subject:"\[Wikimedia\-l\] Re\: Small joy of the day\: Txikipedia"

> How could we say we velcome young editors and require that they conceal that 
> they are young?

We manage to do exactly that, even though we, too, can guess with some 
imperfect accuracy, that certain people are in fact children.

> I just share an idea for anybody to possibly take it or elaborate his own 
> from it!

Yeah, I doubt anyone is going to create a kids-only encyclopedia as successful 
as yours, and I think few here would be open to the idea. You’d probably have 
better success collaborating with school districts and similar organizations.

From,
I dream of horses
She/her





> On Jun 24, 2022, at 3:42 PM, Mathias Damour  wrote:
> 
> Yes, Vikidia editors are allowed (not required) to tell their age on their 
> user page. In the long run (or not so long), other users would roughly guess 
> it anyway. We get to know each other online and I guess it helps the 
> communication to know the age group to which belong the people you're talking 
> with.
> How could we say we velcome young editors and require that they conceal that 
> they are young?
>  
> No, I don't want money from the WMF or somebody else, for I am no more in 
> charge of the Vikidia association, and I never planned to take in charge 
> myself the kind of project I tell about. I just share an idea for anybody to 
> possibly take it or elaborate his own from it!
>  
>  
> Envoyé: vendredi 24 juin 2022 à 23:21
> De: "Neurodivergent Netizen" 
> À: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
> Objet: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
> When I had a look to the most viewed articles (not exactly recently) I had 
> the impression that it actually reach one of its goal that is to be a 
> resource for non native english speaker (that moreover don't have a well 
> developped Wikipedia in their native language, such as indians of a minority 
> language). Yet it wasn't children interest or school curriculum subjects that 
> were much viewed but rather adult topics.
>  
> We could fix that by dedicating time to subjects children would learn in 
> school. We don’t need a separate wiki.
>  
> However, regular users have in mind that the age told by any user isn't 
> verified.
> One of the findings of fact in  
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children's_privacy>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children%27s_privacy
>  
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children's_privacy>
>  is that:
>  
>  
> Self-identified children may be children, adult predators, trolls 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)>(→) 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)?action=edit>, adult 
> privacy-watchers testing our policies, or law enforcement personnel. 
>  
> So they might be children, child abusers, adults lying because they think 
> it’s funny, people looking to bring down the reputation of websites that 
> don’t respect the privacy of children, or a police officer that can arrest 
> someone in real life. All of these bring up different issues as to the safety 
> of children and the reputation of the adults that want to help them. This is 
> why the arbitration committee decided this was the best option for editors 
> who might actually be children:
>  
> Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose 
> identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and 
> oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information.
>  
> In other words, kids aren’t allowed to disclose their age. Of course, people 
> editing in bad faith would be blocked, anyways. Are you saying that kids are 
> allowed to disclose age on Wikikids?
>  
> We disable the e-mail function from one's user account to another, so there 
> is no private message unless one editor would have displayed his e-mail 
> adress or on account on another social media.
> That’s going to add an obstacle to writing to oversight and the emergency 
> team that intervenes when someone threatens suicide or homicide, along with a 
> few other teams that have a “role account” that takes advantage of the “email 
> this user” feature.
>  
> I mean that if by chance someone or an organisation would want to developp a 
> free documentary resource for children and would be eager to invest in it, 
> there would be a way to do it: there is allready a base of articles in some 
> Vikidia versions like the english one and an organisation that proved to be 
> sustainable (actually very closed to the one of Wikipedia), then some funds 
> would allow to catch up the time of "organic growth" that some wiki 
> encyclopedia for children had. I

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

Yes, Vikidia editors are allowed (not required) to tell their age on their user page. In the long run (or not so long), other users would roughly guess it anyway. We get to know each other online and I guess it helps the communication to know the age group to which belong the people you're talking with.

How could we say we velcome young editors and require that they conceal that they are young?


 

No, I don't want money from the WMF or somebody else, for I am no more in charge of the Vikidia association, and I never planned to take in charge myself the kind of project I tell about. I just share an idea for anybody to possibly take it or elaborate his own from it!

 

 

Envoyé: vendredi 24 juin 2022 à 23:21
De: "Neurodivergent Netizen" 
À: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
Objet: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia






When I had a look to the most viewed articles (not exactly recently) I had the impression that it actually reach one of its goal that is to be a resource for non native english speaker (that moreover don't have a well developped Wikipedia in their native language, such as indians of a minority language). Yet it wasn't children interest or school curriculum subjects that were much viewed but rather adult topics.




 

We could fix that by dedicating time to subjects children would learn in school. We don’t need a separate wiki.

 





However, regular users have in mind that the age told by any user isn't verified.





One of the findings of fact in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children%27s_privacy is that:

 

 


Self-identified children may be children, adult predators, trolls(→), adult privacy-watchers testing our policies, or law enforcement personnel. 


 
So they might be children, child abusers, adults lying because they think it’s funny, people looking to bring down the reputation of websites that don’t respect the privacy of children, or a police officer that can arrest someone in real life. All of these bring up different issues as to the safety of children and the reputation of the adults that want to help them. This is why the arbitration committee decided this was the best option for editors who might actually be children:

 


Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information.

 

In other words, kids aren’t allowed to disclose their age. Of course, people editing in bad faith would be blocked, anyways. Are you saying that kids are allowed to disclose age on Wikikids?

 





We disable the e-mail function from one's user account to another, so there is no private message unless one editor would have displayed his e-mail adress or on account on another social media.





That’s going to add an obstacle to writing to oversight and the emergency team that intervenes when someone threatens suicide or homicide, along with a few other teams that have a “role account” that takes advantage of the “email this user” feature.

 





I mean that if by chance someone or an organisation would want to developp a free documentary resource for children and would be eager to invest in it, there would be a way to do it: there is allready a base of articles in some Vikidia versions like the english one and an organisation that proved to be sustainable (actually very closed to the one of Wikipedia), then some funds would allow to catch up the time of "organic growth" that some wiki encyclopedia for children had. I guess it would be promotion, communication, and possibly paid translation to get the most interesting, best quality, most usefull articles from several wikis for children and from Simple English Wikipedia (with some data analysis/study to identify and select them), to get a core of say 2,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 articles in one language. It would be quite a big operation, but it may be worth the investment. Getting a quality free encyclopedia for children in a matter of months.





Are you saying you want money from the WMF? Or someone affiliated with the WMF?



 

From,




I dream of horses

She/her

 



 

 

On Jun 24, 2022, at 2:06 PM, Mathias Damour <mathias.dam...@gmx.fr> wrote:
 




Hi,
 






I think that SEWP was created like it is, partly by fear of creating a project openly directed to children, and I'm afraid it precisely make it not so compelling for them.






How is Simple English Wikipedia not compelling for kids? Define “not compelling.”


Well, I didn't closely study SEWP, so I may be unfair, that's rather my impressions :
The main rule is the simple language rather than explain a subject in a accessible way, so you can have long and not so accessible articles in simple language.
When I had a look to the most viewed articles (not exactly recently) I had the impression that it actually reach one of its g

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

> When I had a look to the most viewed articles (not exactly recently) I had 
> the impression that it actually reach one of its goal that is to be a 
> resource for non native english speaker (that moreover don't have a well 
> developped Wikipedia in their native language, such as indians of a minority 
> language). Yet it wasn't children interest or school curriculum subjects that 
> were much viewed but rather adult topics.

