Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AP Biology 2010/Archive 1

src: image.slidesharecdn.com

Pembicaraan Wikipedia: WikiProject AP Biology 2010

This archive covers the 2010-2011 AP Project Fall

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AP Biology 2010/Archive 1

Timeline

Follow this schedule - it will affect your score! Any response to this bullet should be done in a separate section to avoid disturbing this important information.-- JimmyButler (talk) 15:04, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

• 8/31: Done All students must have created an account. This should be done at home - the IP address of the school is blocked. Choosing an account name is limited only by your imagination - take my example!
• 8/31: Done Add your account to the project page under the "members" heading. Use this format: * JimmyButlerÃ, (talk Ã, Â · contribs Ã, Â · count) - which can be copied/pasted in edit mode - then change the name of my account for you.
• 8/31: Done Hopefully we will reach a consensus on two articles. This is the most important step in the process that will make or break our spirit. Choose wisely my young jedi! Post two of your choices in the following sections along with a logical summary for this decision. We will then stop for comments - assimilating suggestions that may appear - then continue from there.
• 9/3: Done Fill out your "Users page" and enrich your html skills. Give some insight into your philosophy and ambition without sharing too much personal information, the info box is an entertaining way to achieve this. Note: Wikipedia is not a FaceBook or chat room. I do not recommend private photos. I will encourage interesting images that "dress up" your page, if for no other reason than learning how to insert an image.
• 9/17: Apply Project banners to our adopted article talk page. This tells others that this is a Biology project that is actively edited by our class.

• 9/20: Develop a list of relative references to your topic. Everything should be accessible to members of your group as web links or ownership directly from a printed copy. This list should be posted on an article discussion page using the accepted Wikipedia format in the new section titled "reference". This link can help you determine what information should be included regarding references you post on the talk page, Wikipedia: Template quotes and Wikipedia: Quoting source. The correct formatting is to make or break in the FA effort.

Read the following information, "lifted" from Wikipedia: Article development:

Research is needed to write a good article. A good article should be verifiable and cite a reliable source that ideally should include a peer reviewed journal or book or article. Consider visiting a university or public library to identify and learn the best sources. See what search engines like Google can come up with, and read relevant articles from other encyclopedias, to form ideas on what topics to discuss, in what depth, to achieve a comprehensive coverage summary. The following sites can help you: Encyclopedia.com (free), AllRefer Reference (free), Factmonster, Encyclopedia Britannica School & amp; Library Site (free in most libraries).

Find relevant references

There are several ways to find and retrieve articles online, without having to leave home. Google Scholar is an excellent resource for finding online articles that are sometimes free; note that free article entries can quickly be identified because they have a "Show as HTML" link on the results page.

Many libraries have agreements with database providers where library users with current library cards can connect free to the database from their home computer - that is, the user does not need to be physically present in the library. Check with your local public or academic library to find out where the database is subscribed, and whether they have a mechanism for remote access. Some high-end databases (such as InfoTrac and ProQuest) even carry scanned versions of articles like those originally printed.

--12tsheaffer (talk) 18:26, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Make sure to check all the sources. Although there may be many, you do not know what is inside; They may all repeat the same basic information. Also, make sure the source is credible, see WP: Source. Basically, do not get stuck with articles that do not have a good source available. (It happened to me last year... Hypertrichosis...) - Vancemiller (talk Ã, Â · contribs Ã, Â · count Ã, Â · email) 01:07, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Are the two topics above the 'official' option, or is the project still decided? If you decide, I echo Vancemiller in that case - if you want to make the project 'easy' - let the source/reference pick a topic. In general, the more local the topic, the easier it is to find sources and illustrations (you can take your own photos, etc.). Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ug99 - If you have not completed a topic, may I suggest this: this is not a submarine. To find out the topic, there is a New York Times article called Stem Rust Never Sleeps written by Nobel Prize winner Norman E. Borlaug. As for Wikipedia, this article is less than a stub! You must solve it from the parent article. It does not matter. As for resources, there will be many. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It may be difficult for students in North Carolina to gather information about mammals that are endemic to Africa. Good luck !! - NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:06, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's him !? Thanks for all the feedback. Frankly, I would go local or at least a little more mainstream. Woofer is both, works well for us. However, the swamp turtle is not there and it works. Regardless, I will receive no reason when this project is revealed and will only wish you good! - JimmyButler (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Go AP Biology Go! Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Let the game begin! - NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AP Biology 2010/Archive 1

