Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AP Biology 2010/Archive 1

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AP Biology 2010

This Archive covers Fall 2010-2011 AP Project

Time Line

Adhere to this schedule - it will effect your grade! Any response to these bullets should be done in a separate section to avoid cluttering this essential information.--JimmyButler (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• 8/31: Done All students should have created an account. This must be done at home - the school IP address is blocked. Selection of account names are only limited by your imagination - take mine for example!
• 8/31: Done Add your account to the project page under heading "members". Use this format :* JimmyButler (talk · contribs · count) - which can be copy /pasted in the edit mode - then substitute my account name for yours.
• 8/31: Done Hopefully we will reach consensus on two articles. This is the most important step in the process which will make or break our spirits. Choose wisely my young jedi! Post your two selections in the following section along with a summary of the logic for this decision. We will then pause for commentary - assimilate any advice that may appear - then proceed from there.
• 9/3: Done Complete your "User page" and hone your html skills. Provide some insights into your philosophies and ambitions without sharing too much personal information, info boxes are an entertaining way to achieve this. Note: Wikipedia is not FaceBook nor a chat room. I do not recommend personal photographs. I would encourage images of interest that "dress up" your page, if for no other reason than learning how to insert graphics.
• 9/17: Apply the Project banner to our adopted article's talk page. This informs others that this is Biology project being actively edited by our class.

• 9/20: Develop a list of references relative to your topic. All of them must be accessible to your group members as either web links or direct possession of a hard copy. The list should be posted on the discussion page of the article using an accepted Wikipedia format in a new section entitled "references". These links may help you determine what information should be included regarding the references that you post on the talk page,Wikipedia:Citation templates and Wikipedia:Citing sources. The correct formatting is a make or break in an FA attempt.

Read the following information, "lifted" from Wikipedia:Article development:

Research is necessary to write a great article. A great article has to be verifiable and cite reliable sources which ideally should include books or peer reviewed journal articles. Consider visiting a university or public library to identify and study the best sources. Looking at what search engines such as Google can bring up, and reading the relevant articles from other encyclopedias, to form an idea of what topics should be covered, in what depth, to achieve a comprehensive summary coverage. The following sites may help you: Encyclopedia.com (free), AllRefer Reference (free), Factmonster, Encyclopedia Britannica School & Library Site (free in most libraries).

Finding relevant references

There are several ways to find and retrieve articles online, without having to leave home. Google Scholar is an excellent source for finding sometimes-free online peer reviewed articles; note that the free articles' entries are quickly identifiable for having a "View as HTML" link in the result page.

Many libraries have agreements with database providers under which library users with current library cards can connect free to the databases from their home computers — that is, the users do not need to be physically present in the library. Check with your local public or academic library to find out to which databases it subscribes, and whether they have a mechanism in place for remote access. Some high-end databases (like InfoTrac and ProQuest) even carry scanned versions of articles as they were originally printed.

Examples of comprehensive general interest databases that may be available through your local library are:

• EBSCO – Full academic version (Academic Search Premier) has full text of millions of articles from over 4,600 sources. Full public library version (MasterFILE Premier) has full text coverage of about 2,100 sources.
• Infotrac – OneFile database has full text of about 90 million articles from 1980 to the present. Widely available at academic and public libraries throughout North America. Operated by Thomson Gale (formerly Gale Group), a subsidiary of the Thomson Corporation.
• JSTOR – Has complete text of articles from several hundred scholarly journals from their beginning to approximately five years ago. Operated by a consortium of universities. They include most of the "high prestige" journals in the humanities, social sciences and natural sciences.
• LexisNexis – Full version (mostly accessed by lawyers and journalists) has millions of full-text articles (from magazines, journals, and newspapers), court opinions, statutes, treatises, transcripts, public records, and more. Academic version (available at many universities) offers large subsets of the legal and news databases.
• ProQuest – Full version (ProQuest 5000) has full text of millions of articles from 7,400 sources as far back as 1971. The ProQuest Historical Newspapers database has images in PDF format of all issues of the New York Times published between 1851 and 2001. Most libraries offer access to only part of the huge ProQuest database, through account types like eLibrary, Platinum, Silver, Gold, or Discovery.
• Questia Online Library allows full-text search and reading access to all 64,000+ books and 1,000,000+ journal, magazine, and newspaper articles in their collection. Their strength is full text of recent academic books by major publishers such as Oxford University Press, University of North Carolina Press, and Greenwood Press, along with thousands of older academic books that are available only in larger university libraries. Unlike most other online services, they offer short-term individual subscriptions for students and researchers.

