Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Valparaiso University/New Literacies, Technologies, and Cultures of Writing (Spring 2016)
| This Course
|
Wikipedia Resources
|
Connect
Questions? Ask us:
contact |
 | This course page is an automatically-updated version of the main course page at dashboard.wikiedu.org. Please do not edit this page directly; any changes will be overwritten the next time the main course page gets updated. |
- Course name
- New Literacies, Technologies, and Cultures of Writing
- Institution
- Valparaiso University
- Instructor
- Allison Schuette
- Wikipedia Expert
- Adam (Wiki Ed)
- Subject
- English
- Course dates
- 2016-01-06 00:00:00 UTC – 2016-05-03 23:59:59 UTC
- Approximate number of student editors
- 12
We’re accustomed to, and quite comfortable, thinking of technology as a tool—we use it and it makes our lives (hopefully) easier; we put it down, and it no longer impacts us. But tools embody values, and values shape our behaviors, actions, and finally our sense of self (e,g., we <3 efficiency and so our tools help us move and communicate faster, and when’s the last time you “unplugged” and felt comfortable in your solitude?). So technology is not only a tool; it’s also a cultural force.
This course seeks to investigate how technology has shaped and is shaping us in particular relation to our media. What happens to the way we read and write, to the way even that we think, when computer and Internet technologies enter our means of communication? What new forms of media are produced? What new kinds of self are introduced?
In some ways, the study of new media is a recent field. The advances in technology have rapidly changed how media is created, distributed and stored. But, of course, media itself isn’t new; neither is technology. Many people studying new media today harken back to the enormous changes our culture went through with the invention of the printing press. They suggest that we, too, are going through such a sea change today. Are we?
As an introductory class, I hardly expect we’ll be able to answer this question definitively. I do, however, anticipate that by semester’s end you’ll have the resources to carefully consider this question.
Timeline
Week 1
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 9 February 2016 | Thursday, 11 February 2016
- Assignment - Wikipedia Essentials and Tutorial
In class, we will go over the following:
- Introduction to how Wikipedia will be used in the course
- Enrolling in our WikiEdu course
- Hands-on tutorial in some of the editing techniques you’ll need
- Adding a source to an Wikipedia article
- Assignment - Rhetorical Analysis
- Find an article on a topic you care about and read it carefully.
- Referring to pages 5 and 6 in the EvaluatingWikipedia brochure, make a list of its strengths and its weaknesses. You may use your own criteria to evaluate the article in addition to the checklists in the brochure.
- Read pp. 2-4 of EvaluatingWikipedia.
- Click on “View history” for your article. When was the article started? How did the article look in its early stages? How/when was material added? By whom? How long did it take to get to its current stage? How recently have edits been made? Is it still active?
- Click on the “Talk” tab for your article. How actively did the editors use it? For what reason? How would you describe the tone of the conversation? Do you see the same editors here that you saw on the history page?
- Edit the article in some way: you can fix grammar/style, re-organize material, add a source, try to make the voice consistent over the whole article, etc. Be sure to describe your edits when you save them.
- Post your list of strengths/weaknesses, answers to questions #4 and #5, and the description of your edits to your User account talk page.
Week 2
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 16 February 2016 | Thursday, 18 February 2016
- Assignment - Central Principles of Wikipedia; Critique an Article
1. Complete the Wikipedia Essentials Tutorial.
2. Read the “Cognitive Surplus” article on Wikipedia with an eye for how well the editors have established both verifiability and notability. A few questions to consider (don't feel limited to these):
- Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
- Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
- Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
- Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
3. Lastly, based on your analysis, what changes would you make to the article to improve the verifiability and notability? What else might we do as a class to improve the article? (If you need ideas, check out the good article criteria for books on Wikipedia.) Post your ideas/get into a conversation with each other on the “Cognitive Surplus” talk page. I will look for evidence that everyone has contributed ideas and discussion, so be sure to sign your comments with the four tildes Aschuet1 (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC).
- Assignment - Editing "Cognitive Surplus"
Complete the editing homework you were given in Tuesday’s class.
Week 3
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 23 February 2016 | Thursday, 25 February 2016
- Assignment - The Evolving Culture of Wikipedia; Polish “Cognitive Surplus”
1. Complete the editing homework you were given in Thursday’s class. Use the Talk Page as necessary for building and discussing edits. By Tuesday's class, we should have our polished version of Cognitive Surplus. 2. Listen to the following NPR pieces: “Jimmy Wales on Wikipedia’s New Editing Policy” (13 minutes); “As Wikipedia Gets Pickier, Editors Become Harder To Find” (4 minutes) 3. Bring Shirky to class.
- In class - Bit by the bug? Earn extra credit for Engl 400
Some of you, now that you understand the culture and back end of Wikipedia better, might wish to contribute more significantly to the encyclopedia. Students in the course have often had success at creating articles or taking "stubs" and building them into full-length articles that get moved into Wikipedia's main space.
If you're interested in earning extra credit for our course and/or you're just willing to practice your networked generosity more, talk to me about ideas you have for articles. A good place to start is to think back to classes in which you've done a lot of secondary research on a novel or an artist. You could very easily translate that work into an article on Wikipedia. You might also have your own cultural interests whose significance have been documented but which have not yet made their way to Wikipedia, e.g., one student in Engl 400 wrote about New Orleans' snow-balls, the city's highly celebrated version of the snow-cone. (In fact when you Google "New Orleans snow cone," the Wikipedia article is the first link to show up.)
The more ambitious the article, the more extra credit you can earn--from raising the grade of a formal assignment by 10% to renegotiating the overall weight the Wikipedia assignment has in your end of semester grade calculation.
Let me know by Tues, March 15th, if you're interested.