Students are obsessed with using Wikipedia, some to the point of total reliance, while instructors are addicted to complaining about it. The advantages and disadvantages of it should be more or less obvious to all, but they are not. Some people don't even know that anybody can write anything in Wikipedia. We are all learning to learn with the internet. It is still so new that we all come to this with a degree of inexperience.

Perhaps it will eventually change my policy on Wikipedia, but for now, that remains as is. The purposes of this assignment include:

• helping students learn more about Wikipedia so that they know what kind of a resource it is and more about its strengths and weaknesses
• helping students learn more about scholarship. This is usually done by having students write book reviews or webpage reviews using scholarly criteria. This time, an allegedly non-scholarly source, Wikipedia, will be our target.

Here are the formal requirements of the assignment:

• Choose a Wikipedia article that falls within the thematic range of this course, preferably on a controversial subject. For controversy, subjects on race, class and religion are usually pretty good. Other ideas include subjects like slavery, empire, possibly culture.
• Go to the "Discussion" section of that article and spend some time looking at it.
• Write a 1000 word or more analysis of the discussion.
• Submit it to the assignment folder by 18 March, 2007 CE.
• Papers should be formatted in a readable fashion with author's name, title, date, etc. clearly visible on page 1.

The analysis should answer such questions as:

• What is the discussion about? What kinds of issues do the participants tend to disagree about? Are there any issues which you would have expected to be controvesial, but aren't?
• Is the discussion dominated by particular interests in a way that you would not expect in a "normal" encyclopedia?
• Is the debate scholarly or just emotional and polemic? Do the participants draw on scholarly sources for their points and ideas, or on strongly-held "beliefs" or prejudices? Which kinds of sources do they cite - webpages, books, scholalry journals, other sources?
• Can you tell who the participants are? Are they full-time "Wikipedists," people who contribute to a wide range of topics, or are they subject experts?

You get the idea. We are trying to get to the bottom of what is behind this particular article.