Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Courses/Spring 2011/Media and Telecommunication Policy (Jonathan Obar)

Welcome, this is our Discussion Page.

• Let me know if I can be of assistance on the radio or television station aspect of this course. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your note. Glad to have you on board! Jaobar (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Old-school editor

Hi! Once you have your content clear in your head, you might want to come to User talk: Wetman if you need help refining your text, in order for it to say what you mean.--Wetman (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the online mentors who have made the changes on the course page, and have agreed to work with the class. We really appreciate your help. Jaobar (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Timing?

I just wanted to check on the timing. Having taught at the university level before, I know that plans and schedules have a tendency to be fluid, and that students are more likely than not to put off work, but I'm a bit concerned about the timeline listed on the page as compared to the timeline that we're actually following here. For instance, it looks like, from the project page, that students should have all registered usernames over a month ago. I'm a little concerned that, since this work is going to require coordination between the students and an outsider (i.e., myself and the other ambassadors), that the usual college plan of pulling an all-nighter the day before the assignment may not be plausible (please note I mean no disrespect to any of these students, but I remember how I used to work in college). So I'm just wondering if the Campus Ambassadors have had any recent contact with the class to know if things are still proceeding alright? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I am a little worried about that myself. Things seem to be moving slowly and being one who hasn't worked at the college level, I don't know if that is normal or not. As the Online Ambassador for this project, I would like to know if there is anything I can do to help move things along or if there is a hold up somewhere that I and the other ambassadors can help with. If there is, please let us know. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I will be talking to the class for about 50 minutes on Thursday (March 3rd), and will pester the stragglers to link up their user accounts, it should also jump start article work as it seems like most of the students do not realise they can work on this - without being explicitly given a green light on our end. Epistemophiliac (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see my recent edit on my own discussion page. The pace of the class has been my decision. I do not feel that it's appropriate to throw these students into a project (while at the same time teaching them course content) without properly engaging them in the material and teaching them the appropriate skills. Please be patient, the students will start editing in the next few weeks. Please also keep in mind that this is a class that has assignments that must be graded. To keep things organized and manageable, I have done my best to maintain the structure that you see on the page. I should also note that while I encourage you to push the students, please refrain from language like "will pester the stragglers" which I don't think will come off well with some. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Jaobar (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I personally have no problem whatever timing is finally worked out for the assignments. I was just concerned because it seemed that we had passed a number of deadlines listed on the project page, and I didn't know if that was because you as the professor had decide to alter the schedule, or if it was just the students making their own "alterations." Thanks for the update—I'm definitely happy to help out whenever the time comes. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Some students have completed the assignments, others haven't. All have taken the recent test though, so there is the chance that all will be updating. Jaobar (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Telecomm policy content AND developing "Wiki-competence"

Just an observation Prof. Obar. I too teach at the university level and understand both the student norm to procrastinate and also the instructor need to teach content before the "college-level writing" assignments begin. However, I would offer that in the course/Wikipedia project you have underway, there are a couple of major strands the students will be doing, and that these strands could profitably be done in parallel. The students must certainly write some sort of "telecommunications policy content" this term, and that content will be contributed to the Wikipedia mainspace article that each student is assigned, and the timing for the actual Wikipedia contribution can quite easily be later in the term as you have (quite rationally) structured the course.

However, there is also the matter of the students becoming facile with the technological institution that is Wikipedia, and contributing content that will have a good shot at staying in the encyclopedia over the medium to longer term (which I would think will be somewhat satisfying to students even after your policy course is over). For the second aspect, I think that the students will greatly benefit from more of an iterative and incremental process. That is to say, if the students are encouraged to hold off on the telecomm content edits (per your guidance on the course pace) while making ten (or 20 or 50) small edits on Wikipedia articles of their choice that may or may not be related to course content, they would have the opportunity to receive feedback from their mentor — and potentially, from the broader Wikicommunity if their edits are noticed/interacted-with by other editors — and learn firsthand a bit more about contributing to the encyclopedia. In my view, developing a small bit of facility with the second aspect will vastly improve the quality and staying power of the telecomm policy content they will eventually contribute.

Early edits could include such elements as a simple copyedit to improve readability, or adding a source with a good citation to an existing claim in an article, or fixing a typo, or updating information that is dated or may become dated, or adding time context in the prose of an article with information that will date quickly or is valid only at a specific moment in history. The opportunities are endless, and I'm sure the student's mentors would help guide them if they ask for help.

So I would urge you to consider the potential benefits of a dual-track approach, with the second part being ungraded by the instructor while being (hopefully) fun for the students. If the idea has any merit to you, I'm sure that Epistemophiliac could expand on it when s/he talks to your students on March 3rd. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your note, and your ideas certainly make sense. I will speak with Epistemophiliac this week about trying to implement a plan of this type. My only concern however, is that not all groups have online mentors at this time, and thus I would not create an assignment that requires students to interact with online mentors at the level you are suggesting without ensuring that all students have equal access. The structure that I have set in place has included in the next assignment, a requirement which asks the students to connect with an online mentor. At the same time, the WP folks are apparently connecting groups with online mentors as well. By the end of this week, hopefully all groups will have one. At that point (after spring break) it will be more appropriate to implement an assignment like the one you mentioned. That being said, considering that students are still just learning how to edit WP, cite, sandbox, etc. I think overwhelming students with an assignment like the one you mentioned (many of whom are taking 4 or 5 courses this semester) might not be appropriate at this point. But I will definitely consider implementing your suggestion in a few weeks. Thank you again for your feedback. Jaobar (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Attn: Mentors

