Wikipedia:Education noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
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.

See also

Copy-paste merging versus history-merging[edit]

Followup to the already archived Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 16#Proposal for update in the student instructions for moving drafts into mainspace. See Wikipedia talk:Merging#When to request a histmerge. You might consider making the archiving of this page a little less aggressive, so I'm not forced to create a fork of a discussion that's less than a month old. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: 7 days is rather aggressive, isn't it. I think that's a hold-over from when course announcements were all posted here rather than a subpage, making the page fairly unwieldy when not archived frequently. I've changed it to 30 days -- we'll see how that works. And thanks for the link. I'll take a look at this on Monday, but wanted to comment that this is definitely something we want to spend time on this summer, revising training materials prior to the fall 2017 courses starting. I've added DNAU to this thread to ensure it's here at that time. Also want to ping Shalor (Wiki Ed), the content expert working with that class in particular. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/688809 Memory/Archive. We need adequate notice of student editing, and course instructors shouldn't be assigning the task of writing multiple content forks of the same topic, leaving it for overworked volunteers to clean up. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I apologise for dropping the ball on that one, I started preparing the page about the course but didn't share it on the announcement noticeboard. Advance notice of editing would certainly have helped, but the students' accounts remain blocked. Please could the blocks be lifted? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think just an announcement on a noticeboard is sufficient. Most editors are not monitoring these noticeboards. There should be some indication on the editor's user or user talk page, such as Template:Student editor (e.g., like this). It should link to their assignment, so we can see what their objective is. wbm1058 (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note how Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Rutgers University/Languages in Peril Section II (Spring 2017) lists each student in the class, along with the titles of the Wikipedia articles that they are working on.
Wikipedia:Outreach Dashboard/Swansea University/LAA319 - Competition Law doesn't have a similar list of students and articles. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, I see that course runs until 28 June 2017. Can these closely related articles either be merged, or clearly differentiated using WP:summary style so that it's clear they are not forks covering the same topic? wbm1058 (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Just to comment on noticeboard announcements, though wbm1058 has since clarified that's not necessarily the question here, I don't think there's a formal process for announcing Education Program classes in general. Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Wiki Ed course submissions is a page of notices automatically (or semi-automatically) generated by the Wiki Ed Dashboard), but I don't think WMF has incorporated an equivalent into the Programs and Events Dashboard (classes outside the US/CA), so the best way to stay up on that would probably be to keep tabs on the Dashboard itself. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Btw, Wbm1058, I don't know if you saw this, but from the page you linked you can click the "Dashboard" link at the top and then go to the "students" tab to see the list of students and assigned articles (though it looks like most have not added an article yet -- perhaps that's what you mean). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, no I didn't find that until you pointed it out. But there I see "Assignment End: 2017-05-10", so it's not clear to me whether the course is still active, and whether the students will return to editing if their accounts are unlocked. Sockpuppet investigations isn't an area I'm active in administratively, so I'm unclear on proper procedures for reopening an investigation and unblocking editors... if we can wait on User:Bbb23 to do it then I'm sure it will be done the right way. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll keep an eye on students doing this. This summer we're going to be working on refining some of our handouts and instructions, so this will definitely be something we look at. :) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Frankly, folks, Wiki Ed drives me crazy. You have no idea how many cases are brought to WP:SPI from which, understandably, blocks ensue and then along comes someone to say, oh, these are students. How are we supposed to know that? There should be a clear notice on their userpage as to who they are and a link to the program. It would be better for you, the students, and the various unsuspecting editors at Wikipedia who become involved. I'm not going to spontaneously look at a Wiki Ed venue every time I evaluate a case. Unless you start cleaning up your procedures, this won't be the last time this happens. I will unblock the four accounts and remove the sock tags from their userpages (no need to reopen the case). Someone else can deal with the undeleting of any pages that were deleted. BTW, Richard, you should not have edited the SPI archive. Instead, you should have gone to Wbm1058, to me, or to an SPI clerk to make your request. I'm sure Wiki Ed is a lot of work and you, of course, provide a valuable service to Wikipedia and to the outside community, so I apologize for being, uh, brusque.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: Every class working with Wiki Ed (the Wiki Education Foundation) should have a list of students on the course page, a tag on every student's user page, and a tag on the articles they work on (there are some exceptions to the latter based on the way sandboxes are handled). I think that you're probably talking about the parts of the Education Program that aren't Wiki Ed? That seems like it could be addressed by incorporating the templating procedures into the P&E Dashboard. @Sage (Wiki Ed): who is the best person to ask about that at WMF (or otherwise)? --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • If the P&E Dashboard was set up to automatically create a page on-wiki listing editors involved that would be very helpful. Currently it has to be manually set up which relies on my (very much fallible) memory. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ryan (Wiki Ed): Are you saying that this program with these users was not part of Wiki Ed?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, I'll try to remember that. And here I thought the only Foundation I had to bitch about was the WMF. A new target for my irritation.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I see that m:Education is a disambiguation page. It would be nice, and less confusing for unaffiliated, independent editors and administrators, if the Wikipedia Education Program, a program of Wikimedia Outreach (why is that page tagged as "historical" if the Education Program still uses their logo and Outreach has its own wiki?), had all of their chapters, including WMUK, using the same standards and procedures developed by the Wiki Education Foundation, which I presume is no longer a proposed Wikimedia thematic organization, as the disambiguation page still claims? wbm1058 (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bbb23: WikiEd haven't done anything wrong here (and do an excellent job) this course is under my auspices rather than theirs. I agree that student accounts should include a note on their user page that they are taking part in an educational course and I will make sure that happens. Thank you for taking the time to unblock the accounts. I apologise for the extra work this has created and appreciate that it is taking up your volunteer time. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Richard Nevell (WMUK): Not to worry, many of my comments are tongue-in-cheek, although I have had some negative experiences in the past. This is the first time I've learned something useful, i.e., the division of responsibility. Happy teaching.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Yes, there are different hubs of activity. For future courses (not just this one but others I'm involved) I'll be making sure students have a notice on their user page and on talk pages as Ryan said is compulsory for WikiEd courses. Currently I recommend it for courses WMUK assists, but it should be a requirement rather than a recommendation. Please could 826540MAH (talk · contribs) 838181CDC (talk · contribs) 838463swanseauni (talk · contribs) Elinahh (talk · contribs) Nfyfe826276 (talk · contribs) also be unblocked? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
An important responsibility for any class assignment, no matter which program advises it, is to put Template:Educational assignment on the talk page of every article being worked on. That's the first and foremost way to let other editors know that these are student editors, and not something else. Then, as also mentioned above, students should put Template:Student editor on their own userpages – and of course there should be a course page that clearly identifies the instructor. These steps can go a long way towards preventing such problems as mistaking student edits for socking, and also help a lot with keeping communication open with other editors. I think that all programs that work with student assignments should try to make these things clear to all classes they work with. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Automatic edits from Programs & Events Dashboard[edit]

