Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Environmental Sciences (Fall 2019)
| This Course
|
Wikipedia Resources
|
Connect
Questions? Ask us:
contact |
 | This course page is an automatically-updated version of the main course page at dashboard.wikiedu.org. Please do not edit this page directly; any changes will be overwritten the next time the main course page gets updated. |
- Course name
- Introduction to Environmental Sciences
- Institution
- Georgia Institute of Technology
- Instructor
- Jennifer Glass
- Wikipedia Expert
- Ian (Wiki Ed)
- Subject
- Environmental Sciences
- Course dates
- 2019-08-20 00:00:00 UTC – 2019-12-03 23:59:59 UTC
- Approximate number of student editors
- 26
Understanding Earth’s environment requires understanding how the whole Earth functions as a system. We will begin by considering external influences on Earth’s environment and reviewing the systems approach for studying interrelated phenomena, as well as the basic physics needed for such studies. We will then investigate four components of the Earth system in detail: the atmosphere, the oceans, the solid Earth, and the biosphere. We will explore how each component interacts with the others and how these processes control Earth’s climate. We will finish with a discussion of modern anthropogenic climate change. By the end of the course, students will understand the processes by which the dynamic Earth system operates, and will be able to critically evaluate the various natural and anthropogenic influences on the environment. Through the laboratory sessions and lectures, students will develop an understanding of the scientific method and scientific research. Through a semester-long Wikipedia editing project, students will gain experience in scientific writing on notable topics in environmental sciences of high interest to the public. The Wikipedia editing project will also provide students with experience in identifying an audience, citing literature, peer review, revising, and ethical standards to avoid plagiarism.
Timeline
Week 1
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 20 August 2019 | Thursday, 22 August 2019
- In class - Introduction to the Wikipedia assignment
Welcome to your Wikipedia assignment's course timeline. This page guides you through the steps you'll need to complete for your Wikipedia assignment, with links to training modules and your classmates' work spaces.
Your course has been assigned a Wikipedia Expert. You can reach them through the Get Help button at the top of this page.
Resources:
- Editing Wikipedia, pages 1–5
- Evaluating Wikipedia
- Assignment - Get started on Wikipedia
Create an account and join this course page, using the enrollment link your instructor sent you. (Because of Wikipedia's technical restraints, you may receive a message that you cannot create an account. To resolve this, please try again off campus or the next day.)
- Milestones
By the end of week 1, everyone should have a Wikipedia account.
Week 2
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 27 August 2019 | Thursday, 29 August 2019
- Assignment - Canvas Quiz to Rank Wikipedia Articles
Take the Canvas Quiz "Ranking Wikipedia Articles" to rank the 16 Wikipedia articles as options for your semester-long Wikipedia based on your relative interest in each topic.
- In class - Discussion
- Guide(s) for writing articles in your topic area
- Milestones
By Friday Aug 30, everyone will have received an email from Prof Glass with their assigned Wikipedia article. Add the article to your Watchlist by clicking the star next to "View history" will help you keep track. Add your email to your account to get notifications if something on the page changes.
Week 3
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 3 September 2019 | Thursday, 5 September 2019
- In class - MIDTERM 1
- SEPT 5
No Wikipedia deadlines.
Week 4
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 10 September 2019 | Thursday, 12 September 2019
- Assignment - Evaluate Your Article
Assignment 1
Take notes in your sandbox. Create a section in your sandbox titled "Article evaluation" where you'll leave notes about your observations and learnings. As you read the article you've chosen, answer the questions below in your sandbox as they relate to the article's content, tone, and sourcing.
Evaluating tone. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Evaluating sources. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
Evaluating talk page. Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
Adding to the talk page. Choose at least one of the four evaluation comments you wrote in your sandbox and leave at least one paragraph of evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes MethanoJen (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC).
Assignment Grading (9 pts possible):
1 pt: Notes have been added to the correct place (in your Sandbox).
1 pt: At least one paragraph of notes have been added about the article’s content.