As the coordinating online ambassador for this project, please let me know how I can help you and your mentees or if any problems arise. I will be glad to help out. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to all mentors who have signed up to help out thus far, and to those who will soon be signing up. Special thanks to Neutralhomer and Sage Ross for coordinating. If you have specific concerns that you'd like to speak with me about, please do not hesitate to email me at obar@msu.edu (Jonathan Obar) Jaobar (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Assessment via PDFs

On your TC 210 post, this one, you comment that one of the Professor's lesson plans is a "waste of time", that isn't the best idea. With all due respect to the Professor and his students, they are new and need our help and patience, not criticism. Especially not telling, on the project page, that the lesson the Professor has made is a "waste of time". Please be more "gentle" in your responses and please use the talk page, per usual. Again, thank you for your continued help in the TC 210 Online Mentor project. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Assignment Eight concern

This note is in response to your criticism of assignment eight on the TC 210 course page. While I appreciate your point, I have asked the students to make PDFs of their edits for two reasons:

1) This form of detailed and careful organization will make grading easier. Please keep in mind that this is a large class with one professor and one TA who do not have time to search through evolving WP sites when it comes time to grade.

2) Students will be required to review their work and write a brief report at the end of the semester, and thus, it was felt that this form of organization would also make things easier on the students. Since most students have not edited on WP before, and some are more engaged in the process than others, we believe that this straightforward method will have students working with documents they are familiar with (instead of evolving webpages) and as a result, will hopefully make the process of completing one of the final assignments easier.

I will keep the suggestion (modified) on the page for students who want to identify edits using the method noted.

Thank you for your criticism, I hope that I have addressed your concerns. I should also note, that in the future, please do not make edits to my assignment instructions without first consulting me as this lack of consistency between what I discuss in class, on our course management page and on the WP page may lead to confusion. A debate on the course's discussion page seems like the appropriate place for these concerns to be addressed before any changes are made to the course page.

Again, thank you for your help and for your suggestions. Jaobar (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I was merely introducing the students to the important Wiki concept of the bold, revert, discuss cycle! But since this is not the (article) namespace, I admit that Jaobar may be considered to have a degree of "ownership" of the page.

I am glad that the students are familiar with creating PDFs. I would not know where to start! My response to the suggestion of PDFs was actually sadness: I thought this project was about teaching students to use Wikipedia. Would it not be far better to explain about contribution and article histories and the diff listings they produce? I think these tools are an unbeatable "form of detailed and careful organization". It would be a tragedy to ignore them. It does not matter how much a page evolves - the history shows all its previous states.

Studying a contributions history with a view to awarding marks is, I admit, hard work. But will a sheaf of PDFs be any better? Will one of these PDFs show exactly which bits were written by the student in the way that a diff listing does? And without the student having to do any boldening and in an a manner that precludes any opportunity to cheat!

Could I also request Jaobar to set a good example to the students and not to SHOUT. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually think the all caps section in the Assignment Timeline is actually a good thing. It is attention getting and let's the student know exactly what they need to know immediately, that they can begin now and to always be signed in. Good information. We could make it blink or something, but eh, too much coding. Just a big ol' ALL CAPS post, simple, but it does it's job. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 10:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me preface these remarks by noting that I am also new to Wikipedia and thus, the implementation of the USPPI project on-top of TC 210 is a learning experience for me as well. Once again, I appreciate the constructive criticism. In terms of your comment "My response to the suggestion of PDFs was actually sadness: I thought this project was about teaching students to use Wikipedia", again, while I appreciate your concern, I'm sure that you can appreciate that the process of teaching very busy students (in a section of a course that is addressed perhaps 1.5 hours a month), requires that not all features of Wikipedia be taught right away. The main focus thus far has been on the most basic (and important) of functions, just to get students editing. If you can point me to a concise and detailed outline of all of these different functions, perhaps in the last month of the semester we can address some of these more specific techniques. Perhaps you could put together one of these outlines for us? Perhaps we could even have you skype into our class to explain some of them to the students for about 15-20 mins or so? I'd be open to this.

Regarding the SHOUTING concern... I will echo Neutralhomer's comments.

Once again, thank you for your constructive criticism. Jaobar (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor, I totally understand the logic of preferring diffs (that's the links to the changes the students made) to pdfs. As a teacher, former college lecturer, and TA, I think that Jaobar's request for pdfs is somewhere between correct and fundamentally necessary. The TA/Prof who will be grading these students work is not necessarily going to be able to sit at a computer with internet access to look at dozens of diffs for several dozen students. Even if they had such access, looking at the diffs is likely to be far more time consuming (having to load each of the pages every time) and difficult (diffs produce very small text that can require some very careful searching to spot difference in). If the TA or professor was a long term user of WP, perhaps diffs would be the right way to go, but as it seems that Dr. Obar is not, I think requesting the assignments be turned in in a format that benefits the graders is more than reasonable.

