[WikiEN-l] Ars Technica: Prof replaces term papers with Wikipedia contributions, suffering ensues

[Andrew Gray]

On 30/10/2007, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> University assignments as Wikipedia articles are obviously problematic for
> us. The main problems I've come across with them:
>  - They're on very specific topics that cut across some existing articles
> but not in any logical or useful way
>  - They use totally different conventions for referencing etc
>  - Since they're delivered monolithically, it's very hard to mould them into
> something more useful. We have no input until all 5000 words have been
> dumped in our lap.
>  - The tone and goal of a student paper (often to argue a point, or to
> demonstrate some original research or amazing brilliance on the part of the
> student) isn't really compatible with our goals (to explain something as
> simply and usefully as possible).
>
> The idea is noble, but without a bit of thought about how the paper is going
> to fit in with Wikipedia, it's a bit like donating an elephant to a charity.

A white elephant, indeed. Except that it's counterproductive for the
donor, as well...

In general, I'd go so far as to say that our first reaction to someone
suggesting something like this should be to *discourage* it - it isn't
that we don't like the idea of more contributions, but the fact that
we have our own routine and our own direction means that the
contributions tend not to get dealt with in a very helpful manner as
far as the institution's concerned. They may be deleted out of hand,
they may be swiftly rewritten, moved to a different name, reverted...
any number of things that make it hard to determine if your students
actually did the work.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk