RAISING THE STAKES: WITCHCRAFT ON WIKIPEDIA

1. RAISING THE STAKES: WITCHCRAFT ON WIKIPEDIA Elizabeth Ann Pollard Department of History

2. HISTORY “Possessive Individualism” Single Authorship Values original contribution Values “experts” Questions existence of neutrality WIKIPEDIA Intellectual commons Joint, collaborative enterprise Eschews “original research” Aversion to “experts” Insistence on NPOV (neutral point of view) Background:Historical Discourse vs. Wikipedia? BUT THESE ARE THE VERY ISSUES THAT A HISTORY METHODS COURSE IN HISTORIOGRAPHY ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS For elaboration of these ideas, see Roy Rosenzweig’s "Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past," Journal of American History 93, no. 1 (June 2006): 117-46.

3. Pin-Pointing the Problem • Witchcraft-related topics are particularly susceptible to non-historical, biased, even faith-based treatment. • Witchcraft-related topics are likely to be overlooked on Wikipedia, given its population of primarily male techno-geeks. Greco-Roman “Voodoo Doll,” now at the Louvre, which was used in similar ways as curse tablets --- namely to wish harm on the target of the spell.

4. Curse Tablets: A Problematic Existing Entry • Little to no representation of existing scholarly debate • Unbalanced coverage (focused on Britain, with little attention to other examples elsewhere) • Very limited references • No examples • Few good external links

5. Solution: Brewing Up an Entry • Target a problematic entry. • Undertake research in scholarly articles and book-length treatments. • Determine points of scholarly conflict and consensus. • Write a NPOV treatment reflecting the arguments and citing their proponents. • Include references and perhaps even a snippet from a related primary source and/or an image, if possible. • Provide internal links to related Wikipedia entries and external links to reliable treatments on the web. Hans Baldung Grien’s Witches’ Sabbath (1510)

6. A Wiki-Stub A gap needing to be addressed almost from scratch ? NO! What’s wrong with this entry? Current scholarship suggests that the Formicarius is just as central to an understanding of early modern witchcraft accusations as the Malleus Maleficarum, which is much more well-known today and consequently treated in a much longer Wikipedia entry

7. Unveiling the Entry for Examination by “Peers” • Participate in the related Wikipedia “discussion”. • Explain the choices made when recounting the scholarly conflict and consensus. • Visit the discussion area early and often to engage other Wikipedians. T. H. Matteson’s Examination of a Witch (1853)

8. Curse Tablets: Room for Historiographical Discussion • Opportunity for student to continue historiographical discussion, justifying the changes offered • Participation in real, high-stakes “peer-review” Example of contributor justification

9. Outcomes:Sample Student Entries on Wikipedia • Peruvian Inquisition • Martin Ocelotl • Heresy of the Free Spirit • Familiars • Witch Hunt • Witch Trial • Tituba Track student changes, thoughts, and historiographical comments in “discussion” and “history” tabs associated with each individual entry.

10. Rubric for Professor Evaluation of Student Work Significance of the targeted gap or problematic coverage Quality of the contribution in terms of content Quality of participation in Wikipedia discussion Adherence to encyclopedic form Adherence to stylistic conventions (spelling, punctuation, and grammar, etc.) in Wikipedia entry Clarity of ideas in oral presentation Relationship of entry to ongoing historiography project Thoroughness of research as evidenced by working bibliography Student Survey-Based Response (Sample Questions) What did you like best about the assignment? What did you dislike? Biggest challenge? Most exciting aspect? What did you learn? How does this use of tech in teaching compare with your previous experience in other courses? How did you feel about the “stakes” of the assignment? How do you now feel about Wikipedia? Suggested improvements for the assignment and process? Evaluation of the Project

11. What worked: Improved research skills Student sense of pride and accomplishment Ongoing student engagement Sense of wider academic discourse What needs work: Topic Selection More start-up instruction in the use of technology Clearer integration of the assignment earlier Student Survey-Based Feedback

12. Revision Plans • the creation of some sort of Wikipedia tutorial, perhaps an in-class review (by me or by an ITS expert) or an on-line taped tutorial (to save class-time), • more in-class, hands-on experimentation with the Wikipedia process, • clearer integration (through teaching and example) of how this assignment relates to historians' historiographical processes, • more guidance to students in targeting problematic entries, and • encourage involvement by professor’s professional colleagues in the field. Page from a Greco-Roman grimoire

13. Unexpected Outcome?: Student Pride in the Work • “I like that I have published, in a way” • “I called my mom and bragged” • “[The assignment] gave me the feeling that my words were valuable to someone else” • “It was the first time [I] felt like a historian, to tell you the truth” • It was the most "personal reward… I have ever had from a school assignment… I tell my friends and family to check it out all the time" • "I got to add and change scholarship on a topic I had been studying all semester" • "I do feel that I made Wiki a slightly better place than when I first found it" • "No class has ever asked [me] to contribute an original work of this kind"