Welcome to the education noticeboard | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21 |
Students (and instructors) frequently choosing topic under discretionary sanctions
I was recently reading over the student assignments page and I've noticed any topics under discretionary sanctions shouldn't be chosen by students. However, there are several courses that cover topics currently under DS apparently in contravention of that. Some examples:
- Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Alabama at Birmingham/Reproductive Justice (Spring 2021) has many chosen topics fall under Abortion and/or post 1992 American politics
- Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/UCSD/blacklivesmatterS21 (Spring 21) is on post 1992 politics of the US.
- Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/California Polytechnic State University/LGBTQ Politics and Policy (Spring) is a course on LGBTQ politics primarily in the US (students mainly choosing topics relating to that), which could fall under gender and sexuality or post 1992 American politics
- Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Nebraska-Lincoln/Women and Politics (Spring) has the vast majority of topics be on women involved in post-1992 American politics.
There's plenty of other cases as well where instructors appear to have disregarded our page on student assignments and created courses on subjects covered by discretionary sanctions (mostly related to post-1992 American politics) or where while the topic itself doesn't inherently fall under DS students have generally chosen topics that do fall under discretionary sanctions.
What should be done about this?
Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 23:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Chess, can you please link to the guideline that says that students should not work on topics under discretionary sanctions? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@Cullen:While I'm also pretty sure there's no specific guideline or policy that bars new editors (including student editors) from editing articles in topics under DS (or other controversial topics), nevertheless such topics are difficult even for experienced editors, and I sometimes advise student editors to tread carefully and to consider choosing another topic, or at the very least, to talk things out at Talk first, before diving into the article. (Such advice usually comes after the horse has left the barn.) I not infrequently see an editor waltz into some highly controversial article, with a history of having had sentences or even words hammered out through long, exhausting Rfc's, and then make a 6kb edit to the article, blissfully unaware of prior history, but no doubt with an eye, or both eyes, fixed on a grade.- If there's a guideline that applies in this case, it's WP:DISRUPTION of the unintended type, because inevitably experienced editors with better things to do, have to divert to the article in order to repair the unwitting damage.
- I don't know what the solution is, but I agree with the spirit of Chess's comment. I'm aware of the training that student editors go through (and went through it myself, in order to understand student editors better and get the immersive experience), but I"m not aware of what training instructors who have affiliated their course with Wiki Ed have to go through.
- Perhaps at the very least, whatever modules the instructors currently go through, maybe we could add a module about controversial articles and DS, so that instructors are clear-eyed about what is involved in sending their students "to the front" so to speak, and in particular so that instructors (and students) are aware that a not unlikely possibility is that a large part or even the entirety of the edits in such topics may be reversed. I would go one step further: I have sometimes had the (unsubstantiated) impression, that the editing procedure itself at Wikipedia is the goal for some instructors, and as long as their students go through the training and complete some edits, whether they get reversed or not is pretty much beside the point; it's all about the grade, and hang the DS, the controversy, the resulting Talk page discussions, and the disruption. If that is indeed the case with an instructor, then imho they need to be sanctioned in some way, because that is directly contrary to what Wikipedia is about; to the extent that is true of some instructor, then they are not here to build an encyclopedia, which regardless of whatever benefit accrues to students taking part, is nevertheless the main objective, and I don't see that we make an exception in the case of Wiki Ed instructors or student editors, to water down that principle. (An instructor WP:BLOCK would not serve the purpose, that would just leave students rudderless; it would have to be something else.)
- In sum, as things currently stand, there is no guideline of the type Chess refers to (nor should there be, imho), but other forces are at play, and I don't know that we want to trade off the benefit to Wiki Ed student editors learning process at college (who then disappear and never come back) against the good will and time of long-term volunteers. Like I said, I don't have a solution, but I do see a problem. Mathglot (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- RepingCullen328. Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: I did in the initial comment; it's linked as "student assignments page". More explicitly without piping it's WP:ASSIGN. Quoting:
- "Some highly contentious topic areas (some dealing with political matters, current events, or religious conflicts, as well as various other controversial subjects) have been placed under special rules called Discretionary Sanctions that are intended to prevent disputes between editors. When such restrictions are in place, editors who violate the rules may be quickly blocked from editing, including student editors who may not recognize the intricacies of such rules. Class assignments should avoid these topic areas entirely."
