Editing Online Communities and Crowds (Spring 2025)/Wikipedia assignment (section)

=== Additional guidance and FAQ ===

There's no minimum word count, but I'd strongly suggest you take advantage of the space you're given. Generally speaking, you can say more, be more insightful, and demonstrate more fluency (all the things that figure in assessment) if you use more space.

Your audience is Wikipedians who may read your report. You don't need to define things to prove to anyone that you've done the reading. You should define terms if you think an audience of Wikipedians (who have not taken the class) will be lost/confused otherwise. You should attribute quotes, concepts, or key ideas to sources appropriately (yes, use citations to do this). Use your judgment to make a compelling, well-reasoned, and well-supported argument. The goal is to show that you are fluent in the course material. A fluent person does not try to use every word in a language; they simply use the most appropriate ones.

In terms of structure, please adopt a format that will best support the substance of your argument and ideas. Something with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion is reliable and useful. If you feel it's better or useful to deviate from that, go for it.

There is no specific guidance regarding style (e.g., APA, Chicago, etc.) or how to format the references. Ensure others can read the paper clearly and find any papers you cite.



<!---

== Identifying topics for your articles ==

You will need to create a new article on Wikipedia with your teams. But how can you find a topic that is worthy of an article and also not already covered on Wikipedia? As it turns out, there are many resources to help you with this created by Wikipedia editors! A few suggestions and examples follow below. 

In general, we recommend picking topics that more experienced Wikipedia editors have already identified as meeting the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability notability criteria] for inclusion in the encyclopedia. When someone identifies a topic as potentially worthy of an article on Wikipedia, but no article exists, the text will appear as a red hyperlink (the red means that a page does not exist with that name). When you find red links, you have a hint that at least one other person thinks an article is worth creating on that topic. However, just because you or really anyone thinks a topic merits an article does not mean that it automatically will meet the notability criteria. Sometimes, it can be a struggle to convince other Wikipedia editors that a topic is sufficiently notable! We'll discuss all of this later, but suffice to say it's something to consider as you brainstorm topic ideas. 

It's also worth noting that you can absolutely come up with topics on your own without using any of the lists below. If you have some knowledge about a topic that you and your group members agree to be notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article we encourage you to propose it as a topic!

=== Lists of potential article topics ===

A great place to start finding potential article topics is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/List_of_stubs list of "stub" articles"]. Stubs are very short, very incomplete articles. On the upside, someone has probably already looked at them and decided the topic is worth including/covering, so you're less likely to face pushback on the notability of the subject in the first place.

If you feel compelled to work on totally ''de-novo'' topics that do not yet have an article, that's great. Just brace yourself for a little extra work and possibly for questions (from other Wikipedia volunteers!) about whether or not the topic of your article meets [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Wikipedia's notability criteria].

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red "Women in red" (WiR)] is an initiative across Wikipedia that seeks to create and populate articles on notable women to address their disproportionate under-representation in the encyclopedia. The WiR project maintains a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Redlist_index redlist index], which is an index of mostly red links for potential article topics that you might pursue.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_scientists WikiProject Women Scientists] is also a great source for potential article topics. Emily Temple-Wood, a Wikipedia editor who Aaron mentioned in his introductory lecture, maintains a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keilana/Female_scientist_list list of notable women scientists], many of whom do not yet have articles about them. Check out her list and investigate any of the names in red (hint: you'll need to look them up somewhere other than Wikipedia!) for ideas.

There is a general [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles requested articles list] as well. Again, dig through some of these topic areas and check out topics listed in red. 

Remember, just because ''someone'' thinks an article should exist is no guarantee that you or others will agree with them. You need to use some judgment in selecting an article that is interesting (according to you), feasible (for you to develop), and meets the standards of inclusion in Wikipedia (according to you as well as other Wikipedians).
--->