Durova's big plan, .....when will they ever learn??... Options

[the fieryangel]

She wants to contact the "Chronicles of Higher Education" to let them know about WP's great new program for teachers....

Um, you don't suppose that they've forgotten all about that little "Essjay" business, do you?

...The people at CHE are very nice, but I don't think that "higher education" has quite forgiven WP yet.....

[blissyu2]

Well, I for one think that Wikipedia is important enough to warrant a lesson in all schools, in upper primary (age 10-12) being probably a good age for an introductory lesson on why it is an unreliable source, and high school age (age 13-16) an intermediate lesson on what is wrong with Wikipedia and why it should not be used as a reliable source. At university level, because Wikipedia is relatively new, in appropriate subjects it may warrant an assignment.

These are my proposals:

Beginner level:

Find any topic on Wikipedia that you are interested in finding information on. Do a separate search for the same topic using a search engine such as Google. Find what differences there are between the article on Wikipedia and the article that you found using a search engine. Are there any differences? If there are, change the Wikipedia article to reflect the differences. Now note what happens when you try to correct the article. Does it remain corrected? Or does it revert back to a less accurate version? Can you suggest any reasons why Wikipedia is not accurate? Why are people deliberately making Wikipedia inaccurate? How are people deliberately making Wikipedia inaccurate?

Intermediate level:

Find a Wikipedia article that you are interested in (it must be an article with at least 20 unique contributors, have existed for at least 6 months, and be at least 200 lines long). Now find, using a search engine, something on that topic that differs between what is on the source that you found and the source on Wikipedia. Document the differences. Now, search through Wikipedia's history, and through its talk page, to see why there are differences. What kind of agendas do the people who are editing Wikipedia have? Can you suggest what kinds of points of view these people have? Are any of these editors truly neutral?

Now look at Wikipedia's article on "Criticisms of Wikipedia" (or choose a similar article). What kinds of criticisms does Wikipedia admit that they have? Now do a web search to see if you can find any other different criticisms that Wikipedia's article does not mention. Can you find any other types of criticisms? (Hint: If you cannot find any others, look for Wikipedia Review). Can you give an explanation for why Wikipedia might pretend that they do not have criticisms when they do? Now look at Wikipedia's attack sites policy. Can you give any reasons why they would not allow these criticisms?

Write an essay on the topic "There are no criticisms of Wikipedia because Wikipedia will not allow them".

Advanced level:

Find a Wikipedia article on a controversial topic (must have at least 5 unique points of view as to the truth of the issue) that you are interested in that has at least 20 unique contributors, has existed for at least 6 months, and has at least 200 lines of text. Using whatever sources that you can, find at least 3 of the unique points of view. Demonstrate which of these points of view the Wikipedia article most closely adheres to. Does the Wikipedia article adequately cover all of these points of view? Which sections demonstrate which points of view? Are any points of view discounted? What rationale has been used for dismissing these points of view?

Write your own article on the topic, to incorporate all of the points of view.

Compare your article with Wikipedia's. Are there any significant differences? What differences are there and why do you think that the differences exist?

Research any controversies about the reliability of Wikipedia's articles. Does Wikipedia document criticism of its own reliability? Find one controversy that Wikipedia does not link to in its own article on the topic. Give an explanation for why you think that Wikipedia is not allowing discussion of the controversy.

Find a major critic of Wikipedia who is not mentioned in Wikipedia's "Criticism of Wikipedia" article. (Hint: If you cannot find any others, look at Wikipedia Review). Explain why you think that Wikipedia does not mention critics in its own article.

------

Or if they don't want to go through assignments, they should at a bare minimum explain the danger of Wikipedia.

Perhaps that's what Durova was trying to do?

[Jonny Cache]

long time passing ...

(or not to pass ... )

Jonny

[blissyu2]

Sorry, I keep forgetting that in countries outside of Australia assignments tend to be a lot easier.

Um, let's think of a US equivalent...

US version:

Beginner level (age 10-12):

Find a Wikipedia article on a topic you are interested in. Change one thing that you think is incorrect. See if it stays changed. Add in one deliberately incorrect piece of information. See what happens when you try to add something that is wrong. Now tell me why you think that Wikipedia is unreliable.

Advanced level (age 13-16):

Find a big and well used Wikipedia article on a topic you are interested in (min 6 months old, 200 words, 20 unique editors). Research the topic. Look at other editors to see what kind of point of view they are exhibiting. Is it possible to be truly neutral?

Expert level (age 17+, university):

Research any one major controversial article on Wikipedia (min 6 months old, 200 words, 20 unique editors, 5 unique opinions on the topic). Research the topic. Which of the points of view is predominantly represented in the article? Are all points of view represented? Analyse the article and separate which points of view are represented in each piece. Are these points of view attributable by any individual editors? What can you say about the points of view of the editors who are writing it?