- I tried to avoid using the words "guideline" or "policy" since it's not actually a policy or guideline but it is the most official document I could find on Wikipedia detailing how we deal with student editors (we should probably make an actual guideline or policy on this). Looking through the training for instructors modules on Wiki Ed I found an optional (does anyone do optional modules?) one on "finding articles" there's a vaguely worded statement that "controversial topics are best avoided" [1] along with a statement of questionable correctness that "The most controversial articles will have a "locked" icon on the top right:" with a blue padlock (implying ECP/protection in general = very controversial). No mention of DS I could find but the intructor modules aren't community determined.
- Honestly I'm starting to think the real issue here is that we don't have any actual harmonized community-determined policies on educational assignments. The only page we really have determined by consensus is an information page. That being said I really think for the time being controversial topics under discretionary sanctions aren't appropriate (with obvious IAR exceptions for stuff like discussing infoboxes) and do go against the only guidance we have for educational assignments. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 01:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC) - I think we should desire that student editors have a positive experience while being forced to edit edit Wikipedia unlike us as volunteers. DS topics doesn't set them up for success in this regard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, I hold you in high regard but I am not aware of any circumstances where a student is "forced" to sign up for a class that involves Wikipedia editing and then also "forced" to select a topic that falls under discretionary sanctions. I agree that instructors especially, and also the students should be informed about the difficulty of editing in these areas. But writing a neutral biography of a woman state legislator whose service ended 20 years ago should be encouraged, even if it technically falls under AP discretionary sanctions. Jumping into the inflammatory controversy du jour is obviously very different, and should be discouraged but not forbidden. To be frank, when I was a university student (and I got very good grades), I was acutely aware how to engage with controversial topics without alienating the professor or anyone else, and instead to shed light and get a good grade. Ummm, neutral writing instead of overt advocacy. I think that we should provide outstanding support to college and university instructors and their students, but these students are young adults not kindergarteners, and they should be given the full range of freedoms that society accords adults. If they produce excellent content, they will receive plaudits. If they don't, they will get a poor grade. Isn't that how it has always been in universities, at least the best of them? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Cullen, while you might be technically correct that no student is forced to signup for a class, neither, in most cases, are they signing up for a class with an intent to edit Wikipedia. An edit-a-thon participant these students are not. Ultimately, I maintain my assertion, based in no small part on the comments I've gotten when interacting with them, that students can't be truly labeled as volunteers. Now I happen to agree with you that if a class wants to create biographies of American state legislatures they surely can despite it falling under AP2. However, that's not really the kind of article topic most students choose in the classes linked by Chess. Ultimately I want these students to have a positive experience with Wikipedia and believe their being steered to a choice of topics that they'll be able to successfully edit and even make a mistake or two without potentially drawing down the ire of editors who are truly volunteers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 Generally in most university courses major assignments given in the term are required to be listed on the syllabus which every student gets to read before choosing the course or at least right after starting the course so they can switch if it isn't right for them and get a refund. I wouldn't call students strictly volunteers (unless editing Wikipedia is an optional extra credit assignment) but they're not getting Wikipedia editing sprung on them in the middle of the term with no opportunity to back out. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 05:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)- What you write is true Chess, but I maintain that very few of our student editors desire to edit Wikipedia when they sign up for a class that edits Wikipedia. They want to fulfill a requirement, it's at a convenient time, it's with a professor they like, it's on a topic they're interested in, etc etc. The fact that there's an assignment to edit Wikipedia doesn't make them volunteers here anymore than they're volunteers to write a term paper or other major class assignments. It's something they do as part of the class but they are not here as volunteers in the way that similar college students who show up to edit-a-thons are and that, in the end, makes a difference in how they act and what their goals tend to be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Barkeep49. In general, Wikipedia editors come here because we chose to do so, for whatever individual reason, but it's an individual choice and nothing more. Students, first, are seeking to get course credit and to graduate, in order to proceed with their lives. I think it's useful to note that the overwhelming majority of student editors never edit again after the end of the class. Of course, it's wonderful when the few of them find that they like editing and become continuing members of the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- What you write is true Chess, but I maintain that very few of our student editors desire to