Questions about uploading images

Hello, all! I got permission to use some pictures and they were pretty good, but I had a bit of a problem. I thought I could figure out how to upload images (maybe), but I do not know how to mention photographers in copyright. I have to do that because the photographer asked me to acknowledge it for his photographs. I do not even know if there is copyright beside the picture. I do not care if I sound stupid too, because, to be honest, I hate technical stuff. I may just wait until I see everyone in the class to upload an image. If anyone can help me, please let me know.-- The best Rebekah (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Listen to Vancemiller, the picture is my Achilles heel on Wikipedia, the reference is my other Achilles heel (I have two Achilles heels right?) I check... Yup).-- NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16 : 38, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, it might be a good idea to read this article before uploading an image. It addresses issues like what you have to say about copyright. - Vancemiller (talk Ã, Â · contribs Ã, Â · count Ã, Ã, Â · email) 18:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Rebekah I think that I and you are contacting the same person for permission. He said it's okay but he's not fired, so you should ask him about it. which he separates, I can help get it. --Jraffe0404 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Jacob, did the person who gave you the picture was named Julio? It was the person who gave me my photo, I also got a photo from someone named Mimi. I will try to upload the photos, but I may have to ask you about them tomorrow.-- The best Rebekah (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

For security reasons, the first name of the editor (or anyone else for that matter) is often avoided. See Wikipedia: Personal security practices for more information about what I'm talking about.-- NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:24, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Try to use your username while in discussion on Wikipedia. Most users will only know you by your username and will be confused by your insider 's knowledge, figures and references. This will almost certainly lead to wiki-nastiness. Why? Because you will accidentally create a sense of ownership of the page, and that is a bad thing on wikipedia. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

On a totally unrelated note (sorry to break in!) - do not hesitate to contact yourself if you need help getting the images released under the free license (eg from Flickr) - I can help with that. Good luck! Connormah (talk) 00:56, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I would definitely take that offer, but first I have to get the image owner to switch from all copyright to some copyright, so I do not know when they will be under a free license. I'm still working on it.-- The best Rebekah (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Buying At

• Question: The attempt to fulfill the requirements for the 9/20 phase is far less satisfactory. Is it lack of reference or lack of motivation? Failure to meet deadlines is unacceptable. How would you explain this when we discussed the point construction during the final assessment? Those who came from last year's efforts can prove appreciation when you "buy" for this project as well as the dire consequences of assuming this is less relevant than Mathematics or English. My compassion and understanding of your suffering have extreme limits.-- JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion to editors: do not put parts of this project to completion. If you do not understand something, ask, do not just be quiet. - NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:45, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to develop a passion for your topic. Have a sense of pride! When that happens, you WANT to work on the project. It consumes you. Sell ​​your soul to the Wikipedia Project! - Timhallstr (talk) 01:09, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

That's another great way to see it. Think "Cougar Pride"... You represent your school here people !! - NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:02, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Also, once you've actually started editing and making changes, you do pull new editors and sounds, which makes editing well, funStrombollii (talk) 21:21, September 23 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Direct quotes

A head up: all direct quotes must be surrounded by other quotes that will be interpreted as plagiarism even if the part is recognized by a clear quote to the source. Quotations are just recognition of where things come from. That does not imply that the exact words of the original author are being used. The quotes ("") tell the reader that the words are the correct original. In normal writing, you must repeat or digest the original and write the information in your own words. None of this has anything to do with copyright. However, if the original source is limited by copyright, then the actual number of sources you quote can be very important even if you have a clear quotation attached. To conclude:

• direct quotes
• quotes the source
• copyright/public domain

there are three different * concepts * you should remember when writing essays - Wikipedia articles-and you can not ignore them without causing problems for yourself. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice the above suggestion. Plagiarism can be put to death. Any question? - JimmyButler (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Big Changes: Allomone Down, now Fake Albacore

