Wikipedia Timelapse: Wikipedia talking about the bombs in London, July 7 2005.

Handouts

Handout A:

The goal of this unit is to have you design or significantly edit a Wikipedia entry. Over the next few weeks, you will be expected to perform online research to find gaps in the existing breadth of knowledge on the Wikipedia website, while also examining the implications of performing online research. Feel free to write on any topic of your choosing; in fact, the more creative the topic, the better, given the current wealth of knowledge available on Wikipedia. Feel free to work in small groups as well; however, if you choose to work in a group, your produced work will be evaluated more critically.

You will be evaluated based on the effort and work you demonstrate in the following assignments.

Assignment 1

Due:

Guidelines: 1 to 2 pages

Write a proposal for your Wikipedia entry or significant edit.

If you are creating a new entry, make sure to answer the following three questions: What is the topic of your entry? Why is this information valuable to other people (i.e. why should other people know about this)? What are the potential benefits of online research?

If you are writing an edit on a current article, then make sure to answer these three questions: What is the topic of your entry? What does your edit contribute to the existing article (consider the gaps in the current article)? What are the potential benefits of online research?

The biggest challenge will probably be finding a topic that hasn’t already been thoroughly covered, or finding a productive way to add to an existing entry.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stub_categories for a list of “stub” articles. These are very short articles that need expanding, and this list might be an excellent place to start brainstorming for article ideas.

As well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles contains a list of articles that other Wikipedia users have requested be written. Explore it to find topics that someone wants to know more about.

If you’re having a hard time choosing a topic, consider the following list:

Write about your highschool, or elementary school – where it is, its history, what it’s known for in the community, etc.

Write about a job or volunteer activity you or someone in your family has done.

Write about a hobby, or an interest (movies, books, music).

Write about a tourist site you’ve visited, or a local landmark.

Write about someone in the city who has made a difference, dead or alive.

Ultimately, write about something that is important to you!

Assignment 2

Rough Draft Due:

Final Draft Due:

Create your own Wikipedia entry, or add something substantial to a pre-existing site. 500-1000 words is a rough guideline, but feel free to negotiate it with the instructor depending on the topic. Group projects should be longer in length.

If you choose to write a new topic, then submit your work in its entirety. If you choose to edit another site, then provide a copy of the original site’s text (in italics), and your editing in regular font, in order to make apparent your changes.

Make sure your entry provides links to other Wikipedia entries, and to cite your evidence in the article by providing footnotes or citations to your sources, and by providing a bibliography at the end of your list. Central to the development of Wikipedia’s as source of reliable knowledge is proving that the information you present is accurate!

Following Wikipedia guidelines for formatting articles (such as italicising certain words, using subheadings, etc.) is not required nor will be evaluated for this assignment. However, feel free to follow this formatting if you wish.

A rough draft of the assignment is due a few days earlier than the final draft. Feel free to include a complete copy of the entry, but at the minimum bring at least a few ideas written down on paper. This will be an opportunity to workshop your entry or edit with your peers and instructors, and your final draft will be stronger for it.

Feel free to post the article on Wikipedia when you are finished with it (although you are not obligated to). Follow the links provided on the Guidelines handout to learn how to do this. Ask the instructor if you are experiencing difficulties doing so.

Handout B:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/pf/438900a_pf.html

Handout C:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia

All of Wikipedia’s official policies and guidelines can be summarized as five pillars that define Wikipedia’s character:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. Nor is Wikipedia a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to sister projects, here, Wiktionary, Wikinews, and Wikisource, respectively.

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as “the truth” or “the best view”. It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution.

Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not submit copyright infringements or works licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL.

Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Stay cool when the editing gets hot; find consensus; avoid edit wars; follow the three-revert rule; and remember that there are 1,668,276 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.

Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because the joy of editing is that, although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. And do not worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. But remember — whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity.

