On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Guerillero Wikipedia <guerillero.wikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:

That is the issue world wide. Here are some of the issues that I see.

(a) We need to have the guts to say no sometimes. At least in the states, I feel that we would get better results if we tried to get more small liberal arts schools who have class sizes that range from 10-30. One hundred plus person classes do not work well with our model.

(b) We need to shoot for upper level classes. PSY 100 or ENG 101 should not be our target class. The students do not know yet how to write effectively in their subject area, for the most part, and have yet to do real research. 200 or 300 level classes would be easier to work with.

I'd argue the opposite. We should be shooting for English 101 classes, where the emphasis for the course can be put not on content development, but on learning the writing process, learning the assessment process, and where greater freedom is allowable for students to edit in content areas they feel comfortable in.

The problem with say a 300/400/500 level psychology course is Wikipedia has its own sets of processes. You cannot necessarily demonstrate domain level knowledge on Wikipedia to a professor. If there is any requirement for students to submit DYKs and GAs, the instructional objectives then need to be changed from learning content to learning the process. The easiest way to get 300/400/500 level classes to do valuable work on Wikipedia will not be content creation and submitting articles for assessment but rather, teaching the students HOW TO ASSESS content and having them participate in the assessment process as subject area experts. Otherwise, student work can and will be failed at DYK, at GA, will possibly be AfDed. Will they fail there because they do not understand the content? No, but because they fail to understand how to navigate Wikipedia's writing policies, content policies and behaviorial policies.

--
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com