Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Welcome to the education noticeboard
Purpose of this page Using this page

This page is for discussion of items that relate to student assignments and the Wikipedia Education Program. Please feel free to post, whether you're from a class, a potential class, or if you're a Wikipedia editor.

Topics for this board might include:

Of course, we should remain civil towards all participants and assume good faith.

There are other pages more appropriate for dealing with certain specific issues:

  • Click "Click here to start a new discussion thread" below to start a new thread.
  • Please start new threads under a level-2 heading, using double equals-signs and an informative title: ==Informative title==. If a thread is related to an ongoing discussion, consider placing it under a level-3 heading within that discussion.
  • You should generally notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{ping}} to do so, or simply link their username when you post your comment.
    It is not required to contact students when their edits are only being discussed in the context of a class-wide problem.
  • If no comments have been made within 30 days, your post and any responses will be automatically archived.
  • Please sign all contributions, using four tilde characters "~~~~".
  • If discussion is already ongoing elsewhere or if there is a more natural location for a discussion, please continue the discussion there, and put a short note with a link to the relevant location on this page.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, please place your comments on this page and they will be addressed.

Managing threads

By default, threads will be automatically archived by a bot after 30 days of inactivity. If you'd like to make sure a thread does not get archived, use {{Do not archive until}} at the top of the section. Use {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} within a section to have it archived (more or less) immediately. A brief Archives page lists them with the years in which those now inactive discussions took place.

Click here to start a new discussion



Organized harassment of me over botched course[edit]

I have been harassed on Twitter by the organization Black Women Radicals (who's article is up for deletion). I had to make my Twitter account private because of them. This is all because I explained in a Twitter comment to the instructor of the course, Mkibona, that the article on them was being put for AFD because of notability guidelines and explained what canvassing was. Then the Black Women Radicals organization retweeted my post and I received harassment from them and their supporters. This was because they accused me of being racist and creating a racial bias for simply explaining about the notability standards and the rules against canvassing. The harassment included:

I had to block many people, including the organization, as the harassment was immediately overwhelming to me as soon as I saw it. They then proceeded to tag Wikipedia, accusing me of mean behavior when I was simply trying to protect myself. This is not OK for an organization to be doing, and I am now scared of what they will do next, if they'll follow me into other social media or even here to make attacks or potentially doxx me as an act of 'revenge'. I've been crying over and over today because of them because I am very, very scared and hurt by their comments. Please help. wizzito | say hello! 05:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There's been some frankly vile Twitter harrassment of Wizzito for his attempts to explain in good faith why the page was at AfD. There are some really grotesque claims of racism -- one of those links is mocking him by using the N-word. Vaticidalprophet 06:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure why you took the conversation to Twitter and publicly announced your connection to this issue in a way that continued to chastise me for my behavior and accuse me of trying to canvass for votes. I initially only turned to my community on Twitter because I was frustrated, I was not being heard, and I didn't know what to do. I've asked for the redirect to be stopped, it never was. I addressed many of the issues around citations, etc... those were deleted. I needed help getting resources and ideas for the article, as well as help navigating Wikipedia. I also needed support from my community because it is not a good feeling to feel like you're not being heard and to feel powerless to do anything about it. The "backlash" you felt was from other people who at various times have experienced similar silencing and powerlessness. I've talked to several people about this over the last couple of days and it really struck a nerve. I do not want to trivialize your feelings, but I have been around long enough to recognize this shift in the narrative. I promise you that no one will hurt you. We are not a bunch of violent thugs. Many of the people who expressed themselves are fellow academics. None of us is willing to risk our careers over this. Mkibona (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Mkibona: Well, it really hurts when these academics mock me by using the N-word, attack me for protecting myself, and make ageist comments telling me to "go back to school". I do regret bringing the conversation off-wiki, but I felt just as frustrated as you were at the time, and that still doesn't excuse the harassment. wizzito | say hello! 06:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I also tend to overthink a lot, especially when I feel harassed, abused, or threatened. wizzito | say hello! 06:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, FYI, this discussion really isn't about you. It's mainly about the harassment by the Black Women Radicals organization and their followers. There was little or no harassment until the organization stepped in. wizzito | say hello! 06:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Wizzito: I am so sorry you've experienced this off-wiki harassment - I am disgusted at the comments you've received for trying to explain what was going on. I strongly recommend you report this to Trust and Safety who will investigate this and take legal action if merited. Behaviour like this damages our community, and I will not stand for it. I will review if Mkibona's off-wiki actions constitute a violation of our harassment policy, seeing as they "initially [...] turned to [their] community on Twitter" - I would expect better behaviour from a Wiki Ed instructor and will be asking Ian from Wiki Ed to review this internally -- TNT (talk • she/they) 06:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that the instructor is innocent and acting in good faith; the harassment only started when the Black Women Radicals Twitter jumped in and they are the ones who should be looked at. I only blocked people on Twitter in an effort to prevent further harassment by others. wizzito | say hello! 07:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
FYI here is the instructor's original tweet. wizzito | say hello! 07:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry that you've been subjected to that, Wizzito. Twitter is a nasty place. I've experienced my fair share of harassment there myself and 100% of it was related to Wikipedia. Unfortunately it's got to the point where I rarely talk about my work here there, because there are so many people who can only see "Wikipedia" is yet another faceless corporation and, when "it" does something they don't like, will take it out on anybody who sticks their head above the parapet. I'll second TNT's suggestion that the best people to follow up on this are WMF Trust & Safety.
That said, looking at the page history, this was handled really badly and I can see why things escalated. Many of the tweeters and perhaps Mkibona herself display the (very common) misunderstanding that an 'editor' is someone with special authority over Wikipedia content – like editors in the real world. Of course we know that anyone who edits Wikipedia is an editor, and anyone can edit Wikipedia. But that is not obvious to everyone, especially when you act like someone with elevated authority: Vaticidalprophet blanked and redirected the page with no discussion and a jargon-filled edit summary, you restored it with no additional information after Mkibona had tried to make changes, and then an administrator came in to back you up with technical protection. When she tried to start a discussion about it, she was met with bureaucratic stonewalling and the bizarre accusation that asking for help with an article is a wiki-crime. Looking at it from the other point of view, is it really surprising that people reacted badly to the perception that two self-disclosed young men had the only say on whether an article on a feminist movement gets to stay on Wikipedia? That isn't how people expect we do things, nor how they should be done. I know that you only played a small role in this, Wizzito, and again I'm not condoning the Twitter harassment, but all involved really should have done better here. – Joe (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: - As seen in Talk:Ratchet Feminism, the main issue causing protection was that the instructor refused to discuss with other editors or use an edit summary. The instructor discussed with others only when the article was protected. wizzito | say hello! 08:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
And where was she invited to discussion? – Joe (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a Wiki Ed course, which has liaisons on our side, and instructors know that. Multiple issues with the course were raised, and still things are only getting worse. MarioGom (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) When I encountered the article, it was 1100 words with 10 references, most of them not about the concept of ratchet feminism. I considered a BLAR appropriate given the circumstances and the existence of a related article to redirect to. I mentioned in my edit summary that a de facto merge (that is, adding new content, with better sourcing, presented as an encyclopedia article and not an argumentative essay, to the target article) could be an appropriate way to incorporate information on this concept to Wikipedia. Retrospectively, I should've made that clearer.
I sought administrator help to protect the article to try and induce discussion on the talk page or an appropriate other page between editors, which I have repeatedly seen discussed as a legitimate cause for protection; I consider redirect-warring a particularly destructive form of edit warring due to the greater impact on readers (similar to move warring, which is explicitly called out as requiring rapid protection due to its unusually destructive position) and moved accordingly to prevent redirect warring while discussion occurred. I kept the page on my watchlist but was not asked about it either there or on my talk page (I see now Wizzito was on his), so eventually took the page off out of concern the instructor had decided not to communicate entirely, especially given the course was over by this point.
At the time of this series of events, it felt the best one available to me with the apparent situation; I redirected an article not appearing to satisfy our standards for inclusion to an appropriate target, attempted to give an edit summary pointing towards how to incorporate content related to it in the encyclopedia (retrospectively this is a weak link, and it should have been more explicit), and prevented a destructive edit war that would handicap readers and place strain on NPP. I think retrospectively there were likely ways to handle it better, but I don't believe any of it is much worth a kid getting dogpiled on Twitter for supposedly being a racist. Vaticidalprophet 09:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  • To observers: I'd suggest not engaging with this organization on Twitter. They seem to have picked a fight, and I doubt anything positive can come out of further engagement. Please, stay safe. MarioGom (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks unfortunate all around. More or less agree with Joe's summary above. I want to validate both the professor's frustration and Wizzito's feeling about what happened on Twitter. Only want to add a note about Wikipedia and Twitter, coming from personal experience. It's useful [for me anyway] to remember that the nature of Twitter is to encourage quick responses. People aren't going to be doing a deep dive into article histories or policies, but reacting based on their personal experiences, feelings, perceptions, and judgments based on what limited information they do have. Having accidentally done this myself [at least] once in the past, when people are on Twitter talking about or venting about injustices on Wikipedia, especially when they connect to injustices outside of Wikipedia and Twitter, it's a bad idea to respond with anything remotely resembling a claim that there was not, in fact, an injustice, or with instructions about how to work around that injustice. That's especially true for anyone who might not be able to see the events through the same lens. It's obviously heavily context-dependent, but IMO the best approach, if you want to reach out on Twitter, is to offer to talk by email or some other less public medium. Some people really appreciate that, and it limits the discussion to the people who really do want to figure things out. None of this is to say you deserved those responses -- you most definitely did not, and I'm editing this comment again because I want to emphasize that -- just my $0.02 about Wikipedia controversy and Twitter. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