I wonder if it would be possible for the online mentors to actually help gather information about what changes students did or didn't make? I don't know if all mentors would be willing to do this, but since we do have the WP experience, it would be much easier for us to determine what changes have or haven't been made. I don't mean that we would actually assess (grade, discipline, pick your verb of choice) the students work, but that we could assist in highlighting what work the students did. For example, I can look at a diff pretty quickly and say "fixed formatting/grammar errors" or "added new reference" or "added unsourced opinion." I don't know if all of the mentors would be willing to do this, or if Dr. Obar and the TA would find this helpful or not, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for Help from an Online Ambassador

Greetings, I recently had a student contact me who told met that they attempted to start Assignment 8, which requires that students make about 10 edits to articles of interest on Wikipedia. The student made a contribution to a very popular page, and had their edit reverted within minutes by someone who noted that the edit was without citation and did not contribute anything new to the article. The recommendation was also made that all potential edits be discussed first on the article talk page. Can someone add some material to the TC 210 course page that addresses this issue? Perhaps a step-by-step guide that describes how students should approach articles of varying popularity. I've made some edits to articles in the last few days myself (perhaps articles not as popular) and have not encountered this problem. Thanks! Jaobar (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Email me with who the student user is and what the article is and I will take a look. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 04:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Jaobar is more concerned about heading off similar problems for other students. The short answer is, if someone says you should cite any substantive changes and/or discuss them, then you probably should. Editors with a lot of experience can usually guess which articles are likely to be tougher to make changes to, but there's no simple formula for it. The rule of thumb is, if an edit is likely to raise eyebrows, make sure you have sources to back up whatever you're changing. I'll post a message to the ambassadors email list to see if someone wants to take a crack at writing up a more detailed guide for approaching articles of varying popularity.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

My rule of thumb:

My rule of thumb:

If there is no talk page, or it has just assess templates: never

If there are no comments from a last year, or there are no replies to question asked: never

If there are comments from last year, but not last 3 months, and they have been replied to: possible, but not guaranteed, that somebody will notice student's editing

If there are comments with replies from the last 1-3 months: more likely

Comments with replies within one months: very likely

The same holds true for substantive mainspace edits to the article.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition if the article is a GA or FA your edits are more likely to be reverted because they "aren't good enough". (Somehow if a long term user makes the same exact edit it is not reverted.....) --Guerillero | My Talk 23:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, GAs and FAs are well-watched and require ALOT of references. See Stephens City, Virginia, everything is referenced...sometimes two or three times. You can't add anything in there (or any GA or FA) without at least one reference since it is an FA. I would have the students start out with something random and once they get the reference coding and other codes down, then work their way up to GAs and FAs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 23:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Students shouldn't add facts to any article without references - if they do, they could well be removed. That's rule #1 of Wikipedia - verifiability.
• "Potentially controversial" edits should be discussed on talk pages. What is potentially controversial? Common sense applies. If it is a regularly-edited/highly-watched page, and the edit is more than trivial, then it might be best discussing it first.
• A useful concept - although again, of course common sense must be applied - is, the idea of bold, revert, discuss.
• If someone adds an edit and it is removed, they shouldn't feel aggrieved; the edit is not lost - it's still there in the history. They should just start a discussion on the talk page - and drop a note on the talk page of the user who removed it - to find out, and discuss, their concern.

Best,  Chzz  ►  09:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

More Student Edits Reverted

Hello ambassadors, just as an update, students are slowly starting to work on Assignment 8, and so far 3 of 4 edits have been reverted. Two attempts were made today on the Almond article, and both were reverted. I recognize that in class I'm going to have to go over strategies for approaching popular articles or articles in general... For example, making sure that citations are used properly, making sure that information isn't being repeated, picking articles that aren't being heavily debated, and so forth. That being said, I have to say that while I am happy that there is so much quality control being exercised, I do have to say that this environment does not appear to be as newbie-friendly as I thought it would be. Perhaps that's a good thing in terms of requiring quality edits, but this will certainly be a challenge for some of the newer editors who are just trying to learn your system. Jaobar (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction, not as bad as I thought. The student who edited the Almond article has just noted a number of other articles that they have edited, and none of these edits have been reverted. Jaobar (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought. If a student is planning on adding new material to an article, they may want to have their citation ready to go at the same time? That way, with the edit they are adding an inline citation. Here's an example:[1]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to place Template:USPP assignment on the talk pages of the articles so that other editors would be aware about what's going on and take steps to help the students, instead of just reverting the edit. Bejinhan talks 04:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Having the template there would not hurt. In addition, I think students need to understand that any addition to an article without reliable sources is often seen as original research, and hence has a high chance of it being reverted. Hence, Mike's suggestion is a good one. – SMasters (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

In a certain sense, one can argue that it's actually better if the students get a mix of reverted and unreverted responses to their edits. Especially on an article like Almond, that's fairly well written already, it should be more likely than not that new information (unless it actually comes from new sources) is likely to either already be in the article (as was the case there), or not be sourced well enough for inclusion. Plus, this gives them the chance, if they actually care, to start a discussion on the talk page. The truth is that a lot of articles are edited back and forth with the talk page, because that's how we work together to come to a consensus about what does or doesn't belong. In fact, if that editor (User:Kylesnagle, I assume) now goes to the article talk page, and discusses the suggested addition, I think that that actually teaches them far more about not just Wikipedia but also sourcing, interaction with others, polite debate, etc., than just making some uncontroversial changes to more obscure articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Note to online ambassadors

Greetings. First of all, let me thank you again for your help. We are currently in the calm before the storm... in the next week you can expect students to start uploading their work.