@Richard Nevell (WMUK), Wbm1058, Bbb23, and Ryan (Wiki Ed): I'm currently mentoring User:Medhabansal for an internship project to enable edits from Programs & Events Dashboard, which would let us enable some of the edits that the Wiki Ed Dashboard makes on a wiki-by-wiki basis. The project just started, but hopefully within the next few months we can have the automatically-updated course pages and the userpage templates like for Wiki Ed courses. --Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a very encouraging development. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Online Ambassador application: Abdulrehimras[edit]

This extension was removed, nothing to do here. — xaosflux Talk 16:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Abdulrehimras (talk · contribs)

  1. Why do you want to be a Wikipedia Ambassador?
    To have a wider platform and larger knowledge pool to impart academia
  2. In three sentences or less, summarize your involvement with Wikimedia projects.
  3. Please indicate a few articles to which you have made significant content contributions. (e.g. DYK, GA, FA, major revisions/expansions/copyedits).
  4. How have you been involved with welcoming and helping new users on Wikipedia?
  5. What do you see as the most important ways we could welcome newcomers or help new users become active contributors?
    Guide them through
  6. Have you had major conflicts with other editors? Blocks or bans? Involvement in arbitration? Feel free to offer context, if necessary.
  7. How often do you edit Wikipedia and check in on ongoing discussions? Will you be available regularly for at least two hours per week, in your role as a mentor?
    Yes Am regularly available online
  8. How would you make sure your students were not violating copyright laws?
    Teach them right
  9. If one of your students had an issue with copyright violation how would you resolve it?
    As a legal expert I have many avenues to resolve this
  10. In your _own_ words describe what copyright violation is.
    It is the use of another's creation without permission
  11. What else should we know about you that is relevant to being a Wikipedia Ambassador?
    Am learned, vastly knowledged and intelligent...

Abdulrehimras (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


(Two endorsements are needed for online ambassador approval.)

Not done Thank you for your interest, however we are currently phasing out the MediaWiki extension which uses the Online Ambassador user right - TNT 💖 19:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Caught this from Brainspotting being created yet again.

Seems to be a class?


-- Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

pages created so far:

some drafts

-- Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, Looks like this course is editing from the University of Sydney. Here’s their page on the P&E Dashboard. I’ll alert the instructor Fransplace to this discussion. Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! None of those students linked back there. 266 students! Yikes. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Cassidy (Wiki Ed) and Jytdog! I haven't received alerts about these. I'm receiving emails from students (on Brainspotting and another). Students are asked to be logged into the Dashboard any time they're editing but some forget. I'm in discussions now with the student who wrote the "Brainspotting" article but can't see what was deleted. Fortunately we have her drafts on Word docs and I might be able to see what the problem is. We are working very hard to monitor what students are doing and are putting their text through Turnitin before they upload to the Mainspace. There are always going to be students who do the bare minimum, don't listen and don't follow strict instructions, but considering that there haven't been too many problems. There are 296 students BTW, not 266 - just to show how many haven't followed the instructions to link to the Dashboard at all (and you've noted that none of those students you picked up Jytdog didn't link back there). We're doing our best and are really grateful for your advice, help, etc. Please let me know what we could be doing better and keep nudging us if you see something wrong. This is the first Wikipedia course at my university and is credit bearing. We'd like to make it the best it can be so that we can continue to show the legitimacy of Wikipedia. Fransplace 22:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fransplace (talkcontribs)
Hi again Cassidy (Wiki Ed) and Jytdog. My fellow teachers and I are trying to teach students to navigate processes, create and edit articles to ensure that the most accurate information is accessible to people that are looking for it on Wikipedia. I have a copy of the student's draft (submitted to our institutional "Turnitin" software before she created the Wikipedia page) and it showed no notable similarity with anything online. I can see that previous articles deleted in 2009 and 2017 contained information that was supported the developer of the method, Grand (affecting the objectivity of the article etc) and other sources considered to be unreliable. See Even though Grand was also one of the sources used by our student, her article included peer-reviewed academic sources from the fields of Cognitive Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Integrative Psychotherapy. I would like to suggest, in the interests of improving general knowledge about this topic and the quality of information that is available online and on Wikipedia, that we allow the student to revise what she has written, add more academic sources and put a greater emphasis on making sure the article balances the pros and cons or acceptance and rejection of the claims as both exist. Would you be willing to consider this approach and if so, will you allow a new page to be created and reviewed by Wikipedia editors before being moved to the mainspace? Fransplace 00:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fransplace (talkcontribs)
This terrible thing was moved to mainspace; i thought for sure that was a paid editor, and I moved to draft space and cleaned up the COPYVIO and BLP violations some. it is now at Draft:Wildfox Couture. The creator is listed in the class page as one of the editors. This class is way too big, it seems. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
This class may have been instructed to submit their new articles to Wikipedia:Peer review, where there are 30+ new entries by new editors in the last few weeks, some with no elaboration on why they are requesting review. Jthr5091, User:YIFAN Andrew Wang, and User talk:EoinFeeney1 are certainly in the class and submitted articles for review. If 100+ students were told to submit to peer review, it will likely overwhelm the small group of editors who are actively writing reviews. Dialectric (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Fransplace:: Please instruct students to stop requesting Peer Review; they should offer peer feedback instead on the talk page of the relevant article. Many of the peer review requests are not filled out correctly. The ones that are, and continue on October 23 to be added to the Peer Review page, are overwhelming the system and will not receive feedback. They also make it likely that other editors who have submitted valid peer review requests will not be noticed.