1 pt: At least one sentence of notes have been added about the article’s tone.
1 pt: At least one sentence of notes have been added about the article’s sources.
1 pt: At least one sentence of notes have been added about the article’s talk page.
1 pt: At least one paragraph of notes have been added to the article’s talk page.
1 pt: The student has signed the article’s talk page with four tildes MethanoJen (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC).
1 pt: The writing is high quality (contains no spelling and few grammatical mistakes).
1 pt: Assignment is completed by the deadline.
Week 5
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 17 September 2019 | Thursday, 19 September 2019
- Assignment - Find Your Sources
Assignment 2
Compile a list of at least five relevant, reliable books or peer-reviewed journal articles on your article topic that are not already cited in your Wikipedia article page. Provide the full citation for each source, eg:
Last name, first name (year). Book name. City, State: Publisher name. ISBN #.
Last name, first name (year). "Article title (all common nouns should be lower-case)". Journal Name. Volume(issue): pg–pg. DOI #.
Examples:
Crane, Kathleen (2003). Sea Legs : Tales of a Woman Oceanographer. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. ISBN 9780813342856. http://www.worldcat.org/title/sea-legs-tales-of-a-woman-oceanographer/oclc/51553643
Crane, Kathleen; Ballard, Robert D. (1980). "The Galapagos Rift at 86° W: 4. Structure and morphology of hydrothermal fields and their relationship to the volcanic and tectonic processes of the Rift Valley". Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. 85 (B3): 1443–1454. https://doi.org/10.1029/jb085ib03p01443
Include the website for the book or journal article next to each citation. Please use the DOI-based links that direct to the journal webpage (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.036) or the journal web page for that article; do not link to internal GT library URLs.
You may also post other allowable sources, but those will not count toward the 5 source requirement.
Post that bibliography to the Talk page of the article you'll be working on, and in your sandbox.
Check in on the Talk page to see if anyone has advice on your bibliography.
Peer-reviewed review articles published in high-ranking academic journals are ideal sources for Wikipedia articles.
Here are instructions for how to access peer-reviewed journal review articles through Google Scholar with Georgia Tech library subscriptions:
1) Go to scholar.google.com
2) Click on the three vertical bars in the top left corner of the page.
3) Scroll down, and click on "Settings"
4) On the left side of the screen, click on "Library Links"
5) Type "Georgia Tech" into search bar and click on the search icon.
6) Check the box next to "Georgia Tech Library - Find It! 
GT" and click "Save".
7) Enter your article topic into the Google Scholar search box, along with the word "review" to find review articles on your topic.
8) Once you locate an article that looks interesting, click "Find It! GT" to the right of the article.
9) You will be redirected to the GT Library article access page. Scroll down to the "View It" section and click the link next to "Full text available at" (the top option).
10) You will be redirected to a log in page. Log in with your GT username and password.
11) You will be redirected to the article page. Find the PDF link and download the article PDF.
Assignment Grading (9 pts possible):
1 pt (x5 possible) for each book or peer-reviewed publication listed in the proper Wikipedia format.
1 pt for providing the website for each reference.
1 pt for posting the bibliography on your Sandbox.
1 pt for posting the bibliography on your article’s talk page.
1 pt: Assignment is completed by the deadline.
Week 6
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 24 September 2019 | Thursday, 26 September 2019
- Assignment - Start drafting your contributions
Reach out to your Wikipedia Expert if you have questions using the Get Help button at the top of this page.
Resource: Editing Wikipedia, pages 7–9
- Assignment - Add to an article
Assignment 3
First, take notes (in your own words) on one of your sources. (You don't need to turn the notes in, but make sure to keep them to refer back to them as you work on your article.)
Second, find a place in your Wikipedia article (not in your Sandbox, although you can draft it there first) where one of your five sources (from the previous assignment) could help support a statement. Add a citation to that location in the article. Make sure to include all the necessary information so that the citation is complete.
