Thank, Jon. I'd also love to know about the requirements of other Wikipedias, they may not be the same.

James, I believe we always have some room for experimentation in grading. Countries are different, schools are different, courses are different, goals are different. Guidelines are great (aren't we just creating them right now?), but they should not be rules, IMHO.

Juliana.

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Jon Beasley-Murray <jon.beasley-murray@ubc.ca> wrote:

Juliana:

This question has been asked a lot on wiki.  The following link might help a first stab at an answer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles/By_length

Though I'm not sure how accurate the list is, as #4156 on the list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Irene_%282005%29) as well as #4160 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Brown_Saw_the_Baseball_Game) both appear to be rather shorter than #4161 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boletus_luridus).

See also:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles/Archive_6#Which_is_the_SHORTEST_Featured_article_.28by_length.29.3F
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria/Archive_7#Article_length_criteria
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive24#When_an_article_simply_has_no_more_information...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive31#Notability.2C_etc
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive31#Followup_on_500-word_FACs

and so on.

Take care

Jon

On Jan 29, 2014, at 3:31 PM, Juliana Bastos Marques <domusaurea@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you allow me, perhaps I should rephrase:
>
> ***After all requirements of quality are assessed and evaluated***, what would you consider a reasonable number for the minimum of bytes in the final article?
>
> Indeed, maybe this question overlaps with some of the criteria for GA/FA, but I also suppose they are not the same for all Wikipedias.
>
> Juliana.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Jon Beasley-Murray <jon.beasley-murray@ubc.ca> wrote:
> Well, a little unfair perhaps.  The education program was not a single thing, and I certainly acknowledge your own valuable contributions throughout, that consistently ensured (and continue to ensure) a more thoughtful approach to counteract the editcountitis and bytecountitis that was prevalent in other quarters.  Still, there's no denying that the focus on quantity (seemingly at the expense of quality) has always been, and continues to be, one of the major sources of tension between the education program and the Wikipedia community.  Hence there is good reason to think and talk in other ways about how to assess and encourage student work.
>
> Take care
>
> Jon
>
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Sage Ross <sross@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Jon Beasley-Murray
> > <jon.beasley-murray@ubc.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> In short, focussing single-mindedly on bytes contributed (as the WMF has repeatedly done in the past) in counterproductive and goes directly against Wikipedia's own criteria for what are (rightly) valued as its most important and valuable contributions.
> >>
> >
> > Jon, I think you're being unfair here. Despite being much harder to
> > measure, quality has been part of WMF's education programs since the
> > beginning. During the Public Policy Initiative, we created a system
> > for quantifying article quality (and how the work of student editors
> > impacted it) that was directly based on WP:WIAFA [1].
> >
> > It should be uncontroversial to say that what we -- and by "we" I mean
> > both WMF and the editing community -- want is large quantities *of*
> > high quality content. From what I saw, the leaderboards were pretty
> > effective at motivating a handful of most involved classes during the
> > Public Policy Initiative -- classes with instructors who were the most
> > into the goal of improving Wikipedia -- and for those classes, the
> > quality was also high. For the classes that were doing lower quality
> > work, from what I remember they were also the ones that did not take
> > an interest in the leaderboard. (I also suggest that the Pune pilot
> > would have gone just as badly with or without leaderboards; counting
> > bytes was not among its critical problems.)
> >
> > (I agree that, for evaluating an individual student's work, bytes
> > added is not a great metric, and in general there are some dangers to
> > incentives based on quantity of text.)
> >
> > [1] = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Assessment
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
> --
> www.domusaurea.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

--
www.domusaurea.org

_______________________________________________
Education mailing list
Education@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education