My fundamental belief is that anyone with hard power over another person (an adult, an employer, etc.) who harrasses said person who lacks it has crossed a line it's exceptional to come back from. I was the target of sustained online harrassment campaigns by adults at Wizzito's age and younger, sometimes much younger, and it flecked my worldview in ways I can't quite paint over. I am sure this is a well-intentioned post (I concur with the broad "Twitter is the worst thing ever because it handicaps longform communication" stance), but fundamentally the response to "these people with hard power over my livelihood are systematically harrassing me" is not "maybe email them next time". Vaticidalprophet 21:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm horrified at what has happened here, and I feel awful that I didn't jump into the Twitter thread yesterday when it was first posted to try to explain RS and N. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Ian (Wiki Ed):, don't. You'll become a target of them if you do so. wizzito | say hello! 15:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Wizzito. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Ian (Wiki Ed):, I see you responded to them already; maybe your comments will be the ones that help them understand, maybe not. Your conversations with them so far have been very good, though. I hope you or someone else can clarify that I am not lying about my age or using multiple accounts, like they are accusing me of. wizzito | say hello! 16:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI the organization is also attempting to harass other people who attempted to explain policy to them. This includes taking another editor who responded to them's opinions on a separate Twitter thread and using it as a personal attack. They also made other personal attacks towards them and falsely accusing them of blocking the organization as they think it's me, it's not. There's another ageist comment in that link as well. Here's another personal attack of theirs on another user, claiming that they were just asking questions. They are also accusing me and other editors of faking our ages and hiding behind anonymity. Ironically, a bit of the harassment was from anonymous users. (These other people have given them answers, yet they continue to stick their fingers into their ears and say "la-la-la"!) I'm done interacting with them, just monitoring and archiving the instances of harassment as they continue. I also highly suggest not interacting with them; if you do, you become a target of theirs and they will not hesitate to use anything they find against you. wizzito | say hello! 15:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's a Black Women Radicals supporter, linked to initially as being one of the harassers, falsely accusing me of defending child pornographers and also insulting Ian (Wiki Ed) because of where he is from. This is absolutely unacceptable and I am deeply offended at these false accusations being launched at me by the organization and their supporters. wizzito | say hello! 17:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  • While people can hold views as to whether it was wise to reply on-Twitter, it remains that the user had every right to do so, and their reward for trying to be helpful has been vile. While being on the outside might be good reason for not understanding (or, more accurately, accepting explanations of notability) and partial reason for canvassing, it would escape me on how it could then be viewed as even partial cover for many of the statements made. I do wonder what any topic as potential controversial as this was doing as the focus of any wikied course and why an instructor made a public response rather than handling it internally. Surely any instructor should be abundantly aware of both the relevant policy and how to handle disputes like this in-house? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

(EC) It's also troubling that WikiEd instructors do not seem to have adequate familiarity with how Wikipedia works?? This is far, far from the first time an Ed class has produced articles that get speedied per G11 or A7, get taken to AfD for lack of notability, and/or require history revdel for copyvio. I don't know how common this actually is in proportion to the number of classes on Wiki -- maybe it's only a small percentage that are even dealing with mainspace creations at all. But I think a much more rigorous understanding of WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:COPYVIO (and WP:BRD) among WikiEducators would go a long way in reducing these issues. The way I learned about notability and RS criteria (and maybe more importantly their actual application) was by reading hundreds of archived >10kb-discussion AfDs in my areas of interest and then participating in active AfDs. Maybe some kind of training module involving discussion participation would be helpful here? JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That really is the most fundamental problem here I think and something I was also concerned about. It's been hard for me to help people understand the site (admittedly, I'm no teacher, but this is regarding interested people I know), and I'm sure that if I were a student in the class of an instructor who does not understand Wikipedia, it would be a bad experience. Not blaming the instructor, but we are not preparing them well enough if this sort of thing could happen. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I have worked with instructors, including difficult ones that the fallout ended up on national news websites. I really want to defend the instructor, but I can't. The instructor broke the rule by attempting to WP:CANVASS via Twitter. And that attracted others who attack Wizzito. I agree with TNT here. It is borderline harassment, specifically off-wiki harassment. The only argument against that is that the instructor didn't attack the editor, but someone else did. TNT, I'm willing to analyze that with you and co-endorse any admin action that may be taken. Time to sharpen my block hammer. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: I'm waiting to see if Mkibona is going to reply before making any decisions of if they should be blocked. I absolutely do not want to see them doing any other Wiki Ed work (and frankly I'm getting sick of the issues Wiki Ed causes in general) -- TNT (talk • she/they) 05:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
@TheresNoTime: There's plenty of good work done by Wiki Ed and its predecessor. It's typically the bad cases that raise the surface (aka negativity bias). OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I have intentionally disengaged from a lot of the hour-by-hour, back & forth. I doubt my words will provide you with the solace you are seeking. My class is tied to my research around the misrecognition and misrepresentation of Black women’s voices. The assignment was both an academic exercise, and a contribution of content important to Black women. For the class of mostly 1st year Black women, and myself, the assignment signified a lot. I am more than willing to admit my errors in not adequately preparing students to carry out the assignment. They needed a lot more oversight. I also deeply regret the pain that some of them experienced in what they saw as an environment in which they were not heard. I took on the editing for a few pieces because 1, I am better positioned to do so and 2, as the instructor who brought them into this space, I felt I had a responsibility to protect them. I could take being called names and being chastised (even the title of THIS discussion is offensive), but I didn’t want to subject my students to that. I tried to be heard more than once, and I felt ignored, and I was even chastised. The experience was hurtful for me and for my students who witnessed it. It is easier to find the words to criticize others, but far more difficult to constructively engage with people.

As for going to Twitter, after being frustrated and feeling silenced… I won’t apologize for that. I needed help learning to navigate Wikipedia and I wanted resources for the article. I wanted to save and improve the work the students put into writing a topic, which is very relevant for millennial and gen z Black women. I read the policy on canvassing (after the fact), and I never asked for “votes” or for anyone to come on Wikipedia on by behalf. I am connected to a network of Black feminist scholars on Twitter who know this topic well. While people expressed their frustration, more importantly, they listened and reach out to help. I received a lot of sources and ideas for the article. Some of which were incorporated.

The engagement with Wikipedia editors on Twitter was ONLY done when editors volunteered to identify themselves. No one sought to find out editors’ identities. Some editors actually engaged in a helpful & meaningful dialogue on Twitter. @Wizzito had a different experience. Honestly, knowing his age, I hate to single him out because I feel that it’s irresponsible. But I will say, when he went on Twitter, identified himself, and continued with the tone of criticism and chastising that I had experienced on Wikipedia, I anticipated the reaction. I wish it had not happened, but it did not have to happen.