Project Rationale

• Topic 1: Mauritian Tomb Bat - We have chosen the Mauritian Tomb Bat to cover the zoolgical aspect of biology. We had several fields from which to choose, incuding biochemisty, botany, medicine, anatomy, and several other diverse fields. We feel that zoology is one of the most well known and interesting of the branches of biology, and we wanted a subject that would not be bogged down with such controversy that would make it virtually impossible to create a concise and unbiased article. We also wanted to choose an animal for which we could find enough credible information, as well as produce the best possible article. If you have any helpful, credible information, please, feel free to help us as we develop this article for the Mauritian Tomb Bat. --Jraffe0404 (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is definitely in need of some help. Perhaps a little obscure, just see what credible sources you can dig up beforehand (don't want to commit to a topic that nobody has written about).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Also something else that just struck me. Make sure images of the animal exist (if not on Wikipedia than somewhere that will allow you to place them on Wikipedia). The article will be lacking a serious component if there are no pictures of the critter.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Two Creative Commons-licensed images on flickr http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Mauritian+Tomb+Bat&l=deriv&ct=0&mt=all&adv=1 Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ohh my God it's so ugly why did you pick that!!!...Just kidding those are great pictures.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys this is my first time uploading a photo so could some one kind of let me know exactly how to do so? it is really confusing and i do not want to start the semseter with eternal banishment from Wikipedia for breaking the law. Just kind of add on here how i would go about with the upload maybe. I would greatly apprciate it. Thank you!--Jraffe0404 (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To upload pictures you need to create an account on the WikiCommons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page), you can use the same username as your Wikipedia account. After you make an account, on the WikiCommons site click “upload file" in the sidebar. It’s pretty self explanatory. You should probably look over this article before uploading. — Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly only one of the pictures seems to have an acceptable Creative Commons license. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

MMWWAHAHAHAAH I have done it! I have successfully added the acceptably liscenced photograph to the page!! I feel as though i have just conquered a great foe, and I am oozing happiness. Thank you everyone! --Jraffe0404 (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good brother.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Topic 2: Allomone - We've decided to choose allomone as our topic because it is very interesting and we have a wealth of information and resources to draw from. The ways in which animals use allomones for deterring predators, forming pheromones and hormones, and performing inter-specific communication are of particular interest to the members of our group. We hope to enlighten anyone who is interested and also to become knowledgeable on the topic ourselves.

--12tsheaffer (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Be sure to check out all of those sources. While there may be many, you don't know what's in all of them; They may all be repeating the same basic information. Also, make sure the sources are credible, see WP:Sources. Basically, just don't get stuck with an article that has no good sources readily available. (That happened to me last year... Hypertrichosis...) —Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Are the two topics above the 'official' choices, or is the project still deciding? If deciding, I echo Vancemiller in that - if you want to make the project 'easy' - let the sources/references choose the topic. In general, the more local the topic, the easier it is to find sources and illustrations (you can take your own photos, etc.). Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ug99 - If you haven't settled on a topic, may I suggest this: it isn't a submarine. To get a sense of the topic, there is this New York Times article Stem Rust Never Sleeps written by the Nobel Prize winner Norman E. Borlaug. As for Wikipedia, the article is less than a stub! You'll have to break it out of its parent article. This is no problem. As for resources, there will be plenty. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It may be tough for student in North Carolina to gather information on a mammal that's endemic to Africa. Good luck though!!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess these are it!? Thanks for all the feedback. Frankly, I would have gone local or at least slightly more main-stream. The loggerhead was both, working out well for us. However, the bog turtle was neither and it made it. Irregardless, I will accept no excuses as the project unfolds and will merely wish you well!--JimmyButler (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Go AP Biology Go! Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Let the games begin!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions about uploading pictures

