In my experience, the best writers and the best students are able to convey information concisely - so it's a question of how much information is captured. Measurable perhaps in - references, equations, images; - outline length, and a set of key sections; - the # of internal links to related articles; the # of inbound links from other articles.
For a given amount of information, I prefer work to be as clear as possible: a combination of simple language (which you can measure automatically and spot-check) and fewer words, rather than more words. Measuring character count is often counter-productive: it inspires repetitive writing, mentioning barely-relevant topics to fill space, rewriting material that exists elsewhere rather than linking to it, and writing that is repetitive. Sam. On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:12 PM, 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 > -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Education mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
