
Using Wikipedia in the classroom: a cautionary tale - jcurbo
http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/using-wikipedia-in-the-classroom-a-cautionary-tale/
======
Udo
I may be an unpopular opinion, but Wikipedia doesn't work. It's ruled by
people who don't have quality on their minds as much as power, politics, and
maintaining their fiefdoms. It's not their "fault" either, because the system
disproportionally rewards and empowers people who have these traits.

Encounters with Wikipedians are almost always toxic and unpleasant, be it to
discuss changes to specific articles, discussions about policies, and even
when it comes to throwing new ideas around on how the status quo could be
improved. That's because they are generally very pleased with the status quo.
People that weren't have been driven out long ago.

One of these days, I hope there will be a meaningful fork, and I hopefully
article versions will simply be voted on.

Actually if anyone is interested in doing an experiment in this space, shoot
me an email, I'd like to work on something like that.

~~~
3rd3
I’m curious, why do you think voting on article versions will make it better?

~~~
Udo
Moving towards a meritocratic model would be one of many steps that are worth
experimenting with, but it can't be the only one. Culture needs to be
addressed specifically, though if the current Wikipedia population stays just
where they are that could be a great start. There would of course have to be
some technical changes as well.

~~~
dragonwriter
How is that not a non-sequitur? I mean, what does _voting_ have to do with
_meritocracy_ (usually, its considered characteristic of _democracy_ , not
_meritocracy_.)

~~~
Udo
Yes, I used the wrong word for that. When I say meritocratic model, I mean a
model where content rules based on its merit, not a statelike structure where
individual people rule.

I'm talking about introducing a way to measure this merit. So I apologize for
the misnomer that confused you. However, I'm hesitant to call such a system
democratic either, though that might be a closer match.

Ideally, I'd like to decouple ego and personality from the act of content
creation as much as possible - to the extend that is possible while still
motivating people to work on it. So you see why I might describe this as
having democratic or meritocratic traits, without actually being a *ocracy.

I'm also open to the idea of such a system being distributed, which would
solve another problem Wikipedia has. If that's feasible, you might even be
tempted to use terms such as adhocracy or federation. My beef with all these
phrases is they're describing forms of government, whereas what I'm looking
for is more a mode of content curation.

But let's talk about actual substance instead of nomenclature. I don't claim
it's a silver bullet, but I think those are some ideas that may be worth
experimenting with.

------
x1798DE
This seems to be a story that happens a lot these days - someone tries to make
changes to a Wikipedia article, the changes are reverted and they make a blog
post or run to the media about how unfair Wikipedia is. There are about 3
paragraphs on the talk page on this. The student and the experienced editor
went back and forth maybe 3 times. The fact that a high school student didn't
make high quality edits to Wikipedia should not be super shocking, and the
reversions were all justified by the reverter. Maybe there's a culture shock,
but it's part of the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle that is integral to Wikipedia
quality control. You make changes without asking permission, if someone comes
along and disagrees with the changes, they revert to the consensus version,
then you discuss it and try to reach a consensus.

Frankly, this seems like a _perfect_ teaching tool - you've got someone right
there willing to do the teaching for you, because they're engaging your
student in a debate about the content of the material. Maybe the student
doesn't get published along the way, but she can still get a grade, and she
can learn the essential skill that is justifying her positions (or the equally
important skill of accepting when you are wrong).

~~~
Hermel
> This seems to be a story that happens a lot these days

Which could be an indication that there is also a problem with wikipedia. In
particular, I think when someone takes a genuine effort to improve an article
and that effort is reverted, there should be a clear indication of the
reasons. In this case, whenever malte pointed to specific issues with the
article, the student corrected them immediately.

> if someone comes along and disagrees with the changes, they revert to the
> consensus version, then you discuss it and try to reach a consensus.

I don't see much effort to reach consensus on the editor's side. Most comments
are in the style of "please read the rules before editing" \- which is not
very helpful.

~~~
x1798DE
If anything the problem with Wikipedia causing this is a PR problem, not a
problem with the culture of Wikipedia. The articles I see are usually of the
form, "I don't edit Wikipedia, I thought it would be this way, but it's
another way and that was unpleasant!" You're _always_ going to get that sort
of situation - I could just as easily run to the media and say, "I tried
posting a comment on HackerNews and it just dropped to the bottom of the
comment stack and turned super light grey so that you could barely see it!" If
these were well-formed arguments about the actual culture of Wikipedia and not
just newbie-shock, it'd be a lot more understandable.

