Wikipedia talk:Canada Education Program/Leaderboard

I seem to be missing in the rankings, just trying to figure out what I might be missing! My name appears in the article list and the student list in my course. Not really important, but it would be nice to see the extent of my edits! Thanks, Cdlangan (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking?!

Is this "ranking" really a good idea? It seems to be an example of editcountisis. What's more, do we really want to prioritize quantity over quality? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree that it is an issue. We need measures of quality not quantity used. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Education Program has always had a leaderboard, and I think it serves a valuable purpose. See Spring 2011 Leaderboard.

It's another way to give positive feedback both to classes and to students, as well as a method for pushing both to continue editing. When students are just getting started, seeing that they've made a contribution is a big deal. Remember to put yourself in the shoes of a newbie who would get a real kick out of seeing that they're in the top 10 of all students participating. Our class at MSU in spring 2011 contributed the most out of all classes that participated, and it was something that our department was proud to promote. The upside far outweighs any downside as far as I can tell. I should also mention that students are also encouraged to submit for DYK, Good Article, etc. We actually just had our first DYK selection today for the McGurk Effect. That being said, if Wikimedia Canada would like to create a system for evaluating quality, I would be more than happy to support such a system. I know that the EP doesn't have plans for something like this right now. Jaobar (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spring 2011 Leaderboard is a redlink, but I believe you. The problem persists. It's one thing to compete for DYKs or GAs (though there are plenty of people who are suspicious even about that). But to compete on sheer quantity? This would seem to encourage some of the more problematic aspects of some of these educational projects... not least the massive plagiarism seen at the India experiment. I'm not impressed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with JB we need to switch from quantity to quality. Yes base this on FAs /GAs /DYKs / Featured pictures. I remember see a competition for who wrote the most high quality content with a trophy given out in the end. Points where assigned to each type. This would get students from classes working together. And generate high quality content that they could be proud of and get the community on board.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the WikiCup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiCup Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a campus ambassador, I have to say that the concerns being expressed are valid, but that this leaderboard is still a good idea. I like anything that encourages students to get involved with the project, and gives them a metric which encourages them to do even more. Getting them to create DYK/GA/FAs is also a good idea, but when a new editor is just starting out, edits are the easier measure of involvement. With the students that I've dealt with, most of them are glassy-eyed at the steep learning curve required to create and source an article, and it's like pulling teeth to even get them to add a paragraph here and there. In fact, if we could get an average of 50 edits/student, to any namespace, the teacher and I would be thrilled, let alone seeing students going as far as creating an entire article or bringing it up to GA level. So IMHO, anything that gets more educated and literate people editing Wikipedia is A Good Thing. --El on ka 00:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against some kind of metric. I'm certainly not against encouragement, motivation, or friendly competition. But as I mention elsewhere, in my experience what's more important is the frequency of editing than the overall volume: it's more important that students start early in the semester, and develop a rhythm of editing regularly, as well as checking in on their (and their articles') talk pages. This is what I stress in my classes: not volume, but attentiveness. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need quality not quantity. As we saw unfortunately with the East India editing program there was such a decrease of copy vios they had to be reverted and the program stopped. With the programs running in Canada right now we are having a serious problem with quality and large numbers of long time editors are needing to donate their time to clean up these problems. Getting / forcing students to edit can do more harm than good if not approached properly. Wikipedia is not a teaching tool but an encyclopedia and an academic encyclopedia at that. We must not use the wrong carrot (and profs need the proper sticks in place to deal with / prevent problem edits) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not compare the problems being dealt with in India with the issues being addressed in Canada. User:Jmh649 mentions a "serious problem with quality" in Canada. I don't see any real evidence of this. I think the problem is being overstated. Students learning to "wikify" their writing is quite different from issues with plagiarism, which to my knowledge, hasn't been a problem with the Canadian initiative at this point. Maybe I'm wrong, show me the examples. I think we are over-thinking the impact that the leaderboard is having on students. It's something fun that helps create motivation. I see no evidence that it's causing students to contribute content for content's sake. They have other things to worry about (i.e. their grades). Jaobar (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make the point that quantity and quality are not necessarily negatively correlated in the manner suggested ... and if anything are likely positively correlated. The students who are just doing what they need to do in order to get a mark will likely post both poor and little information. Those who take the time to write more are probably more invested and more likely to add good edits. We all want high quality, and we all want no plagiarism, and yes I think we should be doing what we can to make this happen ... most of which will involve the proper introduction of assignments to students and the proper monitoring thereafter. But this is separate from the issue of quantity. My bet is someone that does a large edit is LESS likely to be plagiarizing as doing so makes detecting the plagiarism easier, and defending it harder. Maybe you don't think quantity is something worthy of reward, but don't assume it promotes the real problems ... low quality and plagiarism. If the leaderboard makes this a more positive experience for students, I say let it happen, at least until there is some firm evidence of a dark side (rather than speculation ... that's right, call me an empiricist). WoodSnake (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empiricist! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and who says Wikipedians aren't an agreeable lot? Ha! WoodSnake (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some comments that I posted due to a misunderstanding. I will reserve judgement until more is known about the issues being raised. Jaobar (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]