Ethics of requiring students to edit WP for course credit

[Sweet Revenge]

Mod. note: This topic was split from the thread Sarah Jones - former Bengals cheerleader, heading for BLP

I mean, really. What kind of professor unleashes random 20 year olds on an "Encyclopedia," damn the consequences? I notice that "Wikipedia participation" was 40 percent of the grade -- what on earth does that teach?

I wonder what the professional ethics are regarding requiring students to release their coursework under a CC license as a course requirement? It seems to me, off the top of my head, that one should at a minimum inform them in advance and have them sign a release since students hold copyright on their submitted coursework by default and that this should be on the course syllabus. There's nothing about it on the guy's syllabus, though. This hadn't occurred to me before. If WP weren't involved, it would strike me as transparently unethical. What if the professor were to then publish the papers as a book and keep the money? The fact that their publication on WP makes it possible for anyone in the world to publish them as a book and keep the money couldn't possibly make it more ethical. I will check into this further.

It's also interesting that there's a boilerplate anti-plagiarism notification on the syllabus. This raises another interesting question. If any of the students in the course plagiarized material that they then placed on WP, it seems that on notification the professor would be obligated to turn the student in to the honor council (or whoever investigates these things at Cal). That would require linking the student's real-life name with their WP username, perhaps not on-wiki but at least in evidence presented to the college. I wonder what WP policies would have to say about that? If this would be considered outing, in violation of WP policies, then there's some contradiction between the course and WP policy. This is speculative, I admit, but it's interesting to think about.

[Moonage Daydream]

I mean, really. What kind of professor unleashes random 20 year olds on an "Encyclopedia," damn the consequences? I notice that "Wikipedia participation" was 40 percent of the grade -- what on earth does that teach?

I wonder what the professional ethics are regarding requiring students to release their coursework under a CC license as a course requirement? It seems to me, off the top of my head, that one should at a minimum inform them in advance and have them sign a release since students hold copyright on their submitted coursework by default and that this should be on the course syllabus. There's nothing about it on the guy's syllabus, though. This hadn't occurred to me before. If WP weren't involved, it would strike me as transparently unethical. What if the professor were to then publish the papers as a book and keep the money? The fact that their publication on WP makes it possible for anyone in the world to publish them as a book and keep the money couldn't possibly make it more ethical. I will check into this further.

I have a vague memory of this situation having come up before. Something about a student trying to get their contributions deleted on the basis that their instructor would not give them a mark if the work was not on WP, but they did not wish to give up their ownership of the work and wanted it removed now that the course was over? Unless I'm mistaken, the instructor was also an admin? Does this ring any bells?

[Tippi Hadron]

I mean, really. What kind of professor unleashes random 20 year olds on an "Encyclopedia," damn the consequences? I notice that "Wikipedia participation" was 40 percent of the grade -- what on earth does that teach?

I wonder what the professional ethics are regarding requiring students to release their coursework under a CC license as a course requirement? It seems to me, off the top of my head, that one should at a minimum inform them in advance and have them sign a release since students hold copyright on their submitted coursework by default and that this should be on the course syllabus. There's nothing about it on the guy's syllabus, though. This hadn't occurred to me before. If WP weren't involved, it would strike me as transparently unethical. What if the professor were to then publish the papers as a book and keep the money? The fact that their publication on WP makes it possible for anyone in the world to publish them as a book and keep the money couldn't possibly make it more ethical. I will check into this further.

I have a vague memory of this situation having come up before. Something about a student trying to get their contributions deleted on the basis that their instructor would not give them a mark if the work was not on WP, but they did not wish to give up their ownership of the work and wanted it removed now that the course was over? Unless I'm mistaken, the instructor was also an admin? Does this ring any bells?

Laura Hale vs Wikiversity? Can't remember the name of the admin/instructor.

[SB_Johnny]

Laura Hale vs Wikiversity? Can't remember the name of the admin/instructor.

Not Laura Hale, but it was on WV, and eventually deleted.

[Sweet Revenge]

Laura Hale vs Wikiversity? Can't remember the name of the admin/instructor.

Not Laura Hale, but it was on WV, and eventually deleted.

