The Trajectory
Key Steps
A successful project goes through the following stages, which accounts for the relatively steep learning curve (and intimidation factor) of learning to edit Wikipedia. In all, the project can be completed in as little as six weeks, if the instructor leaves some contingency time towards the end for students to follow through on interactions or address any late-breaking issues. Given that it takes a bit of time to get up and running and often needs time to wrap up loose ends, we recommend placing it in the middle of the course; our syllabi handles the basic Wikipedia logistics while finishing up a short introductory editing assignment and then introduces the next assignment (since it also requires some logistics to get going) while students are still finishing this one. The assignment could potentially be expanded to a much longer time period, especially if one integrated other editing and writing tasks into the project. We link to a sample syllabus and complete set of documents in the Assignment Documents page.
The trajectory of the assignment is as follows:
- Learn about Wikipedia conventions
The initial task is to cue students into the dynamics of Wikipedia and the complexities involved. Our first discussion usually deals with their preconceptions about Wikipedia, followed by a run-through of the actual dynamics and realities of it. We hope that this webtext (and the other works listed in the References in Resources) will be sufficient for giving new instructors a sense of these dynamics; once you run the assignment, you will quickly have a deep and personal sense of these dynamics. We then spend some time in class talking about what makes a good article, what challenges arise, and how the community works. These discussions continue throughout the project.
- Introduce logistics of Wikipedia editing
When introducing Wikipedia conventions and the notion of stalled articles, the instructor must also introduce the basic logistics of Wikipedia editing (including Wikimarkup, if the instructor allows its use) and show students around the interface. Use the resources native to Wikipedia and provided by Wiki Education for much of this, while also being sure to just navigate through necessary things in front of the class while discussing other things (refer to the Resources section for some of these links). The instructor might have students do some low-stakes editing (such as copyediting) of some articles to get them familiar and comfortable with the procedures of editing. Doing so also expands their edit records, which overcomes some of the immediate "new user" apprehension.
- Discover stalled articles
This is the initial logistical challenge for students, but it can be made easier through the advice we've assembled in the How to Select an Article document. While some students might find stalled articles just by navigating around topics of interest, following the tags for articles in need of help is often the easiest way to find articles. Remember, students will not be able to see up front what kinds of work needs to be done (if they could, they would not be learning!), so a bit of guidance and patience is needed here. Some students will catch on and find many articles that will work; some will fail to find any. We have them post five to their user pages (which also gets them familiar with using their talk page and ensure that they've at least edited something before their articles), and then respond briefly on their user talk pages. We'd recommend having students do two articles. Those who find more than two good ones can select the two they want, and then we pass the extra articles on to those having trouble finding articles. (we use the Wiki Education dashboard, which must be requested in advance of the assignment, to assign articles since it will also integrate the student work into their support network and procedures.)
Refer to the Approving Articles section below for advice on how to sort through the articles.
- Explore interventions and history
Before they start editing, students need to consider more carefully the issues facing their articles and how they might approach intervening. They need to do a thorough look through the talk pages and edit histories of their articles, examine any related articles, and read through the existing content carefully (the tasks listed in Part 1 as Particular Kinds of Assessment). At this point, students might also consider whether edits can be performed in the page itself or if a sandbox is warranted.
- Make contact
I always have students perform an initial post on the talk page. This post serves to alert any potential editors to the student (this is not to deter others from participating, but usually other editors will give students space to work if you let them know), draw out any concerns about the article, and also ensure that students have moved past the initial obstacle of reaching out to the community.
These posts are best if they point to concrete tasks that the student plans to undertake and/or raise questions of importance for the editing. If there are relevant and unresolved issues raised in other talk page posts, students might also want to respond to those, perhaps even tagging the original poster in case they are still around. While students will often sound like students (and it might be useful to mention that they are), encourage them to try to take the perspective of any editor and make their post as useful as possible.
- Intervene in global issues
While some students might need to edit smaller issues first as they warm up to the project, encourage them to make their big, bold edits first. This includes most of the things listed under Particular Kinds of Editing in Part 1.
Remember that large changes to content focus, organization, leads, deletions of content, and the like usually require a clear justification and a window for response from the community. Significant reorganizations or rewriting might also be done in a sandbox, again with a window for other editors to comment if they are around. This will thus take up a bulk of the project timeline.
