Wayne, I believe we are trying to push into new ground. That of measuring the quality of wiki based OER. And I like that Leo agreed, reuse and recontextualization is most important. I also believe that the only people who can measure the health of a Grade 7 geography lesson for Pakistan are the people who live in that geographical area of Pakistan. So this IMHO goes back to community, not reviewing the content, unless the reviewers are local to the targeted learners of the content. And they created the "measures" for the review... this is why a maturity model is effective, cause it is subscriptive not prescriptive. to a certain extend the users decide what is mature I still believe the jury is out on the number of authors to make exemplary content. I believe it all depends on who the author(s) is/ are... I agree with your healthy animal analogy... it all goes back to context, it all depends. That is why a review must be done within context...
I believe if we are serious about reviewing the quality of WE content we need to be rigorous and have proven (and well researched) approaches. Otherwise we may be doing our community a dis-service. And providing reviews that aren't context sensitive. I think we need to be careful. I think we need to be proven zoo keepers for a long while before we can start assessing the health of the animals ;) Cheers, Peter On May 6, 3:08 pm, mackiwg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Thanks for starting this thread --- these are tough and challenging > questions. > > I think we need to think about whose temperature we're measuring > <smile>. Is it the content or is it the community. So when we're > talking about the health of the WE OER community -- this is something > different from the health of the Grade 7 Geography lesson for > Pakistan. > > Stated conversely -- if exemplary content only has one or two authors, > does this mean the community is unhealthy? > > So the list of questions are measurements (or data) -- but not > necessarily value judgements about the health of the object -- if you > know what I mean. To stretch the health example -- cold blooded > animals would be healthy if they're at room temparature I guess, -- > but the actual measurement would not necessarily be indicative of a > health mamal. > > Sorry -- I'm not a Zoologist <smile> -- but hope the analogy works. > > Cheers > Wayne > > On May 6, 8:18 am, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think this is a timely question. What indicates a healthy wiki > > environment. I also think this question should be thought about in the > > context of WikiEducator and wiki based OER? How would this health be > > measured? > > Is it the number of contributors to a page or module? > > or is it the reputation of the pages primary author? > > or is it the number of edits? > > or is it the frequency of being referenced? > > or is it the number of times it has been reused and recontextualized? > > or is it the number of different countries that use it? > > or is in the number of visits? > > > or is it all of the above? > > > Peter --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To post to this group, send email to wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