Thanks for the link. That'll be helpful. I wonder if perhaps, from the school's point of view, it's analogous to requiring students to do unpaid volunteer work in the real world for part of their grade. I know release forms are required for that. Also, I notice that the professor eventually shut up and put an alternative to CC release into the syllabus, where it obviously should have been all along. He'd have gotten nowhere with his argument that he orally gave students the option not to release their work under a free license even though it wasn't on the syllabus. I don't know the Australian details, but in the States the written syllabus controls. Given that the prof changed the syllabus after 12 days of silence following the student filing of an OTRS ticket, I wonder if it was done on advice of counsel.

[Sweet Revenge]

I'm starting a new thread for this. Maybe a moderator could move the related stuff from the old thread over here?

First, WP itself realizes that requiring students to release their work under a free license may be a problem:
Wikipedia:School and university projects

It may be a good idea—though not necessarily easy—to run your own wiki and use it for experiments first. Use the MediaWiki software which can be installed on Linux, Windows or Mac OS X - see here and here. If some students do not want to submit material to Wikipedia (which forces their content to be licensed under the free content license CC-BY-SA 3.0), they can use this for their final exercise instead.

Furthermore, check who owns your students' course work. If the owner is your institution, check that you have permission to submit it. If it is your students, ensure that you have their legitimate, probably written, consent to require them to add material to Wikipedia.

However, they don't seem to take it seriously as a problem (although I'm still looking into it). For instance, Piotrus (T-C-L) has the following material linked to from the main project page:
Wikipedia:School and university projects/Piotrus course intro boilerplate
This does not give students the chance to opt out of releasing their work under WP's CC license. In fact it requires it as a significant part of the course grade. Knowing academics as I do, it seems quite likely that they're likely to use this boilerplate mutatis mutandis without thinking too hard about intellectual property issues. I haven't checked into the syllabuses of the other classes listed on that project page yet.

There is possibly some analogy here with complaints about Turnitin (which include this lawsuit). I don't know the current status of these issues yet, but I do know that a lot of students and some professors are still unhappy with the way students' work is forcibly included in Turnitin's commercial database.

[Angela Kennedy]

One thing I would be concerned about would be putting students into the toxic atmosphere at Wikipedia where they get accused of being evul and get all their edits reverted, then accused of being someone else's sockpuppet, then banned forever, so that if that student's name is googled, their 'banning by wikipedia' is indelibly associated with them.

I should imagine that will (a) wind children up (b) worry them (c) provoke responses and (d) if their teacher isn't the brightest bulb in the box, adversely affect their grade.

Ethical minefield I'd say.

[Sweet Revenge]

One thing I would be concerned about would be putting students into the toxic atmosphere at Wikipedia where they get accused of being evul and get all their edits reverted, then accused of being someone else's sockpuppet, then banned forever, so that if that student's name is googled, their 'banning by wikipedia' is indelibly associated with them.

I should imagine that will (a) wind children up (b) worry them (c) provoke responses and (d) if their teacher isn't the brightest bulb in the box, adversely affect their grade.

Ethical minefield I'd say.

I totally agree with you there. I would never ever ever even encourage my students to edit WP as part of a class for precisely that reason. But it just occurred to me yesterday that there are more subtle ethical problems involving the coercion of students through grades and requirements to release their work, which at least in the US they retain copyright to, under free licenses. It was pointed out to me in the original thread, linked to above, that there has already been at least one complaint about this on Wikiversity. The professor there behaved quite badly in my opinion, so I thought I'd look into the issue in some more detail.

[HRIP7]

I'm starting a new thread for this. Maybe a moderator could move the related stuff from the old thread over here?

Done.

[Volunteer Marek]

Laura Hale vs Wikiversity? Can't remember the name of the admin/instructor.

Not Laura Hale, but it was on WV, and eventually deleted.

Gawd, Claritas is an asshole.

[Sweet Revenge]

Laura Hale vs Wikiversity? Can't remember the name of the admin/instructor.

Not Laura Hale, but it was on WV, and eventually deleted.

Gawd, Claritas is an asshole.

Right? "You could have chosen to fail the class so you weren't coerced." GMAFB. Not to mention the professor, who evidently edited the article a lot after the student asked to have it deleted just to torpedo the "mostly one creator" argument.

[EricBarbour]

Laura Hale vs Wikiversity? Can't remember the name of the admin/instructor.

Not Laura Hale, but it was on WV, and eventually deleted.

Gawd, Claritas is an asshole.