Help Contents on Writing an Article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents

Introduction to Writing an Article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction

Wikipedia Editing Tutorial:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial

Your First Article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article

How to Edit a Page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page

Starting a New Page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Starting_a_new_page#General_principles

Wikitext Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikitext

Try Playing in the Sandbox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox

Handout D:

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/lessons/secondary/internet/upload/Hoax-Scholarly-Research-Personal-Opinion-You-Decide-Lesson-Kit.pdf

(Note that the first page is an overview for teachers, pages 2-8 are handouts to students)

Handout E:

Wikipedia Criticises Itself

(This is a large list; select the few most pertinent to the classroom discussions)

Two Week Schedule for Class Activities and Discussions

Making Online Research Responsible

Following the advice of John Dewey, who writes in Experience and Education that “the beginning of instruction shall be made with the experience learners already have” (74), and that of David Buckingham, who writes in Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary Culture that “media literacy necessarily involves ‘reading’ and ‘writing’ media” (4), this curricular unit lays down guidelines for students to create or significantly edit Wikipedia encyclopaedic entries.

By and large, instructors in university and high school discourage students from using Internet research in their scholarship, particularly research derived from publicly edited websites. Information from these sites is considered susceptible to the fluctuating interests of its authors and under-researched. These observations persist, despite studies such as the one conducted by Nature that demonstrated that the accuracy of Wikipedia is roughly equal to that of Britannica, a privately owned and widely respected source of knowledge.

Buckingham argues that

The skills that children need in relation to digital media are not confined to those of information retrieval. They need more than lessons in how to use word processors or search engines. As with print, children also need to be able to evaluate and use information critically if they are to transform it into knowledge. […] And just as print literacy involves writing as well as reading, digital literacy must involve creative production in new media as well as critical consumption. (177)

Considering his arguments here, the role of the teacher through the span of this unit is to coordinate students to: discuss issues of Internet research; conduct studies of Internet reliability; create or significantly alter a Wikipedia entry; to research a topic using both virtual and non-virtual sources; and to share and edit work amongst themselves to foster a collaborative classroom. These tasks will contribute significantly to the knowledge of the students by: affirming and expanding their current knowledge base; bridging the gap between the use of computers in the home with curriculum requirements; teaching them to critically approach online information with the skills necessary to evaluate it; developing webpage production skills; demonstrating the values of well-researched scholarship; and learning how to situate their knowledge base within the context of Wikipedia.

Throughout this unit, students will be expected to hand in two assignments. The first is a one to two page proposal of the entry, which will highlight the topic, why the student wants to write it, why the student believes this information should be made accessible to the public, and a statement regarding the potential of online research as a source of information. The second assignment is a final draft of the entry or marked changes to a pre-existing entry. Although the length of the produced work can vary considerably depending on the subject, it should reflect good scholarly research, be well-written and organized, should include a list of resources and citations to confirm its research, and should contain links to other Wikipedia sites. Students can be encouraged to work in groups to develop entries, but the quality of work should reflect the collaboration. After writing their articles, student should be encouraged to create user accounts and post the entries onto Wikipedia, to monitor it for changes, and to be willing to engage in discussion regarding their work with other users. However, students who do not want their research posted online should feel free to abstain from this aspect without penalty. Devising an evaluation scheme for the three assignments is at the instructor’s discretion.

Instructors should familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia website, and the basic steps of writing and editing articles, before beginning this unit. Although this unit is designed to be adjusted according to the particular demands of the classroom and student groups, it is recommended primarily for grades 11 and 12 English, or 11 Media classes, and is designed to be implemented over a two week schedule. Included here is a suggested model, but instructors should feel free to shorten, expand, cut or rearrange elements of the unit to facilitate the must productive learning environment.

The provided table contains an activity schedule. Day numbers marked with asterisks require students to have Internet access. Following these tables are a series of handouts to be distributed on the days indicated on the schedule, providing students with more structured guidelines to aid in writing their entries.

Bibliography

Buckingham, David. Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary Culture.

Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006.

Dewey, John. Experience & Education. 1938. NY: Simon & Schuster, 1997.