Because the online resources at Allomone are becoming few and far between, as well as the current scientific debate about whether allomones should be classified as different chemicals, as our classes have decided to transfer to different topics for WikiProject. We have decided to work on the Albacore Fake article, because this is a local fish, its resources are much more available, and there is not a big debate we know about the fish around it. By having this as a local species, and the best months for fishing species is in October and November for the area, we will be able to collect some data of ourselves in the field, and from local experts. This topic looks much more workable than allomone, and we hope to be more successful with the research.-- M rickabaugh (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a smart thing to do. Allomone is a kind of topic outside the walls (there may be a reason why it is basically untouched... maybe because the definition is moot...). I do not know about the first-hand research applications for wikipedia (generally unacceptable...), but, if I were you, I would start a "field trip! Journey!" "singing in class one day.-- NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is obviously a stub.... the only current information is ( It is a fish ). No where to go but from there! - JimmyButler (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I might have to call it "protostub" or something... one sentence, serious? The wikiproject can basically take all the glory for whatever end result may be.-- NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Changes, again... Albacore Salah is a common name that refers to many species in the genus Euthynnus. I've turned all the links on the fish into the right article, Little Tunny. I'm very sorry for the confusion, but I'm glad we've found a mistake before we reach the point of no return.-- M rickabaugh (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Holy shmoley... okay.-- NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:22, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Alternative to Google Scholar

Hi, try this search engine: http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=little tunny & amp; t = all & drill = yes & amp; = 0 & amp; p = 180, it generates an impressive number of legit sites for little tunny.-- JimmyButler (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow... I thought I was the only one up late tonight. Some impressive works are put into both articles... Mauritian gets the attention of the copy-edit. For PR! - NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:49, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

The number of reliable sources in this search engine/subject directory is great! I have read some this afternoon, and some have new info, and others can serve as a better quote for the information that has been entered. Thank you for this help. --M rickabaugh (talk) 00:07, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Judgment Day

We have had our Judgment Day - one of the strengths of this project is the difficulty in bluffing your way; edit history speaks for itself. Although we failed to meet expectations (no GA or FA), we are not dangerous. The Tomb Bat and False Albacore are the enhanced versions of the initial stub. The shift from evaluating individual business over final product works well as a fair class accounting tool. For those interested in class distribution trends, I'll leave the following:

• The assignment has a value of 300 pt. It accounts for 50% of their quarterly value.
• Three students collect 10 pt or less.
• Two students exceed 290 points.

Students present a portfolio documenting their efforts. This includes proof of editing - formatting, copying/editing, images and most important content. Other components require research demonstrations, including access to libraries or direct contact with experts.

Each conference is approached with a point-seeking attitude to build a better class rather than an attempt to undermine their efforts. Four out of eight people appeared empty-handed. A surprisingly bad decision since the academic result is a major disaster. Also note - none of these students offer excuses for their short-comings. No reason. The reason for this shortage needs to be determined before trying future projects. Intimidation, apathy, lack of clarity in instruction, poor leadership, immaturity, inadequate prerequisites to prepare such a challenge or many other real or imagined reasons. Losing four out of eight students is not an option! Cheers --JimmyButler (talk) 16:51, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

It's really sad to hear that, although I would say that two honorable articles are made from stubs, there's nothing to be sneered at in my mind. As a student, maybe I can offer some insight into the possible reasons for the lack of editing. At first, I remember feeling nervous about editing: "Oh my God, everyone will be able to see this." I just have to convince myself that, as long as I add material that I know better articles and better Wikipedia, there's no reason to fret. Another thing that held me back was my writing skills. I have a tough time sp3ling (and still mind you) and form a coherent, fluid paragraph. However, come second semester, I am the product of Robinson Inc. Also, other editors help me write. But the other thing I experienced was dun, dun, dun, plagarism . Even this horrendous mistake did not come to me because editors from around the world helped me on the right path. Ultimately, a person can overcome all Wikipedia obstacles as long as an article expansion effort is made. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:04, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

That's the spirit. Errors can always be changed. Inactive does not produce anything. --Ettrig (talk) 09:55, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

One word, "tortoise". TCO (talk) 19:53, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Approach

Coordination of such projects is fundamentally difficult. Every student has his own likes and dislikes. The "one student, one article" approach is probably the way to go, but if it's done for my class, I'd probably choose a human skeleton just because it's cool. That would be a disaster, I would not know how to build articles (still do not know how...). I'm sure many people benefit from talking to others about what kind of articles to do, but maybe they are the same ones hurt by group members who do not pull their weight. Having one topic (evolution) and rolling with it has both a positive and a negative side too (at least I would think so): everyone will feel like part of a bigger team fixing one basic thing, but there will be no variation, no way to students to choose what they want to edit. If an article of evolution is solved by a section and each child assigns its own part, there must be one child who does not do his or her own work and keeps the whole group standing.

