Wikipedia talk:School and university projects/ITESM Campus Toluca/Syllabus

Template for syllabus

Thelma,

Here is a template for a syllabus. What do you think? Is this a good place to start?

--Richard 07:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight problem...

I was reading over your course syllabus and noticed one slight conflict between your assignment and Wikipedia.

You wrote:

2)Write a “stub.” Find a subject in which nothing is written in English and print the results page showing that it does not exist. This will NOT be the topic that you will translate a page for into Spanish. Write a short stub (finding out what a stub is) for the topic. No citation necessary but having one will give you extra credit. Print the stub after you upload it.

That sounds like a good idea except for the last part (in bold.) On Wikipedia, things should be cited if they are likely to be challenged (and it's good to err on the side of caution. I worry that your students might be putting hard work into creating stubs that will require much time from other Wikipedians to cite. Would it be better just to ask them to cite their sources? I'd be more than happy to help them along with it if needed... Anyway, here's a chunk of WP:Citing sources that refers to this:

(removed for reability; see WP:Citing sources.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theunicyclegirl (talk • contribs)

response to slight problem

I see your point about citation. I expect that most students will expand on the stub that they create here but since I do not require such, I will change this assignment to require that they cite at least one source for the stub that they create. Thanks for the heads up! Thelmadatter 15:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter[reply]

Thanks a lot for your time! --Theunicyclegirl ^talk 17:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Syllabus vs. Assignments

You should also give some thought about whether you need both

Oftentimes, a syllabus only provides topics, readings and short descriptions of assignments. In that situation, the full assignment would be provided on a separate page.

Your syllabus seems to provide all the assignments in detail within the syllabus itself. This is OK but it suggests that you might not need a separate page for assignments.

There are two options:

We could move the assignments from Wikipedia:School and university projects/ITESM Campus Toluca/Syllabus to Wikipedia:School and university projects/ITESM Campus Toluca/Assignments or
We could just delete Wikipedia:School and university projects/ITESM Campus Toluca/Assignments and use only Wikipedia:School and university projects/ITESM Campus Toluca/Syllabus

--Richard 17:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Syllabus vs Assignments

I thought about that but didnt get a chance to do anything about it. I wrote what I did on the syllabus pages more to inform all the nice people volunteering to mentor rather than for the students. My official course material is on Blackboard , and online course program. Deleting the Assignments page would be the easiest way to solve this problem.

Kinda weird to have so many eyes on my work... but extremely helpful too!

Thelmadatter 16:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter[reply]

Thelmadatter wrote " Deleting the Assignments page would be the easiest way to solve this problem.

"

Done! --Richard 17:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Regarding the assignment's use of non-English sources, one concern is the use of a translated source. I'm sure there's a more comprehensive treatment of the topic somewhere, but it's a concern or at least a discussion point which could save headaches for students and wikipedia editors. WLU 16:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STUB should be strong enough to avoid deletion

See WP:DELETE. The stub article should not give anyone any reason to delete it. Stubs on relatively unencyclopedic topics have a way of being proposed for deletion then deleted automatically after 5 days if nobody objects, or sent to WP:AFD if someone objects but doesn't beef up the article.

To avoid PRODs, I encourage your students to write a short, one-sentence blurb on the article talk page saying the article will be expanded over the next few weeks. Then hold your students to that.

Also, avoid duplicate material. Have your students search for other articles that discuss the same topic before they create their stub. Be sure to have them search under other words for the same concept.

My biggest concern is notability. This being an English encyclopedia, if it's not notable in the English-speaking world then there is a much higher burden of proof on your students to establish notability. For example, a musician who sold a million records in Mexico may not have good name recognition north of the border. To avoid a PROD or AFD, the person writing the stub should include a citation that shows the person or group is notable in his home country. Of course this citation should be a "quality" citation like a newspaper article, not a blog or other weak reference. Strictly speaking it's not required, but at least one strong reference should be in English. This saves other editors from having to use web-translators to verify the source is a good source.

Dont you think that if someone sold a million records in Mexico, that qualifies as "notable"? After all, we have lots of articles about Mexico about things that are not known at all north of the border... see El Chavo del Ocho Thelmadatter 16:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter[reply]

Exactly my point. Suppose there was a singer with a million-hit record that no Yankee ever heard of. Now suppose someone writes an article on him but doesn't mention that the person had a hit record, or mentions it but doesn't cite it. An American or Brit may look at the resulting article, think it is about a non-notable person, and WP:PROD it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "good sources" like large-city major newspapers, major television and radio stations, and the like make for good Wikipedia articles. See Chicago Tribune or CNN for examples. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on editing assignment for the third partial

Mentors.... since it involved interaction with you directly, would you mind taking a look at the first assignment for the Third Partial. Basically, I am looking for my groups to edit an article that needs help.. not just adding or changing a line or two. Also, Im not looking for formatting changes... unless that means reorganization to make the article more comprehensible. Basically, it should be something they would need to do in a couple of sessions... not 5 minutes and gives them a good taste of Wikipedia style and content needs.Thelmadatter 16:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Thelamdatter[reply]

The trimmed-down version looks good. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]