|This Wikiversity page is inactive and has been retained for historical interest. |
Please help us improve the quality of Wikiversity at Wikiversity:Vision
|July 2009 e|
|Quality = 4|
At Wikiversity, your participation and input is greatly valued. A quick and easy way for you to get involved with Wikiversity:Assessment immediately is to express your overall assessment of Wikiversity on a scale of 1 to 10 below. Just place a hash mark (#), your grade (1..10) and four tildes (~~~~) on a new line.
Only one entry per month, please. Anonymous entries will reflect your IP address. These will be collected and averaged for each month. Comment on the talk page if you like. See Wikiversity:Assessment to get really involved.
- 2 CQ 23:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- 3 Historybuff 03:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- 3 --Remi 19:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- 7 or maybe 8 - It seems like there may be a solid foundation in place. Emesee 02:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- With the new main page and the Wikiversity:Featured at least the organization + access is better than it was before. People can easier see what is available (if it is good is another question). So, from that point, I would rate it with a 8. Here again a big thank you (in German) to McCormack + the others who helped here.
- The grade about interaction/working together: 3 (so from what I see, this may totally be wrong from your POV - hit me then)
- About quality of contents I will not give a value: this is subjective and everybody probably sees it (slightly) different depending on which learning resource they are interested in.
- If someone wants, let's do a quality model, so we go back from more subjective to less subjective (I don't say rational with purpose): Wikiversity talk:Assessment#methodology ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 16:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- almost a 3 unfortunately Emesee 20:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)