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
<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
--
Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266