On 25 Aug 2004, at 02:50, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> The instructor
> commented that he didn't know how you could give an objective grade to
> "improving an article."
He doesn't know the history tool then.
What's wrong with using something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?
title=Gray%27s_Anatomy&diff=5327961&oldid=5248468
That's making it pretty obvious what to grade, IMHO.
Yes, admittedly, if there are many edits by other's in between, then it
might become difficult. -- But how about this:
Instruct students to stick the {{inuse}} tagon the article they've
chosen to improve (see [[Template:Inuse]]).
IMPORTANT: Also instruct them not to leave that on there longer than a
day!
(Other then that, they could use the preview function and commit all in
one go. Might be difficult though if they are using a certain thing
called "MSIE", where with certain versions, if you press ESC within a
text box it blanks the entire thing irrevocably). It might be better to
have them use an external editor then, but that doesn't protect them
from edit conflicts.
So clearly the previous option is MUCH better.)
- Jens [[User:Ropers]]
> Apologies in advance should this be construed as rude, but...
Apology accepted. I've found nothing else in your email worthy of reply.
Don't make this personal. I've given my opinion, if you disagree with it,
feel free to comment on its merits and not resort to ad hominem attacks.
Anthony
I've gone through most of these article, cross referencing all those on vfd.
Some are pretty good, only needing minor sweeps, but for every good
article, there's atleast one bad one. The pcw has a responsibility to
provide us with a list of articles worked on. He can accept what twaddle he
likes for his assignment, but yes this does reflect badly on him and the
university (especially with one idiot trying to defend the reserve football
team by impersonating RickK). I think people sweeping this rubbish should
give themselves a round of applaus. pcw should be warned not to attempt this
again in a similar form unless he changes the wording of his assignment, as
it may constitute organised vandalism.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:41:50 -0400
> From: "Anthony DiPierro" <anthonydipierro(a)hotmail.com>
>
> <snip>
>
> Says something about how well we explain our requirements as well. Or
> in
> this case, how well we agree on our requirements. Most of the articles
> listed *did* meet our requirements. VfD is broken. It probably never
> worked in the first place.
>
> Anthony
Apologies in advance should this be construed as rude, but...
,,,honestly, Anthony, I'm getting the impression that you are
repeatedly finding
''all'' sorts of things about the Wikipedia that:
(1) Don't Work At All ™
and are
(2) Broken By Design ®
and need ''''radical''' fixing as well as a wide ranging discussion of
basic principles.
Would that be wide of the mark?
- Jens
Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers
There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the
ones who watch progress bars.
http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:41:50 -0400
> From: "Anthony DiPierro"
> <anthonydipierro(a)hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Dartmouth class project now
> on VFD
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <BAY10-DAV2oDyjtU6V10000c9c0(a)hotmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> > Unfortunately, even though the class assignment
> required that the articles
> created by the students meet Wikipedia
> > requirements, now that most of them have been
> listed on VfD, the
> instructor is trying to claim that they do meet our
> > requirements. It seems if the vast majority of
> the articles have made it
> to VfD, then not only has the majority of the class
> > failed the assignment, but the instructor doesn't
> understand the nature of
> Wikipedia. If the majority of a class fails an
> > assignment, that has to say something about the
> instructor, as well.
>
> > RickK
>
> Says something about how well we explain our
> requirements as well. Or in
> this case, how well we agree on our requirements.
> Most of the articles
> listed *did* meet our requirements. VfD is broken.
> It probably never
> worked in the first place.
>
> Anthony
>
>
>
I don't know if Vfd is broken. However, I can tell you
that the only way for people to learn it is to spend
time around it. I can say pretty well what will make
it through, but a new user would have no idea. We need
a set of guidelines more specific than [[What
Wikipedia is not]] to guide people. Really, the place
is so large and involved now that the only way to
learn is by staying with it.
Meelar
=====
There are more than 17,000 known Kennedys in Massachusetts alone, according to the Kennedy Tracking Center, which uses special collars equipped with GPS devices. Most of the Kennedys live on a large preserve set aside in the central part of the state, where they can roam and mate freely.