Research any major controversy that has criticised the quality of Wikipedia as a research tool. Is this controversy covered on Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia cover the topic as well as other sources? Was the criticism covered by the controversy dealt with by Wikipedia? Do you think that the same controversy can happen again?

----

Again, apologies if my questions seemed to be too hard

[LamontStormstar]

That wasn't very hard.

Why not

Easy level: Teach people how to vandalize wikipedia, not just ordinary vandalism, but skilled advanced vandalism

Intermediate: Teach people how to suck up to the cabal (especially SlimVirgin) and win cabal points

Advanced: Become admin then sell the account online to someone.

Super-advanced: Break the ownership of an article SlimVirgin, Jayjg, etc. controls.

[Skyrocket]

Aussie version:

Research a Wikipedia article and write up your findings. Have a few Fosters, then research it and write up your findings again. Spend some time at the beach to let the Fosters wear off. Compare the results of your two research sessions. If you still think Wikipedia is a fair dinkum research tool, call a mate and jointly write the definitive article on "pommy".

(Just jokin', mates!)

[LamontStormstar]

Hmmm


Crickey
Crocodiles
I'm gonna jam my thumb up it's butthole now. oooeeey that pissed it off alright!
These stingrays are very deadly and... arg---
You call that a knife? This is a knife.
:: crocodile wrestling ::
Hey they're filmg another Xena/Hercules TV show in New Zealand.
By crickey, this is the fiercest preditor known to man. I got to be very careful now as one snap from it's huge fangs could take my head clear off.

[Viridae]

Aussie version:

Research a Wikipedia article and write up your findings. Have a few Fosters, then research it and write up your findings again. Spend some time at the beach to let the Fosters wear off. Compare the results of your two research sessions. If you still think Wikipedia is a fair dinkum research tool, call a mate and jointly write the definitive article on "pommy".

(Just jokin', mates!)

Sorry but fosters is pure horse piss. No one drinks the stuff.

[Jonny Cache]

[Name Redacted] version:

Research a [Name Redacted] article and write up your findings. Have a few [Name Redacted]s, then research it and write up your findings again. Spend some time at the beach to let the [Name Redacted]s wear off. Compare the results of your two research sessions. If you still think [Name Redacted] is a fair dinkum research tool, call a mate and jointly write the definitive article on "[Name Redacted]".

(Just jokin', mates!)

Sorry but [Name Redacted] is pure horse [Name Redacted]. No one drinks the stuff.

That's why they export it all to the [Name Redacted].

[Name Redacted]

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 7th August 2007, 2:26pm

[blissyu2]

Okay how about this:

Beginner: Write your own article on Wikipedia, and try to argue for it to remain, and survive an Article for Deletion (if required). Points go to anyone who still has a surviving article at the end of the week, also for quality of arguments to keep it. Bonus points depending on the absurdity of the argument.

Advanced: We will begin by your teacher getting himself/herself banned from Wikipedia. You will now all use the same IP address. Try to get yourself unbanned, not listed as a sock puppet, and successfully combat all attacks on you. TOR proxies and any other external sites are permitted. Marks will be given as to how successful you are in managing to not get banned.

Expert: You will each be given the name of an article that is controlled by a powerful Wikipedia user, and you will be given the name of that user. You are now required to make substantial changes to the article, or successfully list it for Deletion, and not have your account banned. Bonus points if you also manage to get the powerful Wikipedia user banned and/or to have them appear in a news story condemning them. Report your findings.

[thekohser]

I noticed on Durova's WikiSchoolProjectHomework page that she took a liking to a high school "Wikipedia Club" that had formed, so much so that she offered (as a graduate of Columbia University), to write a letter of recommendation to any of the Club members who would be applying there for admission.

Two questions:

1. Would she write the letter as "Durova", or as her real name?
2. If the Columbia admissions board looked up her references online, would they find the ED page about her and question the merit of the applicant?

By the way, it looks like ED has taken down Durova's supposed full "real name", leaving behind only her distinctive first name as their form of "outing". Is ED now going softer on BLPs?

Greg

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 7th August 2007, 9:56pm

[Joseph100]

That wasn't very hard.

Why not

Easy level: Teach people how to vandalize wikipedia, not just ordinary vandalism, but skilled advanced vandalism

Intermediate: Teach people how to suck up to the cabal (especially SlimVirgin) and win cabal points

Advanced: Become admin then sell the account online to someone.

Super-advanced: Break the ownership of an article SlimVirgin, Jayjg, etc. controls.

LOL.... AMEN bro.. go forth and vandalize wikipeida, for it is a noble thing to destroy
hypocrisy, wrapped in a big fat lie.