We could fix that by dedicating time to subjects children would learn in 
school. We don’t need a separate wiki.

> However, regular users have in mind that the age told by any user isn't 
> verified.

One of the findings of fact in  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children%27s_privacy
 

 is that:

> Self-identified children may be children, adult predators, trolls 
> (→) 
> , adult 
> privacy-watchers testing our policies, or law enforcement personnel. 

So they might be children, child abusers, adults lying because they think it’s 
funny, people looking to bring down the reputation of websites that don’t 
respect the privacy of children, or a police officer that can arrest someone in 
real life. All of these bring up different issues as to the safety of children 
and the reputation of the adults that want to help them. This is why the 
arbitration committee decided this was the best option for editors who might 
actually be children:

> Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose 
> identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and 
> oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information.

In other words, kids aren’t allowed to disclose their age. Of course, people 
editing in bad faith would be blocked, anyways. Are you saying that kids are 
allowed to disclose age on Wikikids?

> We disable the e-mail function from one's user account to another, so there 
> is no private message unless one editor would have displayed his e-mail 
> adress or on account on another social media.

That’s going to add an obstacle to writing to oversight and the emergency team 
that intervenes when someone threatens suicide or homicide, along with a few 
other teams that have a “role account” that takes advantage of the “email this 
user” feature.

> I mean that if by chance someone or an organisation would want to developp a 
> free documentary resource for children and would be eager to invest in it, 
> there would be a way to do it: there is allready a base of articles in some 
> Vikidia versions like the english one and an organisation that proved to be 
> sustainable (actually very closed to the one of Wikipedia), then some funds 
> would allow to catch up the time of "organic growth" that some wiki 
> encyclopedia for children had. I guess it would be promotion, communication, 
> and possibly paid translation to get the most interesting, best quality, most 
> usefull articles from several wikis for children and from Simple English 
> Wikipedia (with some data analysis/study to identify and select them), to get 
> a core of say 2,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 articles in one language. It would be 
> quite a big operation, but it may be worth the investment. Getting a quality 
> free encyclopedia for children in a matter of months.

Are you saying you want money from the WMF? Or someone affiliated with the WMF?

From,
I dream of horses
She/her





> On Jun 24, 2022, at 2:06 PM, Mathias Damour  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  
>> 
>> I think that SEWP was created like it is, partly by fear of creating a 
>> project openly directed to children, and I'm afraid it precisely make it not 
>> so compelling for them.
>> How is Simple English Wikipedia not compelling for kids? Define “not 
>> compelling.”
> 
> Well, I didn't closely study SEWP, so I may be unfair, that's rather my 
> impressions :
> The main rule is the simple language rather than explain a subject in a 
> accessible way, so you can have long and not so accessible articles in simple 
> language.
> When I had a look to the most viewed articles (not exactly recently) I had 
> the impression that it actually reach one of its goal that is to be a 
> resource for non native english speaker (that moreover don't have a well 
> developped Wikipedia in their native language, such as indians of a minority 
> language). Yet it wasn't children interest or school curriculum subjects that 
> were much viewed but rather adult topics.
>  
>> 
>> I took a look at Vikidia, thought I could do something for them, signed up 
>> with an account, read what I could find of the guidance, and created an 
>> article on Underwater diving, following the rules as I understood them,

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

Hi,
 






I think that SEWP was created like it is, partly by fear of creating a project openly directed to children, and I'm afraid it precisely make it not so compelling for them.






How is Simple English Wikipedia not compelling for kids? Define “not compelling.”


Well, I didn't closely study SEWP, so I may be unfair, that's rather my impressions :
The main rule is the simple language rather than explain a subject in a accessible way, so you can have long and not so accessible articles in simple language.
When I had a look to the most viewed articles (not exactly recently) I had the impression that it actually reach one of its goal that is to be a resource for non native english speaker (that moreover don't have a well developped Wikipedia in their native language, such as indians of a minority language). Yet it wasn't children interest or school curriculum subjects that were much viewed but rather adult topics.
 



I took a look at Vikidia, thought I could do something for them, signed up with an account, read what I could find of the guidance, and created an article on Underwater diving, following the rules as I understood them, using properly attributed CC-by-sa content from Simple English Wikipedia as a basic framework, and was busy expanding it when it was deleted without discussion by user Ajeje_Brazorf with the edit summary (Please don't copy from simple wikipedia}, and no explanation why not. If I had done that on English Wikipedia I would risk losing my admin bit. If that is how new users are routinely treated there that encyclopedia is doomed. I will not be back to waste my time there.




By the way, sorry for that, I guess it is not specific to Vikidia in english to experiment such diagreement with newcomers, there is a discussion on this wiki about what happened.
 

On top of that, it would seem that you were able to sign up easily without verifying your age; both verifying age and not can be problematic. 

 

Verifying age makes things safer in terms of everyone knowing that if someone says they’re a kid, they’re a kid, and if they’re an adult, they’re an adult. Part of online grooming and police sting operations is people saying “I’m a kid, let’s meet offline." It can be problematic due to reasons of privacy. It’s not like you want everyone knowing the age of a child who’s online. That can mostly but entirely alleviated by only having the administration know everyones’ birthdate, and forcing admins to have strict account security.


We don't ask nor verify the editors ages on Vikidia. There is no status attached to the user's age (with some few exception like check-user...), so few reason to lie about our age if we tell it. However, regular users have in mind that the age told by any user isn't verified. We disable the e-mail function from one's user account to another, so there is no private message unless one editor would have displayed his e-mail adress or on account on another social media. And we suppress identifying information that a child would write on his user page.
To be complete, we noticed that the UK Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 appears to mandate some verifications for some status like admins on a wiki for children (someone that would become administrator of Vikidia in english if he is more than 16 and lives in the UK would have to provide his identity and proof that he has passed the british vetting process). See https://en.vikidia.org/wiki/Vikidia:Legal_matters#UK_Safeguarding_Vulnerable_Groups_Act_2006
 








Actually, Vikidia in english does exist, with 4,035 articles !








 

Oh, okay, so it’s going to be mostly out of whole cloth, not entirely. I’m not sure how many articles English Wikipedia has, but I know it’s in the millions.

 







They may be a way to promote a existing (or to be launched) wiki encyclopedia for children, to "use the momentum of Wikipedia to make it easier to discover”







I believe I’ve stated more or less stated that you can’t use our momentum since we need for the projects we have.


That's a constant pattern, your favorite wiki may have 500 or 5 millions articles, 2 or 20,000 active users, you allway feel you lack content and editors ! ;-)

I mean that if by chance someone or an organisation would want to developp a free documentary resource for children and would be eager to invest in it, there would be a way to do it: there is allready a base of articles in some Vikidia versions like the english one and an organisation that proved to be sustainable (actually very closed to the one of Wikipedia), then some funds would allow to catch up the time of "organic growth" that some wiki encyclopedia for children had. I guess it would be promotion, communication, and possibly paid translation to get the most interesting, best quality, most usefull articles from several wikis for children and from Simple English Wikipedia (with some data analysis/study to identify and select them), to get a core of say 2,000 or 5,000 or

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

> I think that SEWP was created like it is, partly by fear of creating a 
> project openly directed to children, and I'm afraid it precisely make it not 
> so compelling for them.

How is Simple English Wikipedia not compelling for kids? Define “not 
compelling.”

> Actually, Vikidia in english does exist, with 4,035 articles !