If you can't find an uncited statement, add 1-2 sentences to go along with your source as you learned in the Adding Citations training. Make sure the information you're adding isn't already covered in the article. If it is, check if that existing statement cites a source. If not, add yours!
Third, add links from your article to other Wikipedia articles, and from other Wikipedia articles to your own. Link to 3–5 articles, and link to your article from 2–3 other articles. Read page 12 of Editing Wikipedia to see how.
Fourth, add an image to your article. Wikipedia has strict rules about what media can be added, so make sure to take Contributing Images and Media Files training before you upload an image.
Finally, make sure to publish all the changes, and include brief summarizes of your changes each time you publish. Congrats! You just made your first changes to a Wikipeda article !
Assignment Grading (11 pts possible):
1 pt: At least one new source from Assignment 2 has been added to the Wikipedia article.
1 pt: The citation is relevant and appropriate to the statement where it is cited.
1 pt: A complete citation has been added for new source.
1 pt: An image has been added to the Wikipedia article.
1 pt: A clear and concise caption for the image has been added.
1 pt: The added image does not violate Wikipedia copyright policies.
1 pt: The added text does not violate Wikipedia plagiarism policies.
1 pt: The article has been linked to 3-5 Wikipedia articles.
1 pt: The article has been linked from 2-3 other Wikipedia articles.
1 pt: All published changes have been annotated.
1 pt: Assignment is completed by the deadline.
- In class - Discussion
- Milestones
Everyone has begun writing their article drafts.
Week 7
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 1 October 2019 | Thursday, 3 October 2019
- In class - MIDTERM 2
- OCT 4
No Wikipedia deadlines.
Week 8
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 8 October 2019 | Thursday, 10 October 2019
- Assignment - Draft your contributions
Assignment 4
Create a draft of your article edits in your sandbox. Make sure your article draft includes the following at the bare minimum to receive credit for the draft, and work towards inclusion of all categories listed in the "Final Draft" description (see below).
1. Lead Section
Introductory sentence: States article topic concisely and accurately in single sentence.
2. Article
Content: Student has added at least 2 paragraphs of additional text to the article.
3. References
Citations: Student has cited an additional 2 books or peer-reviewed publications in the added text.
Remember: Nothing you add to your Sandbox can violate Wikipedia plagiarism and copyright rules!
Reach out to your Wikipedia Expert if you have questions using the Get Help button at the top of this page.
Resource: Editing Wikipedia, pages 7–9
Assignment Grading (8 pts possible):
1 pt: The draft has been added to the correct place (in your Sandbox).
1 pt: The draft text includes a lead section with a concise and accurate single sentence.
1 pt: The draft text includes at least two paragraphs of new text.
1 pt: The draft text cites 2 additional books or peer-reviewed publications.
1 pt: The citations are relevant and appropriate to the statements where they are cited.
1 pt: The draft text does not violate Wikipedia plagiarism policies.
1 pt: The writing is high quality (contains no spelling and few grammatical mistakes).
1 pt: Assignment is completed by the deadline.
Week 9
- Course meetings
-
- Thursday, 17 October 2019
- Assignment - Peer review an article
Assignment 5
Peer review is about identifying the strengths and weaknesses of an article. As you go through the review process, make note of what the article accomplishes well, alongside where it could be improved. Pay close attention to whether or not the article contains the following:
1) A lead section that is easy to understand. The lead is the first section of an article. It usually states the most important information about the article's subject, and gives a good overview of the rest of the article. Good leads don't get too bogged down in detail, and don't simply repeat what's in the article below. You should be able to read the lead and feel like you have a pretty good grasp of what the article is about.
For the peer review, you should comment on the following: Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?
2) A clear structure. Now, let's look at the article itself. Different aspects of the article should each have their own section. The difference between sections should be easy to understand, and each statement should have a clear reason for being where it is.
