If you allow me, perhaps I should rephrase: ***After all requirements of quality are assessed and evaluated***, what would you consider a reasonable number for the minimum of bytes in the final article?
Indeed, maybe this question overlaps with some of the criteria for GA/FA, but I also suppose they are not the same for all Wikipedias. Juliana. On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Jon Beasley-Murray < [email protected]> wrote: > Well, a little unfair perhaps. The education program was not a single > thing, and I certainly acknowledge your own valuable contributions > throughout, that consistently ensured (and continue to ensure) a more > thoughtful approach to counteract the editcountitis and bytecountitis that > was prevalent in other quarters. Still, there's no denying that the focus > on quantity (seemingly at the expense of quality) has always been, and > continues to be, one of the major sources of tension between the education > program and the Wikipedia community. Hence there is good reason to think > and talk in other ways about how to assess and encourage student work. > > Take care > > Jon > > On Jan 29, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Sage Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Jon Beasley-Murray > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> In short, focussing single-mindedly on bytes contributed (as the WMF > has repeatedly done in the past) in counterproductive and goes directly > against Wikipedia's own criteria for what are (rightly) valued as its most > important and valuable contributions. > >> > > > > Jon, I think you're being unfair here. Despite being much harder to > > measure, quality has been part of WMF's education programs since the > > beginning. During the Public Policy Initiative, we created a system > > for quantifying article quality (and how the work of student editors > > impacted it) that was directly based on WP:WIAFA [1]. > > > > It should be uncontroversial to say that what we -- and by "we" I mean > > both WMF and the editing community -- want is large quantities *of* > > high quality content. From what I saw, the leaderboards were pretty > > effective at motivating a handful of most involved classes during the > > Public Policy Initiative -- classes with instructors who were the most > > into the goal of improving Wikipedia -- and for those classes, the > > quality was also high. For the classes that were doing lower quality > > work, from what I remember they were also the ones that did not take > > an interest in the leaderboard. (I also suggest that the Pune pilot > > would have gone just as badly with or without leaderboards; counting > > bytes was not among its critical problems.) > > > > (I agree that, for evaluating an individual student's work, bytes > > added is not a great metric, and in general there are some dangers to > > incentives based on quantity of text.) > > > > [1] = > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Assessment > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