>I don't see much effort to reach consensus on the editor's side. Most
comments are in the style of "please read the rules before editing" \- which
is not very helpful.

I've said elsewhere here I think the whole situation would have been much more
fruitful if the teacher had been or had engaged with an experienced Wikipedia
editor to put these sorts of comments in the right context. Personally, I
think the WP:SYNTH document is concise and clear enough that it isn't
unreasonable to point to it after the reversion, but that's beside the point.
The student has the option of continuing to make changes to their text to try
and fix the problems the experienced editor pointed out, or if they think the
changes are appropriate, go through another dispute resolution mechanism if
the experienced editor is unwilling to budge. There are many such mechanisms,
none of which were tried in this situation, because inexperienced editors
don't know how to take advantage of them.

~~~
niels_olson
> the whole situation would have been much more fruitful if the teacher had
> been or had engaged with an experienced Wikipedia editor

She did:

> I was put in touch with a Wikipedian here at the University of Michigan who
> would be able to help

Now, to your other issue:

> the problem with Wikipedia causing this is a PR problem, not a problem with
> the culture of Wikipedia.

Both problems exist, as the above refutation of your statement makes clear.
There is denial among Wikipedians that there is a cultural problem, and that
denial comes in the insidious form of not noticing facts that would counter
your position.

There is also a public relations problem, in that people really, really need a
stronger advisory before embarking on a Wikipedia edit that there is a
measurable risk of reversion or deletion, and first contact with bureaucracy
will almost certainly be unpleasant. To mitigate that, the new editor should
be very strongly advised to skim the rules and expect the neutrality of the
administration to feel harsh. Like coming up against laws of physics while
rock-climbing harsh.

------
fixermark
If I understand correctly, the "Talk" page on Wikipedia also has an archived
edit history.

I'm looking at the most recent version
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super-
spreader](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super-spreader)] and the revisions
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super-
spreade...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super-
spreader&action=history)], and I'm having a hard time seeing the bullying---it
looks like an individual defending an edit, another individual defending the
revert with explanation of what is missing, and the first individual adding
additional data to clarify that the original edit isn't "original research."

Can someone help highlight the bullying for me? Is there a subsection of the
Talk history that I'm missing / can Talk history be deleted?

~~~
pflats
You kinda have to put it together, but the other author comes across to me as
disingenuous and dismissive. Look at the edit log and the talk page together.

Wikipedian, 4/19: Deletes _one new section_ of the article that he disagrees
with. Entire comment is: " (-1,214)‎ . . (→‎Typhoid Mary: not a super-
spreader. she was an asymptomatic carrier; super-spreaders are symptomatic)"

Student: 4/19: "There was dispute about whether or not asymptomatic carriers
could be considered super-spreaders." Defends her position with un-Wikipedia-
esque speech, reverts deletion.

Wikepedian: 4/20 _Deletes every single thing the student contributed_. (This
is where things go off the rails.)

Wikipedian: "Also, I'm not aware of any "dispute as to whether or not
asymptomatic carriers should be considered super-spreaders", so perhaps you
could also provide a source for that."

The source of the dispute is that he reverted her edit; of course it exists.

The student then comes back with a source to defend that Typhoid Mary is
considered a super carrier by serious sources, and gets no response.

Further, if you look at what the editor excised, it was a sincere edit, well-
sourced, and deserved at least a modicum of respect for trying to help his pet
project.

~~~
grkvlt
> Deletes every single thing the student contributed

Yes, this is what I don't understand. I think other commenters here haven't
actually realised this is what happened, as well, and aren't seeing the
problem.

One thing I find annoying about Wikipedia is that there is basically no owner
or point of contact for the content. So, if I have an idea for a change, I can
add a comment to the Talk page for the article, but it'll often languish there
for months (years) on some pages. I've never gotten a sense of 'community'
there, and although I've made 500+ edits and contributed new articles and been
a member of a 'WikiProject' I still wouldn't class myself as a 'Wikipedian'
nor would I know how to assign that role to someone else.

~~~
araneae
I've been a Wikipedia editor for ages, and I have noticed this. You can't wait
around for other people to reply.

Generally if I'm about to do something potentially controversial, I write a
comment on it in the talk thread, and then I go ahead and do it. If others
have a problem with it they'll fix it. You kind of have to have a "ask for
forgiveness" attitude towards non-active pages.

~~~
DanBC
The wiki way is "bold, revert, discuss".

That is often catastrophic and will get you templates and warnings, and will
make it very hard to push through any edits.

------
GabrielF00
I was a Wikipedia campus ambassador for two courses - one at Boston College
the other at the School of the Museum of Fine Arts. The students were assigned
to contribute to articles and my role was to help them navigate Wikipedia. I
thought both courses went well - the BC class in particular had a professor
who was very involved in selecting articles, having the students write drafts
and reflect on their work. The students wrote a lot of good content and I had
four or five of their articles featured on the Wikipedia home page's Did You
Know section for new articles (More would have been featured but Wikipedia's
rules for what qualifies are pretty arbitrary). There were three cases out of
fifteen that were problematic - in two cases someone expanded the article
while the students were working on their drafts, pre-empting their work, in
the third case after the class had concluded some editors felt that the
student's work misrepresented the topic and rewrote it. Overall the students
wrote well-sourced, well-written content and I think they had a good
experience.

~~~
x1798DE
Looking at this particular case, I'd say the experience would have been much
better if the teacher had been an experienced Wikipedia editor or had
contacted one of the projects that deals with this sort of thing ahead of time
to put them in touch with a mentor editor. The article mentions that seniority
is important (I've never found that to be the case), but what's actually
important is understanding the kind of content that Wikipedia is looking for.
In this case, the reversions were mostly because of "original research"
violations, where the student synthesized new opinions out of the sources.
This is something you'd do if you were writing a high school report on a
topic, but on Wikipedia you're really only allowed to summarize what the
sources say. Having someone who understands that around would have helped both
student and teacher understand _why_ the material is being removed, and how it
could be improved if they still wanted to contribute to the article.

~~~
niels_olson
You have a lot of thoughts about how this could have been done better. Have
you passed any of these along to Professor Duffy?

------
err4nt
When I start a Wikipedia article, it gets expanded.

When I edit a Wikipedia article, it gets immediately reverted, often
accompanied by ad hominem attacks on my character because the articles
babysitter didn't want this or that section cluttering up his nice short
little summary.

I am completely demoralized from editing Wikipedia, and though I still use it
I SURELY won't be donating any of my time to helping that spectacle

~~~
araneae
I have an opposite experience. When I start an article, it gets flagged for
deletion. Then I have to defend it.

If I expand an article no one seems to notice.

------
brudgers
It didn't take much imagination to realize that this problem with Wikipedia is
a vast improvement over traditional encyclopedias. _Britannica_ would not have
had an article, a public record of edits, or a way for a student to even
participate in its improvement except perhaps via a few internships with
limited responsibility well below authorship or editorial privilege.

It shows up on my computer, but it is still a human institution.

~~~
ForHackernews
Somebody wasted their time and effort, had their feelings hurt, and was
discouraged in their interests.

That's not an improvement over traditional encyclopedias.

~~~
fixermark
Having your feelings hurt and appreciating (and overcoming) the sense of
wasted time and effort is actually valuable experience for someone who is
focused on academia (which one could infer, as the student in question was
involved in an Honors Conversion).

A Wikipedia edit reversal is frustrating, but not as frustrating as a thesis
pursuit or academic journal publication rejection. The takeaway I get from
this story is actually that Wikipedia could serve as a lower-cost learning
experience for budding young academics; the student got a real taste of having
their input considered and rejected by a semi-anonymous stranger in a position
of editorial power, which is a valuable (and hard) lesson to acquire at a
young age.

~~~
niels_olson
> Wikipedia could serve as a lower-cost learning experience for budding young
> academics; the student got a real taste of having their input considered and
> rejected by a semi-anonymous stranger in a position of editorial power,
> which is a valuable (and hard) lesson to acquire at a young age.

This should be standard Welcoming Committee text.

------
Workaphobia
Article makes it sound like the student was being shut out unfairly and that
the entrenched editor was hostile or even sexist. This isn't borne out at all
by the talk page. It looks like there was just an edit war and a call for
citation, with further discussion pending.

~~~
acqq
If you check the history yourself, you'll see that _everything_ the student
contributed was deleted _twice_ by the wikipedian. The contributions were not
modified, simply everything completely removed.

~~~
fyrabanks
I don't agree with it, but I could see how the author would justify those
edits. The author rolled back edits that he/she felt were unfounded (whether
or not they are is a topic for another debate). The student then reverted all
those rollbacks without any discussion on the Talk page or edifying comments
in their changes. The attempted discussion appears to have happened after
this. The only difference between good- and bad-faith edits here is that the
student does not understand Wikipedia policy.

Now, the way the original author responded is completely inappropriate given
WP:DNB (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BITE). A couple people have already
tried having that conversation with the author, and he/she still incorrectly
feels the onus is on the (naive) editor.