I would be more than willing to engage in a constructive dialogue around some of the larger issues. We could discuss the idea of engaging students in editing on Wikipedia if we also discuss problematic interactions experienced by people of color and women in the Wikipedia community. That would be far more productive. Mkibona (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Mkibona, I appreciate your comments especially your willingness to engage in dialogue and I encourage you to read the comments I made in a related thread above (and respond if you choose to). You have already conceded that you made errors and so I will refrain from chastising you. Successfully editing contentious topics on Wikipedia requires a deep understanding of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and social norms. My friendly question to you is how can you expect to be able to guide your students to do so when you yourself acknowledge that you lack that deep knowledge? I have edited here for over twelve years, am an administrator and have spent an enormous amount of time assisting new editors. I would be happy to engage with you about Wikipedia's social norms if you want to do so. Just reach our to me on my talk page at any time. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the accusation of canvassing, I think Wizzito interpreted your tweet I don’t know where the Black (& allies) nerds are, but I really need support in editing & saving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Women_Radicals as an attempt to recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. The intent may have been to vent or to solicit solid references for the articles, but I believe most editors would see it as directly asking supporters for help in keeping the article at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 I read the comments. I do not want to speak for WikiEd, but I see the benefit of having subject area experts guide their students in contributing content in those subject areas. While a professor may not be a regular editor on Wikipedia, many have the subject expertise. I see the importance of guiding students in creating articles with the goal of addressing specific representations. It’s similar to the goals of projects like WikiProject African diaspora or WikiProject Africa… Which is relevant to discussions around Racial bias on Wikipedia.

For my class, I gave students topics related to Black women in popular culture: music (especially hip hop), film (including adult film), literature (including romance), digital media (including spaces like Wikipedia), etc…. While I have published extensively in this area and I am well positioned to identify topics that are “notable”, there were issues with that notability being demonstrated via citations. But again, I teach this course and selected those topics because it’s an area I know well. Students are required to complete 10-12 Wikipedia tutorials over the course of about 15 weeks before they draft their articles. But undergraduates are notorious for not doing their readings or homework. This is where additional oversight was needed.

You specifically questioned the notability Black women in the romance industry… There have been publications (scholarly and news) and documentaries on the increase in self-published authors to emerge in the romance industry in the wake of 50 Shades of Grey. There are also sources, discussing emerging Black women romance authors and the depiction of Black love in those books. There is an upcoming book on the topic coming in February (Black Love Matters: Real Talk on Romance, Being Seen, and Happily Ever Afters). There are also several podcasts (The Black Romance Podcast, The Turn On, #fallsonlove, etc…) dedicated to Black romance and erotica. I could go on, but you get the point.

The issue regarding the redirect… As a subject area expert, I was very upset that the article on ratchet feminism, which is often critical of womanism (& feminism) because of their respectability politics, was redirected to womanism. Inadvertently, I’m sure, the redirect silenced ratchet feminists by inferring womanists were better equipped to speak to the issue. This ended up being an example of the respectability politics that is at the core of ratchet feminism. And it is also why I tried repeatedly to get the re-redirect undone while the issues with the article were worked on. While editing these types of topics does require an understanding of “Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and social norms”, editing, redirecting, or dismissing these types of topics should require a deeper understanding of politics around that topic.

I have tried to read all of the comments. Rather than engaging, like we are now, my ability as a professor was critiqued, I was called irresponsible, it was said that my behavior was “disgusting”, and I was admonished of me stepping in to work with my students. There seems to be the misconception that I willfully ignored editor’s concerns. That is not the case.

JoelleJay I understand the thoughts on canvassing. I did clarify the reasons I sought help on Twitter via one of the talk pages before Wizzito went on Twitter to criticize. I reviewed the timeline and I posted my explanation on the 15th and that Wizzito took to Twitter on the 16th. Mkibona (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

I just want to say how saddened I am that some of our longstanding norms seem to be crumbling. We have a norm that if the deletion of an article is controversial and non-urgent, we hold a weeklong discussion at WP:AfD and the article is deleted only if there is consensus to do so. (Yes, I know that redirection is covered by a different policy than deletion, but the effect of redirection is the same or even worse, and I'm talking about norms rather than the letter of policies.)

Another norm is that admins use the protection tool with ambivalence to whichever side of a content dispute is the right one - admins should choose to get involved in a content dispute either as an editor or as an admin, not both. Reading the discussion on the Talk page, I think OhNoitsJamie mixed up these roles by expressing opinions on content.

These norms are valuable for exactly the reasons we're seeing here - we invest the time for community discussion at AfD because it causes fewer mistakes, and because while it sucks to have your article deleted the process at least feels respectful if you have a chance to express yourself and have your views considered by the wider community. We have survived for 20 years as a community largely because our culture and processes allow us to feel respected even when we disagree.

A third norm, not specific to Wikipedia, is that we refrain from cruelty to children. Even if they are in the wrong, unfairly criticizing our friends, or furthering systemic bias. None of us here have been cruel to children, but some of our friends have. It's concerning to me that we don't all seem to find it shocking. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 10:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding admin responsibilities, you said that

admins use the protection tool with ambivalence to whichever side of a content dispute is the right one

That's right, and that's exactly what they should do. (I would add, not with ambivalence but with disinterest, but perhaps that's too fine a point here.) Admins are agnostic with respect to content disagreements; that is to be decided by consensus, not by admin fiat. Mathglot (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Safety first[edit]

@Wizzito:, above you said that you were scared of this group or individuals that are harrassing you, and I just wanted you to know that whatever the issues about the article are, your safety comes first. The Wikimedia Foundation that runs Wikipedia and other sister projects, has an office dedicated to preserving the safety of everyone, and if you feel the slightest concern for your safety, you should consider contacting them. The link Wikipedia:Trust and Safety is a soft redirect that will take you to the right place and explain how to contact them. I see that a couple of editors have already mentioned this, but I didn't know if it got lost amidst the rest of the discussion, so breaking it out into a new subsection to make sure you've seen it. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: have already emailed Trust and Safety wizzito | say hello! 23:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon     Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education comments[edit]

Hi all, I'm LiAnna, the Chief Programs Officer at Wiki Education. My apologies for my delay in chiming in; my family and I have all been sick the last week so I've been on a wiki break and just catching up on the discussion. I want to offer some thoughts from Wiki Education to the discussion.

  1. First, harassment of any kind — on wiki or on Twitter or anywhere else — is unacceptable. I'm very sorry this situation has resulted in multiple people feeling harassed. That's never okay. I hope the Trust & Safety team can help resolve that issue.
  2. I want to particularly thank Mkibona for chiming in here. Wiki Education supports more than 300 instructors each term, and it's rare that we have an instructor as dedicated to engaging with the community as she is. Thank you, Mkibona, for your willingness to participate in the discussion and share your perspective. Noticeboards full of experienced editors' comments are particularly challenging spaces for inexperienced editors to participate in, and I deeply appreciate your willingness to post here.
  3. I hope those of you who have suggested Mkibona was canvassing can read her explanation above that she went to Twitter — where she has an extensive network of fellow subject matter experts — not to solicit votes on an AFD but to seek sources and more information that could be included in the articles to address concerns brought up in the process. Please appreciate that this is a common behavior among the subject matter expert academics we work with. Many academics use Twitter to reach others in their discipline who have more specific expertise in a particular article's topic. Obviously there were some problematic responses (importantly not from Mkibona) on Twitter, but please note exactly zero people on Twitter took her tweet as a call to vote or even comment in the AFD. I recognize there are a lot of bad actors trying to influence Wikipedia, and I appreciate your dedication to ensuring that doesn't happen by upholding guidelines like WP:CANVASS, but please remember WP:AGF is also a guideline.
  4. Aside from the specifics of the two articles in question: Wiki Education as and organization and I as an individual remain committed to bringing classes like Mkibona's to Wikipedia. To create the sum of all human knowledge, and especially to promote knowledge equity as our Movement Strategy calls for, we need to welcome contributors like Mkibona and her students who are adding to Wikipedia's coverage of Black women and popular culture, the subject of her class and an area in which she is a subject matter expert. Anyone who reads the Signpost knows just how much popular culture articles are always in the top-10 for our readers, and if we're not serving our Black women readers, we aren't succeeding in our goal to collect the sum of all human knowledge. We at Wiki Education want more courses like Mkibona's to participate because the knowledge they have to share is important, part of the sum of all human knowledge, and wanted by our readers, and we need to figure out a way to make it a good experience for them. Mkibona, I'm sorry you felt silenced. I'm committed to working with my colleagues, with input from Mkibona and others if they're willing to engage still, on how to improve Wiki Education's support for courses like hers to avoid problems like this in the future.
  5. To my fellow Wikipedians: I ask that when you are assessing articles like these, or any others in knowledge equity areas, keep in mind that those "structures of power and privilege" that have "left out" "knowledge and communities", per the Movement Strategy, also exist in the publication processes of what we consider reliable sources. Systemic bias is also prevalent in what gets covered in reliable sources; the idea that "if it were notable it would be covered in RS" ignores that systemic bias in our sources. Now let me be clear: I am NOT saying we should accept articles that don't meet Notability or don't have citations to sources that follow WP:RS. In the current battle against mis and disinformation, these policies are important tools for Wikipedians to maintain our quality and neutrality. My ask is that when you participate in AFDs about topics related to knowledge equity, you keep in mind that the authors of articles aren't trying to pull one over on Wikipedia for some nefarious reason. Instead, they're doing their best to abide by the labyrinth rules and guidelines that keep Wikipedia the trustworthy source it is today — from a position where the topics they're writing about are also facing systemic bias in the publications Wikipedia deems reliable. Be gracious, be welcoming, acknowledge the inherent challenges in this, and seek to find a middle ground, where we are a Wikipedia that welcomes their contributions and helps identify what kind of sources they'd need coverage in while acknowledging that's a big ask in publishing systems with inherent bias against them.
  6. Finally, I'd like to extend a thank you to everyone who has participated in this discussion. I want to acknowledge this is a challenging time for all of us, global health-wise, and I thank you all for sharing our common goal of building an encyclopedia, even amidst all the current challenges we're facing as a world. I deeply appreciate the commitment to Wikipedia that everyone participating in this discussion has shared.