Hello Everybody! I got permission to use some pictures and they are pretty good, but I have a bit of a problem. I think I could figure out how to upload a picture (maybe), but I have no idea how to mention the photographer in the copyright. I need to do that because the photographer requested that I acknowledge her for her pictures. I don't even know if there is a copyright next to the picture. I don't care if I sound stupid either, because, quite frankly, I hate technical stuff. I might just wait until I see everybody in class to upload the picture. If anyone can help me, please let me know.--Rebekah best (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Listen to Vancemiller, images were my Achilles heel on Wikipedia, references were my other Achilles heel (I have two Achilles heels right? Let me check...Yup).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, it’s probably a good idea to read over this article before uploading images. It addresses issues such as the one you brought up about copyright. — Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Rebekah I think that me and you were contacting the same guy for permission. He said that it was okay but he's not liscenced, so you'll need to ask him about that. one he's liscenced it i can help getting it on. --Jraffe0404 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Jacob, is the guy who gave you the pictures named Julio? That was the guy who gave me my pictures, I also got pictures from someone named Mimi. I am about to try to upload the pictures, but I might have to ask you about it tomorrow.--Rebekah best (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

For safety, first names of editors (or other people for that matter) are often avoided. See Wikipedia:Personal security practices for more information on what I'm talking about.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Try to use your user names when in a discussion on Wikipedia. Most users are only going to know you by your user names and will become confused by your 'insider' knowledge, allusions and references. This will almost certainly lead to wiki-nastiness. Why? Because you will inadvertantly create a sense of page ownership, and that is a bad thing on wikipedia. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note (sorry for barging in!) - please don't hesitate to contact myself if you need help with getting images released under free licenses (eg. from Flickr) - I can help with that. Good luck! Connormah (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I will definitely take you up on that offer, but first I have to get the owner of the pictures to switch from all rights reserved to some rights reserved, so I don't know when they will be under a free license. I'm still working on it.--Rebekah best (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Buying In

• Query: Efforts on fulfilling the requirements for the 9/20 phase is considerably less than satisfactory. Is it a lack of references or a lack of motivation? Failure to meet deadlines is unacceptable. How will you explain this when we discuss point building during the final assessment? Those from last year's effort can attest to the rewards when you "buy in" to this project as well as the dreadful consequences of dismissing this as less relevant than Math or English. My compassion and understanding of your plight has extreme limits.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

My advice to the editors: don't put any part of this project off until the end. If you don't understand something, ask, don't just stand idly by.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest developing a passion for your topic. Have a sense of pride! When that happens, you WANT to work on the project. It consumes you. Sell your soul to the Wikipedia Project!--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That's another good way to look at it. Think "Cougar Pride"...you're representing your school here people!!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, once you really start editing and making changes, you do attract new editors and voices, which made editing well, funStrombollii (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Direct quotes

A heads up: all direct quotes must be surrounded by quotation marks else the passage will be interpreted as being plagiarized even if the passage is acknowledged by a clear citation to the source. A citation is just an acknowledgement of where something originated. It does not imply that the exact words of the original author is being used. Quotation marks ("") tell the reader that the words are the exact original. In normal writing, you should be paraphrasing or digesting the original sources and writing out the information in your own words. All of this has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. However, if an original source is restricted by copyright, then the actual amount of the source you quote can become very important even if you have a clear citation attached. To sum up:

• direct quotes
• citing sources
• copyright/public domain

are three *different* concepts that you must keep in mind when writing an essay - Wikipedia article- and you can't ignore them without causing problems for yourself. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Take note of the advice above. Plagiarism is punishable by death. Any questions?--JimmyButler (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Major Change: Allomone Dropped, now False Albacore

Due to online resources on Allomone being few and far between, as well as the current scientific debate on whether allomone should be classified as a different chemical, as a class we have decided to transfer to a different topic for the WikiProject. We have decided to work on the False Albacore article, because it is a local fish, the resources are much more available, and there is no major debate that we know of surrounding the fish. By having this as a local species, and the best months for the fishing of the species are in October and November for area, we will be able to gather some data ourselves in the field, and from local experts. This topic looks to be much more do-able than allomone, and we will hopefully have more success with research.--M rickabaugh (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a smart thing to do. Allomone was sort of an off the wall topic (there's probably a reason why it's basically untouched...maybe because it's definition is disputed...). I don't know about the application of first hand research to wikipedia (generally not acceptable...), but, if I were you, I would start a "field trip! field trip!" chant in class one day.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely a stub.... the only information at present is (It is a fish). No where to go but up from there!--JimmyButler (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I might have to call it a "protostub" or something...one sentence, seriously? The wikiproject can basically take all the glory for whatever the final result may be.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Change, yet again... The False Albacore is a common name that refers to many species in the Euthynnus genus. I have changed all links on the fish to to the correct article Little Tunny. Im am greatly sorry for the confusion, but I am glad we have found the mistake before we reached the point of no return.--M rickabaugh (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Holy shmoley...okay.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternative toGoogle Scholar