edit Wikipedia when they sign up for a class that edits Wikipedia. They want to fulfill a requirement, it's at a convenient time, it's with a professor they like, it's on a topic they're interested in, etc etc. The fact that there's an assignment to edit Wikipedia doesn't make them volunteers here anymore than they're volunteers to write a term paper or other major class assignments. It's something they do as part of the class but they are not here as volunteers in the way that similar college students who show up to edit-a-thons are and that, in the end, makes a difference in how they act and what their goals tend to be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 Generally in most university courses major assignments given in the term are required to be listed on the syllabus which every student gets to read before choosing the course or at least right after starting the course so they can switch if it isn't right for them and get a refund. I wouldn't call students strictly volunteers (unless editing Wikipedia is an optional extra credit assignment) but they're not getting Wikipedia editing sprung on them in the middle of the term with no opportunity to back out. Chess (talk) (please use
- Cullen, while you might be technically correct that no student is forced to signup for a class, neither, in most cases, are they signing up for a class with an intent to edit Wikipedia. An edit-a-thon participant these students are not. Ultimately, I maintain my assertion, based in no small part on the comments I've gotten when interacting with them, that students can't be truly labeled as volunteers. Now I happen to agree with you that if a class wants to create biographies of American state legislatures they surely can despite it falling under AP2. However, that's not really the kind of article topic most students choose in the classes linked by Chess. Ultimately I want these students to have a positive experience with Wikipedia and believe their being steered to a choice of topics that they'll be able to successfully edit and even make a mistake or two without potentially drawing down the ire of editors who are truly volunteers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, Not that long ago I talked to several scholars who are also Holocaust historians, introducing them to the entire "students edit Wikipedia" idea, and suggesting that they, and their students, could do much good here. And while I am not familiar with any DS about gender issues, as a sociologist, this is obviously a topic of major interest for students, including my own students. A number of my students, over the years, have created articles about gender topics, in fact, I just reviewed a (surprise - not declared to me before) submission by a student of mine dealing with such a topic, Ye Yongrong Incident. In general, while student edits, like those of all new editors, need various cleanups, I don't see why we should tell them to stay away from those areas, outside of the fact that they are more likely to run into trolls or otherwise unfriendly editors who have some battleground mentality. On the other hand, students chose such topics precisely because they are interested in controversial issues, to tell them "just edit safe boring topics" would be deterimental to their motivation, and I see no reason to think this would be a good idea, whether from the educational perspective, or Wikipedian (as in, aiming to get students interested in Wikipedia and retain them as regular editors). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, I hold you in high regard but I am not aware of any circumstances where a student is "forced" to sign up for a class that involves Wikipedia editing and then also "forced" to select a topic that falls under discretionary sanctions. I agree that instructors especially, and also the students should be informed about the difficulty of editing in these areas. But writing a neutral biography of a woman state legislator whose service ended 20 years ago should be encouraged, even if it technically falls under AP discretionary sanctions. Jumping into the inflammatory controversy du jour is obviously very different, and should be discouraged but not forbidden. To be frank, when I was a university student (and I got very good grades), I was acutely aware how to engage with controversial topics without alienating the professor or anyone else, and instead to shed light and get a good grade. Ummm, neutral writing instead of overt advocacy. I think that we should provide outstanding support to college and university instructors and their students, but these students are young adults not kindergarteners, and they should be given the full range of freedoms that society accords adults. If they produce excellent content, they will receive plaudits. If they don't, they will get a poor grade. Isn't that how it has always been in universities, at least the best of them? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Speaking for Wiki Education: As we welcome courses in all disciplines, some disciplines (including many political science classes and everything related to climate science) are going to fall under discretionary sanctions because a large number of articles on Wikipedia are subject to DS. We've worked successfully for many years supporting classes whose students are editing under DS, with many students making substantive improvements to those articles. Obviously there are differing levels of problematic in terms of articles under DS. We have an alert internally that flags every time a student selects to edit an article under DS, and our experienced staff then evaluates how challenging it would be for a new student editor to contribute to that particular article. We also consider the instructor's Wikipedia experience level and whether the course is for majors (so the students have more subject matter knowledge) or is an intro class. If we have concerns, we attempt to steer students away from particularly problematic article choices. If you see one we've missed, please feel free to flag it here on the noticeboard.