Oh, okay, so it’s going to be mostly out of whole cloth, not entirely. I’m not 
sure how many articles English Wikipedia has, but I know it’s in the millions.

> They may be a way to promote a existing (or to be launched) wiki encyclopedia 
> for children, to "use the momentum of Wikipedia to make it easier to discover”

I believe I’ve stated more or less stated that you can’t use our momentum since 
we need for the projects we have.

> I took a look at Vikidia, thought I could do something for them, signed up 
> with an account, read what I could find of the guidance, and created an 
> article on Underwater diving, following the rules as I understood them, using 
> properly attributed CC-by-sa content from Simple English Wikipedia as a basic 
> framework, and was busy expanding it when it was deleted without discussion 
> by user Ajeje_Brazorf with the edit summary (Please don't copy from simple 
> wikipedia}, and no explanation why not. If I had done that on English 
> Wikipedia I would risk losing my admin bit. If that is how new users are 
> routinely treated there that encyclopedia is doomed. I will not be back to 
> waste my time there. 

On top of that, it would seem that you were able to sign up easily without 
verifying your age; both verifying age and not can be problematic. 

Verifying age makes things safer in terms of everyone knowing that if someone 
says they’re a kid, they’re a kid, and if they’re an adult, they’re an adult. 
Part of online grooming and police sting operations is people saying “I’m a 
kid, let’s meet offline." It can be problematic due to reasons of privacy. It’s 
not like you want everyone knowing the age of a child who’s online. That can 
mostly but entirely alleviated by only having the administration know 
everyones’ birthdate, and forcing admins to have strict account security.

From,
I dream of horses
She/her





> On Jun 24, 2022, at 5:09 AM, Peter Southwood  
> wrote:
> 
> I took a look at Vikidia, thought I could do something for them, signed up 
> with an account, read what I could find of the guidance, and created an 
> article on Underwater diving, following the rules as I understood them, using 
> properly attributed CC-by-sa content from Simple English Wikipedia as a basic 
> framework, and was busy expanding it when it was deleted without discussion 
> by user Ajeje_Brazorf with the edit summary (Please don't copy from simple 
> wikipedia}, and no explanation why not. If I had done that on English 
> Wikipedia I would risk losing my admin bit. If that is how new users are 
> routinely treated there that encyclopedia is doomed. I will not be back to 
> waste my time there. Cheers, Peter
>   <>
> From: Mathias Damour [mailto:mathias.dam...@gmx.fr 
> <mailto:mathias.dam...@gmx.fr>] 
> Sent: 24 June 2022 00:00
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
>  
> Ok, I did read your message too fast... I nevertheless know Simple English 
> Wikipedia.
>  
> I think that SEWP was created like it is, partly by fear of creating a 
> project openly directed to children, and I'm afraid it precisely make it not 
> so compelling for them.
>  
> > The thing is, as the main English Wikipedia more specialist, and therefore 
> > more complicated, we have a Simple English Wikipedia that we shouldn’t let 
> > languish in the hopes of creating a children's encyclopedia out of whole 
> > cloth.
>  
> Actually, Vikidia in english does exist, with 4,035 articles !
> https://en.vikidia.org <https://en.vikidia.org/>
> Unfortunately, the developpment of the wikis for children is very uneven, and 
> it seems hard to overcome the delay when they were launched later one than 
> another or missed their launch. For exemple I know about two or three unlucky 
> attempts in german before Klexikon* (and I beleive German had or has a very 
> good potential for such a project - demography and cultural ground favourable 
> to children participation and their freedom of information). Yet it was in 
> Dutch that Wikikids was launched early and is now quite big and active.
>  
> They may be a way to promote a existing (or to be launched) wiki encyclopedia 
> for children, to "use the momentum of Wikipedia to make it easier to 
> discover" as just said Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga, but somewhat different from 
> the way they chooses on the Basqu

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

2022-06-24 Thread Peter Southwood

I took a look at Vikidia, thought I could do something for them, signed up with 
an account, read what I could find of the guidance, and created an article on 
Underwater diving, following the rules as I understood them, using properly 
attributed CC-by-sa content from Simple English Wikipedia as a basic framework, 
and was busy expanding it when it was deleted without discussion by user 
Ajeje_Brazorf with the edit summary (Please don't copy from simple wikipedia}, 
and no explanation why not. If I had done that on English Wikipedia I would 
risk losing my admin bit. If that is how new users are routinely treated there 
that encyclopedia is doomed. I will not be back to waste my time there. Cheers, 
Peter

From: Mathias Damour [mailto:mathias.dam...@gmx.fr] 
Sent: 24 June 2022 00:00
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

Ok, I did read your message too fast... I nevertheless know Simple English 
Wikipedia.

I think that SEWP was created like it is, partly by fear of creating a project 
openly directed to children, and I'm afraid it precisely make it not so 
compelling for them.

> The thing is, as the main English Wikipedia more specialist, and therefore 
> more complicated, we have a Simple English Wikipedia that we shouldn’t let 
> languish in the hopes of creating a children's encyclopedia out of whole 
> cloth.

Actually, Vikidia in english does exist, with 4,035 articles !

https://en.vikidia.org

Unfortunately, the developpment of the wikis for children is very uneven, and 
it seems hard to overcome the delay when they were launched later one than 
another or missed their launch. For exemple I know about two or three unlucky 
attempts in german before Klexikon* (and I beleive German had or has a very 
good potential for such a project - demography and cultural ground favourable 
to children participation and their freedom of information). Yet it was in 
Dutch that Wikikids was launched early and is now quite big and active.

They may be a way to promote a existing (or to be launched) wiki encyclopedia 
for children, to "use the momentum of Wikipedia to make it easier to discover" 
as just said Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga, but somewhat different from the way 
they chooses on the Basque Wikipedia : That would be to let appear the kid 
equivalent article in the "In other projects" section.

Or maybe a very active work both in promotion and gathering a substantial set 
of core articles (picking the best/most usefull, most viewed articles from 
several kids wikis and Simple English Wikipedia, translating...)

**

*- the original "Wikikids" proposal as a Wikimedia project was made by german 
speaking wikipedians in early 2005 : 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-January/015108.html 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikikids=89757 but was 
chilled down by the reactions on this list...

- Grundschulwiki was launched in december 2005, it still exists but is 
restricted to works done in primary classroom and therefore is not much 
developped : 
https://grundschulwiki.zum.de/index.php?title=Hauptseite=prev=history

- a 2010 project ended as they were told to request a Simple German Wikipedia 
and then denied to open it: 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redaktion_Medizin/Projekt_Kinderleicht 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Simple_German_3

Meanwhile Wikikids.nl was launched in March 2006 and Vikidia in French in 
November 2006.

Envoyé: jeudi 23 juin 2022 à 21:15
De: "Neurodivergent Netizen" 
À: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
Objet: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

The English Wikipedia has a “plain language” wikipedia, the Simple English 
Wikipedia. It’s targeted not only towards children, but also towards people who 
aren’t fluent in English and/or have learning disabilities. A few “internet 
hack” memes say “If you can’t understand the Wikipedia article, change en to 
simple!” Basically, the English Wikipedia community has two very 
general-to-slightly-specialist encyclopedias.

Unfortunately, I’ve witnessed in years past that the Simple English Wikipedias’ 
activity level was, shall we say, wanting. I hope that’s changed; I suspect 
kids would enjoy learning to research for the purpose of writing on Simple 
before moving on to the so-called “real” English Wikipedia, but that might 
require some assistance that might not always exist offline. I think Simple 
would certainly be a good place to start making Wikipedia more accessible to 
8-10 year olds.

