Hi Rob, These are powerful tools and we have the benefit of hindsight to learn from the experiences of a humble giant <smile>.
That said -- I think WE is pioneering new ground in the sense that educational materials are different from an encyclopedia article. Education is culturally bounded and its going to be difficult to agree the parameters of a quality educational resource. Please take a look at the http://wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Quality_Assurance_and_Review page and see where and how the tools you have linked might assist WE. Automation will help us to scale -- so we need to think very seriously about how to move QA and review processes forward in WE. Candidly -- I think this is the biggest challenge faced by our community to date. I see opportunities for us establishing a global leadership position on the challenges of quality in the development of educational materials. Lets prove the world that we are going to become the global leaders in the field <smile>. Cheers Wayne On Sun, 2008-05-04 at 09:47 +1200, Robert Kruhlak wrote: > >Of course it would also mean increased > > work load for all concerned. One can't expect peers to review unless > > one is also willing to serve as reviewer. > > I recently heard/read about an automatic methods for determining the > quality of a wikipedia article. An example using wikipedia content is > given at the link below > > http://gaston.cse.ucsc.edu/index.php/Main_Page > > More information can be found at: > > http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/ > > Cheers > Rob > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