- Mathglot, I'm sorry you feel like some instructors are only there for the editing procedure itself and not to build knowledge on Wikipedia. I can say that's not at all the impression we have when talking to faculty; most are in academia because they want to share the knowledge of their chosen discipline, and are participating in the program to improve their discipline's coverage on Wikipedia while simultaneously providing an engaging learning experience for their students. When we do come across instructors who we feel aren't there to build an encyclopedia, we discourage them from participating in future terms. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- This has been a perennial issue: [2], [3]. I think it misses the point to say that there isn't a policy or guideline forbidding students to edit under DS. (And we do have an information page, at Wikipedia:Student assignments#Choosing a topic.) Just because something is permitted does not make it a good idea. Just think what a "lovely" educational experience it would be for a student to start editing a page, get a DS alert on their user talk page, and then find themselves at WP:AE getting blocked. Yes, with careful guidance, students can have very good and productive experiences, but it requires guidance. And without adequate guidance, it isn't worth it, for the student or for anyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish: I think we should have a guideline or policy page on student assignments so it's clear what community consensus is on appropriate versus not appropriate behaviours. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 05:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)- I agree with you. Someone (not me) should propose that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, That's not a bad experience at all, it makes for a good class discussion and provides an opportunity to engage students in a discussion of how controversies are handled on Wikipedia. Assuming, of course, that the instructor understands what's happening in the first place and can explain it to the students properly. I am speaking here from the perspective of an instructor who every know and then does explain to students why their edits got reverted - I didn't have any students reported to any A-subforum yet... (I did have two blocked as mistaken socks due to some shared campus IP, I think, once...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: I could not possibly disagree with you more, having taught thousands of university students myself. I'm guessing that you do a good job of working closely with your own students, to make sure they understand what is going on with WP culture, but I know many faculty members who would not bother to do that. For a student to be told that course credit is going to depend on doing a student editing project, and then to unexpectedly find themselves being "disciplined" by Wikipedia, can be quite upsetting and quite counterproductive to learning. Just picture being named in a complaint at WP:AE and having to defend oneself to a panel of administrators. I'm glad that your students receive a nuanced understanding of what it means simply to be reverted (which does not come close to being blocked from editing at all), but I have seen first-hand numerous edit wars by students who are convinced that they will flunk their class unless their reverted edits stick. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, By any chance would you have links to those student edit wars? In either case and since you echo some of what User:Barkeep49 said above, I'd think that maybe the otherwise very nice https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training tutorial should include - both for students and professors - a module on 'edit wars are bad', what to do when you get blocked and some brief explanation of controversial topics and the need to be extra careful when editing those. What do you think about this, User:LiAnna (Wiki Ed)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- I like the idea, Piotrus! We are planning to review training materials this summer, so we'll add that to our list. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- It was a long time ago, and I'm going through a period of time when I don't feel like tracking things down. But we all know what edit wars look like, I assume. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, Right. My point is that such incidents are the exception rather than the rule. I am actually engaged in a research project about instructor experiences, and I think our data confirms that while bad experiences do happen, they are not the norm (but of course, they are the ones that are more likely to be remembered). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not to be difficult, but you should not mistake my disinclination to go out of my way to prove something that ought to be self-evident, with my having cited something unimportant. If you are really interested, you can search the archives of this noticeboard, and look for threads with me commenting in them, and you'll find it eventually. Even when bad experiences are not the norm, that's not a valid reason to disregard them. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, If something is so very rare, it can be disregarded as unimportant. I see no evidence that students who edit controversial arenas get into any particular trouble more so than regular editors. Sure, over the years a few did. So what? That ratio is very low, and based on my experiences I think that trying to solve this by creating some sort of ban on students will just create a rule nobody observes anyway. I certainly would refuse to do so for any of my courses. We already have a reasonable compromise: WikiEd will add a module discussing some controversial issues and the need for students and instructors to be extra cautious around them to their training module. We can certainly give advice, but we should not prevent anyone, students or instructors, from editing the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (remember that part?), regardless of what topic they want to work on. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- I did not say that it was rare, nor did you make a serious effort to demonstrate that it was, but we are clearly past the point of either of us convincing the other, so this will be the last comment that I will make here. I look forward to the new training module. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, If something is so very rare, it can be disregarded as unimportant. I see no evidence that students who edit controversial arenas get into any particular trouble more so than regular editors. Sure, over the years a few did. So what? That ratio is very low, and based on my experiences I think that trying to solve this by creating some sort of ban on students will just create a rule nobody observes anyway. I certainly would refuse to do so for any of my courses. We already have a reasonable compromise: WikiEd will add a module discussing some controversial issues and the need for students and instructors to be extra cautious around them to their training module. We can certainly give advice, but we should not prevent anyone, students or instructors, from editing the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (remember that part?), regardless of what topic they want to work on. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not to be difficult, but you should not mistake my disinclination to go out of my way to prove something that ought to be self-evident, with my having cited something unimportant. If you are really interested, you can search the archives of this noticeboard, and look for threads with me commenting in them, and you'll find it eventually. Even when bad experiences are not the norm, that's not a valid reason to disregard them. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, Right. My point is that such incidents are the exception rather than the rule. I am actually engaged in a research project about instructor experiences, and I think our data confirms that while bad experiences do happen, they are not the norm (but of course, they are the ones that are more likely to be remembered). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, By any chance would you have links to those student edit wars? In either case and since you echo some of what User:Barkeep49 said above, I'd think that maybe the otherwise very nice https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training tutorial should include - both for students and professors - a module on 'edit wars are bad', what to do when you get blocked and some brief explanation of controversial topics and the need to be extra careful when editing those. What do you think about this, User:LiAnna (Wiki Ed)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: I could not possibly disagree with you more, having taught thousands of university students myself. I'm guessing that you do a good job of working closely with your own students, to make sure they understand what is going on with WP culture, but I know many faculty members who would not bother to do that. For a student to be told that course credit is going to depend on doing a student editing project, and then to unexpectedly find themselves being "disciplined" by Wikipedia, can be quite upsetting and quite counterproductive to learning. Just picture being named in a complaint at WP:AE and having to defend oneself to a panel of administrators. I'm glad that your students receive a nuanced understanding of what it means simply to be reverted (which does not come close to being blocked from editing at all), but I have seen first-hand numerous edit wars by students who are convinced that they will flunk their class unless their reverted edits stick. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish: I think we should have a guideline or policy page on student assignments so it's clear what community consensus is on appropriate versus not appropriate behaviours. Chess (talk) (please use
- This has been a perennial issue: [2], [3]. I think it misses the point to say that there isn't a policy or guideline forbidding students to edit under DS. (And we do have an information page, at Wikipedia:Student assignments#Choosing a topic.) Just because something is permitted does not make it a good idea. Just think what a "lovely" educational experience it would be for a student to start editing a page, get a DS alert on their user talk page, and then find themselves at WP:AE getting blocked. Yes, with careful guidance, students can have very good and productive experiences, but it requires guidance. And without adequate guidance, it isn't worth it, for the student or for anyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- At this point vast swathes of the encyclopaedia are under discretionary sanctions (see ArbCom's ongoing review of the system), and it would be unreasonable to insist that student editors avoid them entirely, especially when, as LiAnna points out, some course subjects could be fully included in a DS topics. There's also a big difference between editing highly contentious core articles and more obscure topics which are technically under DS but in practice are edited just like any other page. Taking WP:ARBPIA as an example, it would obviously be a bad idea to assign students Six-Day War, but it would be fine (and helpful) to have them work on Kfar Darom. – Joe (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
My extensive experience of teaching is not in the University Sector- more in the barely literate sector. There does seem to be something badly wrong with the psychology here- and generally with WPs approach to attracting and retaining new editors. We have discussions about sanctions but not about motivation. If a newbie stumbles on a controversial topic- our aim is to welcome them, warn them that this is a can of worms and guide them onto something safer. We can introduce them to a mentor from outside their course/uni/country to help them make the choice. In the process, we can have some helpful training sheet written in the language of Homer Simpson, that the mentor can issue.LiAnna (Wiki Ed) you said somewhere above that student editors are flagged and appear on a list somewhere- that can be the starting point. A good elementary school teacher makes contact with the kid, not the other way round. She is proactive, and tries to prevent them hurting themselves- and doesn't wait until they do so she can punish them and belittle them. Under lockdown: the student needs a welcome message, and then every two weeks needs to be contacted so they can share their experiences and problems. Amazon always sends a follow up email for you to rate your experience. When dealing with reluctant learners one is always positive. ClemRutter (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thing is, many (most?) editors come to WP not with a "let me edit something today" attitude but with a very clear idea of the area they want to work in. I'd find it hard to tell someone to edit dietetics if their interest is reproductive health. — kashmīrī TALK 19:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Unknown Class
The reviewers at Articles for Creation have encountered at least nine drafts on environmental topics that appear to be assignments for a class. The drafts are:
- Draft:Regulatory Capture and its impact on the environment
- Draft:Environmental Implications of the Dominant Social Paradigm in the United States