That being said, I would ask that you please do not move material from the student pages to the articles without my permission. This is not a power-trip, but rather an attempt to do two things:

1) Make grading easier (I must communicate a few things to the students this week now that spring break is over), and 2) Quality control - most other classes can have a real back and forth dialogue with the professors due to the class size. I know that other classes even have students review the work of their classmates. These are things that we are not doing in TC 210 due to the size and structure of the class. So, my TA and I are pretty much responsible for doing all of the reviewing... something we'd like to do before the first big chunks are added to the pages.

If you have already moved material over, that's fine. I would ask that the rest please wait for the students to make the move. Thanks again. Jaobar (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Professor Obar, I am one who did move the article, unfortunately, before your note above was posted. My original reason for doing this, is that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. I was not sure how the students are supposed to collaborate if they are all working on separate pages. Was this the original idea? That they all work separately and then combine the work towards the end? Wouldn't there be a lot of duplication in work? This part of the process was not made very clear to me. I thought a part of the exercise was to see how people would collaborate and work together – which is how much of Wikipedia works. Now that this has already been done, what do I need to do to fix it? Thanks. – SMasters (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Another reason is that I thought it would be good for students in the group see what comments I have for the overall article and individual students. That way, they can learn from one another. – SMasters (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

SMasters, let me begin by expressing my sincerest thanks for your help with this project. My comments were in no way an attempt to put anyone down, but rather an attempt to make sure that everyone was doing the same thing (consistency in class I feel, is very important). Anyhow, the students are working in teams of 3 (for the most part) and doing the research together. The idea is that once they do the research, they write it up and one of them posts the research in their sandbox (or somewhere on their userpage). Once I have had a chance to review some of the material, the students then are supposed to move their material to the main space. It was communicated to me that one of the goals of the USPPI was to have research of this kind added to policy-oriented websites, not simply to get more people adding whatever they want to pages. Many of the other classes are using systems of peer-feedback to make this process work, unfortunately, much of the work falls on me as a peer-feedback system would just not work in our class. For this reason I've tried my best to set up a system that has structure and is organized. So, it's not that I don't want the students getting involved in the debates on the pages (especially with online mentors); however, before they begin with this, I want to make sure that some quality control has been exercised as per the goals of the USPPI. Furthermore, while some students are very engaged, others are not, so again, structure is likely the best way to make sure that all students get the most out of the project.

In addition to all of this, keeping track of 100 students is a challenge. So ensuring that students are the ones making the edits helps make my job easier. There is also an element of competition built into this initiative, and I think it will be another element of what will hopefully be a positive experience for students to received positive feedback from Wikipedia regarding the amount they have contributed. Again, something that requires that the students are the ones editing.

Many thanks again for all of your help. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Jaobar (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Just as an addendum, there are some tools that can make sorting out who did what quite a bit easier... there's not going to be any way to limit the articles to just being editing by students (although no one but the students themselves should be copying and pasting content from student sandboxes into articles... precisely because it obscures the automated record of who contributed what), but the history will show who made which edits. We also have some tools for tabulating how many edits each student made and how much content they added. (These aren't updated for the current term yet, but they will be; I'll keep you posted.) It's fine to ask the mentors not to do anything to the articles until the students move them into Wikipedia proper, but after that you'll have to expect collaboration (wanted or not) on some of the articles, and we can't rightly tell others editors not to edit the articles. But hopefully the evaluation burden will be eased a bit by the tools we have.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sage, I have no problem with collaboration as it is a central element of wiki-culture. My only problem with what has happened has been the copying and pasting as you described. Jaobar (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool! Sorry for the extra noise, then. I just wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page. Cheers--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I have no problems with this. Keeping track of 100 students is indeed a huge challenge! Do you want me to have the article deleted so we can start again? This can be done if we need to. – SMasters (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Need another online mentor: Metallica v. Napster, Inc.

Greetings,

We now have a new group. They will be working on the Metallica v. Napster, Inc. case, and we will need to hook them up with an online mentor. Anyone available? Jaobar (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Stand by, let me see who I can find. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that there is some related coverage in the Metallica article. It may make sense to use some of that as a starting point, or at the least, the group should be aware of the contextual coverage.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sage, thanks so much for your help so far by the way... I don't think we've communicated directly yet. Yes, we are aware of the material in the Metallica article, and students will use some of the material as a starting point. I helped them find some additional academic references that address the case, and it appears that there is a lot to write about.
By the way, I had a look at your class reviews. Students are now starting to update their project articles, as well as other random articles. We're looking forward to making some noise, so be ready! Jaobar (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Great! I'm looking forward to seeing what the students come up with; you've picked out a lot of great topics. As you know, the size of this class is pushing the limits of what we've done before with class projects, so it's exciting to see it coming together.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation "blacklisted"?

