Wikipedia as a Teaching Tool: Interacting with the Community
Contents |
[edit] Interacting with the Wikipedia community
Collaborating with the Wikipedia community is key to your students fully benefiting from Wikipedia assignments. But how do you do that?
[edit] Basic interaction
Wikipedians interact by writing messages to each other on article talk pages or user talk pages. If another user wants to communicate with you, s/he will most likely leave a message directly on your user talk page, thus it is a good idea to monitor it and respond to these messages. Wikipedians also sometimes email each other. It is a good idea to enable your email so that other Wikipedians can contact you via email, if necessary.
When making changes to Wikipedia articles, it is expected that editors will explain their changes briefly in an edit summary. By filling in the small box in the edit window with a phrase such as "copyediting" or "adding a reference" others will be able to follow the history of the article when they click on the "View history" tab.
All Wikipedia interaction assumes good faith. That is, until it can be demonstrated otherwise, we assume that other editors are here to help improve the encyclopedia. Therefore, all editors should be treated with respect.
To keep track of all the pages to which you are contributing, you can look at your personal watchlist, which shows you the changes to those pages. It is helpful for monitoring conversations to which you are contributing as well as articles you are developing.
In general, there is a "talk page culture" on Wikipedia. A lot of discussion takes place on user talk pages and article talk pages and Wikipedians will expect you to respond to messages left in these locations.
[edit] Content discussion
One of the unique elements of a Wikipedia assignment is interacting with the Wikipedia community and Wikipedia readers. Encouraging your students to join this vibrant group of people dedicated to producing a high-quality online reference work will make your assignment exciting and dynamic. Students can:
- Comment on articles: Commenting on article talk pages engages students with the writers and readers of articles. This mini-community negotiates the content of an article and frequently fascinating conversations emerge about the best way to present material on, for example, the definition of "black people".
- Contribute to or solicit a structured peer review: Wikipedia has an internal peer review process. Editors place articles here because they are looking for constructive criticism. Students can choose one of these articles to review and discuss improvements with writers who are looking for help or put their own contributions up for review.
Wikipedians are eager to help those interested in the same topics they are:
- WikiProjects: There are hundreds of "WikiProjects" on Wikipedia dedicated to everything from Military history to Novels to Video Games. These projects have good resources for your students, including everything from guides on how to write for Wikipedia to lists of resources on the topic. Some are more active than others, however. Current Wikipedians can provide advice on which projects would be most helpful to your students.
- Online Ambassadors: There are Online Ambassadors who can serve as Wikipedia mentors to your students.
[edit] Consensus
Decisions are made by "consensus" on Wikipedia. Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process on Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time without special effort. Even where there is a dispute, often all that is required is a rewording of the edit to make it more neutral or incorporate the other editor's concerns. Clear communication in edit summaries can make this process easier.
When reverting an edit you disagree with, it helps to state the actual disagreement. This provides greater transparency for all concerned, and likewise acts as a guide so that consensus can be determined through continued editing.
When there is a more serious dispute over an edit, the consensus process becomes more explicit. Editors open a section on the article's talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Consensus discussions have a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. The goal of a consensus discussion is to reach an agreement about article content, one which may not satisfy anyone completely but which all editors involved recognize as a reasonable exposition of the topic. It is useful to remember that consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia. It is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise - with the understanding that the article is gradually improving - than to try to fight to implement a particular "perfect" version immediately.
When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, there are a number of processes available for consensus-building (Third opinions, requests for comment, informal mediation at the Mediation Cabal), and even some more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (administrator intervention, formal mediation, and arbitration). Keep in mind, however, that administrators are primarily concerned with policy and editor behavior and will not decide content issues authoritatively.
[edit] Etiquette
Like any community, Wikipedia has an etiquette. These few simple guidelines will help you get along with Wikipedians:
- Assume good faith: Assume other editors are trying to improve the project. Try to understand their point of view. Discuss. Negotiate.
- Be polite and remember that it is more difficult to read sarcasm and irony in text than in verbal form.
- Always sign your posts on talk pages using four tildas so that others can follow who is saying what (~~~~).
- Discuss changes you are making to the encyclopedia on article talk pages.
- Discuss article content, not editors. Do not make personal attacks.