Hey guys try this search engine: http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=little+tunny&t=all&drill=yes&sort=0&p=180 , it generated an impressive number of legit sites for the little tunny.--JimmyButler (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow...I thought I was the only person up this late. Some impressive work being put into both articles...Mauritian is getting some copy-edit attention. To PR!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The amount of credible sources on this search engine/subject directory is great! I've been reading through some this afternoon, and some have new info, and others can serve as better citations for information that has already been included. Thanks for this help. --M rickabaugh (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Judgment Day

We have had our Judgment Day - one of the strengths of this project is the difficulty in bluffing your way through; the edit history speak for itself. Although we fell short of expectations (no GA's or FA's), we did no harm. The Tomb Bat and False Albacore are improved versions over the initial stubs. The shift from evaluating individual effort rather than the final product worked out well as a means of fair grade accounting. For those interested in the trend in grade distribution, I will leave the following:

• The assignment had a 300 pt value. It accounted for 50% of their quarterly grade.
• Three students accumulated 10pts or less.
• Two students exceeded 290 pts.

Students presented a portfolio documenting their efforts. This included evidence of edits - formatting, copy/edits, images and most importantly content. The other component required demonstration of research, including access to libraries or direct contact with experts.

The individual conferences were approached with the attitude of seeking points to build a better grade rather an effort to tear down their efforts. Four out of the eight showed up virtually empty handed. A shockingly bad decision since the academic outcome was catastrophic. Also of note - none of these students offered a rationale for their short-comings. No excuses. The reasons for this short-coming needs to be determined before attempting future projects. Intimidation, apathy, lack of clarity in the instructions, poor leadership, immaturity, insufficient pre-requisite to prepare for such a challenge or numerous other excuses real or imagined. Losing four out of eight students is not an option! Cheers --JimmyButler (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's all so sad to hear, although I will say that two respectable articles were created out of stubs, nothing to scoff at in my mind. As a student, maybe I could offer some insight into potential reasons for the lack of edits. In the beginning, I remember feeling nervous about editing: "oh my god, everyone's going to be able to see this." I just had to assure myself that, as long as I was adding material that i knew bettered the article and bettered Wikipedia, there was no reason to fret. Another thing that held me up was my writing skill. I had a hard time sp3ling (and still do mind you) and forming coherent, fluid paragraphs. However, come second semester, I was a product of Robinson Inc. Also, other editors helped me out with my writing. Yet another thing I experienced was dun, dun, dun, plagarism. Even this horrendous mistake was not held against me as editors from all around helped me get on the right path. In the end, one can overcome all Wikipedia obstacles so long as an attempt at article expansion is made. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the spirit. Mistakes can always be amended. Inactivity produces nothing. --Ettrig (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

One word, "turtle". TCO (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Approach

Coordinating a project like this is inherently difficult. Each student has his/her own likes and dislikes. The "one student, one article" approach may be the way to go, however if that was done for my class, I would have likely picked Human skeleton just because it's cool. That would have been a disaster, I would have had no idea how to construct the article (still wouldn't know how...). I'm sure a lot of people benefited from talking to others about what types of articles to do, however maybe those same were hurt by group-members who didn't pull their weight. Having one topic (evolution) and rolling with it has positives and negatives as well (at least I would think so): everyone would feel like a part of a bigger team improving one basic thing, but there would be no variety, no way for students to choose what they want to edit. If an evolution article was broken up by section and each kid assigned his/her own section, there would assuredly be that one kid who doesn't do his/her own work and holds the whole group up.

The small group approach (my year) was okay, it worked to buffer the difficulties of article selection and those who were determined to make GA/FA were not hurt in any way (may have had to do more work, but no worse than doing it alone as with first project). Dividing the class among two articles was cool, however maybe the students should have to pick one and work on it rather than being able to switch between. I liked the process of article selection that was employed the second semester of last year and the beginning of this year. Students posted ideas here and we all kind of went through the article and assessed the quality, importance, and the available sources.

