Wikipedia talk:Student assignments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


examples of best practices section[edit]

How are examples included in 'Examples the Best Practices' section not in violation of the Wikipedia policies of 'Wikipedia articles must not contain original research,' and 'All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV).' 'Best' implies a judgement call and it would be especially problematic if this section was added by the users themselves who conducted these Wikipedia assignments, seems biased.Decoybriefcase (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This page is in the "Wikipedia namespace", which is separate from the encyclopedia and doesn't have to follow all of the same rules for content. It's not about an encyclopedic subject but about a Wikipedia-related activity. "Best practices" is just a way of saying "this is what works best" kind of like the examples given at WP:NPOV could be described as "best practices" for following NPOV. That's not to say they cannot be modified, of course. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfocused[edit]

The page is unfocused. It can't seem to decide if it is about Student assignments, or about advice to all parties, as the sections #Advice for students, Advice for instructors, and Advice for editors would indicate, and as the {{WEP sidebar}} anchor "Advice to all parties" makes clear. As the {{Unfocused}} banner suggests, maybe it should be split into separate articles, each one covering one of the three topics. Alternatively, it could be renamed to something that better indicates what the article is about: Wikipedia:Advice for Instructors, Students, and Editors. The way it stands now, it is just confusing. Mathglot (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly with that. First of all, this is not an article, in the sense of mainspace articles. But there is a world of difference between "Wikipedia:Student assignments" and "Wikipedia:Advice for students who are in student assignments". Student assignments does not only mean "this is information for students about how to edit Wikipedia". Student assignments are a defined type of Wikipedia contribution, with a unique set of challenges. If you go to WP:Education noticeboard, you can see what that is. This is an information page about student assignments on Wikipedia, with sections for each of the involved groups of users. I really cannot imagine how anyone would find it confusing – but it is not only advice for each of them, as there are also parts that apply to everyone. Splitting it into multiple pages would serve no purpose. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Unrealistic timescales[edit]

A message on the help desk today related to a case where a student was nearing a course deadline and was waiting for a draft to be reviewed at AFC. It may be wise for the guidance to point out that there can often be long delays waiting for AFC review, and that instructors should bear this in mind when setting assignment timescales. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. There is already something about that in the second-to-last line of the Instructors section. Should it be made more prominent? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd missed that, so yes, I think it would be wise to make it clearer, perhaps including mention of review of drafts, as some instructors may not realise what the article for creation process means. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much for pointing this out! I've done this: [1]. Does that suffice? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Minority Group Focused Articles[edit]

I was just editing Ableism in order to clarify that the stereotypes of disability it references are often false (for example, the widespread belief all wheelchair users are paralyzed), and was surprised to find the article had been the subject of several class-assigned editing assignments under this project. There's no indication of whether the assigned students were disabled, or had any knowledge of disability beyond what they might have heard in their class. Given how widespread false stereotypes of disability are among the abled community, the risks are obvious. The same risks of stereotyping and repeating inadequate, inaccurate, or outright false knowledge will carry over into all minority group topics, whether they related to disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. There is an existing warning on this page with respect to medical articles, but medical and disability articles have only a partial intersection and articles on other minority groups will have very limited intersection with medical articles. I'd suggest the article and/or the Wiki Education Program add a specific warning with relation to articles focused on minority groups, and suggest that students should only be assigned to such editing projects if they are a member of such group and/or can demonstrate they have appropriate knowledge. 82.11.66.40 (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

You should know that not only does Randy in Boise and others like him edit here, they are all allowed to do so until they hit WP:CIR. We do not, and shall not, restrict editing of articles to those who suffer undue sensitivities about the issue. True objective coverage comes from mutual cooperation in reflecting what source material says, not in the personhood of the editor. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
'Suffer undue sensitivities'? That's a particularly unfortunate turn of phrase to use in describing an area of discrimination and illustrates my point. If you had phrased it as 'those with knowledge in the subject area' then you might have come closer to the point I was trying to make (and the standard used in other encyclopaedias). Ableism is a form of discrimination which frequently goes unrecognised in the non-disabled population, and is regularly mistakenly perceived as pro-disabled activity. For instance the proclivity of random strangers to grab wheelchairs without permission and to start pushing. Many stereotypes of disability are incorrect, for instance the belief that all people who are blind have no sight whatsoever, or that all wheelchair users are paralyzed, or have some form of intellectual disability. The existence of commonly held misconceptions about a subject should raise concerns as to whether it is suitable for use as a class assignment, particularly in sensitive areas such as discrimination. The article noted that there are stereotypes of disability, in essence raising the same point I am making, though in an incomplete manner (by not stating whether those stereotypes are correct, or false). Similar issues arise in respect of other minority groups. Wikipedia regularly takes action to protect subjects which are subject to either deliberate vandalism, or recurring incorrect edits because of commonly held, but incorrect, views. I don't see how suggesting there may be similar concerns here, and in articles relating to discrimination in general, is in any way unreasonable.

82.11.66.40 (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Chris beat me to it. Restricting articles about minority groups to students in minority groups will happen right after we restrict the articles on the Kamrupi dialect and Limbu people to speakers and members of those communities. I.e., never. Or, to put it on more of a policy-based foundation: students with disabilities would be prohibited from writing about their own personal experiences, and might have to disclose a possible conflict of interest on their Talk page or the article Talk page when writing for those articles. It's far better for editors to have no stake or connection whatever to the articles they are writing about, other than a desire to improve the encyclopedia as best they know how, adhering to the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
As I noted in my reply to Chris Troutman, my point relates to editing of articles by those with no knowledge of the subject area, _when there are commonly held incorrect beliefs_, the article's noting that there are stereotypes of disability, but not that those stereotypes are commonly false, being an example (and one that is true across all areas of discrimination). You raise a very good point about potentially forcing editors to out themselves, so another approach would be necessary. I do disagree with the belief that it is better for editors to have no connection with a subject given both the widespread existence of common misconception, and that clarity of presentation is dependent on understanding (though conflict of interest is a valid point that may arise). For instance, when I rewrote the article on the Short Sturgeon a few years ago, another editor 'corrected' 'O5/43' to '05-43', presumably believing it to be a typo for a date, whereas O5/43 is in fact an Air Ministry requirement in its correct format, but someone without knowledge of the subject would not know that. Referencing can protect against that to a certain extent, but could not protect against, for example, someone using a climate-change denial reference in trying to rewrite a climate-change page, and examples like that are ones where Wikipedia does move to restrict editing in various ways.

82.11.66.40 (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

All students left behind[edit]

The following snippet represents some text in the current version of section Examples of best practices :

Examples of instructors leading assignments that are good models to learn from include... and Biolorof, who had graduate students peer review each other's contributions multiple times, to help ensure that quality contributions were left behind. (emphasis added)

It was added in this edit six years ago. Biosthmors, I’m pretty sure that was not your intended meaning. Care to adjust it? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Mathglot for the notification but I will defer to you (or someone else) for the time being. Biosthmors (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 Done I fixed it to remove doubt as to meaning. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)