Talk:Digital skills for collaborative OER development/Wiki skills/About WikiEducator
- [View source↑]
- [History↑]
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Suggestion for wording revision | 6 | 13:55, 2 January 2015 |
| Use of references | 2 | 11:28, 2 January 2015 |
I don't think it's necessary to include the sentence at the end of the first paragraph: "We provide a brief introduction..." I suggest deleting it.
Instead, I would include more about WE in this first paragraph. Maybe move the sentence "The WikiEducator community aims to develop open content resources in support of all national curricula. This represents a return to the core values of education, namely to share knowledge freely." from the WE family section to the About WE section--it seems more about the goals of WE than about the family.
If we move the sentence (3rd parag of family section) to the first section, then I suggest re-ordering the remaining paragraphs in the family section, leave the 1st parag as is, move the last parag to be 2nd, and the 2nd parag about the history of WE to be last.
Let me know what you think.
Hi Alison,
I think all your suggestions add value and improve the flow. Happy with those suggested changes.
I rearranged as I suggested, but I sense that the family section is now lacking--it doesn't really explain about the WE family. I hesitate to add more text...concise is definitely better. What do you think about putting the values section first (up through the bullets) after the About intro bit, and then the friendly and neighborly part would be at the end of the family section? Other thoughts?
Hi Alison,
For the purposes of this page I think it's best to keep it concise - a light handed approach to communicate the sense of the community rather than going into detail. I'm happy with shifting the values section up as suggested. I don't have any other thoughts and not overly worried about the family section being on the shorter side.
OK. I made the changes. Still not really happy with the flow, the changes didn't fix it, but probably good enough given it's just a quick overview.
It seems to me that the references are not needed on this page, as they are not providing any more information than is already available in the link. Thoughts? Is there a reason that these are referenced?
Agreed - we can delete the url reference links. They're no longer needed.
(Those ref links are from a legacy paragraph from the days before the first version of the wiki ==> pdf book collection extension to provide a solution for communicating the url in a print version of the page.)
