As a suggestion maybe.. what about a "page of the month" project. It only celebrates a few pages, without a site wide application of quality indicators. The page of the month isn't necessarily determined by quality, but rather is only meant to draw focus on different projects by interviewing the people involved and having them explain the intensions behind their effort. Less to do with "quality", more to do with celebrating diversity.
2008/5/7 Leigh Blackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I am coming into the quality discussion late. I have tried to read all the > threads here and in the wiki. I don't think I have see a comment along these > lines: > > A quality indication on works leads me and others to wonder "who's > quality". It's an obvious comment really, and I'm sure it has been > mentioned, in some ways with the Pakistan example... but "engaging' people > in Pakistan doesn't give me an assurance that it is Pakistani versions of > quality. I might simply think that it is a colonised Pakistani idea of > quality. > > A more tangible example.. when I see labels over a WIkipedia page, > initially it is helpful, but on a slightly deeper level it indicates they > somewhat hidden hierarchy that is Wikipedia. I have since experienced that > first hand, it is mostly an unpleasant experience. Often I have seen labels > put on a Wikipedia article without what any indication of what might have > otherwise been a polite attempt at communication before the label was > applied. > > In short, a quality system sets up a subtle hierarchy and potentially > undermines trust. All for the simple need of giving people a lazy way out of > determining the quality for themselves. > > 2008/5/7 Wayne Mackintosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Hi Leo, > > > > These are good examples of the kinds of processes that should be > > incorporated into our evolving capability maturity model for WE. These > > are the key processes that will help us in building the quality we > > are striving for. > > > > I think that the challenge we are going to face is related to the > > complexity of exercising value judgments on the quality of content > > versus measures that help us understand the maturity of our community > > as it evolves. > > > > That said -- we're very fortunate. WE has lots of people and eyes to > > ensure that we get this right! > > > > Cheers > > Wayne > > > > > > On May 6, 9:31 pm, "Wong Leo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Thank you Peter , you are amazing ! I am reading what you and Wayne > > wrote > > > very carefully and really learning a lot from both of you .I am not > > sure if > > > I understand the animal analogy , I would like to give my 2 cents to > > this on > > > the quality or healthy wiki resources . > > > > > > 1 What is the purpose of the educational resources ? > > > > > > 2 what need will be addressed ? > > > > > > 3 what program will be developed by using this resources > > > > > > 4 what faculty will be involoved ? > > > > > > 5 what kinds of staff will be invloved ? > > > > > > 6 what promotion need to done or training ? > > > > > > 7 how will you measure the being healthy or sucess ? > > > > > > Leo > > > > > > 2008/5/7 Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > > blog:http://leolaoshi.yo2.cn > > > HELP项目https://groups.google.com/group/helpelephantsliveproject > > > > > > > > > -- > -- > Leigh Blackall > +64(0)21736539 > skype - leigh_blackall > SL - Leroy Goalpost > http://learnonline.wordpress.com -- -- Leigh Blackall +64(0)21736539 skype - leigh_blackall SL - Leroy Goalpost http://learnonline.wordpress.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