A student received this notice when attempting to cite a website:

The following link has triggered a protection filter: (link not included because Wikipedia won't let me post it) Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.

The link is www(dot)suite101(dot)com

Can somebody explain please? Thanks. Jaobar (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some links that get on the WP:BLACKLIST that could possibly be (or have been) used for spam purposes. I have run into this as well. Let me see if I can track down an admin and they can help more on this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 15:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Checked with one of our admins and he said it was blacklisted as an unreliable source and because someone was spamming it on alot of pages. If can give me an idea of what you are working on, I will try and find you a better source. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 15:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I will contact the student and ask them to respond. Jaobar (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. Sorry about the inconvenience, this happens to me once in awhile as well. It is one of the landmines you sometimes run into when editing, just because someone spammed the link all over the place. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 15:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I was citing information relating to stereotypes of minorities in the media AestheticFriends (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Check out the following links and let me know if I can be of further assistance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 21:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Still need one more online mentor

Still need one more online mentor. Please see our course page. The Metallica vs. Napster case. Thanks. Jaobar (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done  Chzz  ►  09:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Status of Class Project

This is a note to the online ambassadors and other administrators assisting with this class from afar. Students have completed assignment 6, which required them to write 250 words about their topic. They were asked to include as many citations as possible, hopefully taken from the annotated bibliographies that they completed earlier in the semester. I am now in the process of grading each of the assignments, providing individual feedback and in some instances, meeting with groups - though I plan to meet with each group at least once before the semester is over. Those that are ready are being asked to start moving their work into the mainspace. Some are being asked to revisit their work before doing so (though all are being asked to continue editing). I should note that the final project will require groups to add a minimum of 1250 words to their articles, an amount that I feel is appropriate considering the other course requirements (some which are not related to Wikipedia).

I thought that I would write this note because I do not intend to provide detailed feedback to the students on Wikipedia at this stage, as I feel it is more appropriate to provide feedback privately over our course management system. I recognize that this is probably not what you expected, as it shields the feedback from the public, moves the debate (and thus, the students) away from WP. That being said, after much thought, I didn't feel that it was appropriate at this time to provide feedback out in the open. Many students are still learning what it means to cite properly, present information effectively, as well as how to do all of this on WP. To encourage those that need help in a positive manner, I feel that privacy needs to be protected. As the work develops and becomes more advanced, perhaps I will begin to engage in debate on the discussion pages. For now however, I will leave it to the WP community to provide feedback in the open.

I welcome your constructive criticism. Many thanks again for all of your help. The students are certainly benefiting from your generosity and patience. Regards, Jonathan Obar, aka Jaobar (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that your decision to give feedback privately is both practically and ethically appropriate. We can handle the "public" feedback part--that is, the assessing of whether info should or shouldn't be in Wikipedia itself, when the time comes. I haven't given any criticism of mentored students work yet, since their still all working in their sandboxes (I assume). One thing that I think would be helpful on our end is that, prior to moving anything into main space (into the Wikipedia itself, as opposed to the students individual pages) would be to have them request mentor review. The students can make the pdf copy of their userspace before the mentor checks it, so that if you want you can assess their "work", but then we can assess it and start the process of helping them get it actually into the encyclopedia. Will that process work for you? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea; however, it appears that some mentors have already asked students to begin moving work into the main space, while other students have done it on their own. In my comments to the students whose work I have approved thus far, I have asked them to contact their online mentors before moving material into the main space (primarily for info on the process of moving the material). For those I have not yet graded (the majority) I will ask them to have their mentor review the material. Hopefully all of the mentors will be on board with this. Jaobar (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Another note to online ambassadors/mentors

ONCE AGAIN. You should not be moving material from the student sandboxes into the main space for them. You should be getting them to do it. When you do the work for them you make it increasingly difficult for those of us who want to evaluate how the students are doing. You also are not teaching the students, but rather, doing the work for them. Please get on board with this, I received no responses to my previous post on this subject. Jaobar (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Noted. I am already on board. The group i am mentoring moved the text themselves and i am limiting myself to giving suggestions in the talk page--Sodabottle (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My person created their article in the main space originally. :| --Guerillero | My Talk 06:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Professor Obar, understood and noted. Thus far, I have been leaving all my suggestions on my mentee's talk page and will continue to do so. I understand the need for them to learn how to do it themselves. :) Bejinhan talks 06:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

At present, I have only see a couple edits to my mentee's page, but I chalk that up to Spring Break and all. Hoping to see more on Monday. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. As I've said before, I really appreciate your help. Feel free to proceed as you see fit (I still have a lot to learn myself), I just started to see mentors moving material for students, which (clearly) I am against. Jaobar (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• No problem here. I am "coaching" only, and not "doing". Seems like that is what mentoring ought to be about; you know, teaching them to fish not handing them a fish, etc. I will note however that of my three mentees, one has not made a change to Wikipedia since 5 Feb and one since 24 Feb, both before I became their mentor. Not sure if they should have been on recently, or not, per your class assignments to this date in the semester. But it is, of course, quite difficult to "mentor" sans regular-two-way communication. N2e (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• OK, will follow that policy in the future. Sorry about creating the broadband.gov page, Professor. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 13:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Just trying to get everyone on the same page. My sincerest thanks for your help thus far. Jaobar (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jaobar, can you please explain why this is a cause for concern? I can understand you wanting students to learn to do things, but clicking the 'move' button doesn't seem a huge deal; plus, the actual contributions in the history are, of course, unchanged.

