Course:FNH200/Wiki Project

From UBC Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A traditional research based project to be shared on Wikipedia


The objectives of the team project are to enable students to delve deeper into a specific area of interest and to relate it to the topics explored in this course. Students will also gain experience working in an interdisciplinary team and examine the same topic from different perspectives.

Each team will select a traditional food commodity and a related aspect of food science and technology that is of interest to the team. All team members should contribute to the selection of the topic, development of the project, research, write up, and posting on Wikipedia and work together as a team utilizing your individual strengths with goals to develop your weaknesses.


By [DATE], you are expected to produce and share:

  • A team contract (1%)
  • A confirmed topic, a list of potential questions you plan to explore, a few reliable and neutral sources of information (1%); post on ‘talk’ page of the choice Wikipedia article
    • Post on the ‘sandbox’ page of one of the team members
    • Then, on the ‘talk’ page of your chosen Wikipedia article, share your intentions; here is a sample script:
      • Hello Fellow Wikipedia editors, On behalf of my fellow student team enrolled in an introductory food science course at UBC, we would like to use our newly learned food science knowledge to enhance this article on (filled in the chosen food). In particular, we are interested in exploring and contributing to (subtopic A), (subtopic B), and …. We will continue to post our outlines and drafts on this sandbox (provide a link). We welcome all comments and feedback. We look forward to contributing to Wikipedia via this course assignment. Signed… ABC
      • This is just a sample you may want to adopt.
  • A summary (13%) of your research composed in encyclopedic style for the general public; see a rubric below
    • A note on length: Your total contribution should be about 600-800 words in length. I will not judge the quality based on the word count. Again, please follow the rubric below.  
    • Do not attempt to re-submit or re-post content when it has been deleted by other editors.
  • Images, internal and externals links (3%) added to your articles with support from UBC librarians and open education resources specialists
  • A team reflection (1%)
    • Describes what you experienced and learned as a team at the beginning, development and completion stages of the project
      • Did you accomplish what you wanted to do at the beginning?
      • Is there something else that you wanted to learn, but hadn’t?
      • How did the team function together?
      • What would you have done differently?
    • To be submitted on Canvas
  • A potential exam question for the final exam (1%); Think about what you did not know before starting this project and what you know at the end. What surprises you? What are you going to tell your friends? What do you think the rest of FNH 200 students should know?
    • Include the question
    • Include the correct answers
    • An explanation why your question should be on the final exam
    • To be submitted on Canvas

Grading Rubric for the Research and Wikipedia Project

Criteria Excellent Good Basic Unacceptable
Quality of Information

11 out of 13

Different views should be covered with appropriate balance. Both positive and negative elements should be included, in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. Good articles also use neutral language and emphasize facts. Articles should not read like persuasive essays, but instead like encyclopedia articles. Different views were covered. Though positive and negative elements from reliable sources were included, they were not balanced. Reliable sources. Articles read like persuasive essays. Different views were covered, but were not supported by reliable sources. Language used was personal and lacked facts. Articles read like persuasive essays. Biased view was presented, but not supported by reliable sources. Articles read like persuasive essays with personal opinions.

1 out of 13

Explains all ideas clearly and concisely in a logical sequence;

fits well with existing Wikipedia information or attempts to organize existing information

Explains most ideas clearly and concisely; some gaps in knowledge Incompletely explains ideas with little use of supporting evidence Fails to explain ideas

1 out of 13

Accurately cites all sources of information to support the credibility and authority of the information presented; uses consistent bibliographic format Most sources are cited using consistent bibliographic format Few sources are cited; inconsistent bibliographic format Insufficient citation

Rubric adapted from:

Peer Evaluation Component

There are TWO components in the evaluation of the project:

Quality of the Project [A]: Assessed by TAs and instructor

Team Work [B]: Second peer evaluations on

  • [B] will be 1.0 for students receiving more than 75% from their peer evaluation
  • [B] will be as of face value for students receiving less than 75% from their peers

Calculation of Final Grade = [A] x [B]

        Examples: A team project earned a mark of 85% from the TAs and instructor.

Student J received 95% from the peer evaluation and completed both formative and summative evaluation. Student A will get a score of 85% (85% x 1.0).

Student K, received a score of 60% from the peers, will get 51% (85% x 0.6).                                   

Please note that, though rarely happened, a score of ZERO will be considered when the average peer evaluation score is less than 25% and I receive sufficient evidence throughout the term that the student had not contributed to the project.

Peer Evaluation:

Peer Evaluation will be conducted on-line at

  • Formative evaluation, not for grade, voluntary: highly recommended to be completed by [DATE].
  • Final evaluation, will be used for grading, mandatory: to be completed by [DATE]
Category Excellent Good Basic Unacceptable
Respect and Attitude


Always listen to and respects other team members' opinions; has an extremely positive attitude about the project and working in team Listens to other team members’ opinions; has a positive attitude about the project and working in team Does not always listen to other team members’ opinions; has an okay attitude about the project and working in team Is often publicly critical of the project or the work of other members of the team; Is often negative about the project and working in team


Routinely provides useful ideas, inspires others, clearly communicates desires, ideas, personal needs and feelings,

a leader who contributes a lot of effort

Participates in discussion, supports efforts of others, shares feelings and thoughts Listens mainly, makes occasionally suggestions, appreciates efforts of others Rarely provides useful ideas, may refuse to participate


Takes the initiative proposing meeting time and getting group organized, completes assigned work ahead of time Works agreeably with teammates concerning times and places to meet, completes assigned work Requires reminders from teammates, but work is done without affecting quality of the project Ignores organizational details agreed by the team; work was uncompleted and affected quality


Does a full share of the work-or more; knows what needs to be done and does it; volunteers to help others Does an equal share of the work; does work when asked; works hard most of the time Does almost as much work as other; does what is required Does less work than others, does not get caught up after absence; does not ask to help
Providing Feedback


Offers timely, respectful and constructive feedback to fellow teammates Offers feedback that does not offend Provides some feedback that sometimes hurt feelings of others or makes irrelevant comments Gives rude feedback
Receiving Feedback


Willingly accepts and responds to feedback from teammates Accepts feedback and attempts to respond to feedback from teammates Accepts feedback Refuses to listen to feedback