If I've missed replying to anything in the discussion you'd like to hear from Wiki Education on, please feel free to ping me. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedians made mistakes here. Wikipedia does systemically underrepresent certain notable topics compared to some other topics. It is to our readers' benefit, and in fitting with our principles and our history of work to do a better job covering notable topics. Subject-matter experts such as Dr. Clark (Mkibona) are allies in our ability to generate better coverage of notable topics. Part of that value comes not only from her first-hand knowledge but from her ability to tap into the expertise of others to improve our sourcing and coverage. Ratchet feminism is not the kind of topic someone is inserting into Wikipedia for money or for promotional purposes and it's necessary to have that kind of nuance when patrolling new articles.
That said, I cannot get over the mistake made by WikiEd here by the blase handling of demonstrable harassment. The official WikiEd statement spends more twice as many words thanking people for the discussion and asking if anything was missed (94 words) as saying harassment was bad (41 words). And it doesn't actually say that what happened here was harassment. Just that people "felt" harassed. Of course they felt harassed. They were harassed. The links prove it. Ian recognized this early on but somehow with more time the comments from WikiEd equivocate and diminish that. WikiEd often gets unfairly smeared and tarnished despite being overall positive work to the community but this comment has lessened my faith in the organization. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Yes, it was harassment. It was pretty vile. I reported several of the comments to Twitter as harassment (though my expectations for Twitter's application their "community standards" is pretty low).
As for the actual wording of the statements - I don't think that the word choice reflects anything other than the fact that we're over-stretched, and this happened on a day when things were particularly bad. I did my best to staunch the bleeding - Helaine and I met with Dr. Clark, I engaged on Twitter with the assumption that understanding might lessen people's readiness to continue the vile attacks, knowing that it's generally more important to play to the silent audience than it is to convince people who are digging their heels in.
So yes, the word choice could have been better. But bear in mind that it was written by LiAnna, on a Sunday, under far less than ideal conditions (it isn't my place to detail them) because a reply couldn't wait any longer. (Posting this on my personal account because I'm supposed to be on vacation today, and because I'm not speaking for the org, just myself.) Guettarda (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I just want to wish LiAnna and her family a quick recovery. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It wasn't just me who sees it as canvassing, as another editor also agreed with this position. The "elephant in the room" issue is that not only is this harassment, it's knowingly committing harassment against an underage editor. We have specific rules to protect them. Is Wiki Ed going to do anything in this regard? OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: I'm at a loss as to what we are supposed to do? This was off-wiki harassment of a Wikipedian from people not connected to Wiki Education (not the instructor, not a student editor, not our staff); from the discussion above, it looks like that Wikipedian correctly reported it to Trust & Safety at the Wikimedia Foundation (in case this is not clear, we are not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation). It's literally that team's job to deal with those issues, and they have way more expertise in this area than I do. Am I missing something? --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@LiAnna (Wiki Ed): I think there are multiple things being missed here. Multiple editors have raised issues about this course in two subsections on this page, including the instructor having a lack of knowledge of WP policies, the instructor's oversight of the creation of articles with major rewrites and overhauls needed (see Black women in the romance industry as an example), the instructor not engaging with other editors over the Ratchet feminism redirect disputes, the instructor stealth canvassing (which for some reason you're replied is "common behavior among the subject matter expert academics we work with", despite the instructor calling for "editing & saving", a direct appeal to Twitter users to engage at an AfD (the fact they didn't doesn't change the appeal)), and the fact that the instructor's canvassing led to a targeted harassment campaign against a dedicated editor. It seems as if none of that is being addressed. There seems to have been a complete lack of due diligence in helping the instructor prepare for this course or help them with knowledge about how WP works overall, and now that there have been hours spent by multiple editors trying to clean up the resulting articles and discussions of behavior, the only substantive thing I'm seeing is that Wizzito should contact Wikipedia:Trust and Safety. This lack of response and inaction is very surprising to me. --Kbabej (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Kbabej I wanted to chime in here since I and Ian (Wiki Ed) were in close contact with Mkibona throughout their course. We explained to Mkibona some of the issues her students were facing on Wikipedia with suggestions on how to move forward in the most productive way possible. This meant keeping some work in sandboxes and working closely with other student groups to make sure that their work met all Wikipedia policies. We also stressed that writing about historically marginalized populations like Black women can prove challenging. Nevertheless, we wanted to see her students succeed. As soon as we learned about the issues stemming from the Ratchet feminism article, we reached out to her to discuss the situation. Throughout this experience, we had two video calls on top of a number of email exchanges. Everyone acted in good faith and was working toward making Wikipedia better and more inclusive. Neither Wiki Education nor Mkibona intended to circumvent Wikipedia policy, but rather to work within the existing structure to cover a topic in much need of expansion.Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Tryptofish. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: You're absolutely right, my post yesterday should have read "being harassed", not "feeling harassed". My apologies for my poor wording choice, thank you for pointing it out. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Most of the aspects have been well covered, though some still pend responses (and presumably will do so until post-Christmas, since things like "instructor understanding" is not really something to try and resolve over the break). I would stress that the phrasing on Twitter unequivocately reads as a canvass attempt (whatever the intention). That it does not seem to have caused BFR members to attempt to flood the AfD is anomalous - I, and no doubt you, @LiAnna (Wiki Ed): can both highlight countless cases where a Twitter post has led to that behaviour. Canvassing as a policy is both clear that it's the attempt that's relevant, and that it's possible to do it while acting in good faith. I would be interested in knowing more about how experienced overseeing instructors like yourself and Ian oversee newer instructors to the process. Is it normally this lax, and we are just often more lucky, or did circumstances (such as your illness, or others we don't know) hinder it? What will help this in the future? Nosebagbear (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    • With apologies for being a bit long-winded, I want to give my take on this episode, in the overall context of class assignments. There is wide agreement that cruelty to or harassment of any user is antithetical to what Wikipedia is about, and WMF Trust and Safety is the proper entity to deal with it offsite. Editors here at the English Wikipedia recognize and respect that.
    At the same time, WMF sometimes fails to adequately recognize and respect the special expertise of the editing community here. It is unrealistic to say, on the one hand, that we should follow the advice of the Movement Strategy to open up our content to previously excluded categories of sourcing, while on the other hand, we need not alter our existing norms for sourcing and notability. You can't have it both ways. The editing community's policies and guidelines are not arbitrary; they have evolved from extensive experience. I helped write an ArbCom decision ([1]) that said in part: In particular, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to right great wrongs; Wikipedia can only record what sources conclude has been the result of social change, but it cannot catalyze that change. WMF disregards the editing communities at the larger projects like the English Wikipedia at their peril.
