Hi Juliana and all! This discussion seems great! As Jami pointed out, WMF does count bytes as a way of assessing how much it has been contributed, as it's hard/impossible for WMF to evaluate quality in every article edited in the education program in different languages.
I do agree that the side effect of it might be a wordy/prolix writing. But I guess that having a set of criteria such as: number/quality of sources added, new sections created, bytes added, language accuracy and style, as well as balance and objectiveness, together, may help you evaluate and encourage better contributions. I think having it selected as good/featured article could be a bonus, but since it has to go through discussion in the community and sometimes this can be frustrated by things unrelated to the article itself (i.e. having a long list of articles to be discussed and voted for good/featured), I'm not sure I'd bring it to the center of the assessment criteria. Oona On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Jon Beasley-Murray < [email protected]> wrote: > In fact I find the "good article" and "featured article" criteria very > helpful, whether or not a class's aims are to enter their work for such > reviews. Not least because they do deal directly with quantitative as well > as qualitative measures, and they certainly quite explicitly address > problems such as "inaccuracies, bias, contradictions, and missing topics." > > After all, the second criterion for an FA (at WP:WIAFA) is that it is > "comprehensive"; the third that it is "a thorough and representative > survey." At no point is it suggested that a featured article has to be > *long* (indeed, there have been repeated discussions about brief featured > articles on talk). > > In fact, the GA criteria provide a useful caution when they state that a > good article should stay "focused on the topic without going into > unnecessary detail." I often find that, for instance with articles about > literary works, there are whole chunks (usually plot summary) that need to > be cut down, sometimes quite drastically. > > More generally, students focussed single-mindedly on bytes added, beyond > being immediately tempted to copy-paste (frequently from dubious sources) > are also unlikely to look out for errors and/or plagiarism etc. that > already exist in the articles they are working on. > > 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. > > Take care > > Jon > > On Jan 28, 2014, at 5:42 PM, James Salsman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Would a leaderboard which breaks down bytes by those advancing any good > article criteria, bytes toward references added to un-sourced crucial > statements, negative bytes reverted, and neutrally (e.g. no "points" for) > other bytes added? > > > > I have a feeling that if we tell students that is how they will be > scored up front, it will work out better than otherwise, whether the > subsequent scoring criteria are good or poor. If it were up to me I would > ask students to search for inaccuracies, bias, contradictions, and missing > topics, and most of those things fit into a few of the good article > criteria, but not very explicitly. > > > > Best regards, > > James Salsman > > > > On Jan 29, 2014 9:11 AM, "Pepe Flores" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm working in an Educational Program in Mexico with the Universidad de > las Americas Puebla. I agree that adding a lot of bytes doesn't necessarily > contribute to the quality of an article. We have been working on the > development of the nanotechnology entries in Spanish, since this topic is > kinda new in developing countries but there's a lot of research in the last > 20 - 30 years. One of our goals was to improve the quantity and quality of > references, in order to provide little but accurate information rather than > a lot of unreferenced data. This standpoint was well perceived by the > Spanish Wikipedia community as the entries has not been deleted but > improved by other Wikipedia users. > > > > You may know a little bit more about this program in > https://mx.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proyectos:Programa_Educativo_UDLAP#Introducci.C3.B3n_a_la_nanotecnolog.C3.ADa(in > Spanish). The report isn't finished yet but it's illustrative about the > importance of working toward reference quality instead of volume (bytes). > > > > > > -- > > Personal > > Sent with Airmail > > > > En 28 de enero de 2014 at 18:42:23, Juliana Bastos Marques ( > [email protected]) escrito: > > > >> I forgot to mention a couple of important things I'm expecting to > happen. First of all, I thought about measuring bytes *only after* the > qualitative part is assessed (kinda like publishing guidelines, which I'm > trying to make them acquainted with). But I think the reason this could > work is because at least half of the enrolled students have already worked > with me in other previous classes with Wikipedia editing. My idea is to > make them help the other students learn how to edit during the course, > together with the ambassador. > >> > >> In the last course I offered, some students later got Good Article > status, and they were very excited and proud ( > https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotdel, > https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipa_de_Lencastre). This wasn't the main > goal, but kept them engaged even months after the course. A Facebook group > helped with continuous lively discussions - the students are always there, > anyway. I'm also relying on word of mouth, which has actually been proven > quite effective. ;) > >> > >> Juliana. > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Jon Beasley-Murray < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 < > [email protected]> 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 > >> > [email protected] > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Education mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Education mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> www.domusaurea.org > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Education mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Education mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Education mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education > > > _______________________________________________ > Education mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education > -- Oona Castro Consultant for the Brazilian Catalyst Program at Ação Educativa supported by the Wikimedia Foundation + 55 21 981812505 Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate>
_______________________________________________ Education mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