This little story makes up a substantial part of my article about James T. Neill. He is unquestionably one of the most corrupt
people on Wikiversity, and routinely forces his students to participate on WMF projects. And he is protected, routinely, by his fellow
Wikimedia Australia members, including Vandenberg and Leigh Blackall (who also works at University of Canberra).

Yes, Neill tried to glorify himself on Wikipedia. Very botch job too. PM me for evidence.

It is my suspicion that, if Uni of Canberra really cared about educational quality, Mr. Neill would currently be under some kind of
academic censure for pulling these little tricks. So, I can only assume that UC doesn't care, and none of it matters as
Wikiversity is clearly a failed project anyway. Just my opinion.

[iii]

One thing I would be concerned about would be putting students into the toxic atmosphere at Wikipedia where they get accused of being evul and get all their edits reverted, then accused of being someone else's sockpuppet, then banned forever, so that if that student's name is googled, their 'banning by wikipedia' is indelibly associated with them.

I should imagine that will (a) wind children up (b) worry them (c) provoke responses and (d) if their teacher isn't the brightest bulb in the box, adversely affect their grade.

Ethical minefield I'd say.

+1

Common ground with Angela Kennedy! Whodathunkit?

[Sweet Revenge]

I haven't yet been able to find ethical guidelines for professors that address the issue of requiring students to release their work under free licenses. The closest relevant thing I've found comes from the AAUP's statement on Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications

Professors might be tempted to post student papers on course Web sites—a practice that should require permission even for print copying and dissemination—and must be sensitive to the vastly greater potential for embarrassment (or worse) to the author by making sensitive personal opinions or information instantly available to a far larger audience. Such risks are magnified many times by an Internet posting, a potential that may warrant one of those few “special rules” for academic discourse in cyberspace.

The salient point is that the AAUP takes it as fundamental that even print publishing requires permission from the student. A fortiori, I think, so should publishing under a free license. Granted, the statement is addressing dissemination by the professor rather than the professor requiring dissemination by the student. However, the more general Statement on Professional Ethics says:

As teachers, professors encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students. They hold before them the best scholarly and ethical standards of their discipline. Professors demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors.

This seems to me to preclude the practice of requiring freely licensed publication of student work without extremely informed consent. I've certainly seen professors freak out over universities trying to change the rules on who holds the copyright to their work product. The golden rule comes to mind.

This is the American Association of University Professors. Is there a corresponding Australian organization?

[Abd]

Laura Hale vs Wikiversity? Can't remember the name of the admin/instructor.

Not Laura Hale, but it was on WV, and eventually deleted.

Gawd, Claritas is an asshole.

You noticed, VM.

This little story makes up a substantial part of my article about James T. Neill. He is unquestionably one of the most corrupt
people on Wikiversity, and routinely forces his students to participate on WMF projects. And he is protected, routinely, by his fellow
Wikimedia Australia members, including Vandenberg and Leigh Blackall (who also works at University of Canberra).[...]
It is my suspicion that, if Uni of Canberra really cared about educational quality, Mr. Neill would currently be under some kind of
academic censure for pulling these little tricks. So, I can only assume that UC doesn't care, and none of it matters as
Wikiversity is clearly a failed project anyway. Just my opinion.

Some have written about this as if this were on Wikipedia. It was indeed on Wikiversity, which is a far more collaborative and congenial environment (or was). Neil has routinely had a class book project, students pick a chapter to write, and the book becomes a learning resource. So a student yanking their work, after the class is done, creates a hole in the book. That was allowed in this case, ultimately, but only to "extend good will" and it's clear that it won't happen in the future.

It is it legitimate to have a class do a piece of research and publish it? For a class to prepare a book? If so, should the work revert to individual copyrights? Why?

Ultimately, as had been the case before, it was reaffirmed that a student who didn't want to do a project should negotiate an alternative, that this was up to the student, and shouldn't be brought up later.

As to one of the most corrupt people on Wikiversity, that's bizarre, though there isn't a lot of corruption on Wikiversity. There is, rarely, some arbitrary administrative action -- that's why I'm currently blocked there -- but JtNeill has not been even accused of that.

I'd mention SB_Johnny, but, though he blocked me, he hardly ever does anything at WV. He was involved in long-term dispute with me, so that could be called "corruption," I suppose. The real problem is that the community is almost dead, as far as any attention being paid to administrative issues. Only a few technocrats remain much active as custodians.