The small group approach (my year) is fine, it works to buffer the difficulty of article selection and those who are determined to make GA/FA not hurt in any way (may have to do more work, but not worse than doing it themselves like with the first project). Splitting the class between the two articles is cool, but perhaps the students have to choose one and work on it rather than switching between the two. I liked the article selection process used in the second half of last year and earlier this year. The students post ideas here and we all study the article and assess the quality, importance, and resources available.

Perhaps a way to make sure people do this is to make them a percentage of each of their six-week values: "50% test, 25% homework/quizes/classwork, and 25% wikipedia" or whatever. Of course it makes it seem more important when, if they do not do it, they get 75 large fat on their report cards (assuming they're genius and doing everything else 100% perfect).

Just a few thoughts.-- NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I am a certified genius (yes, I know), and even a former member of Mensa will you believe. But I can also be a bit lazy, which may be a student trap. Like you, I do not think the group works in this context, and I'm just as frustrated with hell for having to carry a pair of goobers (I just made that word, but it has the right feeling for me). Malleus Fatuorum 05:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• 1 or 2 male teams.

• Give the class a list of species articles, where you have seen the topic and know it will be doable in not too broad or too nichey. And the article's provision is appropriate (not enough). We can supply the turtle topic. Give them a list that may be 50-100% greater than the amount to be selected. Allow them to propose alternatives, but be brutal not to allow things that are not optimal in terms of topics. If there's too much work to do, do some discussion threads here to generate ideas or something.)

• The whole reason I get "union card" is choosing an appopriate problem (that is easy to do, but interesting to talk about). Choosing the right thing to do is key. For example, I have a lot of life experiences to draw, but still will abstain from doing animals abroad because it's too hard to make sure you get the right info, etc. When there are things sitting here like terrapin, there is no reason to go for an African bat.

• And no, your students should not be expected to know how to do that. Give them a list of topics that you know are ALL winners. Can know the selection method if there is a choice that is too popular (lots of lottery, first get it, one justification, etc.) People love the game, so there's nothing wrong with it.

• Will avoid topics like evolution or human physiology because expectations will be too high on the wiki, and the topic is too special. TCO (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two sides of the coin. Children should be able to have some freedom, maybe they do not want to do article species but something like Phagocyte. On the other hand, some of them may choose the article "falling hole", The human framework is certainly one of them. This is a difficult task to meet both criteria.-- NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Broader topics are more valuable to readers and generate more valuable experiences for writers. Fortunately, the most extensive subjects, such as evolution, are quite closed, and so are the species most appealing to the reader. I would like to see Biololgy's AP classes together create a set of Good Articles covering all the subject matter that can occur at AP Biology Tests. --Ettrig (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Assign each group of senior editors to act as mentors, like what we do in the Ambassador program. This person will be a pair of eyes that oversee selection, writing, source searching, and reviewing the process. --Guerillero | My Discussion <14 hours, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your exposure. I think many of the short-comings of the 2010-2011 season fall right on the shoulders of the students. This becomes clear during the assessment process where there is not a single word of protest. Evaluating student contributions rather than finished products eliminates blame games. Unfortunately, there is also pride in ownership. Both articles improved; but no one feels the need to apply for GA or FA. My biggest concern, so many are willing to take "F", a value with enough impact for some to fail for the entire course. Why? Apathy? Not possible because these people usually fight for each point. Lack of guidance? We dedicate a lot of class time to the project; beyond the clear instructions here and previous history of success to serve as an example. They just did what - they're not stupid. Intimidation? God bless them if they are timid... students in the past learned to love confrontation. Bad topic selection? Fish has many references and is local - bat, not so much. Regarding mentor - which was attempted on 2008-2009 assignment. I find it better to let students develop their relationship with collaborators. In each case - when they actually add content - students find an ally willing to help. Lack of time --- maybe a factor --- because they make the worst possible decisions - they delay as a group (safe in knowing no one else is doing anything). Nothing comes out of the package to set standards. With only one senior in the class we have no role models. Group of misery - if you do not do anything then I am not! This semester - they will pay penance to the Wiki gods. Every week they should make possible contributions including 1) adding pictures 2) improving prose 3) adding content 4) adding references to unedited material 5) improving formatting 6) improving spelling and other low order tasks. They are limited to stubborn articles and periphery related to evolution. I will develop a rubric for calculating points and setting criteria for A. Each week the task will hang over their heads like a guillotine - always present. The Wiki gods have spoken.-- JimmyButler (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Evolution - hurray! Calculating contributions will be hard work. Will any edits be the same or is the image worth a thousand words? What is the minimum weekly contribution? --Ettrig (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia