Essid's Wikipedia Smack-Down Topic: We have been too quick to dismiss Wikipedia. I find it useful, when writing, to check the spelling of proper names in fiction without getting up an losing my train of thought. Instead of cursing Wikipedia, why not improve it? Each writer, early in the semester, identifies a topic of interest that appears in Wikipedia that has a claim needing further support. The writer then finds an academic resource (in print or on the Web) supporting the claim or modifying it. The writers then revise the online entry and prepare a short paper (two pages or so) in which they discuss why the claim needed to be changed, how they found evidence, and what they changed (with before and after examples of the errant passage). The best sorts of areas to improve in Wikipedia entries or broken links (text in red) or any entry that has this text appended by editors: It is missing citations and/or footnotes. Please help improve this article by adding inline citations. Its tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Tagged since January 2008. That said, nearly any Wikipedia entry can be edited and improved. Faculty might want to ask students to monitor their entry throughout the semester, in order to see if their editing is changed by others and how the entire entry changes as a result of their work. Rationale: I began to think about this when I expanded a "stub" about the Battle of Okinawa, a subject for which I have a hobbyist's knowledge and enthusiasm. Our students get more engaged when asked to do work that "counts for something" beyond the class. This assignment teaches literacy skills they need in a medium they use. 103 home | course goals | faculty policies | sample assignments | texts & reviews | teacher's quick links