    Added: In case anyone else is confused, the paragraph above is in reply to point 5 of LiAnna's statement. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    Education projects here have the most value when they offer the students the opportunity to learn how Wikipedia works. But it is not their proper purpose to come here and try to change how we work. Part of the learning experience should be for the instructor to learn about and work within our existing ways of doing things, and for the students to see first-hand what happens when they do, or don't, master our rules. Of course, editors should assume good faith, and treat instructors and students with appropriate respect and politeness. ("Please see our guideline on WP:Canvassing" is far better than "You violated our guideline on WP:Canvassing!") Student editors are entitled to the same considerations as other new editors, but they are not entitled to more consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    U do know wikied is a separate foundation right ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    I assume from the indentation that you directed that question at me. The answer is yes, of course I do. The reason that I wrote about the WMF is that LiAnna referred to the WMF in her comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    You mean that one line where she defers to T&S, or that one line where she speaks about the strategy ? You are the one who then offloads all their responsibility and turns it into a WMF problem, which just shows that this is turning into yet another WMF bashing fest, A shame because there sure are points that LiAnna and Wiki Ed could improve and take more responsibility in. Also u can keep u passive aggressive spellchecking at home. This be the Internet, not English class —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    I trust that that does not require a response from me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for your thoughts, Tryptofish. I agree it's not Wikipedia's role to right wrongs. I'm just asking that we acknowledge those wrongs may be at play in a particular discussion. It's absolutely appropriate to tell a biology student editor working on a species article they must cite a journal article or book about the species and not, say, a hobbyist's blog; those journal articles and books surely exist. But I'm asking the community to approach articles like these with care, and instead of saying "These sources aren't reliable", say "I realize traditional publishing has excluded coverage of topics like this in the past, but we need coverage in independent sources that fact-check to meet Wikipedia's policies. Has your topic been covered in any magazines or newspapers?" It's sort of analogous to your examples about canvassing; I'm asking more for that respect and politeness, for us to be encouraging of historically marginalized communities who are trying to contribute knowledge to Wikipedia, but not bending the rules for them. I agree students aren't entitled to more consideration, but I hope we all approach any good faith new contributor with some consideration. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
    I can agree with all of that. And I'm pleased that you understood my comments in the way that I intended them. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Nosebagbear: Only an experienced Wikipedian would say to their community, "Hey, can you help me identify more sources for this article, but make sure you don't vote in the AFD". Inexperienced ones will phrase it how Mkibona did. She never mentioned AFD! She never asked people to vote! She literally asked people to edit the articles! I simply can't see how asking fellow subject matter experts to help save a student's not-yet-sufficiently-sourced article by using their expertise to add more reliable sources to that article is considered canvassing. If you think it is, we will just need to agree to disagree about that.
    For your second question: Hers was one of 329 courses running this assignment we supported this fall term (September to December 2021). Her 31 students were part of the cohort of 5,970 we supported this term. So most of the courses in our program and student editors make uncontroversially positive contributions. (It's worth noting it's much easier for students to find reliable academic sources for, say, a nucleic acids biochemistry class or even an African archaeology class, since those are well covered in traditional academic publishing, than it is for a Black women in popular culture class, but content about Black women in popular culture is still important to add to Wikipedia, too.) Instructors must go through orientation prior to creating a course page, and students are required to take a series of training modules (which specific ones students take depend on what they're being assigned to do, but everyone takes the "Basics" section). Our staff is aided by our Dashboard software that sends emails that we should look into something based on certain behaviors (a student assigns themselves an FA, a student adds a copyvio, or a student's article gets nominated for deletion, for example). This helps us proactively intervene with potential issues before they become issues. But we're not perfect: things get very busy at the end of the term, when most assignments are due, and it's hard for anyone to keep up with the firehose of notifications; sometimes things slip through the cracks. The ongoing pandemic and its disruptions to higher education in the U.S. is certainly also a factor this term. My point is, most classes do great work with the support system we have. But some don't, and I believe in continual refinement of our support based on each term's learnings. As you note, the holidays are upon us, but I've already scheduled time with my team for January to reflect on what we could do better next term to avoid challenges like this. We want to have courses working on topics like Black women in popular culture succeed at adding content that follows Wikipedia's policies to Wikipedia, because that information is part of the sum of all human knowledge too. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I for one see this tweet as probably a legitimate request for help. If someone really wants to get people to vote at an AfD, they generally mention only the article(s) that are at AfD and don't distract readers by also talking about another article that isn't at AfD. Furthermore, someone seeking votes would ask for any warm body, not just "nerds", to show up.
    Any reasonable person who had been treated by Wikipedians the way that Mkibona had been treated would have asked non-Wikipedians for help. That tweet is what a request for help looks like. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • One of my biggest concerns with the class projects I've seen is that almost none of the instructors understand how article creation on Wikipedia works. Giving an assignment to write an article from scratch to an absolute beginner is seldom a good idea unless the course itself is based around writing for Wikipedia and is instructed by someone who has written multiple articles themselves. If the instructor has never created an article from scratch themselves, they probably don't even know enough to know that Wikipedia writing is very different from any other writing assignment. I welcome creations from students, but if they're being taught by someone who has never created an article, it's not at all unlikely they're going to end up creating an article that is going to be put up for deletion. Why aren't we asking instructors to go through the creation of an article themselves before they start assigning article creation? Or if they don't want to learn how to write an article before they start teaching others how to, they can have their students find a current article and improve it, which is much more likely to end in success. —valereee (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    • What I'm about to say is old news, but it is worth repeating. If – and I emphasize if – the instructor works with WikiEd from the start, WikiEd has an excellent program for guiding the class through just those kinds of issues. Also, faculty and students alike should be pointed to WP:Student assignments. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Valereee: That's the role Wiki Education plays; we teach the students the Wikipedia editing portion of the course. Of course students shouldn't be assigned to create an article without any support from experienced contributors. In our program, the instructors' role is to provide subject matter expertise: to guide students to well-regarded sources and to ensure the information students add to Wikipedia is accurate. Wiki Education teaches the Wikipedia parts. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    I'll also add that it's way more common for students in our program to expand existing articles; in this current term, for example, students edited 6,390 articles, but only 493 of those (or 8%) were new articles. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    Of course students shouldn't be assigned to create an article without any support from experienced contributors. So why did that happen repeatedly in this course? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    Or in Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Palo Alto University/Foundations of Clinical Trauma Psychology (Fall 2021) this other course, which resulted in the creation of drill-down essay-like articles like ACEs in Latinx Populations, Psychological trauma in older adults, Draft:Secondary Trauma in Forensic Interviewers (which was at least made in draftspace), Influence of childhood trauma in psychopathy, Mental health of Latin-American refugees in the United States, Vicarious trauma after viewing media, and Psychedelic treatments for trauma-related disorders (a medical article that needs to be compliant with WP:MEDRS), and has redlinks for other similar topics that I suppose are still waiting to be created. All of the articles I listed have serious issues tagged, and I haven't even gone in-depth to see if there are issues with copyright or sourcing. It feels like professors are not being given the guidance about students not creating new articles, and if they are, they're certainly not listening to it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    Or this UW course on "uncommon leaders" in which students created numerous BLPs, many on non-notable private people at UW/in Seattle (although at least one was on a current PhD student at another university). Where was the instructor when this article on a mid-level research administrator(!) or this one on a Canadian Food Inspection Agency analyst (who in 2020 both completed her PhD and became a PhD candidate according to the article) were moved to mainspace sourced solely to interviews and other non-independent media and zero chance of meeting NPROF? Several of these even featured the term "uncommon leader" shoehorned into their descriptions... JoelleJay (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
    These kinds of things are a perennial and significant problem on Wikipedia. I'll leave it to the WikiEd people to respond about what happened in each of these cases, but speaking in general terms, it seems to me to almost always be a matter of instructors who do not pay attention where they should. There is no incentive in academia for paying attention to what WikiEd or the editing community say. There may perhaps be things that the community and WikiEd can work together on, to make this sort of thing turn out better. But editors are not unpaid TAs. I think we should always try to start with a polite pointer to instructors and students, but when that doesn't work, then revert or nominate for deletion. (That teaches the students some things about how Wikipedia really works.) And it's unfortunate that even reverting and deleting make work for the community, magnified by the unique way that class assignments come in all at one time. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
    The fact this thread is this long now does not fill me with confidence - the community's patience seems like its nearing its limits with WikiEd. -- TNT (talk • she/they) 01:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