Whilst, absolutely, I will refrain from moving any such pages - we cannot prevent other helpers from doing so - and they'd probably think they were doing a good thing.

Can you please clarify the actual issue? Thanks,  Chzz  ►  09:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, as I believe I've said elsewhere, there are two reasons for this request: a) it keeps student work associated with student accounts which helps me keep track of their progress (remember there are more than 90 students to follow) and also gives credit to our class for the work we've done, and b) students learn by doing. Cool? Jaobar (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, yes, that's fine. Thanks for replying. I will email you. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  00:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Lab Sign-up

Please write your group's name next to one of the one-hour lab spots.

LOCATION: 405 CAS

Jonathan

Friday 4/1

9-10 - Tying of Apple Products - Peter Rifel, Devan Sayles, Blake Workman

10:30-11:30 - Chris Long, Marissa Berman, Jared Schmeichel

12:30-1:30 - Rob Murphy, Kyle Parr, Alex Steiphan

2-3 - Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. FCC - Alexandra Brito and Matthew Cavanaugh

Tuesday 4/5

10:30-11:30

12-1 Minority Representation In The Media --AestheticFriends (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

1:30-2:30

3-4 - Free Press - Ricky Whidby, Brandon Banks, Ashley Mcclellan, Elaina Wilson

Wednesday 4/6

10-11 - Metallica v. Napster - Brad Abel, James Silvers, Eric Cook

11:30-12:30 - Internet Backbone - Nick Pingtella

1-2 - Grassroots Lobbying - Jaclyn, Laura, Courtney

2:30-3:30 - Comm Act of 1934 - Andrew Wardell, Derek Schlau, Sung-Ki Shin

4-5 - Direct Lobbying - Anna, Daniel, Jake

Thursday 4/7

10:30-11:30 - Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act - Hunter Baum, Allen Moy, Sam Mills

12-1 - Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC James Komara, Brittany Albaugh, Idowu (Tinu) Adams

1:30-2 - Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 - Chris Buller, Robert Cortez, Michael Williams

2:30-3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaobar (talk • contribs) 18:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Elif

"Wednesday 4/13"

2:30-3:30

3:30-4:30

Thursday 4/14

1-2

3-4

Friday 4/1

2:30-3:30

4:30-5:30

David and Allie

Thursday 3/31

3-4

5-6 Media Access Project - Alex, Kyle, Rob

Friday 4/1

12-1

2-3

Tuesday 4/5

11-12

1-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaobar (talk • contribs) 07:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Focus Group Sign Ups

Wednesday 3/30 12-2pm 408 CAS

1. Paul Kozlowski --AestheticFriends (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Kyle Snage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylesnage (talk • contribs) 13:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Michael Rossi - Rossimi2 (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Joseph Tuohey Tuoheyjo (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Peter Rifel (Can only stay until 12:30) Rifelpet (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thursday 3/31 12-2pm 408 CAS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaobar (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

1. James Silvers
2. Devan Sayles
3. Stephen Taruc
4. Rob Murphy
5. Kyle Parr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.13.198.221 (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Alex Dietrich
7. Xiaotian Li
8. J Komara (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Stephanie Sundheimer
10. Nick Fisher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishern6 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Jessica Sonntag--sonntag6 (talk · contribs)

Students moving their own articles into mainspace

While Dr. Obar was correct to ask that mentors not move articles into mainspace, I think that we also should encourage the students not to move articles into mainspace by themselves without first talking to their mentor. One of my groups just moved Media Access Project into mainspace, and probably should not have done so. In the article's current state, I don't believe it meets our requirements for a stand-alone article (specifically the notability guideline); had I come upon this article in any other context, I may well have nominated it for deletion. I may still do that at a later date.

As a side note, for the future, this is one of the reasons I advocated before this project began that students should probably work on existing articles rather than new ones, as working on new articles means they have to face the potential of deletion. Note that this has nothing to do with the quality of the student work--it's just that, invariably, some "interesting" subjects (academically speaking) don't meet Wikipedia's rules for having a stand-alone article; others do, but are very difficult to get to that level due to a lack of reliable sources. This can't even be easily predicted prior to starting the work, so it's not a matter of just doing a "better" job. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. In my opinion, the Media Access Project should definitely have a Wikipedia page. All articles are going to be works-in-progress. I think this is one of the reasons Sage has asked that all articles be flagged as being part of this learning initiative. I have a close connection to MAP, and in fact was hoping to have one of their representatives speak to the class this semester, so I can tell you that some interesting information will end up on that page. The biggest problem this class is having so far is the lack of personal attention given to individual projects... simply an issue of time. We are doing our best to deal with the problem by holding labs (very time-consuming with 30 groups to work with) and are working as hard as we can to improve the quality of each and every one of our contributions. My short answer is, please be patient. I think we should wait until the semester is over to see if articles should be deleted or not. There's nothing more discouraging to someone who's learning than to be told at the outset that their initial attempts were useless.

