Indeed. The WMF repeatedly bandied around the number of bytes produced by education projects, and it was (understandably) hugely controversial, not least given the problems that the program has had with plagiarism (most notoriously with the Pune project).
I would strongly suggest that bytes are a very poor indication of success. Take care Jon On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:31 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 _______________________________________________ Education mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