For the peer review, you should comment on the following: Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
3) Balanced coverage. Wikipedia articles are summaries of pre-existing resources. They should be balanced according to the available literature. No aspect should take over too much of the article, and more well-documented viewpoints should get more space. However, a good article also presents minority viewpoints and positions.
For the peer review, you should comment on the following: Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
4) Neutral content. Wikipedia articles aim for a neutral point of view. That means they don't attempt to persuade the reader into accepting a particular idea or position.
For the peer review, you should comment on the following: Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.
5) Reliable sources. Good articles are built on good sources. When you've read the article, turn to the references section.
For the peer review, you should comment on the following: Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately.
When you have reviewed your peer's article, you should leave a message on their User Talk page. Leaving a message on a User Talk page is different than leaving one on the Talk page of their sandbox (remember that every page on Wikipedia has a Talk page), and will notify them (whereas, leaving a note on their sandbox will not).
Tips:
Many students consider peer review to be difficult, because they don't want to criticize a classmate's work. Remember that critiquing doesn't equal criticism. That's why it's helpful to post your comments as useful ideas. For example, instead of suggesting an editor is biased one way or another, focus on the content within the article that suggests a bias. In the end, you aren't criticizing your peer, you are evaluating the article.
Consider the following structure, drawing from your notes:
- First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
- What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
- What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
- Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!
How to submit your peer review comments:
1) On the Articles' tab, find your peer's article that you have been assigned to review.
2) In the "My Articles" section of the Home tab, assign it to yourself to review.
3) Find your peers' sandbox. Navigate there from the Students tab on the Dashboard and click their username.
4) Go to the Talk page of their sandbox (at the top left of the page). Click "New section".
5) Add a subject, something like "Samantha's peer review".
6) Leave your notes in the space below. Enter your message with comments on all five of the categories listed above. Remember to sign with four tildes! (MethanoJen (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)). (Reminder: visual editing is not available when using Talk pages. For tips on using Wikicode, see the back page of your Editing Wikipedia brochure or revisit the editing training.) Save the page.
Here is an example of how to navigate to New Section on a Talk page:
File:Https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Sandbox talk page.png
Assignment Grading (8 points possible):
1 pt: The draft has been added to the correct place (as a New Section in Talk Page of Peer’s Sandbox).
1 pt: The peer review is written respectfully and provides constructive criticism. (No personal attacks!)
1 pt: The peer review provides one paragraph of comments on the peer article’s lead section.
1 pt: The peer review provides one paragraph of comments on the peer article’s structure.
1 pt: The peer review provides one paragraph of comments on the peer article’s balance of coverage.
1 pt: The peer review provides one paragraph of comments on the peer article’s neutral content.
1 pt: The peer review provides one paragraph of comments on the peer article’s reliable sources.
1 pt: Assignment is completed by the deadline.
Week 10
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 22 October 2019 | Thursday, 24 October 2019
- Assignment - Edit your article based on peer review
Exercise
You probably have some feedback from other students and possibly other Wikipedians. Consider their suggestions, decide whether it makes your work more accurate and complete, and edit your draft to make those changes.
Resources:
- Editing Wikipedia, pages 12 and 14
- Reach out to your Wikipedia Expert if you have any questions.
Week 11
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 29 October 2019 | Thursday, 31 October 2019
- In class - MIDTERM 3
- Oct. 29
No Wikipedia assignments.
Week 12
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 5 November 2019 | Thursday, 7 November 2019
- Assignment - Begin moving your work to Wikipedia
Now that you've improved your draft based on others' feedback, it's time to move your work live - to the "mainspace."
Resource: Editing Wikipedia, page 13
- In class - Continue improving your article
Now's the time to revisit your text and refine your work. You may do more research and find missing information; rewrite the lead section to represent all major points; reorganize the text to communicate the information better; or add images and other media.
Week 13
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 12 November 2019 | Thursday, 14 November 2019
- Assignment - Polish your work
Continue to expand and improve your work, and format your article to match Wikipedia's tone and standards. Remember to contact your Wikipedia Expert at any time if you need further help!
