User talk:Cassidy (Wiki Ed)/Science communication

Feedback on the draft

Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback on this draft. Please leave your feedback in a new section below. − Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Some thoughts from EdChem

Watch out for close paraphrasing

I suggest that this section needs strengthening. Copying-and-pasting content is often a copyright violation rather than just plagiarism, and leads to reversion and revision deletion. This is a problem for instructors in that what was added is not visible for grading, but it is a bigger problem for WP as it creates the potential for legal consequences.

I am also concerned by the statement that close paraphrasing — when most of the words are changed, but the structure and meaning of the original text remains — is against the rules as it could be taken to mean that retaining the meaning of the original is a problem. We already have too many problems with OR and SYNTH, and this could inadvertently imply that changed meaning is acceptable. I would suggest saying something like Close paraphrasing, where the words are changed but the structure and sequence of ideas is retained, is still an example of plagiarism and is unacceptable. Retaining the meaning of what is written in your source is essential in good editing, but this needs to be done by writing in your own words and not by copy-and-pasting, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing.

After ... record of plagiarism tied to your account, I would add something like Your instructor will be informed of problematic editing and so there will be consequences in grading your assignment.

Thinking critically After ... skeptical of extreme or sweeping claims, I would add that the best starting points for science topics are textbooks and reference works in the area and reviews published in the literature, rather than papers reporting research findings. The latter are generally appropriate to supplement the references you used, rather than in place of the other secondary sources. I know the following section is going into that, but I suggest adding it here as well as this is an ongoing problem.

Also, regarding the heading, thinking critically is a valuable attribute but in a tertiary education context it usually points to an independent approach like a critique and means including OR. OR in editing is far too common with student assignments.

Using reliable sources

I would include the approach of searching in Google Books for suitable reference works, and point out that such resources will likely then need to be considered by reading them in the university library. Sources like existing encyclopaedia's should also be mentioned, there are some excellent ones in science areas, like Kirk-Othmer's or Ullmann's. When it comes to the research literature, I would emphasise looking for review articles first, and only going to the original research papers when appropriate. There is debate in the WP science community about when this should be done, but if any primary citations are accompanied with a relevant review / secondary source, there should be less controversy.

I don't agree about avoid blogs, there are some excellent ones. I would say instead to avoid blogs that are not written by a reputable / notable author. These can also be the best sources for debunking ridiculous claims. University websites can also be useful for uncontroversial facts. I do realise that these comments open up other issues, though.

Depicting information accurately

I think it is worth noting that original research is encouraged in academic writing and is a good skill for a student to demonstrate as part of their academic development, but that WP is not the place. OR is not bad in general, it is just that an encyclopaedia is based on a different kind of writing. Part of the challenge of the assignment is to demonstrate the ability to write in a different way, to organise and prevent information without interpretation or analysis.

Regarding If one reliable source says A, and another says B, resist the temptation to connect A and B in your article, this is not always good advice. If one source says A and another B, it can be appropriate to say that sources disagree with both A and B having been reported. This advice really needs to link to SYNTH because synthesis is another thing we want students to avoid.

Also...

Is there anything on where to edit? Working in article space rather than in draft / user space is worth considering. A lot of assignments request that students evaluate each other's work and this is generally done in a way that is fairly shallow.

Hopefully these thoughts are useful to you. If you want more input, I would suggest asking Smokefoot (has a long history of editing in Chemistry areas and dealing with student assignments and Tryptofish (who edited the page on student assignments. I'm happy to answer if you have questions too. EdChem (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @EdChem: Thank you so much for your feedback. I’m working now to incorporate much of what you’ve suggested. Some of your notes—especially in regards to plagiarism, original research, and article drafting—are covered in more detail in student trainings. This guide serves as a supplement to those. Other notes, specifically your suggestion to include reference to Kirk-Othmer's and Ullmann's encyclopedias, I've noted for future updates to our Chemistry-specific brochure. Thank you again. We’ll credit your help on the back cover of the resource. Much appreciated! Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)