I spent half an hour last night tagging malformed peer review requests from your students, and then an administrator would have spent another 10+ minutes responding to what I did. Now, today, I would have to do more of it for a fresh batch of malformed requests. I am not going to clean up for you any more. Will you clean up? You should look through the WP:PR page for any red-linked articles—e.g. "Popz", "Aerialtronics"—this means the article does not exist. You may request deletion of those by adding " {{csd|Malformed peer review request; not in Article space}} " to the top of each page.

Peer review policy is that only articles in Article space may be submitted. (This is a well-hidden point at Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy, "Removal", Item 1.) This means that Draft: and User: pages cannot be submitted, but many students are. Others are having their articles moved back to Draft: because they are not adequate for Wikipedia (e.g. [1]), which both breaks the peer review page and makes the text ineligible for peer review in any case.

The students are also making articles that are duplicates of each other: Algeria and poverty, Poverty in Algeria, and Vietnamese Confucianism, Confucianism in Vietnam, are two I've noticed.

This has been quite disruptive. I haven't watched the education noticeboard for years, but it reminds me of the constant baby-sitting and cleaning up that was required some years ago because students were sent unprepared to Wikipedia, or were asked to do things which were not appropriate. Outriggr (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Aesthetic judgement was mainspaced by its creator. I have just tagged it for G12 as it was a 90% copy of this article from Boston University. The rest of these should be run through Earwig. ♠PMC(talk) 23:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC last night, I mentioned the explosion in peer requests for new articles to User:DGG who referred me to User:Ryan (Wiki Ed), who showed me this page. The peer review instructions include "An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return." I did two reviews and two editors reviewed my article. A third editor reviewed my article and I reviewed his/her article.
The night before, I spent 8 hours peer reviewing and editing Untitled from Marilyn Monroe by Andy Warhol. I created a talk page for User:Fisa2702 (note the redirect to the article). I created User Talk:Fisa2702 to ask for reciprocation. Although Fisa2702 and the article isn't listed in this section, several of the sources have University of Sydney Library URL courtesy links.
For someone who has a genuine interest in an article and is not doing it as part of a school assignment, reciprocity is a good bet. I do a peer review. I get a peer review. I could have used the eight hours I spent peer reviewing a student project on a peer review for a bona fide article. The editor who had a new article and reviewed my article first has improved his/her article substantially in the nine days since I initially reviewed the article. The time I put into that article will result in an improvement to wikipedia. The time I put into Untitled from Marilyn Monroe by Andy Warhol is probably wasted as that article will probably be abandoned when the class is over.
I don't have a solution to this mess, but I think a notice at peer review pointing to this page would be helpful. Certainly, if I had seen such a notice last night, I could have made an informed choice about where to allocate my time.
On a lighter note, I glanced at Fisa's sandbox and noted the justification for the vendor source, which is unreliable. I think the justifications are funny -- I like the one for the Metropolitan Museum of Art -- because it is a .org site! Vyeh (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I would advise that a university's first try at a credit-bearing WP class should be for a small number of students. There will always be misunderstandings of our our article guidelines and workflow practices that need to be sorted out; with a small class, these won't have widespread detrimental effects upon the rest of Wikipedia. (Personally, I am very reluctant to suggest doing a WP exercise for credit in a large class at all, but I recognize that it might be possible with careful and adequate supervision by people experienced in running smaller courses here.) One of the problems in class editing on WP or other public platforms as opposed to conventional methods, is that errors in planning and supervising assignments affect more than the students in that particular class. :Our problem now is not just dealing with these students, but encouraging the instructor running the class to try again, but plan better. It's not just classes--for any level of academic writing ,WP is not really a transparently natural platform; it offers great advantages especially in motivation, but it takes a knowledge of how to use it effectively. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you everyone and apologies for clogging your system. Students were instructed to add the template to pages that were already in the mainspace but clearly some didn't follow instructions. We weren't aware so many would enrol in the unit and have collected feedback from our local chapter to make sure we don't have these issues next time. The students who have breached copyright/plagiarised are being disciplined through our institutional system and we apologise for that too. Thank you again for your constructive feedback and know that we're working bit by bit on getting students to resolve the issues with their work. Fransplace 05:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • User:Fransplace a student in the class just emailed me, very politely asking me to undo something I did that corrected policy violations. They asked me to undo because (according to the student) 40% of their grade depends on the article and b) articles are due on November 10. I am not sure if the student misunderstood the assignment, or if you are actually grading the students based on what "sticks". If you are grading them on what sticks, you shouldn't per this. If you are grading them on what sticks, I hope you reconsider that and announce it to the class. if you are not grading based on what sticks, I hope you will re-announce that. Having ca 300 students edit warring like crazy to have their content stick (which is what happens when they think they are graded on what sticks) is going to be very ugly. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Chemical Game Theory[edit]