From,

I dream of horses

She/her

On Jun 23, 2022, at 11:40 AM, Mathias Damour  wrote:

Hi,

 De: "WereSpielChequers" 

A childrens' encyclopaedia written for nine year olds would surely be very 
different than one written for thirteen year olds. And content that paren

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia


You're right, there is a "long tail" of short articles on Wikikids especially, which nevertheless has about 7000 articles above 2000 bytes, whereas Grundschulwiki has 150 (and Vikidia in French has about 13,000 articles above 2000 bytes)

The Pareto principle apply there again! Articles are far from being equally developped and popular.

Hopefully, the best quality or the most developped articles are also the core subjects and the most viewed!

 



 

Envoyé: vendredi 24 juin 2022 à 11:45
De: "Ziko van Dijk" 
À: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
Objet: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

As in Wikipedia language versions, article numbers don't count.
Wikikids has many "articles" that consist only of one or two
sentences. That makes it easy to reach tenthousands of "articles". :-)
https://wikikids.nl/Seks_museum
Kind regards
Ziko

Am Fr., 24. Juni 2022 um 11:42 Uhr schrieb Mathias Damour
:
>
> Hi,
>
> You may compare :
> - Grundschulwiki in german, launched in december 2005 with institutionnal support and enought visibility I guess, restricted to articles produced by the schools : 1,134 articles today : https://grundschulwiki.zum.de/wiki/Hauptseite
> - Wikikids.nl in Dutch, launched by teachers in march 2006, yet opened both to school works and anybody : 35,839 articles today : https://wikikids.nl/
>
> Note that German is the main language of about 100 millions people whereas Dutch is the one of about 24 millions peoples.
>
> That mean that only content produced by schools don't make enought content to be a fair resource to readers. You have to work in the Wikipedia way to thrive.
>
> 2d note : The number of articles on Grundschulwiki is quite similar to the number of the articles that were tagged as written by school project in Vikidia in French : https://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Article_fruit_d%27un_travail_scolaire 1,255 articles today (out of 35,840).
>
>
> Envoyé: vendredi 24 juin 2022 à 10:37
> De: "Adam Sobieski" 
>
> As for the earlier discussion in this thread about wiki-based encyclopedias for younger students, one idea is to let school districts host their own encyclopedias and to research how to federate or combine contents and content updates from and across software at each school… like a P2P network of MediaWiki software nodes.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NXVGCT4CHKXDC6F5ZO2D2BT7CGTZPL2V/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/BEYWVE4RB3K4J4IV6QW7MT3FZDOYLT62/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3MZ7IPFEN7O44VT52GHX2ADRKNOESWGP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

Is that one sentence at least backed up by a source that confirms the 
information? Were the stubs possibly created by a bot instead of human? (Hey, 
it’s happened before!) If the answers to the questions I asked were “No” and 
“Yes,” then it reflects even worse on the quality of articles written by 
children. Quality is better than quantity.

From,
I dream of horses
She/her





> On Jun 24, 2022, at 2:45 AM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> 
> As in Wikipedia language versions, article numbers don't count.
> Wikikids has many "articles" that consist only of one or two
> sentences. That makes it easy to reach tenthousands of "articles". :-)
> https://wikikids.nl/Seks_museum
> Kind regards
> Ziko
> 
> Am Fr., 24. Juni 2022 um 11:42 Uhr schrieb Mathias Damour
> :
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> You may compare :
>> - Grundschulwiki in german, launched in december 2005 with institutionnal 
>> support and enought visibility I guess, restricted to articles produced by 
>> the schools : 1,134 articles today : 
>> https://grundschulwiki.zum.de/wiki/Hauptseite
>> - Wikikids.nl in Dutch, launched by teachers in march 2006, yet opened both 
>> to school works and anybody : 35,839 articles today : https://wikikids.nl/
>> 
>> Note that German is the main language of about 100 millions people whereas 
>> Dutch is the one of about 24 millions peoples.
>> 
>> That mean that only content produced by schools don't make enought content 
>> to be a fair resource to readers. You have to work in the Wikipedia way to 
>> thrive.
>> 
>> 2d note : The number of articles on Grundschulwiki is quite similar to the 
>> number of the articles that were tagged as written by school project in 
>> Vikidia in French : 
>> https://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Article_fruit_d%27un_travail_scolaire
>>  1,255 articles today (out of  35,840).
>> 
>> 
>> Envoyé: vendredi 24 juin 2022 à 10:37
>> De: "Adam Sobieski" 
>> 
>> As for the earlier discussion in this thread about wiki-based encyclopedias 
>> for younger students, one idea is to let school districts host their own 
>> encyclopedias and to research how to federate or combine contents and 
>> content updates from and across software at each school… like a P2P network 
>> of MediaWiki software nodes.
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NXVGCT4CHKXDC6F5ZO2D2BT7CGTZPL2V/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/BEYWVE4RB3K4J4IV6QW7MT3FZDOYLT62/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/EBSRY3IYTL3RO64ISL64DMTCQ5XSRBHQ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

2022-06-24 Thread Ziko van Dijk

As in Wikipedia language versions, article numbers don't count.
Wikikids has many "articles" that consist only of one or two
sentences. That makes it easy to reach tenthousands of "articles". :-)
https://wikikids.nl/Seks_museum
Kind regards
Ziko

Am Fr., 24. Juni 2022 um 11:42 Uhr schrieb Mathias Damour
:
>
> Hi,
>
> You may compare :
> - Grundschulwiki in german, launched in december 2005 with institutionnal 
> support and enought visibility I guess, restricted to articles produced by 
> the schools : 1,134 articles today : 
> https://grundschulwiki.zum.de/wiki/Hauptseite
> - Wikikids.nl in Dutch, launched by teachers in march 2006, yet opened both 
> to school works and anybody : 35,839 articles today : https://wikikids.nl/
>
> Note that German is the main language of about 100 millions people whereas 
> Dutch is the one of about 24 millions peoples.
>
> That mean that only content produced by schools don't make enought content to 
> be a fair resource to readers. You have to work in the Wikipedia way to 
> thrive.
>
> 2d note : The number of articles on Grundschulwiki is quite similar to the 
> number of the articles that were tagged as written by school project in 
> Vikidia in French : 
> https://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Article_fruit_d%27un_travail_scolaire
>  1,255 articles today (out of  35,840).
>
>
> Envoyé: vendredi 24 juin 2022 à 10:37
> De: "Adam Sobieski" 
>
> As for the earlier discussion in this thread about wiki-based encyclopedias 
> for younger students, one idea is to let school districts host their own 
> encyclopedias and to research how to federate or combine contents and content 
> updates from and across software at each school… like a P2P network of 
> MediaWiki software nodes.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NXVGCT4CHKXDC6F5ZO2D2BT7CGTZPL2V/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/BEYWVE4RB3K4J4IV6QW7MT3FZDOYLT62/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

Hi,

 



You may compare :

- Grundschulwiki in german, launched in december 2005 with institutionnal support and enought visibility I guess, restricted to articles produced by the schools : 1,134 articles today : https://grundschulwiki.zum.de/wiki/Hauptseite

- Wikikids.nl in Dutch, launched by teachers in march 2006, yet opened both to school works and anybody : 35,839 articles today : https://wikikids.nl/

 

Note that German is the main language of about 100 millions people whereas Dutch is the one of about 24 millions peoples.

