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 <cfranklin(a)wikimedia.org.au> 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 <domusaurea(a)gmail.com> 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
Education(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
_______________________________________________
Education mailing list
Education(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education