I'm also dealing with two different strategies here. Some are saying, get the students working in the main space, interacting with WP, and others are saying, work outside of the site first and then move when ready. I say, let them work in the main space, but flag the articles in such a way so that people know that it is a work in-progress. I think that will be the best strategy for now. Again, please be patient. Jaobar (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should give a little Wikipedia philosophy background to explain my concern. There is a spectrum of opinion on the requirements that an article should meet in order to remain in mainspace. On one end of the spectrum are immediatists, who believe that an article in mainspace needs to meet all of our requirements as soon as it is in mainspace, and that any article which does not meet those requirements should be deleted and/or returned to the user's personal space for work. On the other side are eventualists, who have no problem with partially done ("works in progress", as you say) articles, under the idea that we can perform incremental improvements. Most Wikipedians fall somewhere in between those two poles, and the interaction between these philosophies is mediated by our (intentionally vague) policies and guidelines--here, the most relevant ones are probably Notability and Verifiability. This is further complicated by another related spectrum of inclusionism vs. deletionism; i.e., those that believe that nearly anything as long as it is minimally sourced and "interesting" should be in mainspace, and those who think of Wikipedia as needing to be more restrictive in order to keep it "encyclopedic". All of this plays out daily through regular editing and the processes related to adding and removing information, up to and including deleting whole articles.

The concern I have with the MAP article (as currently written) hasn't been verified to be notable. As such, that means that any editor can nominate it for deletion. I completely agree that this would be extremely disheartening for the students. The problem is that we do not have any way to flag the articles as works in progress that will cause those Wikipedians with stricter immediatist/deletionist tendencies from requesting that articles not currently meeting policies/guidelines are deleted. Those people (and, in the interest of full disclosure, outside of this project, I tend to fall closer to the immediatist camp) would argue that works in-progress, by definition, don't belong in mainspace, and should be worked on in sandboxes. Since I really don't want any of your students to face such a process (no need for them to learn all about that aspect of WP for now), this is why I recommend that students keep their new articles in sandboxes until such time as at least a mentor is willing to say "Yeah, that's probably at even the strictest reasonable Wikipedian's minimal standards".

I'm going to ask Sage Ross to provide some input here, as there may actually be some additionally things we can do to keep these articles "safe". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the point. I will speak with the MAP folks. I should also note that I'm doing my best to make sure that students have something that is decent put together in their sandboxes before moving material over (hence the 250-word assignment). I think having the mentors more involved is a great idea, and something that I am saying to the students time and time again. That being said, today I just created a talk page for one of the articles (that also hasn't been created yet), and while the mentor commented to me that they have had personal issues to deal with (which I of course am sensitive to), it is important to note that not all mentors are as engaged in this process as would be ideal. Some are doing an excellent job (in my newbie opinion) and some are doing an ok job. So, to pass this responsibility off on the online mentors alone might not be the best strategy. Anyways, moving forward, I will communicate to the students that we have had this discussion about quality control and the WP philosophy ... and let them know that a) some need to improve their work, and b) they need to be communicated with the mentors more often. Jaobar (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

a) Articles shouldn't be made live until they are unlikely to be deleted b) Articles should be made live ASAP, so that students will get more involved in communal editing

These are not contradictory.

For an article to avoid deletion, all^* it needs is, to be about a notable subject - demonstrated through some reliable sources.

For example:

'''Somebody''' is a pop singer/whatever from someplace.<ref> http://www.somenewspaper.com/somearticle </ref> They had a hit single with "something" in 2010.<ref> http://www.somechartthing.com </ref> Somebody appeared at Some Festival in 2010.<ref> http://www.somefestival.com/giglist </ref>

Assuming those are RS, that three-line article would be perfectly acceptable. It would not be in danger of deletion.

There is no need to indicate that a live article is a "Work in progress". Absolutely all articles on wikipedia are works in progress. No article is 'finished'. Chzz  ►  12:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

^*OK, that's a slight simplification; copyright violations, blatant spam, and people known only for a single event may still be deleted. There are exceptions to everything, of course.

Note to Online Mentors

Greetings,

This is a note to all online mentors. If you are having trouble connecting with anyone from your group, please let me know and I will provide you with their email addresses. With only a little more than a month left in the semester, let's be as aggressive as we can to make sure that we can make the biggest contribution possible! Also feel free to email me directly if you have questions (or need to speak privately) Thanks. My email is:obar@msu.edu. Jaobar (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing that I find difficult is that my mentees did not respond to the feedback I left. As a mentor, I want some kind of response. That way, I will know whether they understood me or not. It frustrates me because I'm like talking to a wall, if you understand what I mean. So... can something be done about this? Right now, I don't know if my mentees get what I am trying to say or whether they are having any problems. I want to be involved in this as much as possible but I need a response. Bejinhan talks 10:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this note. I will contact the group over email. Let me know what happens (or if they don't send you a note). Jaobar (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