 

That mean that only content produced by schools don't make enought content to be a fair resource to readers. You have to work in the Wikipedia way to thrive.

 

2d note : The number of articles on Grundschulwiki is quite similar to the number of the articles that were tagged as written by school project in Vikidia in French : https://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Article_fruit_d%27un_travail_scolaire 1,255 articles today (out of  35,840).

 

 


Envoyé: vendredi 24 juin 2022 à 10:37
De: "Adam Sobieski" 

As for the earlier discussion in this thread about wiki-based encyclopedias for younger students, one idea is to let school districts host their own encyclopedias and to research how to federate or combine contents and content updates from and across software at each school… like a P2P network of MediaWiki software nodes.



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NXVGCT4CHKXDC6F5ZO2D2BT7CGTZPL2V/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

> "What about children feeling patronized" compared to "what about pedophiles 
> grooming there or promoting their views"
> "Santa Claus" as a controversial article rather than masturbation and so on...


Truthfully, I’m still concerned about child molesters and other kinds of child 
abusers (cyberbullies, etc.), along with parents becoming offended at topics 
like masturbation, puberty, etc. I just have “softer” objections as well, and 
chose to be euphemistic. We’ve had (rare!) issues in the past with adults 
approaching minor children, and the WMF has had to ban said adults from editing 
all WMF wikis. Since this hasn’t been an issue for you, it’s probably better 
that you don’t fix what’s not broken.

> It seems it doesn't include the (althought allready heard) "it would have to 
> be censorded but we don't want it to be censorded => impossible"

Yeah, I think we all know what’s going to end up being censored. Masturbation 
will be censored much more quickly than Santa Claus.

From,
I dream of horses
She/her





> On Jun 24, 2022, at 2:02 AM, Mathias Damour  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  
> I'm glad the objections to such a project became somewhat softer with the 
> years !
>  
> "What about children feeling patronized" compared to "what about pedophiles 
> grooming there or promoting their views"
> "Santa Claus" as a controversial article rather than masturbation and so on...
>  
> Yet they are still strong, we could update this page with this discussion :
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikids/Questions_and_answers
> It seems it doesn't include the (althought allready heard) "it would have to 
> be censorded but we don't want it to be censorded => impossible"
>  
> "Also children are individuals, just like adults. There's vastly different 
> levels of maturity and interest"
> Sure, that's how we get young editors on Vikidia !
>  
> "12 year old me would've felt very patronized"
> That's right that some of the young editors on Vikidia told that at first 
> they wanted to edit the "real" Wikipedia, they had some kind of disdain for 
> Vikidia. Then they felt more as ease in the Vikidia community, and they feel 
> quite the opposite than being patronized when they can have their word in the 
> founctionning, tutoring some newer editors, get some patrol or admin rights, 
> and so on. They are typically Wikipedia readers in the same time.
> About readers, that's not such a big issue as well. Do children feel 
> humiliated that there is books and magazine for them ?
>  
>  
> Envoyé: vendredi 24 juin 2022 à 06:12
> De: "Neurodivergent Netizen" 
> À: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
> Objet: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
> 12 year old me would've felt very patronized by something like this.
>  
> As a twelve year old who read on a college level, I would’ve been patronized 
> as well, but my parents, my dad especially, would’ve tried to pressure me to 
> using “wikikids” instead of Wikipedia, if both existed. It would’ve caused 
> conflict in the house, and I would’ve gotten little outside support even if 
> people knew my reading level. (“Your parents are worried about you! Consider 
> yourself lucky!”) It would’ve turned me off wiki editing entirely.
>  
> I also don't like the potential implications, because this could go the route 
> of removing content that any parent finds objectionable from being 
> accessible. 
>  
> This slippery slope has been proven to exist. American parents are, after 
> all, vocal enough about being Offended™, to the point that they will change 
> policy on a WMF-affiliated Wikikids site. For example, articles on literally 
> anything reproduction/reproductive anatomy related (even articles like 
> “puberty,” which starts between 8-14), even though it’s entirely educational 
> and directed towards children, will spark enough controversy that something 
> would need to be done. There would be no other way to not have Wikikids hit 
> the news in a negative way.
>  
> Another potentially controversial article: Santa Claus. Same issue as above 
> with potential negative reputation.
>  
> From,
> I dream of horses
> She/her
>  
> 
>  
>  
> On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:47 PM, Clover Moss  <mailto:clovermosswikipe...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>  
> Also children are individuals, just like adults. There's vastly different 
> levels of maturity and interest and that shouldn't be limited based on your 
> age, outside of extreme situations that are actually relevant to age. 12 year 
> old me would've felt very patronized by something like this. I also don't 
> like the potential implications, because this could go th

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

> There is no major obstacle other than money and contributors to creating a 
> simple version encyclopaedia in any other language  in a non WMF environment. 

If Vikikids can find a way to find contributors and money to continue, then so 
can other non-WMF wikis. In fact, Miraheze provides an ad-free environment to 
do so; Wikia/Fandom also provides an ad-filled, for-profit platform, but has 
the advantage of being better known. Personally, I’d prefer Miraheze for nearly 
any wiki, including a simple non-English wiki that has a similar spirit to 
Simple English. I find Fandom ads distracting.

We don’t have to depend on the WMF to create a wiki. In fact, some might say we 
shouldn’t, but frankly, that warrants another thread to discuss.

From,
I dream of horses
She/her





> On Jun 24, 2022, at 1:15 AM, Peter Southwood  
> wrote:
> 
> Yes, I find it more difficult to write for Simple English, because it (Simple 
> English) is not my first language and I do not think in it, and the words I 
> would normally use for the topics I prefer are not invented there and have to 
> be worked around, so it is translation a lot of the time. There is no major 
> obstacle other than money and contributors to creating a simple version 
> encyclopaedia in any other language  in a non WMF environment. 
> Cheers,
> Peter
>   <>
> From: Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga [mailto:galder...@hotmail.com 
> <mailto:galder...@hotmail.com>] 
> Sent: 24 June 2022 09:59
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
>  
> Just a reminder that Simple English Wikipedia exists, but there are no Simple 
> _ Wikipedia versions and there won't be. So that may be a solution 
> for English (it is not, as writing in Simple Wikipedia is way more complex 
> than doing at the regular one, because you must change the language) but not 
> for the other languages. There's where especial places for children may work.
>  
> Have a good day,
> Galder
> From: Neurodivergent Netizen  <mailto:idoh.idreamofhor...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 6:13 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List  <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
>  
>> I don't disagree with trying to make language more understandable in 
>> general, though.
>  
> Right, but like I’m saying, we have the Simple Wikipedia already. 
>  
> From,
> I dream of horses
> She/her
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:57 PM, Clover Moss  <mailto:clovermosswikipe...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>  
> I don't disagree with trying to make language more understandable in general, 
> though. If there was a children's version, it might be useful for things like 
> math articles. I remember looking up stuff like the quadratic formula when I 
> was in high school, seeing way more advanced mathematics than I was used to 
> and just giving up that Wikipedia could be a useful resource for that. 
> Obviously Wikipedia isn't the end-all be-all for everything and it shouldn't 
> be (obviously it wasn't meant to help me with homework either), but I do 
> agree with the general principle expressed that WereSpielChequers that 
> Wikipedia should be written for a general audience and that's what considered 
> inappropriate is variable depending on your life circumstances. 
>  
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM WereSpielChequers 
> mailto:werespielchequ...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>  
>> I'm curious as to what level of reading skill you are writing this for and 
>> also what level of understanding/adulthood. 
>>  
>> I see these as two different issues and both are likely to vary sharply 
>> especially between different countries with very different education 
>> systems. 
>>  
>> A childrens' encyclopaedia written for nine year olds would surely be very 
>> different than one written for thirteen year olds. And content that parents 
>> of fourteen year olds thought was age inappropriate in Alabama might be 
>> thought appropriate or even bowdlerised by parents of ten year olds in 
>> London.
>>  
>> In other words, are you sure that one single childrens' encyclopaedia is the 
>> answer to either the problem of reading age or age appropriate content?
>>  
>> Where I think that Wikipedia could and should change re this is in our use 
>> of jargon. To my mind a "general interest" english language encyclopaedia 
>> should be written in plain English. I suspect other language versions have 
>> similar issues.  Perhaps if we focussed more on this we would make it easier 
>> for those who wish to create childrens' versions.