Giles, Jim. “News @ nature.com – Internet encyclopaedias go head to head.” Nature

(2005). 7 Mar. 2008

<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html>.

True to its intent of providing women with a comforting place to learn about themselves, their bodies, and their emotions, Red Tent Sisters offers a variety of workshops and discussion groups on sexuality, fertility, contraception, prenatal and postnatal care, child-rearing, and living beyond the age of fertility.

The His and Her Pleasure Workshop

For couples looking to add flavour to stale sex lives, this two-hour session teaches men and women how to become more intimate while widening their collection of sexual secrets, focusing on techniques, positions, and the incorporation of sex toys.

Spice it Up! A Workshop for Women who have Sex with Women

Is “his pleasure” irrelevant? This class is for lesbian couples (and single women) to learn more about their sexual selves, covering similar topics as The His and Her Pleasure Workshop, sans the “his.”

The Arvigo Techniques of Maya Abdominal Massage (TM)

This one-on-one workshop teaches external massage that directs abdominal organs into their correct positions as a means to promote health. This method helps alleviate symptoms such as painful or irregular periods, backache, infertility, endometriosis, and hormonal imbalances.

Fertility Awareness Methods (FAM)

FAM workshops promote various fertility awareness methods, both as a means to aid conception and as a method of contraception. Group workshops examine the Justisse method of charting menstrual cycles, the anatomy of both sexes, and how to recognize the signs of fertility.

Weehands (TM) Signing Babies

This eight-week workshop teaches parents and infants sign language pertaining to food, loved ones, bathing, and bedtime. Studies have shown that teaching infants to sign can lead to stronger cognitive development and can improve vocabulary.

Mindfulness for Menopause

For women approaching or experiencing menopause, this workshop looks at changes in nutrition and lifestyle that can be used to alleviate physical and psychological side effects during the menopausal transition.

Book Club and Feminist Film Circle

Red Tent Sisters hosts a book club and a feminist film circle on a monthly basis. Although donations are welcome, both events are free and open to the public. So come one, come all!

Upcoming Books

Woman: An Intimate Geography, by Natalie Angier

June 12, 8-9pm

The Female Brain, by Louann Brizendine, M.D.

July 10, 8-9:30pm

The Birth House, by Ami McKay

August 14, 8-9:30pm

Upcoming films

The Abortion Diaries, directed by Penny Lane

June 27, 8-10pm

Petals: Journey Into Self-Discovery, directed by Beck Peacock

July 25, 8-10pm

Absolutely Safe, directed by Carol Ciancutti-Leyva

August 29, 8-10pm

For more information on upcoming workshops, the book club, or film circle, call 416-463-TENT (8368) or visit www.redtentsisters.com. Better yet, visit Red Tent Sisters at 810 Danforth Avenue, between Pape and Jones.

Want more? Sign up for their newsletter or visit their blog.

Do any of these services interest you? Which ones?

I didn’t know much about Discover Magazine before this assignment, but as its focus is science and technology, I chose to examine it because I assumed its online site would be fully integrated with Web 2.0 features. It is. There are blogs (with feedback options), embedded videos, podcasts, photos, RSS feeds, an internal search engine, and extensive archives. Discover.com’s downfall, however, is that its homepage is a mishmash of these features. There are over one hundred links, a dozen images, and copious amounts of small-sized text vying for the reader’s attention. Trying to navigate the information overload, I clicked on its “About Us” section. I was hoping for a neatly designed page from which to continue my analysis, but to my dismay, the page doesn’t offer any clear answers about the function or purpose of the magazine’s website; instead, it begins with a paragraph on how to report broken links.
In all fairness, Discover.com’s Web 2.0 features, when viewed in isolation, work well. The blogs are well-maintained and full of external links and images for curious readers. The listings are organized not only by date, but also by topic. Discover.com’s archives are extensive, ranging back to 1992, and are also organized in a number of ways. Readers can pick up RSS feeds for a selection of categories, ranging from topic, department or blog, and, to its credit, the RSS page offers a helpful explanation of the technology. The online publication also offers podcasts, available through RSS, iTunes or My Yahoo! Similarly, the photo and video pages are fairly easy to navigate, with succinct descriptions accompanying each link. While each of these features work well independently, the difficulty in navigating the homepage and the poor integration of these features remain a major concern. While the online version of the magazine offers many Web 2.0 features, they don’t work comprehensively to present a clear image of Discover Magazine’s purpose or value.