--Dave Barry
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
In a previous letter to this forum, I mentioned problems
that I was having with Danny on the article about [[Jews as
a chosen people]]. In response, Danny sent an e-mail:
> I claimed that the translation you gave of two verses is
> interpretive and not literal.
Well, if you had merely said that, there would have been no
problem. Instead, you did mention the above point, but only
in the context of a stream of ad homenim abuse. *That* was
the problem. Your intellectual disagreement, in of itself,
is fine and appropriate.
Danny writes:
> Oh, and "falsely claiming" is AH "
It is audacious to make such a claim, given the abuse you
sent my way. Ironically, there was no problem leading up to
this. I was making changes to another article in accord
with the constructive criticisms that Danny had given. I
even made a change to the article in question on precisely
the point Danny made. I also stepped back for four days and
gave him space to make any edits he wanted without any
interference. Few people here are that flexible, I'll tell
you that!
> I am not arguing the content of the article.
> I am arguing the interpretation of a sentence.
> However, if you must bring this up, you have given
> these sources with the added information of which
> you like and which you dont.
I have given views which I may happen to like, and also
views which I may happen not to like. And the text I added
is not the end of the article; further contributions and
edits from you and others are welcome. In fact, I stayed
away from this article (and all others) for the last four
days to give you a chance to do whatever you want.
I notice that Danny has made no edits, however, which
indicates that he doesn't have a big problem with the
content of the article.
> No, I am attacking '''you''' as ignorant. Do you
> actually speak Hebrew and understand the intricacies
> of its grammar, or are you just ranting?
See, this is the big problem. I simply did NOT offer my own
translations, or commentary about translations. These all
came from Jewish scholars, all of whom are well versed in
Hebrew and Jewish theology. In response, Danny makes ad
homenim attacks towards me. Danny certainly knows Hebrew
well, but his irritation at other Hebrew speakers who
translate differently than him is palpable. He has every
right to disagree with them, and he certainly may offer a
good case. Just stop making it personal, and
misrepresenting me as the translator of anything. That is
dishonest.
Danny writes:
> You are arguing from authority, not from knowledge.
> I do not respond to meaningless rhetoric. Perhaps if you
> knew Hebrew grammar...
(A) The people who made these translations _do_ know Hebrew
grammar quite well.
(B) A recurring problem with Wikipedia, as Larry Sanger
repeatedly wrote, is that many of our contributors have
little respect for published authorities in the field, and
prefer their own POV to others POVs. When we demean
published authorities and hew to our own points-of-view,
this can damage the scholarship of the article, and lead to
edit wars. This is one of the primary reasons why Larry
Sanger is correctly worried about the future of Wikipedia
in general.
Fortunately, this problem hasn't occured for this article.
Danny has made no edits to this article at all in recent
months, and those changes he suggested have already been
made by me, to some extent. (And more can be made in the
future.)
Still, I find it disappointing that Danny uses the phrase
"meaningless rhetoric" when I backed up my position by
citing sources. Worse, no one here objected. When writing
NPOV articles, haven't we always encouraged people to move
away from personal research and translations, and cite
mainstream scholars in the field? (And of course, minorotiy
points of view can be cited as well.) We should always be
vigilant towards those who say and do otherwise.
The good news is that Danny's rhetoric doesn't match his
actions in editing Wikipedia articles. When making edits to
articles, Danny does rely on established sources, and he is
well versed in many subjects. (Although he always assumes
that he is the only one...)
Still, his knowledge is why he is a valued contributor. I
know that such praise from me is neither desired or
appreciated by him, but it is true. I just wish he wouldn't
be so overtly arrogant to me.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> An interesting assignment, but the teacher made a major error by requiring
> this: "Choose two topics that are appropriate", requiring a NEW article.
> That might have worked 2 years ago when for example the article,
> [[Colorado]] was a new article. But now the experience is much more about
> making existing articles better.
I can understand why the teacher would make this a rule, though. It's much
easier to grade.
> I think a better assignment would be. Pick a Wikipedia article at least 10
> editors have edited within the last month and make an edit which
> substantially improves the article.
I think in the future a better assignment might be to pick an article from
the list of requested articles. Or maybe even just pick a red link.
