Should we simply start with a featured article and a featured reuse?
To expidite this initiative should we simply set a quality bar by describing the quality (criteria) of a featured article and a featured reuse. We would then have a level of quality for contributors to aspire to as we would have accompanying featured_article_criteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria) and featured_reuse_criteria. We would have the anchor of these two criteria to drive this initiative without getting "bogged" down with analysis and the process of discussing quality... Refer to this google group discussion thread if you want more on this idea; http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator/browse_thread/thread/8196f708f9373881
Hi Peter, I think this is an excellent idea.
It's a starting point for us to think about the many facets of quality. What I also like about this approach is that it would be optional -- a project is nominated and then evaluated by the community. In this way we avoid alienating newbies and as you say give the community something to aspire to.
In addition to the featured teaching and reuse resources, I think we should also add categories for the feature institution -- ie a reward and incentive for institutions who adopt WE in a substantive way and also innovative projects that contribute to the sustainable development of OERs.
I've started a couple of sub-pages for each of these categories so that we can work on criteria, processes and supporting tools for the featured candidates.
How about we start by asking for nominations for featured works, featured reused works? I don't think we should set out with a quality grading at this point (if ever) but rather be looking to spotlight examples of work and include interviews with the key people involved (what they are trying to achieve, the challenges they faced, the successes, what they like about using Wikieducator, what they don't like. I don't think we need to follow Wikipedia's featured article based on some level of quality. I think it would be more constructive at this stage to take nominations - perhaps based on interest, innovation, numbers of people involved, numbers of people who second the nomination etc. If we used this approach to simply build a diverse range of case studies, then I think a measurement tool for quality might emerge from that.
Hi Leigh --
I like the idea of an "under the spotlight" and/or case study feature which we should include as a prominent section on the front page. Good thinking. This is a great way, not only to feature projects --- but to get the human interest angle behind the scenes.
That said, as a education community we need to tackle the question of quality and how we will manage these processes without alienating those who are starting out in WE. The most frequent question I get when I speak around the world about WE -- is What about quality? At the moment -- the best answer I can give are referrals to other wiki projects.
I would take tremendous pride in telling the world that we are doing a, b and c around quality processes. That the processes WE developed were developed openly and transparently. That we have learned from the benefit of hindsight from other projects like WP, WV and WB.
I'm not in any way suggesting that this is going to be easy -- but it is a nut we need to crack.
I'm hoping that we can use one of your courses as a test case for the processes we envisage -- this way we can iron out many of the challenges we're going to face.
What are your concerns about optional and self selected quality grading? This would help us in finding the right solutions.
Cheers