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

Hi,

I'm glad the objections to such a project became somewhat softer with the years !

"What about children feeling patronized" compared to "what about pedophiles grooming there or promoting their views"

"Santa Claus" as a controversial article rather than masturbation and so on...

Yet they are still strong, we could update this page with this discussion :

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikids/Questions_and_answers

It seems it doesn't include the (althought allready heard) "it would have to be censorded but we don't want it to be censorded => impossible"

"Also children are individuals, just like adults. There's vastly different levels of maturity and interest"

Sure, that's how we get young editors on Vikidia !

"12 year old me would've felt very patronized"

That's right that some of the young editors on Vikidia told that at first they wanted to edit the "real" Wikipedia, they had some kind of disdain for Vikidia. Then they felt more as ease in the Vikidia community, and they feel quite the opposite than being patronized when they can have their word in the founctionning, tutoring some newer editors, get some patrol or admin rights, and so on. They are typically Wikipedia readers in the same time.

About readers, that's not such a big issue as well. Do children feel humiliated that there is books and magazine for them ?

Envoyé: vendredi 24 juin 2022 à 06:12
De: "Neurodivergent Netizen"
À: "Wikimedia Mailing List"
Objet: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

12 year old me would've felt very patronized by something like this.

As a twelve year old who read on a college level, I would’ve been patronized as well, but my parents, my dad especially, would’ve tried to pressure me to using “wikikids” instead of Wikipedia, if both existed. It would’ve caused conflict in the house, and I would’ve gotten little outside support even if people knew my reading level. (“Your parents are worried about you! Consider yourself lucky!”) It would’ve turned me off wiki editing entirely.

I also don't like the potential implications, because this could go the route of removing content that any parent finds objectionable from being accessible.

This slippery slope has been proven to exist. American parents are, after all, vocal enough about being Offended™, to the point that they will change policy on a WMF-affiliated Wikikids site. For example, articles on literally anything reproduction/reproductive anatomy related (even articles like “puberty,” which starts between 8-14), even though it’s entirely educational and directed towards children, will spark enough controversy that something would need to be done. There would be no other way to not have Wikikids hit the news in a negative way.

Another potentially controversial article: Santa Claus. Same issue as above with potential negative reputation.

From,

I dream of horses

She/her

On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:47 PM, Clover Moss <clovermosswikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:

Also children are individuals, just like adults. There's vastly different levels of maturity and interest and that shouldn't be limited based on your age, outside of extreme situations that are actually relevant to age. 12 year old me would've felt very patronized by something like this. I also don't like the potential implications, because this could go the route of removing content that any parent finds objectionable from being accessible. I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness and part of the reason I lost my faith was being able to find information about other perspectives (e.g. LGBT+ rights, atheism, blood transfusions, etc).

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM WereSpielChequers <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

I'm curious as to what level of reading skill you are writing this for and also what level of understanding/adulthood.

I see these as two different issues and both are likely to vary sharply especially between different countries with very different education systems.

A childrens' encyclopaedia written for nine year olds would surely be very different than one written for thirteen year olds. And content that parents of fourteen year olds thought was age inappropriate in Alabama might be thought appropriate or even bowdlerised by parents of ten year olds in London.

In other words, are you sure that one single childrens' encyclopaedia is the answer to either the problem of reading age or age appropriate content?

Where I think that Wikipedia could and should change re this is in our use of jargon. To my mind a "general interest" english language encyclopaedia should be written in plain English. I suspect other language versions have similar issues. Perhaps if we focussed more on this we would make it easier for those who wish to create childrens' versions.

Regards

WSC

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

2022-06-24 Thread Adam Sobieski

Hello. On these topics, a hyperlink: 
http://tobib.spline.de/xi/posts/2017-06-26-simple-language/ .

An excerpt is that Web pages could include metadata () which indicate alternate versions of 
content for simple variants of languages.

With some means of extending BCP-47 language identifiers to include some data 
from some standard scale for reading level, a number of new technologies would 
become easier to deliver or become possible. For example, HTTP language-related 
content negotiation could, then, but need not, include end-users' 
reading-level-related preferences and settings.

As for the earlier discussion in this thread about wiki-based encyclopedias for 
younger students, one idea is to let school districts host their own 
encyclopedias and to research how to federate or combine contents and content 
updates from and across software at each school... like a P2P network of 
MediaWiki software nodes.


Best regards,
Adam

From: Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 3:59 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

Just a reminder that Simple English Wikipedia exists, but there are no Simple 
_ Wikipedia versions and there won't be. So that may be a solution for 
English (it is not, as writing in Simple Wikipedia is way more complex than 
doing at the regular one, because you must change the language) but not for the 
other languages. There's where especial places for children may work.

Have a good day,
Galder

From: Neurodivergent Netizen 
mailto:idoh.idreamofhor...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 6:13 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

I don't disagree with trying to make language more understandable in general, 
though.

Right, but like I'm saying, we have the Simple Wikipedia already.

From,
I dream of horses
She/her





On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:57 PM, Clover Moss 
mailto:clovermosswikipe...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I don't disagree with trying to make language more understandable in general, 
though. If there was a children's version, it might be useful for things like 
math articles. I remember looking up stuff like the quadratic formula when I 
was in high school, seeing way more advanced mathematics than I was used to and 
just giving up that Wikipedia could be a useful resource for that. Obviously 
Wikipedia isn't the end-all be-all for everything and it shouldn't be 
(obviously it wasn't meant to help me with homework either), but I do agree 
with the general principle expressed that WereSpielChequers that Wikipedia 
should be written for a general audience and that's what considered 
inappropriate is variable depending on your life circumstances.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM WereSpielChequers 
mailto:werespielchequ...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,

I'm curious as to what level of reading skill you are writing this for and also 
what level of understanding/adulthood.

I see these as two different issues and both are likely to vary sharply 
especially between different countries with very different education systems.

A childrens' encyclopaedia written for nine year olds would surely be very 
different than one written for thirteen year olds. And content that parents of 
fourteen year olds thought was age inappropriate in Alabama might be thought 
appropriate or even bowdlerised by parents of ten year olds in London.

In other words, are you sure that one single childrens' encyclopaedia is the 
answer to either the problem of reading age or age appropriate content?