    Aight. I just kind of feel like if we're giving instructors adequate support and teaching the students ourselves, we wouldn't be seeing Black women in the romance industry in article space from a class project. I value the work you're doing, but that article...I've gone to the talk page to help. —valereee (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    The Twitter harassment has pretty much all boiled over by now; but I do really think that overhauls are needed for WikiEdu, especially with creation of new articles. Some of the subjects written about do have potential, but there's so many problems with a lot of the articles, mostly them sounding like personal essays, and there are some notability problems like some completely non-notable BLPs being created. Perhaps an RfC about this could come into order soon? wizzito | say hello! 01:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    At large, there is a community frustration with WikiEdu content that is reaching a breaking point. If the issue is not resolved soon, odds are there will be a giant trainwreck at AN or ANI or here, and I don't think anybody here wants that. If we want to avoid such an outcome, there needs to be concrete changes in the way WikiEdu operates going forward, so things like this do not happen again, and insane article creations that have to be deleted or cleaned up by editors stop happening so frequently. Instructors whose courses repeatedly cause problems must be held accountable or even suspended from the program if all else fails. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    I share the dissatisfaction with class projects that have been expressed here by growing numbers of editors. But at the same time, I want us to be fair in what we expect of the WikiEd staff. In my experience, they have excellent training materials and work very hard at getting classes to do things in accordance with community expectations. As I said in an earlier comment, the disregard for community norms really arises from instructors, not WikiEd. It's not that WikiEd tell instructors the wrong things; it's that some instructors don't listen (or only hear what they want to hear). We put the WikiEd staff in a tough place: getting criticized here, while also having to "lay down the law" to university faculty who may very well feel like "who is this random person on the internet, telling me what to do?" University faculty do not get rewarded for working collaboratively with us. They get rewarded for their research (and any time spent on classes is time lost to research), the grant money they bring in (ditto), and being able to teach a lot of tuition-generators without having any kind of conflict that gets the attention of the dean. And non-tenure-track instructors focus on just the third of those, at minimum pay. Student editors are our only population of non-volunteer editors, who just want to get course credit, regardless of whether or not the rest of the community is happy with it. We can give WikiEd feedback, as we are doing here, that the community wants stricter adherence, but there's a limit to how much we can reasonably expect them to tell instructors to get in line or fuck off. The community, on the other hand, can face some very difficult questions. Do we want to flat-out ban all class projects, with all the repercussions that would entail? Block and revert all students and instructors on sight, as disruptive users? Accept that it goes against the "anyone can edit" tradition and accept the negative press that would follow? If not, we just have to be prepared to revert and delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    I've actually seen multiple good things come out of class projects, especially English writing classes aimed at ESL students. A lot of students in such classes write about notable foods from their culture which have never been written about in English. This kind of contribution is rare and very valuable. Yongfeng chili sauce was a student project that I found at AfD. I could probably find dozens of others. —valereee (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • This was an awful and probably avoidable scenario. Wizzito getting attacked on Twitter on account of their perceived age, race, and gender is beyond the pale (yes, even if it is "white male", since identities of users are not credentials deserving evaluation and should have no bearing over content where sourcing is supreme, though I don't think the person who did that was formally involved with this course).
The WikiEd staff who've commented here have basically advised everyone to WP:DONTBITE the newbies, which is a takeaway from this affair, but I don't think the most important one. I think there's some fundamental problems with the paradigm here. First of all, Wikipedia is an entirely volunteer enterprise. The community does not attach strings to writing a certain number of articles, completing certain tasks, filling specific holes etc. aside from maybe doing specific work after being asked to be able to do so (like an admin being active in dispute resolution after asking for the mop at RfA). In other words, if you decide to not write an article, you will not be punished for it. Assignments in college courses are attached to grades, which are ultimately attached to graduation and the ability to get a good job. If you assign a student a Wikipedia article to write, you've just attached it to a goal external to the purpose of this project. You've created a WP:COI. You've incentivized the student to put content on Wikipedia to satisfy their instructor's immediate standards, not necessarily to improve the encyclopedia. A well-meaning instructor can try to make those two things match up, but this will always be an underlying issue. If deleting or severely trimming an article (due to quality concerns) jeopardizes a students' grade, you've got all the ingredients for edit-warring, gnashing of teeth, and many hurt feelings. This is a problem that's built into the system, and the only way to fully insulate the encyclopedia from this is to tell the course instructor to not care too much about the end result of their students' work, which defeats the purpose of said instructor making it an assignment. Also, Wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE, and coursework is nothing but impending deadlines. It takes time to find good sources and write thoughtfully, and a time constraint incentivizes rushed work or reliance on poor quality web sources when a day at the library would have better served the content being created.
The second problem, which has been alluded to above, has to do with Wikipedia editing skills. User:Mkibona wrote, I do not want to speak for WikiEd, but I see the benefit of having subject area experts guide their students in contributing content in those subject areas. While a professor may not be a regular editor on Wikipedia, many have the subject expertise. User:LiAnna (Wiki Ed) did not disagree when they wrote, We at Wiki Education want more courses like Mkibona's to participate because the knowledge they have to share is important, part of the sum of all human knowledge, and wanted by our readers. Between the lines here is a subtext of information activism aimed at WP:countering systemic bias. Personally, I've grown to dislike activist attitudes on Wikipedia due to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS violations, despite mostly focusing on content in underserved topics myself. However, there is a way this can be successfully melded to improve the encyclopedia. Case in point is WikiProject Women in Red. User:Victuallers may be a skilled lecturer and User:Rosiestep may have been an excellent business administrator (now retired), but fundamentally they and most other top WiR contributors are excellent Wikipedia editors first. This enables them to be effective assets to the project. I doubt most of WiR has women's studies degrees or other formal qualifications. A professor can have all the subject expertise they want to amass, but it means zilch if they don't have the editing skills to translate that onto the encyclopedia and similarly guide their students. I think editing skills and familiarity with community norms and standards need to come first, before subject matter expertise. Unfortunately, that takes time.
@LiAnna (Wiki Ed): @Ian (Wiki Ed): Sorry I'm late to the party, but do you have any thoughts on what I've said above? I don't mean to fully assault Wiki-Ed, but these appear to be structural issues with the program and I bring my concerns to you in good faith. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Indy beetle, thanks for ping.
I am saddened to learn about the "wiki"-related doxxing/harassment on social media that some have described in this section. It is NEVER acceptable and I know it to be JARRING. Pinging JEissfeldt (WMF), T&S leader for awareness and in case they have something to add on the matter of Twitter-based wiki-related harassment.
As for Women in Red, its talkpage is a good place to discuss articles within the project's scope (women's biographies, women's works, women's issues, broadly-construed). It doesn't matter if the article in question was created as a school assignment, e.g., via WikiEdu, or through any other effort. All are welcome: newbie, veteran, subject-matter-expert, or otherwise. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I said it before and I'll say it again. WikiEd does a good job of making useful advice available to instructors, but we, collectively, have no good way of making instructors pay attention to, and make use of, that advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
This discussion gave me the idea of making this edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: I don't know if that's the wording I'd use exactly, but I agree that this is something that Wiki-Ed partners and other people in similar situations (new folks at edit-a-thons) need to be reminded of. Unfortunately, the WMF and related foundations don't do a very good job of communicating that, and at times seem to almost encourage directly violating that principle. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
If you (or anyone else, for that matter) have better wording, please feel free to suggest it at the talk page of that page (WT:Student assignments). Please understand that WP:Student assignments is a WP-space information page, and is not part of the WikiEd training materials. But I agree with you that the WikiEd people should consider adding something along those lines to their materials as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Washington/Online Communities (Winter 2022)[edit]

