I agree with Oona. No problem with the question at all! Indeed, another lesson we can learn from Frank and the WMF more generally is that backing off for fear of disagreements is only counterproductive.
But to put this in more positive terms... Again, I do think that the WP quality assessment criteria are helpful bases for assessing much student work on the encyclopedia. So rather than cumulative material, I'd ask students to think about things such as comprehensiveness, balance, range of sources, and so on. What belongs in an article on a novel (say): plot summary, yes; theme analysis or account of critical reaction, yes; literary and historical context; and so on and so forth. It is much more difficult to write a *balanced* article (in all senses of the term) than simply to write a *long* one.
Personally, in class I focus above all on the notion that students should contribute *regularly*: i.e. that they should start editing early, and continue throughout the semester. This goes against their (natural?) tendencies, encouraged by term papers etc., to leave everything to the last minute. But it helps them get into the notion that writing on Wikipedia is a matter of *re*-writing and revising, rather than simply dumping pre-prepared text.
(Ideally, this will also advance them towards the notion that all writing, even for term papers etc., is also a matter of rewriting and revising... This can be one of the great pedagogical benefits of using Wikipedia in class.)
Take care
Jon
On Jan 31, 2014, at 4:56 AM, Oona Castro ocastro@wikimedia.org wrote:
Juliana, please don't worry about the question and discussions that followed your email. The reason why the thread became controversial and a long debate is because assessing articles quality has been hard for everyone I guess. Not an individual problem, but a movement problem for which nobody has the perfect answer.
I think some good inputs came out of this and that's obviously your call to decide the best way to grade your students. You've been constantly experimenting and this is important to find pros and cons of the methodologies you try.
Perhaps, establishing a minimum contribution (a complete paragraph with references? I don't know) could help you establish a baseline and you wouldn't have to be counting bytes (we can help you on this, but believe me, it can be hard, especially when they work in groups, or forget to login etc).
Oona
On 31 January 2014 08:09, domusaurea domusaurea@gmail.com wrote: And this was how I learned not to ask questions, ever.
Juliana
Enviado via iPhone
Em 31/01/2014, às 02:17, Everton Zanella Alvarenga everton.alvarenga@okfn.org escreveu:
I belive Frank will like your approach. You should let him know. :)
Prizes depending on the number of bytes would be really cool and pedagogical.
2014-01-27 Juliana Bastos Marques domusaurea@gmail.com:
*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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
-- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) OKF Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre http://br.okfn.org
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education