Students Assigned to Write Wikipedia Articles 276
openfrog writes "An inspired professor at University of Washington-Bothell, Martha Groom, made an interesting pedagogical experiment. Instead of vilifying Wikipedia as some academics are prone to do, she assigned the students enrolled in her environmental history course to contribute articles. The result has proven "transformative" to her students. They were no longer spending their time writing for one reader, says Groom, but were doing work of consequence in a "peer reviewed" environment, which enhanced the quality of their output."
Damn... (Score:5, Interesting)
I would suggest teaching students how to find legitimate sources instead of using the brute-force method of blocking everything they don't understand.
Re:Makes perfect sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Doublt benefit.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Mix wikipedia editing and zero tolerance policies and things could get really dicey really fast.
enhanced quality != correct (Score:1, Interesting)
I must say that given the output of high-schools today, we should be attempting to prevent students from contributing, not encouraging them. I mean, hearing Profs say that students can't do simple algebra or even remotely think logically is now common place. Hell, I've seen what these people produce, and the only excuse that one can have is that English is
Quite frankly, I find this sort of thing going on, profoundly disturbing.
Re:I've suggested this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Doublt benefit.. (Score:2, Interesting)
I have, however, seen plenty of examples of people who were. It's bad enough that Wikinews is investigating it [wikinews.org].
Wikipedia is a very good idea that has grown too big for itself.
Re:Doublt benefit.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm referring to the notability wars, and admins skirting around the whole peer review thing and making wholesale changes to articles, after when they ban if someone reverts them. That's a problem.
not the first (Score:3, Interesting)
What this instructor did was great. I'm not sure it is newsworthy.
Half life of a WIkipedia Article? (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone is doing it (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/wikipedia-project-is-a-class-act/2007/10/31/1193618940842.html [smh.com.au]
Complete with kooky picture of said Professor.
Re:Makes perfect sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Half life of a WIkipedia Article? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've seen 3 main pathways.
1. Pop culture trash: this doesn't refer to all articles regarding popular culture, but rather just a great many. It usually starts out as(or is quickly whipped into shape by an experienced editor as) a small blurb summarizing the cultural relevance and origins of some item. Over time rampant speculation, positive description, and dubious links filter into it. These get these way because the people who care about and watch the article are not people interested in the academic information involved, but rather people who just like to see more of it. I've fixed up articles like this only to have them return to idiocy in a matter of 3-4 months when I checked up later. Examples ALMOST any article fitting description: "list of characters from {video game/tv show}"
2. Seriously contentious items: These tend to be the best articles on wikipedia because every addition is scrutinized from 30 different perspectives, questionable items are well referenced because someone disagreeing will remove it otherwise, and things tend to be well scrutinized. Good examples: "evolution" and "god".
3. relatively obscure item of actual academic interest: article usually started by someone with a casual interest. Rare(sometimes as rarely as every few months), but consistent, non-vandalized additions adding a sentence or two about the subject and the occasional restructuring of the whole article in accordance with what had been added. Usually one or two guardian users who care deeply about the subject and watch the article for extreme alterations. These kinds of articles improve slowly and never reach the point of incredible quality.
That's just my observation and theorizing on the subject. I could see all sorts of reasons people would disagree with my assessment.
Hardly new (Score:3, Interesting)
This worked well for Japanese History because the English language Wikipedia didn't have too many articles at the time, and even the articles it did have were fragmentary and for the most part abandoned. I'm not sure how easy it'd be to do with more "mainstream" articles. You'd get more feedback from other Wikipedia users, sure, but you'd also be providing far less of the content.
This is not the first time... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Double benefit.. (Score:5, Interesting)
My experience has been that those that do this have made very nice contributions for the community. I check up on it to make sure that it is not confused. Of course, I have only tried this in the relatively small classes that we have here at Berkeley.
The academic world is about the developing and sharing of knowledge with our fellow human beings. Wikipedia seems like one of the right ways to do this for well established results with immediate benefits and very little pain.
Some professor in Australia did this and fucked up (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Doublt benefit.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I am curious as to why you listed me as a Friend though.
Regards
Re:Some professor in Australia did this and fucked (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Doublt benefit.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Thus, if you indeed happen to have the skill to 'improve the knowledge of mankind' (will not comment on the implications of the 'Weltanschauung' that shows up here), do not practice it on Wikipedia.
Rest assured, most with only a semblance of this competence will avoid to waste their energy anyway.
Using Wikipedia (for article submission) merely as an academic exercise
Last time I pondered about it, I thought that facilitating access to knowledge is 'the academic exercise' per se, aka research.
unknown levels of experience, honesty, or intelligence
Like posters here, especially the one of the submission referred to, in which case 'dubious' may be in place as a means for augmentation of the addressed concepts.
CC.
imagine all papers written by every student .. (Score:4, Interesting)
We produce a work just to pass a course or test, and then we never use that report, or term paper again. Odd how we can recycle tin cans but waste the labors of mind.
Re:Doublt benefit.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Academics are often "MANDATED" to "(not just submit, but) actually publish articles" in peer-reviewed journals, or at least publish their findings in other area-specific literature (perhaps books, etc.). Is that an "indication of arrogance and incompetence" on the part of the university/college that employs them?
It's an indication of *something* bad-- or at least "less than ideal". This intense focus on publishing, IMHO, distracts from teaching or even learning. That's right, learning. Even professors have a lot to learn in their field. We all have a lot to learn. And instead of encouraging these people to learn and teach, they're pushed to "output".
It turns into this competitive thing where their best interests are served by acting pompous and building reputations. It's better to make a big splash with what you publish than for it to focus on writing something particularly accurate and of high quality. I'm sure some people in academia manage to rise above all that and really put out good stuff, but having watched professors and doctoral students go through all this, and having read some of this "output", it seems pretty clear to me that the system has problems.