JtNeill didn't have to do anything, and the page would likely have been kept, but he ultimately decided to let the article be deleted, see his statement before the end of the RfD, cited at the beginning of this post by SB_Johnny.

Reading this over, if Eric Barbour thinks this incident shows JtNeill in a bad light, I'm not encouraged about what he's writing.

(However, JtNeill should not have blocked the student, except in an emergency. I wrote policy on that at WV, it was never formally accepted. The policy would have allowed him to go ahead, even though involved, and block, declaring an emergency, and posting notice on the Custodian Request page for review. There wasn't an emergency, he could more simply have protected the page, pending review. However, on any WMF wiki, what the student was doing would have brought an immediate block, and she was warned. He also lifted the block within a half-day, clearly entered into off-wiki negotiations, remained civil with the user (while she was threatening legal action), and, in fact, resolved the dispute.

[Sweet Revenge]

Some have written about this as if this were on Wikipedia. It was indeed on Wikiversity, which is a far more collaborative and congenial environment (or was). Neil has routinely had a class book project, students pick a chapter to write, and the book becomes a learning resource. So a student yanking their work, after the class is done, creates a hole in the book. That was allowed in this case, ultimately, but only to "extend good will" and it's clear that it won't happen in the future.

I don't see it that way. There was a long lag which JtNeill used to consult with colleagues. My feeling is that good will comes more quickly than that. I would guess that someone told him to do the right thing. I don't see why it matters if it were pedia or versity; the issue is the license.

It is it legitimate to have a class do a piece of research and publish it? For a class to prepare a book? If so, should the work revert to individual copyrights? Why?

I don't know about Australian copyright law, but in the US, even after clicking the save button the student would retain the copyright. The issue is the license. I don't think that it's legitimate to have students write anything and then require them as a condition of getting a grade to release it under a free license.

Ultimately, as had been the case before, it was reaffirmed that a student who didn't want to do a project should negotiate an alternative, that this was up to the student, and shouldn't be brought up later.

JtNeill claimed that this was an option, but the student claimed that it was not announced to the class. The student's version seems to me to be confirmed by the fact that JtNeill edited it into the course requirements later.

As to one of the most corrupt people on Wikiversity, that's bizarre, though there isn't a lot of corruption on Wikiversity. There is, rarely, some arbitrary administrative action -- that's why I'm currently blocked there -- but JtNeill has not been even accused of that.

I'd mention SB_Johnny, but, though he blocked me, he hardly ever does anything at WV. He was involved in long-term dispute with me, so that could be called "corruption," I suppose. The real problem is that the community is almost dead, as far as any attention being paid to administrative issues. Only a few technocrats remain much active as custodians.

JtNeill didn't have to do anything, and the page would likely have been kept, but he ultimately decided to let the article be deleted, see his statement before the end of the RfD, cited at the beginning of this post by SB_Johnny.

Reading this over, if Eric Barbour thinks this incident shows JtNeill in a bad light, I'm not encouraged about what he's writing.

(However, JtNeill should not have blocked the student, except in an emergency. I wrote policy on that at WV, it was never formally accepted. The policy would have allowed him to go ahead, even though involved, and block, declaring an emergency, and posting notice on the Custodian Request page for review. There wasn't an emergency, he could more simply have protected the page, pending review. However, on any WMF wiki, what the student was doing would have brought an immediate block, and she was warned. He also lifted the block within a half-day, clearly entered into off-wiki negotiations, remained civil with the user (while she was threatening legal action), and, in fact, resolved the dispute.

My feeling is that it does show JtNeill in a bad light. He didn't consider the implications of requiring students to release their coursework under a free license and it doesn't appear as if he provided a legitimate alternative way for them to meet course requirements. As for Eric's characterizations, I won't defend them. He tends towards hyperbole, but then he's got a lot of material stockpiled, so I won't attack them either.

[lonza leggiera]

Laura Hale vs Wikiversity? Can't remember the name of the admin/instructor.

Not Laura Hale, but it was on WV, and eventually deleted.

Gawd, Claritas is an asshole.

You noticed, VM.

