Talk:Quality control in open versus closed approaches to authoring educational resources

From WikiEducator
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
"public" "private" "open groups" "closed groups"107:05, 15 February 2012
Consider mixed approaches, too? not just bipolar (closed/open)609:18, 28 July 2010
Team Charter and Consensus013:46, 26 July 2010
Citation013:31, 26 July 2010
Authoring/Quality tracking solutions011:33, 26 July 2010

"public" "private" "open groups" "closed groups"

I think the distinction between "public" and "private" may not be clear, e.g. how does this concept of oppositions link to "open groups" vs. "closed groups"? Does a "public" approach imply that the people who work on something show this to anyone else immediately AND anyone can join in as they please? Or is there no interrelation between those two sets of concepts in our context? If there is not, why not? ;-)

C.Koltzenburg (talk)09:25, 28 July 2010
I am of the opinion that closed groups are required for creating quality content. 
While creating any content the author must have certain ideas and he/she may need some time for 
implementing his ideas interacting with some limited individuals who are part of the group.
The content may be kept open only after this completion. Once it is open then anyone can edit.
We may keep some time frame for such closed activity.
Pramodkumartk (talk)07:03, 15 February 2012
 

Consider mixed approaches, too? not just bipolar (closed/open)

hm, the topic is brilliant and opening a wiki project here is, too. what do you think about considering more than just two options (opposed in a bipolar fashion)? i suggest we discuss mixed approaches, too. actually, looking into these might bring more pro/contra-arguments on the table, too. votes, please :-)

C.Koltzenburg (talk)08:15, 27 July 2010

+1 --Fabiana Kubke 11:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Kubke (talk)11:04, 27 July 2010

thanks, see here (oops, now my reply here moved above Daniel's,let's see)

C.Koltzenburg (talk)09:06, 28 July 2010
 

Sure. I fully expected mixed approaches to be part of the Solution/ Outlook sections, but having them brought in earlier (after blacj and white are defined ;-) ) is fine as well. --Daniel Mietchen 12:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Mietchen (talk)12:56, 27 July 2010

thanks, see here

C.Koltzenburg (talk)09:09, 28 July 2010
 

thanks, see here

C.Koltzenburg (talk)09:10, 28 July 2010

[ok, sorry, for my reply I just tested 3 different positions, none of which is actually satisfactory, I feel. Would it have been better without rich text - prefer non-rich-text anyway - I think it is not a good idea to have less fully developed wiki functions on the discussion page. But there most likely were reasons to do it this way - could someone point me to any page I could take this discussion to?]

C.Koltzenburg (talk)09:18, 28 July 2010
 
 

Team Charter and Consensus

I'm inclined to think that a Team Charter is in order since we will likely need to reach a consensus at some point. What are your thoughts?

By the way, I like to idea of using the discussion page to exchange ideas, but to my knowledge, no one receives email notifications. I propose to add a feedback heading at the bottom of the page instead of using the discussion page at least until email notification works properly. We can always move discussions from the main page to the discussion page later. --Benjamin Stewart 13:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Bnleez (talk)13:46, 26 July 2010

I've noticed that many are including their user page link next to each respective thought, idea, or perspective. I propose that instead of citing this way, that each person include in the summary a brief description of the idea at the time of editing. When looking at the history, all the contributions can be viewed via the summary itself and/or by comparing various versions. I would think that eventually the final document would be in paragraph form which could get a bit messy if we continue citing the way it is now. Just a thought. --Benjamin Stewart 13:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Bnleez (talk)13:31, 26 July 2010

Authoring/Quality tracking solutions

This comment: " Should there be a responsible person that makes sure all changes are tracked and makes sure authors are 'checking' on changes made for accuracy? For example, if you Daniel change something that I wrote, I should initialize next to your change as a sign that I agree to that change. If too much time lapses without me doing that, then the page editor contacts me or finds someone else to initialise. Kubke 10:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)"

to which you repllied:

'My suggestion would be to let every one edit as they see fit, with the aim of having as many participants as possible sign the document by Day 9 or 10 of the course. If editorial oversight appears necessary, I am confident some participants will provide it. --Daniel Mietchen 11:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)"

was meant as a suggestion of 'tracking quality' solutions, not about this one in particular. I am moving my suggestion (perhaps re-written!) back to the top and suggest deleting your response.

Kubke (talk)11:32, 26 July 2010