One of my mentees has responded to my message. Thanks! Bejinhan talks 10:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a good point Bejinhan, and I remember feeling and stateing this same thing in the past. It probably should become some part of the standard introduction, so the groups will understand these nuances up front. My opinion is: There should either be a follow on for clarity, or an indication of understanding, which sometimes is merely perceived. So, if a participant states their understanding, but factually is not correct, I have a critical second chance to say: "No that is not quite what I meant", and then the clarification. It is an important consideration, for such fine people as we are; able to perceive. My76Strat (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I just wish my students would click 'edit' and try stuff. Per WP:BOLD. It doesn't matter if they get things right or wrong; they can learn from mistakes. That's all; dive in - try it. Best way to learn. Chzz  ►  12:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Mentors

I tagged all the remaining pages in this course. Most need to fill in their mentor, or try to get one. Follow the link to the available mentors. Also if your sandbox line is red, you can click the link and it will make one for you. My76Strat (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• This is a group basis not an individual basis and all groups have their mentors (see course page).
• Most students have their sandboxes but they don't appear in the template because the automated sandbox page generated by the template is with a capital 'S' for sandbox. For example: USERNAME/Sandbox. The students' sandboxes are like this: USERNAME/sandbox.

Bejinhan talks 10:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Mentors: Question 1 - Adding pictures

Question 1: After speaking with a number of the groups, I think a lot of students are interested in adding pictures to their articles. Some have found books that have diagrams that are relevant, others would like to use logos from websites, others want to add images of individuals. What should I be telling students to do? Can you put an image from a book on Wikipedia as long as the image is sourced? What about images of individuals? How do we do this? Jaobar (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

In regards to images, the students need to make sure they have "rights" to the images. In terms that you can just poach it off some random website and call it your own. If the student took the picture themselves its fine, because they could release it into the public domain (so there would be no copyright issues to worry about). Generally speaking I would recommend they take a peek at wp:Images#Obtaining_images as it explains more about some of the dos/donts. Epistemophiliac (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Almost all images from books cannot be used. Unless they are a) VERY old, or b) we've got a REALLY good reason to use it (unique historical value). In effect, "No". See WP:NONFREE.

To find pics we can use, see Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial.  Chzz  ►  00:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Logos aren't that controversial as long as you follow some rules on resolution, etc. See WP:Logos . ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 09:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Jaobar (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Lab sign up instructions

If any group wants to get personal help from me, please sign up here. I am available:

Tuesdays: 10:30-2, 5:15-8 Wednesday: 5:15-10 Thursday: 2:30-6 Friday: 11:30-3:30, 5:30-late

D guz (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"Low-importance" rating

Greetings,

Just removed the "low-importance" rating and the "C-class" grade assigned to the Direct lobbying page. Maybe it's just me, but again, I don't see how negative feedback will motivate students to contribute. In fact, I would argue that it likely does the opposite. Considering that the direct lobbying article has just been approved for DYK status and will be appearing in the feed in the next few days, I think the the ratings that were assigned are ridiculous. I will be congratulating the students in class for a job well-done (though not done!), I encourage you to do the same. Jaobar (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not supposed to be negative feedback, it's just part of the system used across Wikipedia for figuring out which articles are of high relevance within the scope of a particular WikiProject, and how how far along they are on the "Wikipedia 1.0" rating system. "C-class" means it's starting to become a pretty solid article. Please don't remove those from articles; they represent valuable work on the part of the people who add them.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, my apologies. Just wasn't impressed with the "low-importance" language. I've also noticed that only some of the articles have them, so I figured that the use of them was somewhat arbitrary and therefore not necessary. Jaobar (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. The importance ratings are essentially a measure of the scope of an article within the respective WikiProject. A large portion of the articles in WikiProject United States Public Policy aren't rated (yet), but overall, around 2.5 million articles out of 3.5 million have quality ratings, and about 1.5 million have importance ratings for at least one WikiProject. See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team for the overall system, and Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Assessment for the specific variation of the system in use here, which features more detailed breakdowns for different aspects of articles so that we can more effectively measure the impact of the Public Policy Initiative. Cheers --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the info. Jaobar (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Our first DYK

I am thrilled to announce that our direct lobbying page will be appearing in the "Did You Know" feed in the next few days. I would encourage all online mentors to communicate with their groups about this award and to nominate those that are ready. Thanks! Jaobar (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Direct lobbying's DYK is in Queue 1 and will be posted on April 18 at 17:00 Los Angeles time. It will be on the Main Page for 6 hours. Bejinhan talks 07:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Arrow points to Direct lobbying DYK

Ta da! Screenshot of DYK on the Main Page. :) Bejinhan talks 02:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving articles from sandbox/sub-pages

I think it is great when a draft is ready to move from the location where it was developed into the main encyclopedia. Mentors are standing by to assist you or give the best guidance to get it done correctly. What concerns me is that I have seen some examples where the content is copy pasted to the new title, and this causes a loss of attribution. The corrective action is much more tedious than a proper move at first. I am not picking on the group I worked with 0n Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 This edit was the edit which brought in the original content. It is the exact content as it was first developed here So the article history is missing these attributions It is important to move the draft with all its history to the new location and then build on the article. Please do not copy the text and paste it in as this cuts the contente away from its history. If this is not clear, please ask a follow on because it is important. My76Strat (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I did make this correction to the article talk page. My76Strat (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

John F. Banzhaf III

Law professor John F. Banzhaf III has influenced U.S. regulation of cigarette advertising, particularly on television, and has many other notable contributions.

Perhaps one of your students could improve his article?

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)