HIS 334 -- Wikipedia Research/revision biography paper:
Wikipedia has become, despite
its many problems, the first stop for most people’s fact-based questions about
history and is currently about the tenth most popular site on the World Wide
Web. The quality of its entries, however, is uneven and content can be suspect. Although Wikipedia cannot replace the
authority and assurance of knowledge provided by juried research journals, academic
publication processes, and documented expertise in professional research, it is a
failing game to fight the Wiki-based philosophy of
open-source information provision. While many entries are flawed, they
are used anyway, and non-controversial topics in history are not subject to the
same level of vandalism and interested manipulation that can often be seen in
more recent, controversial subjects. This
assignment will be your chance to make one of the world's major information
resources better, and, even if on a small scale, to publish your work for a
much larger audience, doing good in the world of knowledge.
Here is what you will need to do:
- Log
on to wikipedia.org and become a member. This takes just a few
minutes. When you create an identity, please use this rubric: HIS33407[add a short name here like first and initial,
or a nickname; do not put your last name or other identifiable lable]. When you sign on, you will be directed
to several resources indicating how Wikipedia
works and the standards of writing and etiquette expected at the site.
Please follow these as a Wikipedia community
member. Do be certain to read about the Wikipedia
process of editing, principles of neutral point of view, and other
important aspects of the community. Try these links within Wikipedia to get started: Contributing
to Wikipedia; How to
Edit a Page; Editing FAQ;
Wikipedia Style Manual; and Wikipedia
Neutral Point of View Policy. Please read these before you get
started, and if you are nervous about posting edits, you can use the Wikipedia "sandbox" to test things
out. You will be expected to reflect on the editorial process and
policies on Wikipedia in your reflection essay.
- Find
entries on European individuals with adult life spans that at some point
touch between 1815 and 1914 and pick out one with some problems.
Look for problems of fact: inaccuracies or omissions. Avoid
“protected pages,” which need permission to change.
- Write
a critique of your entry. Provide a brief overview of the person and
what you found compelling about her or him. Describe the flaws you believe
you've found in the entry in a systematic fashion in a critique of 2-3
pages. This should include citations to the reliable scholarly
sources that you used to find and describe these flaws. Note
well: this will take some time and work to do a good job with! You should have resort to at least three
high-quality academic sources (journal articles or academic books) in the
process of critique and should add endnote citations and bibliography
suggestions based on these.
- Print
a “before” version of the entry that you will correct and use a
highlighter to indicate the parts of the entry you analyze in your
critique.
- Make
at least 250 words worth of changes, which may include the writing of
completely new paragraphs or long passages, or a variety of smaller
changes distributed throughout the entry, or some of both. You
should edit out all mistakes of fact or interpretation that you find, but
these don't count toward the word count for changes. You should
particularly focus on adding an "impact" or "influence" section if one does
not exist in your article, or focus on improving existing sections of this
type. This is a prime opportunity to provide quality improvements to an area
of key importance to any article. In order to
make changes you click the "edit" tab in the upper right hand
corner of the screen at the beginning of the entry. You would do very well
to cut and paste the chunks of work that you do do
into a word processor in order to have backups of your work. Electronic editing can go awry leading to
loss of work and frustration.
-
Post changes at least one week before the class due date to get
experience dealing with other Wiki editors and the editorial process.
- Think
about the process of editing a wikipedia
entry. Write a short reflective essay about this of about two pages
in length. Write whatever you want with whatever tone, but it should
address the following points: What do you think about wikipedia as a resource? How confident do you feel
using it? Did you have interactions with
other Wikipedia editors? How productive
were they? What did you learn from Wikipedia
editorial policies and processes? List some good ways and some bad
ways of using Wikipedia, as well as some
measures you can personally take when using wikipedia
to improve its value as an information resource. Finally, reflect on what
you now think about yourself as a scholar/editor/contributor.
- Submit:
1) the printed version of your critique (2-3 pages), 2) the
reflective essay (2 pages), 3) the “before” version of the entry
you edited, and 4) the "after" version. Include your wikipedia user name. I will read these and log on to wikipedia to see if your changes are posted.
N.B. If you object to posting your work
publicly, please let me know ahead of time, complete stages 1 through 3 in stage 7 above, and
print out an after version to turn in to me, but do not post it to
Wikipedia.
Some common writing
errors to avoid:
1) when indicating decades, the plural, not the possessive
should be used: thus, 1960s NOT
1960's.
2) do not confuse its (the possessive form) and it's (the
contraction): remember, it's = it is, ALWAYS!
3) do not simply string quotations from other writers together
into a series of parroted points. Paraphrase and blend the material,
adding your own ideas and analysis, in order to add something new to the topic.
4) refer to Mark Smith's Paper Writing
Guide for more common writing errors to avoid.
Last
modified: 6-Sept.-2007