Maclean’s

As Macleans is Canada’s premier weekly publication, I assumed its website matched the hype of its physical publication through the use of cutting edge technology. The good news is that it does; the bad news is that, like many other Web 2.0 online magazines, its homepage is inexplicably difficult to navigate. Right up front, readers can see that Macleans.ca offers many Web 2.0 features, including RSS feeds for a variety of sections, an internal search engine (with the added benefit of having access to the Macleans.ca job centre), blogs, photo and video galleries, back issues, and podcasts. Helping to navigate this mess is a prominently positioned block of text and images that cycles through the current issue’s feature articles. Easily the most dominant feature of the page (by virtue of its positioning, size, and its cycling of images), this guidepost helps readers flow through the flotsam of links, small-sized text, and images, otherwise overwhelming, to the hard-hitting articles that most users are coming to the website to find.
However, Macleans.ca misses the mark on a number of occasions. One major hiccup is its “Newsmakers” section, a collection of images of the week’s most prominent news-makers, accessible through a prominent linked image on nearly every page of the site. Although an appealing and impacting feature, the online editors have neglected to either update or remove the section since August 13, 2007. As there is no purpose in promoting this section if it is not updated, I wondered at just what else the web editors were neglecting. Another not-so-user-friendly feature is Macleans.ca’s integration of its feedback component — a useful feature that is, unfortunately, compartmentalized in its own section rather than made available in articles or blogs. By doing so, the online magazine limits the democratic nature of its Web 2.0 functionality; readers cannot provide immediate opinion or debate to important topics, and those who do are bound to an area where only forum writers can participate. Most unforgivable, however, is “A Special Interactive Report” on the Macleans.ca homepage, linked with text and an image, to a supposedly journalistic video on effective electricity use in Ontario. The problem: It’s an IBM-sponsored video of an IBM associate partner promoting an IBM hydro meter for consumer use. By representing this blatant advertisement as an objective piece of journalism on its homepage, Macleans.ca is trampling the traditional church and state divide upheld in magazine publishing. The editors even have the gall to title the report “Power to the People.” The lesson: clearly not all Web 2.0 features are used to promote user participation and media democracy.

Wired

Wired is the only online publication I examined which not only applied user-centred technology but also proved to me that it understood its value. Its homepage has an intuitive and appealing design, defying the conventional “complex is best” approach that some Web 2.0 online magazines follow. The magazine’s logo stands by itself on top of the page, followed by a handful of feature articles highlighted with large-sized font and images. This simplicity is deceiving, however — but in a good way. The homepage makes good use of tabs to contain lengthy lists, including the breakdown of the magazine’s sections and subscription options, and to navigate a menu comprised of blog listings, popular articles, and relevant weblinks.
Wired.com has everything a Web 2.0 magazine should have: an integrated search engine, blogs, feedback options (for both articles and blogs), embedded video, photo galleries, podcasts, and RSS feeds. What makes the website stand out, however, is its use of less frequently seen features. For instance, the site has an option for altering the font size, making it accessible to users of varying age and ability. Each page of article contant has an embedded calendar for the user to search for entries by date, as well as a list of keywords to use in finding other articles, ranging from “Star Trek” to “Home Improvement.” Most impressive, though, is the site’s own wiki, “Geekipedia.” Readers can create entries on any geek related topic of their choosing, thus taking advantage of the democratic potential of participatory media. These added features demonstrate that under the calm surface, Wired.com is boiling with the chaos inherent to any Web 2.0 magazine. The difference between Wired.com and others, though, is that it knows how to effectively manage the information overload in order to deliver a truly user-centred online publication.