~~~
acqq
Please do show how deleting everything that was contributed by the student can
be justified (you say that you "could see how" the wikipedian "would justify"
the reverts to the pre-student's-contribution-state of the article). I can't
see, please see:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super-
spreader&di...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super-
spreader&diff=605103027&oldid=605102801)

Obviously the deleted material, that is, everything that the student
previously contributed, contained the citations (on the left). Still
_everything_ was deleted by the strange behaving wikipedian.

The difference I link to shows the effects of _the second deletion_ of the
student's newly contributed material by the wikipedian. How can that be
justified? I understand that the wikipedian didn't want the original research.
But was it all really just the original research?

------
shele
Before you frame this as a gender communication problem, I would consider
actually talking to the Wikipedian you refer to in your article...

~~~
cpncrunch
As far as I can tell both editors were female (at least, Malke is a female
name).

~~~
shele
Exactly those are the misconceptions you might clear up while talking to
somebody ;-)

------
VLM
Well, look on the bright side, she only got bullied and reverted, whereas her
hard work could have gotten the attention of the deletionists, and the entire
page could have been wiped out. Why insult just one student by reverting, when
you can insult an entire discipline by deleting?

------
gPphX
[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whorunswikipedia](http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whorunswikipedia)
Who Runs Wikipedia? (Aaron Swartz's Raw Thought)

------
facepalm
Quote from the article: "However, men tended to assert their opinions as
“facts,” whereas women tended to phrase their informative messages as
suggestions, offers, and other non-assertive acts."

Seriously? This is just drivel.

I'm sorry her edits were undone, but that's hardly a gender issue.

Just try arguing with a feminist, then you won't see "informative messages
phrased as suggestions, offers, and other non-assertive acts". In fact, that
phrase disproves itself.

~~~
alukima
But it's not drivel. Men and women communicate differently, that's supported
by many, many studies. She didn't accuse either sex of communicating
incorrectly, which is the line you hear from SJWs.

I think she made a good point. Many people have commented that they thought
his tone was fine. Others have said his tone sounded patronizing. I don't
think anyone is wrong. We can't write off the people who don't share our
communication style, which is what you're doing when you call it 'drivel'.

~~~
facepalm
Can you point me to some of those studies, please?

It sounds extremely sexist to me to make such a claim. My experience with men
has been different as well. Also my experience with women (they are not all
timid about their opinions).

In any case, I don't see the relevance of the theory to the Wikipedia
incident. So why does she quote it? Because the Wikipedia editor happens to be
male, and the quote is supposed to discredit all male opinions.

She wrote a whole blog article about it - is that an example of "an
informative messages phrased as a suggestion, offer, or other non-assertive
acts"? I don't think so - she disproves the theory, yet you defend it.

If you are a woman, you also disprove the theory, because you claim a fact:
"But it's not drivel. Men and women communicate differently, that's supported
by many, many studies." That's not a suggestion, offer, or non-assertive
comment you made.

~~~
thebooktocome
You could follow the link supplied by the author, and references therein....

~~~
facepalm
That only cites studies of the author herself, who analyzed a whopping two
mailing lists to arrive at her sweeping and completely unbiased conclusions.

------
aaron695
I'm sorry but I'm sick of f@#$wit teachers thinking Wikipedia is a fun project
for their students.

It is supposed to be the repository of human knowledge.

Not the quality such that a student 'learning' about a subject can do an
assignment of editing it.

When this student has long gone, it's the Wikipedians who have to clean up the
mess.

What real Wikipedians do is clean up vandalism, correct spelling and grammar,
arbitrate differences of opinion.

They don't just sit around creating content then leave.

If you really want to help Wiki, work on teaching students the politics and
how to do the real work that's needed to make it so great.

~~~
cpncrunch
Actually, if you look at this article you'll see that it did need expanding,
and the student's edits were mostly an improvement. There were a few issues
with sourcing our synthesis, but nothing major.

In my opinion we need to get more people like this involved in editing, rather
than pushing them away. There are lots of articles that need help, and it's a
great learning experience.

------
emsy
I made similar experiences and heard stories worse than this all over the web.
It may sound funny, but Wikipedia could learn a lot from games like LoL and
Dota 2 and how they deal with bad behaviour. Right now I don't see anything
happen, and that's the reason why I willfully deny Wikipedia any donation.