Where I think that Wikipedia could and should change re this is in our use of 
jargon. To my mind a "general interest" english language encyclopaedia should 
be written in plain English. I suspect other language versions have similar 
issues.  Perhaps if we focussed more on this we would make it easier for those 
who wish to create childrens' versions.

Regards

WSC

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 13:03, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org>>
 wrote:
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>

To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit

https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/

You can reach the person managing the list at

wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org>

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Small joyy: Txikipedia  of the da(Neurodivergent Netizen)


--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:13:33 -0700
From: Neurodivergent Netizen 
mailto:idoh.idreamofhor...@gmail.com>>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy o

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

2022-06-24 Thread Peter Southwood

Yes, I find it more difficult to write for Simple English, because it
(Simple English) is not my first language and I do not think in it, and the
words I would normally use for the topics I prefer are not invented there
and have to be worked around, so it is translation a lot of the time. There
is no major obstacle other than money and contributors to creating a simple
version encyclopaedia in any other language  in a non WMF environment. 

Cheers,

Peter

From: Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga [mailto:galder...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: 24 June 2022 09:59
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

Just a reminder that Simple English Wikipedia exists, but there are no
Simple _ Wikipedia versions and there won't be. So that may be a
solution for English (it is not, as writing in Simple Wikipedia is way more
complex than doing at the regular one, because you must change the language)
but not for the other languages. There's where especial places for children
may work.

Have a good day,

Galder

  _  

From: Neurodivergent Netizen 
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 6:13 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia 

I don't disagree with trying to make language more understandable in
general, though.

Right, but like Im saying, we have the Simple Wikipedia already. 

From,

I dream of horses

She/her

On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:57 PM, Clover Moss 
wrote:

I don't disagree with trying to make language more understandable in
general, though. If there was a children's version, it might be useful for
things like math articles. I remember looking up stuff like the quadratic
formula when I was in high school, seeing way more advanced mathematics than
I was used to and just giving up that Wikipedia could be a useful resource
for that. Obviously Wikipedia isn't the end-all be-all for everything and it
shouldn't be (obviously it wasn't meant to help me with homework either),
but I do agree with the general principle expressed that WereSpielChequers
that Wikipedia should be written for a general audience and that's what
considered inappropriate is variable depending on your life circumstances. 

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM WereSpielChequers
 wrote:

Hi,

I'm curious as to what level of reading skill you are writing this for and
also what level of understanding/adulthood. 

I see these as two different issues and both are likely to vary sharply
especially between different countries with very different education
systems. 

A childrens' encyclopaedia written for nine year olds would surely be very
different than one written for thirteen year olds. And content that parents
of fourteen year olds thought was age inappropriate in Alabama might be
thought appropriate or even bowdlerised by parents of ten year olds in
London.

In other words, are you sure that one single childrens' encyclopaedia is the
answer to either the problem of reading age or age appropriate content?

Where I think that Wikipedia could and should change re this is in our use
of jargon. To my mind a "general interest" english language encyclopaedia
should be written in plain English. I suspect other language versions have
similar issues.  Perhaps if we focussed more on this we would make it easier
for those who wish to create childrens' versions.

Regards

WSC

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 13:03, 
wrote:

Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit

https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/

You can reach the person managing the list at
wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Small joyy: Txikipedia  of the da(Neurodivergent Netizen)

--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:13:33 -0700
From: Neurodivergent Netizen 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Message-ID: <8c62ada1-09ee-46ff-b27d-389b6bb3e...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_9EEB7F4B-E2E5-42FB-AED5-C7C07107CEF2"

>> That wouldn't be a wise choice that WMF host such a wiki if it brings the
risk of being legaly attacked on that ground, even for bad reasons and
unsuccessfully, whereas it never happened to Vikidia in 15 years (and very
few kind of bad buzz like "look what they teach to the children").

And of course, any WMF-affiliated wiki would be more at-risk simply because
of the association with the more well-known Wikipedia.

> The document is not really public yet. :-)

I think I can wait until its public and proofread. :-)

From,
I dream of horses
She/her

> On

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

2022-06-24 Thread Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga

Just a reminder that Simple English Wikipedia exists, but there are no Simple 
_ Wikipedia versions and there won't be. So that may be a solution for 
English (it is not, as writing in Simple Wikipedia is way more complex than 
doing at the regular one, because you must change the language) but not for the 
other languages. There's where especial places for children may work.

Have a good day,
Galder

From: Neurodivergent Netizen 
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 6:13 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

I don't disagree with trying to make language more understandable in general, 
though.

Right, but like I’m saying, we have the Simple Wikipedia already.

From,
I dream of horses
She/her

On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:57 PM, Clover Moss 
mailto:clovermosswikipe...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I don't disagree with trying to make language more understandable in general, 
though. If there was a children's version, it might be useful for things like 
math articles. I remember looking up stuff like the quadratic formula when I 
was in high school, seeing way more advanced mathematics than I was used to and 
just giving up that Wikipedia could be a useful resource for that. Obviously 
Wikipedia isn't the end-all be-all for everything and it shouldn't be 
(obviously it wasn't meant to help me with homework either), but I do agree 
with the general principle expressed that WereSpielChequers that Wikipedia 
should be written for a general audience and that's what considered 
inappropriate is variable depending on your life circumstances.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM WereSpielChequers 
mailto:werespielchequ...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,

I'm curious as to what level of reading skill you are writing this for and also 
what level of understanding/adulthood.

I see these as two different issues and both are likely to vary sharply 
especially between different countries with very different education systems.

A childrens' encyclopaedia written for nine year olds would surely be very 
different than one written for thirteen year olds. And content that parents of 
fourteen year olds thought was age inappropriate in Alabama might be thought 
appropriate or even bowdlerised by parents of ten year olds in London.

In other words, are you sure that one single childrens' encyclopaedia is the 
answer to either the problem of reading age or age appropriate content?

Where I think that Wikipedia could and should change re this is in our use of 
jargon. To my mind a "general interest" english language encyclopaedia should 
be written in plain English. I suspect other language versions have similar 
issues.  Perhaps if we focussed more on this we would make it easier for those 
who wish to create childrens' versions.

Regards

WSC

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 13:03, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org>>
 wrote:
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>

To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit

https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/

You can reach the person managing the list at

wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org>

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Small joyy: Txikipedia  of the da(Neurodivergent Netizen)

--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:13:33 -0700
From: Neurodivergent Netizen 
mailto:idoh.idreamofhor...@gmail.com>>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
Message-ID: 
<8c62ada1-09ee-46ff-b27d-389b6bb3e...@gmail.com<mailto:8c62ada1-09ee-46ff-b27d-389b6bb3e...@gmail.com>>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_9EEB7F4B-E2E5-42FB-AED5-C7C07107CEF2"

>> That wouldn't be a wise choice that WMF host such a wiki if it brings the 
>> risk of being legaly attacked on that ground, even for bad reasons and 
>> unsuccessfully, whereas it never happened to Vikidia in 15 years (and very 
>> few kind of bad buzz like "look what they teach to the children").

And of course, any WMF-affiliated wiki would be more at-risk simply because of 
the association with the more well-known Wikipedia.

> The document is not really public yet. :-)

I think I can wait until it’s public and proofread. :-)

From,
I dream of horses
She/her

> On Jun 22, 2022, at 1:45 PM, Ziko van Dijk 
> mailto:zvand...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello,
> At the moment I am working on a document that extensively explains how
> we work on the Klexikon. If someone is i

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

> I don't disagree with trying to make language more understandable in general, 
> though.