This little story makes up a substantial part of my article about James T. Neill. He is unquestionably one of the most corrupt
people on Wikiversity, and routinely forces his students to participate on WMF projects. And he is protected, routinely, by his fellow
Wikimedia Australia members, including Vandenberg and Leigh Blackall (who also works at University of Canberra).[...]
It is my suspicion that, if Uni of Canberra really cared about educational quality, Mr. Neill would currently be under some kind of
academic censure for pulling these little tricks. So, I can only assume that UC doesn't care, and none of it matters as
Wikiversity is clearly a failed project anyway. Just my opinion.

Some have written about this as if this were on Wikipedia. It was indeed on Wikiversity, which is a far more collaborative and congenial environment (or was). Neil has routinely had a class book project, students pick a chapter to write, and the book becomes a learning resource. So a student yanking their work, after the class is done, creates a hole in the book. ...

Poppycock, in my opinion. The student's contribution was an article on compulsive shopping, titled Shopaholic, to the motivation half of the book. Without intending to denigrate the student's work at all, I'd say that the removal of her article created no more of a "hole" than would have been created by her never having enrolled in the course in the first place, or by my having failed to contribute, and never intending to contribute, my just-thought-of article on language acquisition.

The motivation half of of the book appears to be little more than an anthology of stand-alone articles on miscellaneous topics, many of which—including that of the student concerned—were chosen by the students themselves, and which were only very loosely connected by their all having been treated from the point of view of their relevance to motivation. For all I know, they may all be very worthy contributions whose removal would constitute a regrettable loss to the anthology. But to describe this as creating a "hole" is simply not accurate, in my opinion.

.... That was allowed in this case, ultimately, but only to "extend good will" and it's clear that it won't happen in the future.

I don't see it that way. There was a long lag which JtNeill used to consult with colleagues. My feeling is that good will comes more quickly than that. I would guess that someone told him to do the right thing. I don't see why it matters if it were pedia or versity; the issue is the license.

It is it legitimate to have a class do a piece of research and publish it? For a class to prepare a book? If so, should the work revert to individual copyrights? Why?

I don't know about Australian copyright law, but in the US, even after clicking the save button the student would retain the copyright. ...

It's the same in Australia, as JtNeill in fact acknowledged in the deletion discussion.

The issue is the license. I don't think that it's legitimate to have students write anything and then require them as a condition of getting a grade to release it under a free license.

Ultimately, as had been the case before, it was reaffirmed that a student who didn't want to do a project should negotiate an alternative, that this was up to the student, and shouldn't be brought up later.

JtNeill claimed that this was an option, but the student claimed that it was not announced to the class. The student's version seems to me to be confirmed by the fact that JtNeill edited it into the course requirements later.

I don't think the two accounts are inconsistent. All JtNeill said was that the option had been available, not that it had ever been made clear to the students that it had been available. This would of course be somewhat disingenuous if in fact it had never so been made clear. When this originally came up, I searched through the course materials, watched a video of the lecture where the assessment procedure was explained, and browsed the University of Canberra's policies on assessment and assessment procedures without finding anything to indicate that a student could negotiate an "alternative format for the assessment items" as JtNeill put it. It's all very fine to say after the fact that such an option had been available, but in my opinion it's unconscionable to lay the responsibility for not having sought to invoke this option on the student if there is no reasonable way she could have known it was available.

[oscarlechien]

Students should report the professor to their University ethics committee for ethics violations. Anyone who require anyone to edit Wikipedia for course credit should be reported, on any number of levels. You would think that even the most entrenched Wikipedia Kult members would be in agreement with this....

[EricBarbour]

though there isn't a lot of corruption on Wikiversity.

There is not a lot of anything on Wikiversity. It's dying. Except for a few random college students using it to dump material,
and a small number of total obsessives like retired physicist Marshallsumter, it gets very little actual content editing.

(I defy anyone to explain the stuff Sumter writes. Perfect example: Dominant group. What the hell is that about?)

[SB_Johnny]

My feeling is that it does show JtNeill in a bad light. He didn't consider the implications of requiring students to release their coursework under a free license and it doesn't appear as if he provided a legitimate alternative way for them to meet course requirements. As for Eric's characterizations, I won't defend them. He tends towards hyperbole, but then he's got a lot of material stockpiled, so I won't attack them either.

I suspect that it just didn't occur to him that this would be an issue for anyone, because he sees collaborative content creation and "copyleft" to be the obvious (and positive) trend for the future of education. He means well, he just doesn't always see the other side.

