The article you clicked on the link from has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.
If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please edit this section and tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits.
Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:
- 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
- 1 - A few minutes of work needed
- 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
- 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
- 4 - More than an hour of work needed
Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. If another editor has already rated the work they had to do to clean up any problems, please feel free to add your own ratings if you also worked on the article.
Gaze edit
Your username: Kaldari
Article: Gaze
Your time spent, based on above ranking: 3
Any other comments? Some of the material added to the article was plagiarized. When I reverted the edits as copyvio, they were restored by the students. I then spent a good deal of time researching the provenance of their text and found at least 3 separate instances of plagiarism. I brought these to their attention on the article talk page and via messages to their user pages. The students fixed the plagiarism the next day by rewording the sections. BTW, I'm not sure if this class was actually interfacing with the WMF education program or not, but I wanted to mention it anyway.
The Wealth of Networks edit
Your username: user:bluerasberry
Article: The Wealth of Networks
Your time spent, based on above ranking: 0, because I am not fixing the problems. 4, if I did fix the problems. The problem is compliance with WP:V but the content is good.
Any other comments? The contributions the students added were good but still misguided in a big way because of insufficient citations. I did not actually fix the lack of citations with the new text but the lack of citations is a large problem and would require hours to follow how the student did this work. It would have taken the student mere minutes to cite their sources; having another person find the appropriate citations would take hours if it were reasonable to do.
Women in Chile edit
Your username: Kaldari
Article: Women in Chile
Your time spent, based on above ranking: 0
Any other comments? Good contributions, nothing needed to be removed.
Leuckart reaction edit
Your username:Graeme Bartlett (talk)
Article:Leuckart reaction
Your time spent, based on above ranking:0
Any other comments? there were some formatting errors corrected by mostly anonymous editors.
Kornblum oxidation edit
Your username:Graeme Bartlett (talk)
Article:Kornblum oxidation
Your time spent, based on above ranking:1
Any other comments? Cluebot handled what was a test edit, so I suppose that would rate as a few seconds, though I had to check what had happened. As it was followed by good text entry that was a net benefit. I formatted references and corrected minor spelling and MOS.
North Carolina age of juvenile jurisdiction edit
Your username: Orlady
Article: North Carolina age of juvenile jurisdiction
Your time spent, based on above ranking: See below.
Any other comments? I spent about 20 to 30 minutes with the article, including reviewing it for DYK and doing formatting-type cleanup (including resolving redlinks). I did not clean up unproductive work. However, as documented at Template:Did you know nominations/North Carolina Age of Juvenile Jurisdiction, I found unproductive work needing to be addressed, in the form of excessive quotations that constitute copyvio and/or plagiarism. It still has not been cleaned up. --Orlady (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Honesty-humility factor of the HEXACO model of personality edit
Your username: Orlady
Article: Honesty-humility factor of the HEXACO model of personality
Your time spent, based on above ranking: 1
Any other comments? My only substantive edits were minor changes so to make the subject matter of the article discernible. I did not attempt to resolve all issues with the article. Template:Did you know nominations/Honesty-Humility Facet of the HEXACO Model of Personality documents serious concerns raised in DYK review that are still not resolved. --Orlady (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Your username:
Article:
Your time spent, based on above ranking:
Any other comments?
Vocabulary development edit
Your username: Marokwitz
Article: Vocabulary development
Your time spent, based on above ranking: 0
Any other comments?
comments edit
Your username: User:Boghog
Article: Addiction
Your time spent, based on above ranking: 2 (ref reformatting)
Any other comments? If you haven't seen this yet, please check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions). Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a full citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. This tool can save you a lot of work and ensure that the citations are displayed in a consistent manner.
Associative agnosia edit
Your username:Dolfrog
Article: Associative agnosia
Your time spent, based on above ranking: 4+
Any other comments? There a multiple issues, the most important being, not understanding the nature of an Associative agnosia or providing a correct explaination. There are Three main catagories, auditory, visual and somatosensory, each of which have their own associated agnosias. Current technology has enable more recognition of the various visual associative agnosias. The article at this point in time only discusses visual agnosias in any detail, with some odd references to audiologists for instance. I do wonder if the tutors who are supporting these students have any knowledge with regard to this type of complex medical issue, as course notes were used a references as opposed to the Wikipedia requirement of secondary or review paper sources to support an articles content. And a lack of Wikification (linking to related Wikipedia articles) is understandable, but not a lack of understanding of the subject matter being written about. dolfrog (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Vagary - Columbia River Treaty edit
Your username: Vagary
Article: Columbia River Treaty
Your time spent, based on above ranking: 1
Any other comments? I started keeping a close eye on the article when the project started - I was quite pleasantly surprised by the quality of their edits.
