Comments on: When the “Wiki Way” = Poor Quality http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1022 pragmatism over zeal Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:17:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: iterating toward openness » Blog Archive » A Response to “Change that prevents real change” http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1022/comment-page-1#comment-44100 iterating toward openness » Blog Archive » A Response to “Change that prevents real change” Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:51:00 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/?p=1022#comment-44100 [...] reviews arguments from Scientific American, myself, and Yochai Benkler, all of which argue empirically (instead of theoretically) based on existing [...] [...] reviews arguments from Scientific American, myself, and Yochai Benkler, all of which argue empirically (instead of theoretically) based on existing [...]

]]> By: Recent links on Open Access « Free Our Books http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1022/comment-page-1#comment-44091 Recent links on Open Access « Free Our Books Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:01:43 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/?p=1022#comment-44091 [...] When the “Wiki Way” = Poor Quality: Why ‘the distributed, “Wikipedia model” of content production does not work for textbooks’. [...] [...] When the “Wiki Way” = Poor Quality: Why ‘the distributed, “Wikipedia model” of content production does not work for textbooks’. [...]

]]> By: Richard Hershman http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1022/comment-page-1#comment-44073 Richard Hershman Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:10:04 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/?p=1022#comment-44073 As you point out the scoring was based on how much the content of the texts matched up with the California state standards. While I think I agree with you, no matter how many authors involved that still was the key measuring stick these texts would face. As I understand it CK-12 worked closely with McREL to ensure the texts met the appropriate state standards. Some commercial textbook publishers work with them as well to match up to the state standards and various national standards. I though it was curious that the one commercial publisher biology title scored lower. Perhaps it was written more for a national market instead of the California market? As I understand it, In higher education we really don't have comporable types of standards to measure texts against, except perhaps in a few fields. We are also talking about a much greater and diverse amount of content. At a four year state institution 11,000 different print titles could be used in a given term, in addition to all the other content provided on other formats. As you point out the scoring was based on how much the content of the texts matched up with the California state standards. While I think I agree with you, no matter how many authors involved that still was the key measuring stick these texts would face. As I understand it CK-12 worked closely with McREL to ensure the texts met the appropriate state standards. Some commercial textbook publishers work with them as well to match up to the state standards and various national standards. I though it was curious that the one commercial publisher biology title scored lower. Perhaps it was written more for a national market instead of the California market?

As I understand it, In higher education we really don’t have comporable types of standards to measure texts against, except perhaps in a few fields. We are also talking about a much greater and diverse amount of content. At a four year state institution 11,000 different print titles could be used in a given term, in addition to all the other content provided on other formats.

]]>