due 10/16/14 by 2:00 p.m., posted to your own blog
The Situation
As we consider the nuances of composing and delivering policy arguments that can potentially inform people's intellectual (or emotional) decisions, I'd like us to begin exploring the Wikipedia composing environment so that we have a better sense of its constituents and constraints. The first step in this process involves learning more about how Wikipedia articles are "pitched." I will ask you to do some exploring and some reporting in two different tasks, before composing a brief analysis. Our goals include:- differentiating between topics, stubs, and articles in the Wikipedia environment;
- considering source use in Wikipedia projects;
- analyzing and evaluating a particular article for how it uses sources to organize information.
The Assignment (Complete Two Parts)
Please complete Part One, and either Part Two or Part Three. Then, compose an analysis and post it to your blog. Give yourself time to complete each part and take good notes, so that you can write your analysis.Part One
First and foremost, if you are fairly new to Wikipedia projects, visit the <"About Wikipedia"> page and allow yourself 20 minutes to read and browse as much as you can. We will keep returning to this page, but it would be good for you to have a brief introduction before going forward.
Then, visit the WikiProject on <"stub" categories> and <"articles to be expanded">. Browse the complete contents of both pages (which may involve clicking on “All Articles” or “Next 200”), not only to get a sense of which topics have already been identified by Wikipedia as needing completion, but also to get a sense of how Wikipedia organizes potential information.
Finally, do a Wikipedia search for about a dozen particular topics, terms, phrases, or issues that come to mind for you as a result of reading more about writing and editing in the public sphere. Take note of whether they are already included on Wikipedia, reflected in some of the “stubs,” or mentioned as “redirected” topics.
Part Two
Wikipedia has a “reliable sources” policy which outlines that “articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors.” In general, scholarly publications and well-respected news publications are the most reliable sources because they are peer-reviewed, but other sources are accepted if they represent expertise in a particular subject matter.
Choose one article from the “Did you know…” section of Wikipedia’s <main page> and analyze its sources, using their criteria on the <"reliable sources"> page:
- What kinds of sources does the article you are assessing use?
- Are any of those sources unreliable or not well-respected? Why do you think so? Are there any you are unsure of? Why?
- Check five individual facts in the article against the sources. Are the facts reported correctly in Wikipedia? If not, what is incorrectly reported?
- Do you think the information in this article is generally reliable based on your analysis of the sources? Why or why not?
- Do you think the information is reliable based on the level of detail? Why or why not?
Part Three
Compare and contrast two articles on topics that are somehow related (even in a broad sense) to “Public Discourse.” Use the list below to help you think about how to begin your analysis. Note similarities and differences, as well as any other patterns you think are important:
- Structure of article
- Kinds of information contained
- Kinds of information linked to
- References
- Tone of writing
- Illustrations
- Credentials of author
- Lists of works
Analysis (Posted to Your Own Blog)
Now, compose your analysis (at least 1-2 screens) including as many of your observations as possible from the notes you took above. To help you focus, remember that your goal is to give an unfamiliar reader a good sense of Wikipedia's constituents and constraints. As always, your analysis of the Wikipedia tasks brings your observations into conversation with at least 2 critical texts from our course.
Evaluation Criteria
You may organize your analysis however you like, but please keep in mind the following criteria:- Content/Argument – Your analysis of the Wikipedia tasks usefully brings your observations into conversation with at least 2 critical texts from our course (beyond merely using some of their key terms).
- Coherence – Your analysis is guided by a thesis statement that demonstrates what you have discovered and acts as a “thread” for your claims.
- Depth – You write enough to demonstrate or synthesize well.
- Evidence and Justification – Your analysis provides specific examples from your analysis to illustrate the points you make.
- Clarity – Your paragraphs are well focused, your sentences grammatically sound.
- Blogging Guidelines – Your analysis not only follows these, but uses them to your advantage (please take some time to review them; it's likely you won't need to review all of them, but perhaps as a writer, you know you're weaker in one of them more than the others).
(With thanks to the late <Adrianne Wadewitz> for ideas underlying this assignment.)
