What would you mean by "superfluous templates"? Infoboxes and such?
Juliana. On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Craig Franklin <[email protected] > wrote: > The obvious problem I see is that adding a lot of bytes to an article > doesn't necessarily equate to adding a lot of *value* to an article. On > enwiki at least, it's probably very easy to inflate the bytecount by > inserting superfluous templates and the like into an article, without > actually adding any content. At most I'd recommend using it as a rough > guide for students as to when an article *may* be ready, and then assess > the articles qualitatively after that. > > Cheers, > Craig > > > On 28 January 2014 11:12, Juliana Bastos Marques <[email protected]>wrote: > >> *NOT a CFP!* ;) >> >> Hello all! >> >> I have been thinking about using the criterion of a minimum number of >> bytes to evaluate the students' edits for my next course - together with >> content, of course. This came up because I noticed some students were >> editing as little as possible, and this time I want the whole group to >> start new articles from scratch. >> >> Has anyone used this approach? Pros/cons? What would you consider a >> reasonable number for the minimum of bytes in the final article? >> >> Juliana. >> >> -- >> www.domusaurea.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Education mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Education mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education > > -- www.domusaurea.org
_______________________________________________ Education mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
