Short Assignment #5


SA #5 (25 points) 
due 3/28/13 by 11:00 a.m., posted to your blog   

The Situation
As we continue to learn about the nuances of composing and editing in the Wikipedia environment, I will ask you to look in more critical depth at the way certain articles are written, especially to consider (and perhaps even critique) Wikipedia's foundational principles.

The Assignment (Complete Both Parts)
Give yourself time to take good notes on both Part One and Part Two, so that you can write your analysis with plenty of evidence at hand.

Part One
Compare and contrast the following author biographies, using the list of criteria below to help you make the comparison. While at first glance each set of biographies may appear to be very similar to one another, try to note differences, with an eye towards making sense of those differences. If the different ways they are represented would actually affect how you use them differently in a research project, then take the time to explain why.

biographies to compare

criteria for comparison
  • Structure of article
  • Kinds of information contained
  • Kinds of information linked to
  • References
  • Tone of writing
  • Illustrations
  • Credentials of author
  • Lists of works
  • Anything else important?

Part Two
Select one of Wikipedia's "featured articles," and consider how it does (or, in some cases, does not) meet all of the FA criteria. You'll notice that the FA Criteria essentially reflect Wikipedia's core principles, including "Neutral Point of View," "No Original Research," and "Verifiability," as well as "Summary Style." They also reflect "Image Use" and "Article Titles," among other things. These really are a lot of criteria, so you should decide which two or three you can write about in some detail, rather than analyze for everything. In truth, the article you select will likely be very strong in 1-2 areas, or weak in only 1-2 areas, so you will be able to focus your analysis. Please do keep in mind your own complex set of expectations about what make something good, better, or best. Feel free to weave those into your analysis, to help your readers understand the constraints of your analysis.

Analysis
Compose your analysis (at least 1-2 screens) including as many of your observations as possible. To help you focus, remember that your goal is to give an unfamiliar reader a good sense of Wikipedia's constituents and constraints, based on the notes you generated from Parts One and Two above.

Evaluation Criteria
You may organize your analysis however you like, but please keep in mind the following criteria:
  • Content/Argument – As always, your analysis of the Wikipedia tasks brings your observations into conversation with at least 2 critical texts from our course (beyond merely using some of their key terms)
  • Coherence – your analysis is guided by a thesis statement that demonstrates what you have discovered and acts as a “thread” for your claims
  • Depth – you write enough to demonstrate or synthesize well.
  • Evidence and Justification – your analysis provides specific examples from your analysis to illustrate the points you make 
  • Clarity – your paragraphs are well focused, your sentences grammatically sound
  • Blogging Guidelines – your analysis not only follows these, but uses them to your advantage (please take some time to review them; it's likely you won't need to review all of them, but perhaps as a writer, you know you're weaker in one of them more than the others)

-Prof. Graban

(with thanks to Adrianne Wadewitz for ideas underlying this assignment)


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)