Note that students should separate out their big edits in a way that makes it clear in the edit history the particular work done. From the perspective of the edit history page, we don't want a separate edit for each small thing, but we also don't want the radical transformation in a single edit.
- Intervene in local issues
Once the larger issues in organization and focus are addressed in some way, students can turn their attention to sentence-level issues and other details of the article, as time and efforts permit. Note that issues in NPOV, original research, and tone are the most productive to highlight and have students address at the sentence level.
- Update communication
As they work, students should pose discussion and/or respond to feedback as is helpful for their project, keeping an eye on the talk pages and updating them as needed, as well as be sure to have clear and useful edit summaries for each edit.
In our experience, a majority of students will receive no interaction. In this case, midway through the project ask students to reexamine their communication from the perspective of volunteer edits. Have they really invited discussion in a clear and reasonable way that is respectful of the time constraints of other editors? If so, then also encourage students to think of their communication as directed towards future editors who might come to work on this article later. What might they need to be aware of in terms of the history and challenges of the article or what remains to be done? For students who do have interaction, have them follow up as fits the interaction.
We discuss these forms of communication in Part 1, as well as in the next page on Interfacing with the Community.
- Finalize edits
At the end of the project, have students spend just a bit more time making any small edits that will help future editors continue work on the project. Students should check to make sure that their edits didn't cause formatting problems or lose important content (especially citations), and to consider if any other things should be done to keep editing moving forward, such as following up on talk pages on related pages, updating categories or links to other pages, or noting what remains to be done on the talk page.
- Turn in reflection on the assignment
Because the project really is about the editing process, we find it essential to have students turn in a final reflection directly to the instructor. This includes a narrative and self-assessment of their efforts, as well as a reflection on what they learned about editing from working with Wikipedia. This helps students see how much they learned from the process, and is essential for instructors to quickly see what students did, particularly since certain edits and communication might be difficult to see in the current page. For those instructors willing to be flexible on the final deadline, this also allows students to cue in the instructor on when work has been completed.
Approving Articles
Before approving articles, it might be useful to review the catalog of stalled articles we've assembled in Part 1 so that you have particular issues in mind as you start to examine the student's selections. To check the articles, I usually examine the following in this order, eliminating potential articles as issues become apparent:
- Is it protected or already has a Good Article (GA) or Featured Article (FA) status?
This will show up as a symbol in the top right corner of the page, either a lock for protected articles, a green circle with a plus for GAs, or a star for FAs. If it is semi-protected (a lock with an image of a person in it), this might be fine, but fully protected articles should be avoided. While GA and FA articles might not be perfect (especially if granted that status a long time before), usually this means they have had sustained scrutiny and extensive work, so they probably won't need a significant intervention.
- Is there sufficient content for them to work with?
We're looking for something with a good base of content but usually avoid enormous articles unless there is a smaller portion or particular task (such as splitting the article) that the student can reasonably work with.
- Are there immediate issues apparent in the existing content that is not just about needed content?
Organization and content focus issues can be the most apparent, but also attend to NPOV, original research, and other tone issues. Remember, many students think that "editing" is equivalent to copyediting, so will often look for grammar issues and other sentence-level issues. We want more substantial developmental changes, so make sure that problems are significant enough for a substantial intervention. Note that tags and WikiProject assessments can be useful for this assessment but are contingent on others seeing and noting issues, which can be quite uneven.
- Check the talk page.
Are there any substantial discussions or red flags that might cause issues for the student?
- Is anyone working on it now?
Check the edit history to see if anyone seems to be substantially editing it now (ignore small edits and reverted edits). Watch, in particular, for other students from other classes also working on it—usually there should be a tag or post on the talk page indicating this. While that might not be a problem for other Wikipedia assignments, this kind of developmental editing assignment does not mix well with other simultaneous class assignments. However, if a class worked on it previously and their assignment is wrapped up, it might be a great choice since student work can be of mixed quality and may need the kind of careful developmental editing we're after.
The first time that an instructor runs this assignment, this selection process may be more difficult, but after running it several times, the instructor will be able to quickly sort through and guide students to productive projects. One might even be able to encourage students towards more adventurous projects, such as working with content across two or even three related articles that each have separate problems.