[SB_Johnny]

(I defy anyone to explain the stuff Sumter writes. Perfect example: Dominant group. What the hell is that about?)

I think he's trying to establish it as a technical term of some sort.

[Sweet Revenge]

(I defy anyone to explain the stuff Sumter writes. Perfect example: Dominant group. What the hell is that about?)

There were a ton of AfDs on this last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sea ... l%3ASearch, enough to give rise to the term "dominantgroupcruft" here.

[Sweet Revenge]

My feeling is that it does show JtNeill in a bad light. He didn't consider the implications of requiring students to release their coursework under a free license and it doesn't appear as if he provided a legitimate alternative way for them to meet course requirements. As for Eric's characterizations, I won't defend them. He tends towards hyperbole, but then he's got a lot of material stockpiled, so I won't attack them either.

I suspect that it just didn't occur to him that this would be an issue for anyone, because he sees collaborative content creation and "copyleft" to be the obvious (and positive) trend for the future of education. He means well, he just doesn't always see the other side.

It's true, OK, but there's kind of strict liability about ethical violations for academics in that one's supposed to know what's right and put it on the syllabus. By "bad light" I didn't mean "insanely evil light" but just something like "mildly incompetent in an area where he ought to know better light." He should have been quicker to realize that he was in the wrong. This is probably true for everyone. C'est la vie...

[Volunteer Marek]

Students should report the professor to their University ethics committee for ethics violations. Anyone who require anyone to edit Wikipedia for course credit should be reported, on any number of levels. You would think that even the most entrenched Wikipedia Kult members would be in agreement with this....

Seeing as how universities often approve these courses, Wikipedia editing and all, I doubt that would fly.

[Sweet Revenge]

Students should report the professor to their University ethics committee for ethics violations. Anyone who require anyone to edit Wikipedia for course credit should be reported, on any number of levels. You would think that even the most entrenched Wikipedia Kult members would be in agreement with this....

Seeing as how universities often approve these courses, Wikipedia editing and all, I doubt that would fly.

Nobody really looks at syllabuses unless students complain.

[Volunteer Marek]

Students should report the professor to their University ethics committee for ethics violations. Anyone who require anyone to edit Wikipedia for course credit should be reported, on any number of levels. You would think that even the most entrenched Wikipedia Kult members would be in agreement with this....

Seeing as how universities often approve these courses, Wikipedia editing and all, I doubt that would fly.

Nobody really looks at syllabuses unless students complain.

At some schools they do. Maybe not University administration but a department chair or a committee might. Anyway, broader point is that it's not like the people who use Wikipedia for teaching purposes fly those assignments under the radar but rather do it with the explicit or implicit permission from their schools. Now, it's probably the case that those chairs or committees might be under-informed, or mis-informed about what Wikipedia's really like and the copyright issues involved here, but that's a different issue.

Personally, I generally like my students, hence I would never purposefully subject them to the Wikipedia. The atmosphere can scar you for life.

[Sweet Revenge]

Students should report the professor to their University ethics committee for ethics violations. Anyone who require anyone to edit Wikipedia for course credit should be reported, on any number of levels. You would think that even the most entrenched Wikipedia Kult members would be in agreement with this....

Seeing as how universities often approve these courses, Wikipedia editing and all, I doubt that would fly.

Nobody really looks at syllabuses unless students complain.

At some schools they do. Maybe not University administration but a department chair or a committee might. Anyway, broader point is that it's not like the people who use Wikipedia for teaching purposes fly those assignments under the radar but rather do it with the explicit or implicit permission from their schools. Now, it's probably the case that those chairs or committees might be under-informed, or mis-informed about what Wikipedia's really like and the copyright issues involved here, but that's a different issue.

Personally, I generally like my students, hence I would never purposefully subject them to the Wikipedia. The atmosphere can scar you for life.

Your broader point I do agree with. Your last point too, emphatically. There's probably some case to be made that human subject ethical guidelines should forbid required WP editing. I'm (mostly) kidding.

[HRIP7]

Students should report the professor to their University ethics committee for ethics violations. Anyone who require anyone to edit Wikipedia for course credit should be reported, on any number of levels. You would think that even the most entrenched Wikipedia Kult members would be in agreement with this....

