edit was also yesterday. This is week 14, and according to their schedule, they're only just entering the live-edit phase of the course now; I expect the assignment templates will be added this week as student start their live editing. Mathglot (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The assignment templates are based on which articles the class lists as their assigned topics (and are added as soon as the articles are assigned); for that class, it looks like they didn't actually assign any articles.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education's Monthly Report for October 2018 now available[edit]

Wiki Education's Monthly Report of organizational activities in October 2018 is now available as a PDF, on-wiki, and on our blog. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)