Hi Declan, That's an excellent point -- and is a good example of the power of the wiki technology. Essentially the wiki has a flat structure and gives users the ability to link and remix pages in ways that are not possible with conventional CMS systems.
So for example, you could create a node page based in US biology educational standards and someone in New Zealand could create a node page on the NZ qualifications framework. However, it is conceivable that both the US and NZ pages may use the same content resource in WE. So we need to think of smart ways for the US educators to make value judgement on the quality of materials, while providing the NZ educators with the same freedom. In a second scenario, US educators may want to fork or add an extra section to a resource developed by educators in Ghana. This is where WE's pdf feature to build customised collections is very powerful. The US pdf collection may be different from the collection used in Ghana. (BTW -- one of the reasons I want to be pretty sure that rich text editors don't break the power of tempates <smile). Lots for us to think about -- so if you have any thoughts or advice on how to implement these QA issues in real life -- feel free to add your ideas on this page: http://wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Quality_Assurance_and_Review Gee -- this is pretty exciting. A big responsibility -- so I hope that WE gets it right! Cheers Wayne On May 3, 2:35 pm, Declan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps organizational tools such as indices by topic, by educational > level, and by different educational standards could serve the purpose > of rating as well as organization. > > If, for example I wanted to construct an index or table of contents > linking US biology educational standards to a set of resources > developed by various WE users. In the process it would be essential > that I evaluated each page before linking from the index. As more and > more such organizational tools are created, link counts could serve as > one indicator of quality. Creators of such indices would tend to > ignore the weaker content. > > I think it is inevitable in an open environment that there will be > variability in quality. Two (of many) potential approaches to judging > quality might be benign neglect of poor quality material, or a peer > review system resulting in a rating. Peer review and rating might > please some users and alienate others, but it would likely result in a > decent measure of quality. 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. > Cheers, > Declan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