Of course, I would question the ethics of a professor forcing his students
to release their assignments under the GFDL in the first place. Is this
even allowed under school policy?
> Fred
Anthony
> As someone intending to give his students a Wikipedia writing
> assignment in the spring, I would say that ease of grading is not
> really the most important point here.
It's certainly not the most important point. But it's a factor, and forcing
yourself to wade through random edits all over Wikipedia seems like
masochism to me.
> My intended assignment is "Add 1000 words to Wikipedia."
Should be interesting. Do you think you could at least give us a heads up
preferably with a list of usernames so we can keep an eye on things? Some
might want you to actually walk the students through the Wikipedia policies,
but depending on your goals this may be counterproductive.
> Probably demanding that student work be released under the GFDL in
> general is not allowed. However, a single assignment to contribute to a
> specific project is very different. A lot of schools are big on having
> classes, particularly first year writing classes, apply the writing
> skills to a project other than a paper that will only ever be read by
> the professor. Wikipedia is a great choice for this.
I'm sure a school like Dartmouth has a rule about who owns the copyright of
student created projects. Personally I don't feel it's right to force a
student to release his work under a certain license, though. It seems too
much like pushing an agenda. Maybe there won't be any objection, probably
even as the GFDL is not very widely disliked. But the idea reminds me of
those professors who force their students to run their papers through some
plagiarism detection service, thereby licensing their works to the services.
> Furthermore, it probably depends on the context. I'll be assigning the
> Wikipedia writing assignment in the course of a first year writing
> course focusing on intellectual property and copyleft. What was the
> Dartmouth professor assigning Wikipedia for?
COSC 4 - Concepts in Computing, a survey course for non-CS majors.
> -Snowspinner
Anthony
Just wanted to bring this discussion to the mailing list, as this is "*the*
place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia." From what I've
gathered, a Wikipedia user (possibly just a lurker as their user has not
contributed before the 20th), [[User:Pcw]] gave his class an assignment
which involved Wikipedia
(http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~cs4/S2004/hw/hw6.html). The assignment asks
the students, who are non-majors taking a computer science class, to create
two new Wikipedia articles. It specifically points them to [[What Wikipedia
is not]] and [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
Lots of articles were contributed, and many are now listed on VFD. Probably
many others are not. Those listed range from [[Dartmouth Beer Pong]], which
seems to be completely unverifiable original research, to [[Winter
Carnival]], which although ambiguously named seems like a good example of
just what Wikipedia is. [[Newton North High School]] also looks like it's
going to survive, since we have a precedent for keeping pages about high
schools. Others:
[[Dartmouth dodecaphonics]]
[[Dartmouth cords]]
[[Dartmouth Rockapellas]]
[[Winter Carnival]]
[[5 Die]]
[[Snell Family Farm]] (maybe)
[[Lob pong]]
[[Exit 38 climbing area]] (probably)
[[Dartmouth Wind Symphony]]
[[Chorus of Westerly]]
[[The Harlequins]]
[[Dartmouth Night]]
[[Dartmouth Mountaineering Club]]
[[Dartmouth Ski Patrol]]
[[Dartmouth Beer Pong]]
[[Dartmouth Womens Crew Team]]
[[Dartmouth film society]]
[[Dartmouth Rockapellas]]
[[Chi Gamma Epsilon]]
[[Dartmouth College Men's Reserve Team]]
[[Dartmouth broadcasting]]
[[Native Americans at Dartmouth]]
[[Newton North High School]]
[[The Hopkins Center at Dartmouth College]]
I may be missing some others.
"Delete stuff by Dartmouth people. Ambi 10:40, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)"
That seems to sum up the current majority opinion.
Anthony
WikiEN-l has two new mailing list administrators, Fuzheado (Andrew
Lih) and David Gerard. They are two of Wikipedia's most trusted names.
They are the Panadol of Wikipedia.
At the same time, Ed Poor is retiring after an illustrious career of
adminning. I hope you all join me in congratulating Ed Poor for a job
well done, and welcoming Andrew and David.
Remember, if you should ever require assistance from us, you can
contact all of us simultaneously through the email address
wikien-l-owner(a)wikipedia.org.
~Mark.
Administrator