Feminist economics edit
Article: Feminist economics
Your time spent, based on above ranking: 0
Any other comments? This is a good example of an article that is already fairly developed (having some length and structure) undergoing substantial improvement.
Student engagement edit
Your username: Freechild
Article: Student engagement
Your time spent, based on above ranking: 2
Any other comments?
Telecommuting edit
Your username: Theopolisme
Article: Telecommuting
Your time spent, based on above ranking: 1.5
Any other comments? Had to spend time mainly removing promo-jabber.
Body Language edit
Your username: Not your buisness!
Article: Body Language
Your time spent, based on above ranking: 1
Any other comments? Nope!
Abdel-Bari Zamzami edit
Your username: --Minorities observer (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Article: Abdel-Bari Zamzami
Your time spent, based on above ranking: 1
Any other comments? the lead included a mischievous (hilarious) addition in the name of the association Zamzami founded in 2001: "cataclysmic", nobody noticed it for three years :-/
Your username: David notMD (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Article: Pesticide poisoning
Your time spent, based on above ranking: I have not done any work. You or your student 2620:123:5014:3011:0:0:A:923 who signs as "H" should clean this up. I estimate it will take several hours. David notMD (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Any other comments? The student used a wrong format for citations, resulting in a separately numbered set of references, hyperlinked within the article, that do not match the list of references at the end of the article, and instead, do not appear at all in the references. They are invisible. For example, ref #23 exists in the article. In the Prevention section that the student edited, there is a [23] that is not the same as #23 in the list of references. The easiest way to clean this up would be to revert everything the student has submitted. Short of that, the student should fix every reference. David notMD (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Your username: David notMD (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Article: Pesticide poisoning
Your time spent, based on above ranking: Zero. Same reasons. You clean it up.
Any other comments? It appears that you assigned two students to Pesticide poisoning, as two people have been making the same citation format error. Are there any other articles students were assigned to edit? If they were all given the wrong instructions on how format citations, all of the work either needs to be fixed or deleted. David notMD (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Your username: IP user
Article: Writer's block
Your time spent, based on above ranking: 2
Any other comments? please stop this project
Your username:
Article:
Your time spent, based on above ranking:
Any other comments? ______________________________________ Reply to above requests:
The demand to know "how much time spent" is assuming the writer is all our superior professor demanding quantity of time spent used to value our writings and knowledge about this topic too. All who read the “perfectionism” article are not only his students and that is presumptuous if assumed.
Class notes are not the best to put on public-viewing sites unless wanting to claim more status & value than is found in this article as presented on Wikipedia.
Whatever is convenient or practical for a class assignment or school work at any level does not qualify that for most other readers & writers at Wikipedia.
If this is only a school assignment, please note this clearly and boldly at beginning to save ‘others’ their reading and perhaps assuming this to be a Wikipedia-informative-article-for-public-use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfectionism_(psychology) does not indicate student-in-that-class-only use.
The current [May 2021] visible content is very limited, and apparently not well verified, certified, legitimized nor accepted in professional Psychology circles.
There appear to be more 'opinions' written as if actual academic or socially accepted 'facts' here. These are not what else others may have learned or know or used in 'good practices' in any field.
Not wanting to do the diligent hard personal-time-consuming Work to correct this now, it is being left as is, but hope that editors more experienced here will qualify & give notice to all readers before they read further in article, the sparse and limited views & references being used.
When such writings proliferate Wikipedia, these dilute the value of the site as those who know 'less' assume all is accurate and useful, when it may instead be misleading, too simplified, or slanted, thus become "dis-information" instead.
Wikipedia is not a way to get credits or reputation enhancement elsewhere, should that be part of the article's intent.
this from a legitimized + certified + licensed clinical psychologist, in 2021. Noted article was written long long ago and has not been reviewed for correctness, updates, or credibility since then ?
Let me know if you have questions about my concerns here.
Activistrep2again (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)activistrep2
Your username:
Article:
Your time spent, based on above ranking:
Any other comments?