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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education