Maybe the way to ensure people do this is to make it a percentage of each of their six weeks grades: "50% tests, 25% homework/quizes/classwork, and 25% wikipedia" or whatever. Certainly makes it seem more vital when, if they don't do it, they get a big fat 75 on their report card (assuming their a genius and do everything else 100% perfect).

Just some thoughts.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a certified genius (yeah, I know), and even an ex-member of Mensa would you believe. But I can also be rather lazy, which is perhaps the trap the students fall into. Like you, I don't think that groups work in this context, and I'd be as frustrated as Hell at having to carry a couple of goobers (I just made that word up, but it has the right feel for me). Malleus Fatuorum 05:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• 1 or 2 man teams.

• Give the class a list of species articles, where you have looked at the topic and know it will be doable in terms of not too broad or too nichey. And the article state is appropriate (i.e. unadvaanced enough). We can supply the turtle topics. Give them a list that is maybe 50-100% bigger than the number to be selected. Allow them to propose alternatives, but be brutal about not allowing stuff that is not optimal in terms of a topic.If it's too much work to come up with those, do some discussion thread on here to generate ideas or some such.)

• The whole reason I got "union card" was from picking an appopriate problem (i.e. easy to do, yet interesting to talk about). Picking the right thing to work on is key. For example, I have a lot of life experience to draw on, but still would eschew doing an overseas animal as it's just too hard to make sure you get the right info, etc. When there's stuff sitting here like terrapin, no reason to go for African bats.

• And no, your students should not be expected to know how to do that. Just give them a list of topics that you know are ALL winners. Can figure out a selection method if there are over-popular choices (draw lots, first come gets it, one para justification, etc.) People love games anyhow, so nothing wrong with that.

• Would avoid topics like evolution or human physiology as the expectations are going to be too high on wiki, and the topics end up too specialized.TCO (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two sides of the coin. The kids must be able to have some freedom, maybe they don't want to do a species article but rather something like Phagocyte. On the other hand, some of them may pick "pit-fall" articles, Human skeleton would certainly have been one of those. It's a difficult task to meet both criteria.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Broader topics are more valuable for the readers and yield more valuable experiences for the writers. Fortunately the broadest subjects, like evolution are already fairly well covered, so are the species that readers are most interested in. I would like to see the AP Biololgy classes together create a set of Good Articles that covers all the subject matter that can occur in AP Biology tests. --Ettrig (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Assign each of the groups a senior editor to act as a mentor, like what we are doing in the Ambassador program. This person would be another set of eyes watching the selection, writing, sourcing, and reviewing process. --Guerillero | My Talk 14:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your insights. I think much of the short-comings of the 2010-2011 season falls squarely on the shoulders of the students. This became apparent during the grading process in that there was not a single word of protest. Evaluation of the student's contributions and not the finished product eliminated the blame game. Unfortunately, there was also no pride in ownership. Both articles improved; yet no one felt any particular need to apply for GA or FA. My biggest concern, so many were willing to take the "F", a grade with an impact sufficient to fail some for the entire course. Why? Apathy? Not likely since these guys typically fight for every point. Lack of guidance? We dedicated a great deal of class time to the project; beyond the clear instructions here and a history of prior success to serve as examples. They new what to do - they are not stupid. Intimidation? God bless them if they are that timid... students in the past learned to loved the confrontations. Poor topic selection? The fish had an abundance of references and was local - the bat, not so much. Regarding mentors - that was attempted in the 2008-2009 assignment. I found that it was better to allow the students to develop their relationships with collaborators. In every case - when they actually added content - the student found an ally willing to help. Lack of time --- probably a factor --- because they made the worst decision possible - they procrastinated as a group (secure in knowing no one else was doing anything either). No one broke from the pack to set the standards. With only one senior in the class we lacked a role model. Group misery - if you're not doing anything then neither am I! This semester - they will pay penance to the Wiki-gods. Each week they must make contributions which may include 1) adding an image 2)improving prose 3)adding content 4) adding references to un-cited material 5) improving format 6)correcting spelling and other various low order task. They are limited to stubs and fringe articles related to evolution. I will develop a rubric to calculate points and set the criteria for an A. Each week the assignment will hang over their heads like a guillotine - always present. The Wiki-gods have spoken.--JimmyButler (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Evolution - hooray! Counting the contributions will be hard work. Will every edit count alike or is an image worth a thousand words? What is the minimum weekly contribution? --Ettrig (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)