Seeing as how universities often approve these courses, Wikipedia editing and all, I doubt that would fly.

As far as I recall, the Public Policy Initiative was all about professors assigning Wikipedia coursework to their students. It was a high-profile project, and prominently communicated.

By the way, I noted that the latter link mentions Rob Schneider, "the director of External Relations for Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports" as one member of the advisory board. That reminded me that the Wikipedian in Residence at Wikimedia:Medicine suggested two of their board members would be willing to serve on the board of Wikimedia Medicine.

[Vice Cabal Leader]

I'm starting a new thread for this. Maybe a moderator could move the related stuff from the old thread over here?
However, they don't seem to take it seriously as a problem (although I'm still looking into it). For instance, Piotrus (T-C-L) has the following material linked to from the main project page:
Wikipedia:School and university projects/Piotrus course intro boilerplate
This does not give students the chance to opt out of releasing their work under WP's CC license. In fact it requires it as a significant part of the course grade. Knowing academics as I do, it seems quite likely that they're likely to use this boilerplate mutatis mutandis without thinking too hard about intellectual property issues. I haven't checked into the syllabuses of the other classes listed on that project page yet.

A good disclaimer for a syllabi: "Wikipedia copyright: by taking this course, you agree that your work on Wikipedia will be contributed to under a free and open license used by that project." That way the students are made aware of it, and the instructor is covered. It was on the print syllabi, should be added to the online, good catch.

That said, I doubt many instructors realize the need for it, and as far as I know it is not something mentioned in any of the WMF educational materials. *shrug* One day, somebody will inevitably get sued; that's fine - it should increase public understanding of Wikipedia and the idiocy of copyright.

[EricBarbour]

A good disclaimer for a syllabi: "Wikipedia copyright: by taking this course, you agree that your work on Wikipedia will be contributed to under a free and open license used by that project." That way the students are made aware of it, and the instructor is covered. It was on the print syllabi, should be added to the online, good catch.

That said, I doubt many instructors realize the need for it, and as far as I know it is not something mentioned in any of the WMF educational materials. *shrug* One day, somebody will inevitably get sued; that's fine - it should increase public understanding of Wikipedia and the idiocy of copyright.

Ha ha ha. It's already illegal in Minnesota.

[Abd]

A good disclaimer for a syllabi: "Wikipedia copyright: by taking this course, you agree that your work on Wikipedia will be contributed to under a free and open license used by that project." That way the students are made aware of it, and the instructor is covered. It was on the print syllabi, should be added to the online, good catch.

That said, I doubt many instructors realize the need for it, and as far as I know it is not something mentioned in any of the WMF educational materials. *shrug* One day, somebody will inevitably get sued; that's fine - it should increase public understanding of Wikipedia and the idiocy of copyright.

Ha ha ha. It's already illegal in Minnesota.

The significance of the Minnesota law is entirely unclear. I'd guess that, as applied in the situation described in the news, it's unconstitutional. The law was clearly intended to deal with institutions operating inside the state of Minnesota, that they must gain approval. Minnesota has no authority over institutions operating outside the state, but, with this law, they pretend that they do.

The legislature has also found and declares that this same policy applies to any private and public postsecondary educational institution located in another state or country which offers or makes available to a Minnesota resident any course, program or educational activity which does not require the leaving of the state for its completion.

The upshot of the interchange with Coursera: Minnesota is demanding that institutions outside of Minnesota, even in other countries, pay them heavy fees so they can be "approved." The letter to Coursera was from the Minnesota agency, which is, naturally, attempting to extend its bureaucratic power outside the state.

If they could get away with this, a state could require that any product sold in interstate commerce be subject to registration of the manufacturer with Minnesota, payment of fees, etc., and, as well, taxes. It's certainly been tried. Fail.

Coursera caved, and required students from Minnesota to certify that they would do the bulk of their course work outside of Minnesota; however, Minnesota then warned that the institutions, the colleges and universities which provide Coursera material, would need to comply. This could get interesting, but it seems to me that precedent is ample. Minnesota will lose this one.

[HRIP7]

Mod. note: off-topic discussion on UK extraditions moved to members' off-topic forum

[mac]

This AN/I thread was linked from Hacker News. Alex Chamberlain (T-C-L) seems to think this means the story will be picked up by mainstream media.