Noticed a few problems with this course from the get-go:

wizzito | say hello! 10:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S. not related to this course but seems worrying enough: for the course Historic Site Interpretation (Spring 2022), the professor here might possibly be asking students to make non-notable biographies. One article in the available articles section on the dashboard pulled up no relevant or reliable sources to draw from on Google when I searched the persons' name. They claimed to have previously created the article Lynching of George Scott, which has only 3 sources and may not be notable either. wizzito | say hello! 10:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

More problems with the "Online Communities" course have been found:

wizzito | say hello! 22:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks wizzito. (cc @Khascall and Benjamin Mako Hill:) Regarding miscapitalizations, these are pretty common during the early phase of a course assignment when student editors are choosing topics, but in most cases they get sorted out by the time things reach mainspace. Wiki Education Dashboard will automatically fix some cases (for example, if "Pinky Swear" is actually supposed to be pinky swear, as opposed to Pinky Swear Foundation or something like that) by matching existing articles that have been edited by a student editor with case-variant assignment titles. Existing redirects (like The decemberists) usually don't cause any problems, but we don't automatically change them because in some cases, the intention is actually to replace the redirect with a new article (usually in cases where a related but distinct topic is redirected to another article or section).--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Wizzito and Sage (Wiki Ed): Wizzito left a message with more-or-less the same content over on my user page and I've responded over there. The short version is that I've addressed all the issues that were raised. As Sage suggests, students are still choosing their topics and we're going back-and-forth with them to make sure they land on appropriate articles/topics. We'll make sure everything is linked up well as this gets sorted out. Thanks for all your helpful comments! —mako๛ 00:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Oddities with PrimeBOT and WikiEd Course[edit]

I also described this on @Ian (Wiki Ed):'s talk page here but @Benjamin Mako Hill: recommended this spot as a way to activate potential attention from a few other folks: it looks like some sort of interaction between the Wiki Edu dashboard and PrimeBOT @Primefac: is leading to repeated edits to the talk pages of articles that our students have selected, alerting folks to the presence of students editing the article. Example: Talk:Donghu_District has 'Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment' 5 times at present -- but the same issue seems to recur in all the articles the students have chosen so far via the WikiEdu dashboard. Is there something we can do to prevent this happening? Thanks for everything you do! Kaylea Champion (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for my tone in my first two messages, I was writing that as I was running out the door going to work. I have removed them but have presented them for the record. While I do recognise that I said in my own close of the TFD that the template should remain "in its current form" until things got sorted with the subst-ing end of the script, I was assuming that the WikiEd folks (should) have known this was coming for over a year (i.e. the TFD closed Dec 2020). I do suppose a delay of a day or two to "flip the bits" and implement it was to be expected, but according to this discussion with Sage it sounds like no one was expecting the change to actually happen?
In the meantime, I'm a little concerned when a single user can spam 80 pages in a single minute with these updates; I do not think this is acceptable, but am not sure how it can or should be dealt with. (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I let Sage (Wiki Ed) know about the issues arising from the TFD, and it should be fixed by now. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Ian (Wiki Ed), just to double-check, does that mean it can be re-converted into a subst-only template? Primefac (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Primefac: I believe so, but it's probably best to wait for Sage to respond (it's still early morning in his part of the world). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough; I'm just getting off work and won't be able to implement for a bit anyway. Primefac (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Primefac: No, it's not ready to be turned back to a subst-only template. All I did yesterday (with my "ragesoss" account) was to revert the template. There are still a number of unanswered questions about how the Dashboard and template should work (which were not settled in the TFD, but as far as I know, were not discussed or decided afterwards either), so I'm not sure *what* to implement. I could relatively easily disable that features altogether, but I don't think that's the right solution.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I'll wait for further discussion. Primefac (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sage (Wiki Ed) answers to your questions:
  • What should happen when a student editor is no longer working on it? - nothing. It's a talk message and it will get archived.
  • What should happen when the editors working on a given article change? - If the message hasn't been archived, post an update there. If it has, post a new one.
  • What should happen after the talk page message has been archived or removed? - Nothing.
Hope this helps move things on. Gonnym (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

How should Wiki Education assignments be announced on article talk page?[edit]

How should Wiki Education assignments be announced on article talk page? --Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

In late 2020, this Templates for Deletion discussion for the {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment}} template indicated the need to make some changes to how the Wiki Education Dashboard handles announcing and updating which courses and student editors plan to work on an article. However, there was no consensus on what specifically should be changed, and in the time since then, there doesn't seem to have been any interest in figuring that out. (Recently, the template was temporarily changed to be subst-only, and then all the usages of it were substituted into talk page sections via PrimeBOT. That caused some cases of the bot and the Dashboard edit warring with each other, so it's been reverted for now.) I'd like to settle the desired behavior, so I can implement any needed changes on the Dashboard side.

Here are some possible options I could implement:

  1. The template should be substituted onto talk pages in a new section (similarly to what PrimeBOT did with all the previous usages). In this case, it would only be added once, without being updated when additional student editors sign up for the same article. It might get re-added if the section gets archived or removed before the course ends.
  2. The template should go at the top of a talk page like WikiProject banners, but it should be automatically hidden after the course ends.
  3. The template should be added in a new section but not substituted, and — as it has been at the top of the page until now — updated (or removed) automatically when new editors from the same course sign up or change articles. In this case, it might get re-added if the section gets archived or removed before the course ends, but won't get re-added after that.
  4. The template should not be used at all. Assigned articles will still be linked from wiki course pages (like this) but don't need to be announced on article talk pages.

Indicate your preference and/or discuss below. --Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Indicate your preference(s) below.

Option 1: Substitute the template to a new section[edit]

  • Second choice after Option 3; my rationale there mainly holds, but this is an acceptable option (for me) for those folks who definitely do-not-want a banner, even in its own section. I do recognise that it makes updating things harder, but we're all bright folks and I'm sure we can figure it out. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Third choice, after: 1. Option 3a; 2. Option 3. Nominating Primefac as bright folk #1. Mathglot (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as second choice per Primefac. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Last choice as I believe Option 3 allows for updating as new students are added: it is easier to check student edits after the fact if new students are updated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Option 2: Put the template in the top section, hide it after the course ends[edit]

  • First choice: This is my preferred option. I think it's both the most useful and the easiest to implement (aside from not using it at all). Almost all the existing usages have already been substituted into section by PrimeBOT, so the only ones that would show up at the top of talk pages would be newly-added ones — and they would only be rendered until the course ends. (It would be possible to make the continue rendering for some fixed period after the course ends, if that's preferable.)--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, mainly because of the opposition to an excess of potentially unnecessary banners at the top of the page. Speaking for myself, however, a glut of hidden banners is almost worse than a glut of out-of-date banners - who if anyone is going to remove them? Primefac (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    How is a #glut of hidden banners worse? Surely it's the best of both worlds as the archive bot will remove them; after all, they're a section, now. Mathglot (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    A bunch of hidden banners gives no information to anyone. At the very least, an archived section (in some form) tells that in the past there were students who edited the page. One shouldn't need to edit the page on the off chance that there is a hidden WikiEd banner to tell them that. If they're a section that will be archived, then there is no need to have them be a top-of-the-page banner or hide it when it's done. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think it's important that there be a permanent record somewhere visible that a student edited a course. The appropriate place for that would be a talk page section, or the archives if it's a busy talk page. We already know how to handle archiving, and this shouldn't be any different for WikiEd courses than it is for any other talk page notice. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, don't want these going away after the course ends, as often text needs to be checked months after that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Option 3: Put the template in a new section, and updated it as needed[edit]

  • First choice over Option 1: to quote myself from the TFD close, the consensus at this point is to convert it to a talk page message of some variety. This allows for the message to be archived when it has gotten stale (and avoids the necessity of someone remembering to remove the banner after it has expired re: Option 2), but in thinking about it having it as a message box still allows for ease of updating by whatever script still exists (updating a parameter is easier than updating prose. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Second choice, after option 3a below. But has problems with consumption of vertical space, and swamping other discussions in the worst cases. Mathglot (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as first choice per Primefac. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Second choice. This relatively easy to implement and doesn't make en.wiki behavior too different from the unchanged behavior that will still be in place for other languages, and I think it will be unlikely to cause too much confusion--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Second choice (this allows for normal archiving). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Option 3a: Put the template in a new section, auto-collapse, auto-archive after <period>[edit]

This is similar to option 3 above, but requires:
➢ the individual sections to be enclosed in an auto-collapsed header such as {{WikiEd banner shell}};
➢ an auto-archiving bot to be added to the page if not there already, with a default archiving period.
  • This is my First choice given the Tfd outcome (which did not go the way I hoped, so working within it). My preference for archive period, is assignment |end-date= + 182 days).
The auto-collapse avoids the large amount of vertical space after the header and before the discussion sections on the page, or mixed in and swamping them (see major offenders: Talk:Social media, Talk:Artificial intelligence, Talk:Gender equality. See discussion below for how they would look if collapsed.) The auto-archiving prevents the sections from sticking around after they're stale, and Sage or a tweaked Primebot could add auto-archiving for TPs that lacked them. Mathglot (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • This is my first choice as well, assuming the auto-archiving is set to the same as the rest of the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Option 4: Don't use the template at all[edit]