From a quick glance, most of the references to the term "Chemical Game Theory" are in papers by Darrel Velegol. Now Darrel Velegol Velegol (talk · contribs) is running a class with The goal of this course is that our class team will publish a page on Wikipedia on Chemical Game Theory. This seems far out of line with Wikipedia policies and educational program policies; instructors should not be running classes to promote their own pet theories which have not seen wider adoption. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I emailed the instructor and explained the potential COI issues, and his response was encouraging. We will continue to work with him on this. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Ian! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


Does anyone know about the classes being run by this user? User:Tibouchina I just ran into some questions involving the work of this user's class at WP:FTN, and I don't see if any connection has been made to this project. Perhaps someone could reach out and offer help?

jps (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks jps, We’ll reach out and connect them to Wiki Education's Dashboard and systems of support. Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

More peer reviews from a new class[edit]

Browsing WP:Peer review, I found that Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Brooklyn_College,_CUNY/THEA_7214X_-_Global_Theater_History_and_Theory_I_(Fall_2018) is another source of student peer reviews. The direction is "Officially 'nominate' your article for peer review on Wikipedia, so that your classmates (and possibly others) can give you feedback on your work. Instructions are here." An example from that class is Wikipedia:Peer review/The Jew of Malta/archive1.

It seems clear that something has shifted in the practices that are recommended for educational assignments recently. Formerly, I've seen many "peer review" assignments posted to talk pages of articles. That method scales, even if it leaves those talk-pages rather lacking in context. Creating dozens or hundreds of peer review requests at WP:PR does not scale. Of all the paid people involved here, can someone fix it? Outriggr (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Courses usually have a "peer review" assignment where students review each other's work, but they don't use our peer review. The instructor for this course may be confused. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've reached out to the instructor for this course, and she is asking her students not to make any further posts to WP:Peer review.
Wiki Education does not recommend that the students it supports go through WP:Peer review. Instead, we encourage them to review one another's work in their sandboxes.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education's Monthly Report for September 2018 now available[edit]

You can find a report of Wiki Education's activities for September 2018 on Commons, meta, or our blog. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft Essays on Communism[edit]

Two essays on whether communism is dead or alive are in draft space and have been nominated for deletion as essays: Draft:Is Communism Dead? and Draft:Is Communism Dead or Alive. Both of them use the same sources, Danziger and Priestland. This is strongly suggestive of a class project. The two essays will probably be deleted, but if this is a class assignment, the instructor should be given better advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Large genetics class off the rails[edit]

This class: 3250 has 68 students listed.

here are the articles they are working on so far:

Students are adding unsourced content, content about biomedical information sourced to primary sources (some of them predatory), and essay-like content, added to articles without any mind for the rest of the page. They are edit warring to keep it at the pages I have checked Actinin alpha 3 and Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3. I spot checked other pages and they appear to be editing this way across many pages.

They don't seem to have done the training.

Pinging User:Ian (Wiki Ed) and the instructor User: MSalem-MTSU.

I've also left a note at WT:MED and WT:MCB linking here. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)