Week 14
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 19 November 2019 | Thursday, 21 November 2019
- Assignment - Final Article
Assignment 6
Finalize and publish the changes to your article.
Ensure that the final version contains the following:
1. Lead Section
Introductory sentence: States article topic concisely and accurately in single sentence
Summary: Summarizes all major points in the article
Context: All information included is also present in body of the article
2. Article
Organization: Clear organization ofheading and subheadings; appropriate transitions and clear language/grammar
Content: Accurately covers scientific information relevant to assigned topic; links to relevant Wikipedia articles for background.
Balance: Article presents balanced coverage without favoring one side unduly.
Tone: Tone is neutral and appropriate for an encyclopedia audience.
Images: Images improve the reader’s understanding of the topic. Captions are clear, concise.
Wikilinks: the article is thoroughly wiki-linked
3. References
Citations: Every statement can easily be associated with a supporting reference
Sources: Includes citations for at least five peer-reviewed publications.
Completeness: All references added include completely filled-out citation template or are otherwise complete.
- Read Editing Wikipedia page 15 to review a final check-list before completing your assignment.
- Don't forget that you can ask for help from your Wikipedia Expert at any time!
Assignment Grading (15 points possible):
1 pt: The final article has been published (moved out of Sandbox).
1 pt: The writing is high quality (contains no spelling and few grammatical mistakes).
1 pt: The article contains a lead section that summarizes all major points in the article.
1 pt: The lead section’s introductory sentence states the article topic concisely and accurately.
1 pt: All information in the lead is also present in the body of the article.
1 pt: The article is well-organized, with heading and subheadings.
1 pt: The article accurately covers scientific information relevant to assigned topic.
1 pt: Any relevant technical terms are linked to a Wikipedia article (contains no undefined jargon).
1 pt: The article presents balanced coverage without favoring one side unduly.
1 pt: The tone is neutral and appropriate for an encyclopedia audience.
1 pt: Every statement can easily be associated with a supporting reference.
1 pt: The article cites at least five books or peer-reviewed publications.
1 pt: All references added include completely filled-out citation template or are otherwise complete.
1 pt: The article has been corrected based on the peer review.
1 pt: Assignment is completed by the deadline.
- Assignment - Exercise
Week 15
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 26 November 2019
- In class - MIDTERM 4
- NOV 26
No Wikipedia assignments.
Week 16
- Course meetings
-
- Tuesday, 3 December 2019
- Assignment - In-class Presentation
Assignment 7
Present a 5 minute PowerPoint presentation on your Wikipedia assignment, addressing the following points:
- Critiquing articles: What did you learn about Wikipedia during the article evaluation? How did you approach critiquing the article you selected for this assignment? How did you decide what to add to your chosen article?
- Summarizing your contributions: Include a summary of your edits and why you felt they were a valuable addition to the article. How does your article compare to earlier versions?
- Connections to the classroom: Did you include information we covered in class? What new scientific information did you write about?
- Peer Review: What did you contribute in your review of your peers article? What did your peers recommend you change on your article?
- Feedback: Did you receive feedback from other Wikipedia editors, and if so, how did you respond to and handle that feedback?
- Wikipedia generally: What did you learn from contributing to Wikipedia? How does a Wikipedia assignment compare to other assignments you've done in the past? How can Wikipedia be used to improve public understanding of our field/your topic? Why is this important?
Assignment Grading (8 pts possible):
1 pt: Student presented 2 minute PowerPoint presentation during lecture period on Dec 3.
1 pt: PowerPoint slides are well organized and contain no spelling mistakes.
1 pt: Presentation addressed assignment questions about critiquing articles
1 pt: Presentation summarized student contributions
1 pt: Presentation covered connections between article topic and EAS 1600 content
1 pt: Presentation summarized peer review process
1 pt: Presentation summarized Wikipedia editor feedback (if any)
1 pt: Presentation summarized student’s experience with Wikipedia Project as a whole