  • Oppose: yes banner blindness and all that, but it is imperative that we know when students have edited an article so those edits an be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Option 5: Other (specify)[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Sage (Wiki Ed), I think this could use an {{rfc}} tag at the top in order to garner more opinions from a wider range of editors. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, re Rfc.
Secondly, this is a dry, technical topic, that may scare off or fail to interest many of the regulars here, and we really need good participation. How would you feel about adding an Intro section (possibly collapsed to save vertical space) above the "Survey" section, reprising what the main issue was in the first place, a brief summary of the Tfd result and why it turned out that way, and possibly pointers to some TPs (old revs, if already bot-adjusted) illustrating RW examples of the issues this is all trying to solve; maybe before/after revs, or a side-by-side example, or something. Not sure exactly what should go there, but basically, whatever would break this out of its dry, technical world, and demonstrate the reality of it and why it matters and how this may affect ENB regulars in a way to pique their interest in responding.
Maybe I'm all wet; SandyGeorgia, could you help me out here with your reaction? I think you have your feet on the ground wrt this kind of thing: as already worded above, is the write-up sufficient to explain clearly what this is about, why it (should) matter to you, and to gain your interest in responding to it? If not, do you think an Intro paragraph or two as proposed would help, or can you think of anything that would? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Oops, Sandy I just realized that you were aware of the original Tfd, so are unlikely to be confused about all this even without additional summary or explanation. Tryptofish, same question as I posed to Sandy above: can you help with your thoughts? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. To be brutally honest, I've read all of the options – and I don't care! I understand the ways that editors can find the notices annoying, but they've never seemed like a big deal to me. Maybe something in the way of a talk page section message, rather than a banner, would be good, but I kind-of think the most useful things to do are to: (1) cut down on students constantly updating the thing during the course, and (2) let it be archived after the class is over. As to how to do that technically, meh. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
To your point (1) - I think students making 80 edits over two minutes is extremely problematic (my bot can't even get that level of action); cutting that down would be nice. To your point (2), Options 1 and 3 are basically "have them be a talk page section" which would then be archived after it's over. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
This case of so many edits in a short period was the confluence of some technical aspects of what the Dashboard currently does: whenever a user updates an assigned article on the Dashboard, their account is used to update the assigned article's talk page with the template — either adding the template if it's not already there, or updating it with the current set of assigned editors. Since these edits occasionally fail (for example, because of edit conflicts), the Dashboard also attempts to perform the same update for every other assigned article for that class. In most cases, this basically means that whenever one student editor updates their assignment, it results in the occasional extra edit to also update another talk page on behalf of another editor whose edit failed. Unless those templates are being removed so that the template code can't be found on the page when the next assignment gets added for that course, the system doesn't end up making any rapidfire edits like we saw in the edit war with PrimeBOT. (This is the only part of the Dashboard's editing system that uses this sort of strategy; it makes me a little nervous precisely because of the potential for warring with bots, but on balance I think it's worth it to ensure that talk pages get tagged with very high consistency.)--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad you pinged me as I haven't been able to keep up. And I'm a bit confused about the options listed. Can examples of each be added? That would help those who are new to the discussion, and even me (old to the discussion). I prefer a talk page section be added to the top of the talk page, updated as needed (eg if new students sign on), and that can then be archived as all talk page threads are, according to whatever archive method is used on that particular article talk page. But I don't know what is referenced with "hide it after course ends". No! If I come to an article two months after a course ends, I need to know who all the student editors were, so I can check all those edits, and then decide whether or not to archive the section. Is that covered in one of the options above? I don't want to hide them in banners, which is more talk clutter; I want to archive them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Sandy. You might like Option 3a above, which I added simultaneously to your comment here, so you might not have seen it yet. You get to pick your own preference for <period>, which might handle your concerns about what happens two months after the course ends. I happened to pick "assignment end-date + 6 months", without having seen your message. Mathglot (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Sandy, so you can see what Option 3a might look like in action, I've added auto-archiving (6 mos.) and a collapse message to Talk:Social media in education, so it now has eleven collapsed student assignment sections in it. As a lot of those collapsed courses are older than 6 months now, as soon as the bot passes by it should go down steeply from eleven to a much lower number. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
That's what I'm on for :) I am crazy busy, so if this gets a formal RFC tag, would someone kindly ping me ? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: it's an RfC now.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep, my plan was to let it get started over the weekend so the discussion could take shape somewhat first. I'll make it an RFC now.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

glut of hidden banners[edit]

Why wouldn't either of these work? The downside—if there is one—is the section headers appearing in the ToC—as they do on this page, above and it's ugly but that's also the reality of how they will appear on Talk pages where converted templates are present, and is no worse than what would occur *without* this solution. I presume the Archive bots are not perturbed by some template code sitting above a level-2 section header, and will properly grab the section and archive it anyway. (If not, it should simply be fixed to do so, at worst with a param to allow it, if this is somehow not the desirable functionality by default, though imho it should be.)

A bunch of Wiki Ed banners here

Some intro text about what's going on here.

Example converted wiki ed assignment section One

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor i

Example converted wiki ed assignment section Two

Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehic

Meanwhile, maybe Sage can tweak something, so that when the last converted wiki ed assignment has been archived by a bot, the banner shell can be removed as well. Mathglot (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that if a collapse reduces the number of total uncollapsed sections to below the TOC threshold, the table of contents will appear within the collapsed section, as is currently the case at Talk:Social media in education. (But you may miss seeing this example if the archive bot gets there before you do.) This could either be seen as a "feature", or mitigated by adding __TOC__ after the page header, when adding the collapse template.) Mathglot (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Σ, based on your knowledge of archive bot internals, can you comment here on whether there is any interaction between lowercase sigmabot III and archivable Talk page sections that happen to be within the scope of a hidden text attribute, and if so what happens? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Cobi, same question, regarding ClueBot III. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessary Speedy Deletion[edit]

I have been referred here by user: Bbb23 who was entirely unhelpful. My encyclopedic article was put up for "Speedy Deletion Review" where I contested the Speedy Deletion. The article was written objectively, using accurate sources that were properly cited. The user who responded to my contention disagreed with the standing of my article solely because they felt it was non-encyclopedic as well as questioned my reasoning for posting the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpetrov (talk • contribs) 00:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cpetrov:, you are apparently referring to this: User talk:Cpetrov#Speedy deletion nomination of Nechako Housing Commons. As User:Bbb23 tried to explain to you, your article Nechako Housing Commons was deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11 – Unambiguous advertising or promotion. "Nechako Housing Commons" refers to a dormitory under construction on the campus of the University of British Columbia. It's highly unlikely that this would be considered notable enough under Wikipedia's guidelines to have a stand-alone article written about it.
You misunderstand the importance of sources, which you may have properly cited (I cannot tell, as the article is no longer there)—yes, sources are important, but before you get to sources, the topic itself must be notable, or you can include all the sources you want, and it wouldn't make any difference. A non-notable topic may not have a stand-alone article about it on Wikipedia. Conceivably, you could add a brief mention of the dorm in the #Campus section of the article University of British Columbia (Okanagan Campus), but frankly, I doubt it would even meet the threshold of importance within the BC University system to rate even a mention.
If you wish to try, I recommend going to the Talk page of the article (you can find it at Talk:University of British Columbia (Okanagan Campus)) and add a section there concerning what you plan to do at the article, and see how other editors react. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
P.S., did you write your article under another user ID, or perhaps when you were not logged into your account? I don't see any edits of yours at that article in your contribution history.   Explained below. Mathglot (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Edited. Mathglot (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mathglot: You wouldn't be able to see the user's contributions as the article was deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Cpetrov, the standard of sourcing required for residential halls of tertiary institutions is very high. Several houses of the University of Canterbury with > 50 years of history and book-length histories published have been deleted. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful information. I will not be submitting the article again, I appreciate your explanations, all. (Cpetrov (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC))

source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220212164113/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard

Leave a Reply