Not sure what to make of this:

If you'd prefer the world's most popular anonymously-editable website to be a carefully-curated collection of articles written largely by experienced editors (which a lot of the experienced editors evidently do) then you'd wouldn't want this class anywhere near it. But I think Wikipedia has bigger problems to fix.

Carefully-curated? And what of "anyone can edit"?

[tarantino]

This AN/I thread was linked from Hacker News. Alex Chamberlain (T-C-L) seems to think this means the story will be picked up by mainstream media.

Not sure what to make of this:

If you'd prefer the world's most popular anonymously-editable website to be a carefully-curated collection of articles written largely by experienced editors (which a lot of the experienced editors evidently do) then you'd wouldn't want this class anywhere near it. But I think Wikipedia has bigger problems to fix.

Carefully-curated? And what of "anyone can edit"?

I saw that AN/I thread. Users are talking about phoning and/or emailing the professor's boss. I thought that was a bannable offense on wikipedia.

[Moonage Daydream]

This AN/I thread was linked from Hacker News. Alex Chamberlain (T-C-L) seems to think this means the story will be picked up by mainstream media.

Not sure what to make of this:

If you'd prefer the world's most popular anonymously-editable website to be a carefully-curated collection of articles written largely by experienced editors (which a lot of the experienced editors evidently do) then you'd wouldn't want this class anywhere near it. But I think Wikipedia has bigger problems to fix.

Carefully-curated? And what of "anyone can edit"?

I saw that AN/I thread. Users are talking about phoning and/or emailing the professor's boss. I thought that was a bannable offense on wikipedia.

I have emailed the department head of the psychology department notifying him of what's been going on per Ryan's suggestion. Go Phightins! 19:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

[mac]

This AN/I thread was linked from Hacker News. Alex Chamberlain (T-C-L) seems to think this means the story will be picked up by mainstream media.

Not sure what to make of this:

If you'd prefer the world's most popular anonymously-editable website to be a carefully-curated collection of articles written largely by experienced editors (which a lot of the experienced editors evidently do) then you'd wouldn't want this class anywhere near it. But I think Wikipedia has bigger problems to fix.

Carefully-curated? And what of "anyone can edit"?

I saw that AN/I thread. Users are talking about phoning and/or emailing the professor's boss. I thought that was a bannable offense on wikipedia.

I didn't think of that.

[edit 1]
There's a lot going on in that thread:

I'm somewhat alarmed to find myself leaning that way, as well (well, as far as blocking the campus, not necessarily the surrounding area) - at a certain point, if the university cannot stop its users from abusing Wikipedia, the university loses its privilege to edit Wikipedia until it can deal with those users. It's hard to tell, though, if people like you and me think the idea makes sense because it's truly (among) the most sensible, or because we've gone slightly insane from staring at the issue and beating our heads against the wall for so long... A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit 2]
Apparently it's also posted to reddit. 117 upvotes in four hours. Is that a lot?

[Randy from Boise]

I'm actually working with a UCLA history professor and his class of 100 or so this term. I've got 5 other Wikipedians at the ready to answer questions as they develop.

It will be interesting.


RfB

[thekohser]

Users are talking about phoning and/or emailing the professor's boss. I thought that was a bannable offense on wikipedia.

It all depends, of course, on whether the phoner is "of the body" or not, and whether the phonee is "of the body" or not.

In the end, it's important to remember, also, that Jimbo is the main phoney.

[tarantino]

Users are talking about phoning and/or emailing the professor's boss. I thought that was a bannable offense on wikipedia.

It all depends, of course, on whether the phoner is "of the body" or not, and whether the phonee is "of the body" or not.

In the end, it's important to remember, also, that Jimbo is the main phoney.

A reader reminded me of a similar incident where the owner of two admin accounts, Zoe/RickK, tried to get a professor at NIU fired.

Jimbo did actually phone the professor and "completely resolved" the situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... _wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... from_Jimbo

Thread on WR about "Zoe" and NIU.

[Malleus]

Users are talking about phoning and/or emailing the professor's boss. I thought that was a bannable offense on wikipedia.

It all depends, of course, on whether the phoner is "of the body" or not, and whether the phonee is "of the body" or not.

In the end, it's important to remember, also, that Jimbo is the main phoney.

Were Jimbo not the "founder", he'd have found himself banned years ago.