- Draft:Environmental justice issues in Columbus, Ohio
- Draft:Governance of Urban Garden Spaces
- Draft:Policy Brokers in Environmental Governance
- Draft:Nonmarket Valuation in Forestry Policy
- Draft:Environmental efect of concentrated animal feeding operations
- Draft:Loop Learning in Environmental Decision-making
- Draft:Regulation of Endangered Marine Life
I have left a note on the drafts asking them to advise us who the instructor is, either on the draft, or at this noticeboard. Most of them have been declined. This has happened from time to time that multiple editors who appear to be students submit drafts. Does anyone have any further information? (I am guessing no.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- This isn't from one of Wiki Education's classes, but we'd be happy to help channel the instructor in a more productive direction in the future. Please send them our way if you do ever find any information about name, institution, etc.! --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Image copyright violation in an unknown class
Not really sure what to do, but an editor has added a copyright image to Lady Bunny in addition to adding lots of text with a misleading edit summary. There is a {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment}} on the talk page, but for a different editor and for a class which already ended. I asked what class this was for on their talk page (User talk:Axolotlsanonymous) in case that's of use, waiting for a response. These college class assignments are a bit out of my area on Wikipedia, but hopefully someone with more experience can take a look. Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Apparently it was marked as having the appropriate license on creativecommons.org, despite not having said license on the photographer's Flickr page so I'll give the student the benefit of the doubt on this, but the apparent lack of a wikiedu page on the talk page just struck me as something to mention to people who are more knowledgeable about this. Umimmak (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for flagging, Umimmak! That student isn't in one of our supported classes, but I left them a talk page message encouraging their professor to register with us so they get support. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at WP:THQ § Fiona Graham Page
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ § Fiona Graham Page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just wondering whether there's a WikiEd advisor who might be willing to try and help this IP editor out. The IP is claiming to be Fiona Graham and that article has had lots of issues over the years. I'm not expecting anyone to just show up and resolve all of those issues, but perhaps a WikiEd advisor can advise the IP on its user talk page about what kind of help is available to instructors and their students from WikiEd. Of course, the IP is likely going to try to drag anyone who does try and help them out into their dispute over the Graham article because that seems to be the only reason the IP wants their students to edit, but maybe that's too negative of an assessment of the IP's intent on my part. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just to update: The Teahouse discussion has been long-archived and the IP never showed back up to seek further assistance. If someone wants to still try and reach out to the IP, then that might be nice; however, it seems kind of clear that the IP was trying to continue the content dispute over the Graham article and perhaps use their students (if there even were students) to help them do that. Such an assumption might seem lacking in AGF a bit, but that does seem to be the case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Biographies as class projects
From Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Washington/Uncommon Leaders - Women and BIPOC in Science (Spring 2021) this semester we have a set of well written biographies of worthy people, most of whom will not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. One has already been draftified and one is already up for deletion. I know the training materials cover the requirements, but I don't know how well the instructors are trained, particularly in WP:NACADEMIC. It is a shame to have so many articles about early career academics (including a graduate student) and local professionals when the course could have produced articles that met requirements. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi StarryGrandma. While we already address notability and reliable sourcing in our existing training modules for students, situations like this have brought to our attention that we need to develop better guidance specifically in these areas. We're going to convene to discuss how to best provide students with the support they need when writing new articles, especially those that cover living persons. Thank you. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Helaine (Wiki Ed), I've looked at the training materials for students and teachers and they seem to cover notability well. The two classes that are turning up in deletion discussions at the moment, the one above and Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University_of_St_Thomas/Data_Communication_and_Visualization_(Spring_2021) are focused adding new biographies. I think the trouble may be lack of instructor understanding of notability and significant coverage, rather than a problem with students. Perhaps a guide to pitfalls for instructors to avoid would be helpful. Students aren't too clear about significant coverage either and that may be a problem with Wikipedia's wording. They seem to think significant means meaningful rather than the volume of material in a source devoted to the subject. Thank you for looking into this. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Modify the "about this sandbox" WikiEd template
The {{dashboard.wikiedu.org draft template/about this sandbox}} automatically appears at the top of students' draft pages in their user space. Nothing in the template indicates this is student work, and new page patrollers sometimes add {{userspace draft}}, adding a button to push to submit the draft for AfC review. We don't want students doing this. In the case of the Michelle Tseng article it lead to that article being confused with a rejected draft article of the same name and having a rejection template copied in. Student work pages are in Category:Wikipedia Student Program, but that indication ends up far down the page. I propose adding the line Wiki Education assignment space to the top of the WikiEd template, to indicate to passing reviewers to leave the page alone. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)