Do we have the right assumptions and guiding principles for developing a QA and review policy?

Jump to: navigation, search

This is a new thread to inviting the community to provide feedback on the assumptions and guiding principles we're using to inform the development of a QA and review policy for WE.

Cheers

Mackiwg (talk)21:05, 3 May 2008

It might be interesting to tie the quality measure/ratings to each article's history page rather than the article page itself... then it would be obvious what changes had taken place since which reviews.

JimTittsler (talk)22:07, 3 May 2008

Hi Jim,

I like the notion of having some measure of quality based on the number of "eyes" by measure of unique edits, who have contributed to an article page. You're right, from a technical perspective this is a measure of the history page rather than the article itself.

I've not looked at the Flagged Revisions extension in detail yet --- so not sure how this might relate to the history page itself.

Cheers

Mackiwg (talk)03:37, 4 May 2008
 

A fair bit of research ties quality back to a healthy workplace. Without a healthy working environment how do people produce quality? I believe this discussion also needs to include the concept of a healthy workplace within a collaborative wiki environment.

Prawstho (talk)20:48, 4 May 2008

Hi Peter,


mmmm -- I like the concept of a "healthy" wiki environment. Over and above our community values and principles already stated -- have you given any thought to the characteristics of a healthy wiki environment?

What are the indicators of a healthy wiki environment? Would be interesting to see peoples thoughts on this.

Cheers

Mackiwg (talk)21:35, 4 May 2008

Wayne,

I agree, it would be good to know what is a healthy wiki environment. particulary in the context of how it ties to people creating high quality OER content. What are the characteristics of a healthy wiki environment? One where the materials are of highest and exemplary quality. If the resources aren't exemplary and CC-BY-SA why would people reuse them? As an educator I seek out exemplary OER, otherwise I create them myself. To a certain dgree I would think the health of OER is measured by its reuse. If it isn't being reused, maybe it is a quality issue.

I think this question should be put out to the google group...

Peter

Prawstho (talk)15:03, 6 May 2008

Thanks Peter,

I now understand what you mean by a healthy wiki environment. Makes good sense to me.

I'll post something on the main list inviting people to comment -- Given the substantive nature of these discussions which will ultimately lead to the development of a consensus policy -- I think we should try and encourage members of the community list to post their thoughts in this forum, so we have a good record in one place dealing with the QA developments.

We can post regular updates on the main list with links to the specific questions.

What do you think?

Mackiwg (talk)17:06, 6 May 2008