What are the indicators of a healthy wiki environment?

[Peter]

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

[Wong Leo]

Wow this is a sooooooooooooo important thread , thank you for bring that up , I think the healthy wiki enviorment would be the Number 5 below , the number of times it has been reused and recontextulized and Number 6 the number of different countries that use it

 

1 I think it is so important that everyone OER can be reused , I am reusing  some of Leigh 's course in China now check out it at http://teachandlearnonline.cn/wiki/library/social_library

(See google translation at the bottom )

 

And Peter how did you get this criterion from  ? any source you can point me to ? thanks

 

Leo

 

2008/5/6, Peter <praws...@gmail.com>:

[Peter]

Leo,

This criterion came from my head. I believe the list could be much
longer and I hope we grow the list in the context of the WikiEducator
Quality Assurance initiative. http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Quality_Assurance_and_Review

If you want to see a list of references that helped me build this in
my head look here; http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Prawstho/WikiQuality#References

I can see this list building in the next few weeks as I believe that
healthy workplaces are directly tied to quality. So IMHO if we can
encourage a healthy wiki environment we will encourage quality. I
still see we need to define what is a healthy wiki environment and
your feedback tells me that you believe amount of reuse is an
indicator of a healthy OER based wiki. If WikiEducator is to be of
quality we need to encourage reuse.

Then of course this is just the beginning of this conversation so
others may believe that other indicators are more important in
defining what is a healthy (quality) wiki environment.

Thanks for asking,

Peter

On May 6, 10:20 am, "Wong Leo" <leolao...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow this is a sooooooooooooo important thread , thank you for bring that up
> , I think the healthy wiki enviorment would be the Number 5 below , the
> number of times it has been reused and recontextulized and Number 6 the
> number of different countries that use it
>
> 1 I think it is so important that everyone OER can be reused , I am reusing

> some of Leigh 's course in China now check out it athttp://teachandlearnonline.cn/wiki/library/social_library

> (See google translation at the bottom )
>
> And Peter how did you get this criterion from ? any source you can point me
> to ? thanks
>
> Leo
>

> 2008/5/6, Peter <prawstho...@gmail.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[mackiwg]

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

[Peter]

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

[Wong Leo]

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 <praws...@gmail.com>:

[Wayne Mackintosh]

Hi Peter and Leo

Good discussion -- although I think we may be talking cross purposes
here? That is saying the same thing from different perspectives.

I think the extent that content is reused and recontextualised is an
excellent of the health of our community.

You're right -- the measure of the usefulness of an educational
resource, say for example, in Pakistan must ultimately be the learners
in Pakistan.

The point I'm alluding to is that the absence of content reviews from
Pakistan or elsewhere may not be an indicator of the quality of the
content -- but rather a challenge for the WE community to engage
educators from Pakistan in our initiative -- but on an equal footing.
I think that there are multitude of reasons why people participate or
don't participate.

So in this example I think we agree that the lack of collaboration or
participation from a given country is not necessarily an indicator of
the quality of the content -- but rather the identification of an
opportunity to find creative ways of engaging educators from specific
regions.

Couldn't agree more on the challenge of becoming adept zoo keepers :-)

WE is very much a learn-by-doing community!

Cheers
Wayne

[Wayne Mackintosh]

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" <leolao...@gmail.com> 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 <prawstho...@gmail.com>:

[Leigh Blackall]

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 <WMack...@col.org>:

--
--
Leigh Blackall
+64(0)21736539
skype - leigh_blackall
SL - Leroy Goalpost
http://learnonline.wordpress.com

[Leigh Blackall]

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 <leighb...@gmail.com>:

[Peter]

Leigh,

Maybe you said it better than me. But this is the point I am trying to
make with the use of a maturity model. It allows the community engaged
in the direct creation and use / reuse of the content to also define a
localized version of quality. Yes, I believe we need to avoid a
colonized version of quality.

I am also weary of hidden hierarchies. And I seem to become more aware
of them the older I become. And I'd like to encourage a very
transparent and open approach to encouraging quality. I believe WE is
the closest to this than the others... I believe it is the building of
trust that is most important for a healthy community.

I agree I also believe laziness is also a part of the social media...
People will use the simplest (easiest) way to do something or they may
not do it at all... So when it comes to quality or improvement we need
a way that requires the least effort. That's why I don't believe a
formal review process will work long-term.

Last night when I was drifting off to sleep I had a similar idea of a
"page of the month", I was thinking a little more frequency, but i
think the frequency of it could change depending on the number of
candidates we have. I also thought of the reuse or recontextualization
of the month. Therefore the main WE page would have two new "widgets";
the "page of the month" and the "reuse of the month". I actually
believe the reuse of the month could be the more interesting of the
two. IMHO To see people reuse or recontextualize OER would be
fascinating to see. Given the educational foundation of WE I believe
we should encourage activities like "Murder Madness and
Mayhem" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Murder_Madness_and_Mayhem).

So maybe what we should be doing in this quality initiative is regroup
and create the WE equivalent of the featured article and add a new one
of the featured reuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria.

Cheers, Peter

On May 6, 11:25 pm, "Leigh Blackall" <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <leighblack...@gmail.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
> > 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 <WMackint...@col.org>:

> SL - Leroy Goalposthttp://learnonline.wordpress.com- Hide quoted text -

[Wayne Mackintosh]

Hi Peter and Leigh and WikiEducators --

PLEASE READ THE NEXT STEPS SECTION AT THE END OF THIS POST

I like the featured content resource suggestion -- something we also
alluded to in one of our earlier in our discussions on the topic:

http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator/browse_frm/thread/d8533af90a59386d#

I've added the suggestion to the QA and review page:

http://wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Quality_Assurance_and_Review

I like the idea of a the featured reuse category even more :-). Remix
and reuse is the untapped potential of the OER movement. Granted, its
difficult to get right, but this is the value proposition that will
get individuals investing time and institutions investing dollars in
getting this right. I'm confident that WE can make a valuable
contribution here.

OK to recap and emphasize important thoughts in the discussion:

1. We don't want or subscribe to hidden hierarchies --- hence our open
and transparent development of the QA and review page. WE have an open
invitation for volunteers to assist with drafting the necessary
documents and supporting resources. If anyone is interested please add
your names to the list.
2. Laziness is part of the social media therefore any system
implemented must be scalable and administered by the community. --
Hence the suggestion that an optional system be implemented. WE need
to figure how to scale this and how best to ensure active engagement
by the community.
3. Beware of "who's quality" -- Hence our guiding principle that
quality is "an illusive and complex concept -- it means different
things to different people and will always be context-dependent"
4. QA and optional review tools should not alienate WikiEducators --
especially newbies. I think that our two guiding principles, namely
that (1) quality is a process not a state and (2) WE subscribe to
promoting a healthy wiki community where members are recognized and
rewarded for their contributions.
5. If we are serious about reviewing the quality of WE content we need
to be rigorous and have proven (and well researched) approaches. This
is the toughest and most complex task facing WE since its inception --
lets do an exemplary job and take the time it needs for our processes
to mature.
6. Maturity model frameworks appear to provide us with a substantive
framework to move forward.

It seems to me that the next steps are for the volunteer team to start
working on a few concept ideas on the wiki.

NEXT STEPS

1) Final request for volunteers who want to assist in the development
of our QA and review processes -- please add your name to this page:

http://wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Quality_Assurance_and_Review

2) Please take a look at the questions on the talk page in the wiki
and have your say:

http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator_talk:Quality_Assurance_and_Review

3) Then its up to the drafting team to propose and coordinate how WE
will take the process forward.

Cheers
Wayne