Right, but like I’m saying, we have the Simple Wikipedia already.

From,
I dream of horses
She/her





> On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:57 PM, Clover Moss  
> wrote:
> 
> I don't disagree with trying to make language more understandable in general, 
> though. If there was a children's version, it might be useful for things like 
> math articles. I remember looking up stuff like the quadratic formula when I 
> was in high school, seeing way more advanced mathematics than I was used to 
> and just giving up that Wikipedia could be a useful resource for that. 
> Obviously Wikipedia isn't the end-all be-all for everything and it shouldn't 
> be (obviously it wasn't meant to help me with homework either), but I do 
> agree with the general principle expressed that WereSpielChequers that 
> Wikipedia should be written for a general audience and that's what considered 
> inappropriate is variable depending on your life circumstances. 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM WereSpielChequers 
> mailto:werespielchequ...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm curious as to what level of reading skill you are writing this for and 
> also what level of understanding/adulthood.
> 
> I see these as two different issues and both are likely to vary sharply 
> especially between different countries with very different education systems. 
> 
> A childrens' encyclopaedia written for nine year olds would surely be very 
> different than one written for thirteen year olds. And content that parents 
> of fourteen year olds thought was age inappropriate in Alabama might be 
> thought appropriate or even bowdlerised by parents of ten year olds in London.
> 
> In other words, are you sure that one single childrens' encyclopaedia is the 
> answer to either the problem of reading age or age appropriate content?
> 
> Where I think that Wikipedia could and should change re this is in our use of 
> jargon. To my mind a "general interest" english language encyclopaedia should 
> be written in plain English. I suspect other language versions have similar 
> issues.  Perhaps if we focussed more on this we would make it easier for 
> those who wish to create childrens' versions.
> 
> Regards
> 
> WSC
> 
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 13:03,  <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org>> wrote:
> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
> 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/ 
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/>
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>1. Re: Small joyy: Txikipedia  of the da(Neurodivergent Netizen)
> 
> 
> ------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:13:33 -0700
> From: Neurodivergent Netizen  <mailto:idoh.idreamofhor...@gmail.com>>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List  <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
> Message-ID: <8c62ada1-09ee-46ff-b27d-389b6bb3e...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:8c62ada1-09ee-46ff-b27d-389b6bb3e...@gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="Apple-Mail=_9EEB7F4B-E2E5-42FB-AED5-C7C07107CEF2"
> 
> >> That wouldn't be a wise choice that WMF host such a wiki if it brings the 
> >> risk of being legaly attacked on that ground, even for bad reasons and 
> >> unsuccessfully, whereas it never happened to Vikidia in 15 years (and very 
> >> few kind of bad buzz like "look what they teach to the children").
> 
> And of course, any WMF-affiliated wiki would be more at-risk simply because 
> of the association with the more well-known Wikipedia.
> 
> > The document is not really public yet. :-)
> 
> I think I can wait until it’s public and proofread. :-)
> 
> From,
> I dream of horses
> She/her
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > On Jun 22, 2022, at 1:45 PM, Ziko van Dijk  > <mailto:zvand...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > 
> > Hello,
> > At the moment I am working on a document that extensively explains how
> > we work on the Klexikon. If someone is interested, please sen

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

> 12 year old me would've felt very patronized by something like this.

As a twelve year old who read on a college level, I would’ve been patronized as 
well, but my parents, my dad especially, would’ve tried to pressure me to using 
“wikikids” instead of Wikipedia, if both existed. It would’ve caused conflict 
in the house, and I would’ve gotten little outside support even if people knew 
my reading level. (“Your parents are worried about you! Consider yourself 
lucky!”) It would’ve turned me off wiki editing entirely.

> I also don't like the potential implications, because this could go the route 
> of removing content that any parent finds objectionable from being 
> accessible. 

This slippery slope has been proven to exist. American parents are, after all, 
vocal enough about being Offended™, to the point that they will change policy 
on a WMF-affiliated Wikikids site. For example, articles on literally anything 
reproduction/reproductive anatomy related (even articles like “puberty,” which 
starts between 8-14), even though it’s entirely educational and directed 
towards children, will spark enough controversy that something would need to be 
done. There would be no other way to not have Wikikids hit the news in a 
negative way.

Another potentially controversial article: Santa Claus. Same issue as above 
with potential negative reputation.

From,
I dream of horses
She/her





> On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:47 PM, Clover Moss  
> wrote:
> 
> Also children are individuals, just like adults. There's vastly different 
> levels of maturity and interest and that shouldn't be limited based on your 
> age, outside of extreme situations that are actually relevant to age. 12 year 
> old me would've felt very patronized by something like this. I also don't 
> like the potential implications, because this could go the route of removing 
> content that any parent finds objectionable from being accessible. I was 
> raised as a Jehovah's Witness and part of the reason I lost my faith was 
> being able to find information about other perspectives (e.g. LGBT+ rights, 
> atheism, blood transfusions, etc).
> 
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM WereSpielChequers 
> mailto:werespielchequ...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm curious as to what level of reading skill you are writing this for and 
> also what level of understanding/adulthood.
> 
> I see these as two different issues and both are likely to vary sharply 
> especially between different countries with very different education systems. 
> 
> A childrens' encyclopaedia written for nine year olds would surely be very 
> different than one written for thirteen year olds. And content that parents 
> of fourteen year olds thought was age inappropriate in Alabama might be 
> thought appropriate or even bowdlerised by parents of ten year olds in London.
> 
> In other words, are you sure that one single childrens' encyclopaedia is the 
> answer to either the problem of reading age or age appropriate content?
> 
> Where I think that Wikipedia could and should change re this is in our use of 
> jargon. To my mind a "general interest" english language encyclopaedia should 
> be written in plain English. I suspect other language versions have similar 
> issues.  Perhaps if we focussed more on this we would make it easier for 
> those who wish to create childrens' versions.
> 
> Regards
> 
> WSC
> 
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 13:03,  <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org>> wrote:
> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
> 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/ 
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/>
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>1. Re: Small joyy: Txikipedia  of the da(Neurodivergent Netizen)
> 
> 
> ----------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:13:33 -0700
> From: Neurodivergent Netizen  <mailto:idoh.idreamofhor...@gmail.com>>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List  <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
> Message-ID: <8c62ada1-09ee-46ff-b27d-389b6bb3e...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:8c62ada1-09ee-46ff-b27d-389b6bb3e...@gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: multipar

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

2022-06-23 Thread Clover Moss

I don't disagree with trying to make language more understandable in
general, though. If there was a children's version, it might be useful for
things like math articles. I remember looking up stuff like the quadratic
formula when I was in high school, seeing way more advanced mathematics
than I was used to and just giving up that Wikipedia could be a useful
resource for that. Obviously Wikipedia isn't the end-all be-all for
everything and it shouldn't be (obviously it wasn't meant to help me with
homework either), but I do agree with the general principle expressed that
WereSpielChequers that Wikipedia should be written for a general audience
and that's what considered inappropriate is variable depending on your life
circumstances.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm curious as to what level of reading skill you are writing this for and
> also what level of understanding/adulthood.
>
> I see these as two different issues and both are likely to vary sharply
> especially between different countries with very different education
> systems.
>
> A childrens' encyclopaedia written for nine year olds would surely be very
> different than one written for thirteen year olds. And content that parents
> of fourteen year olds thought was age inappropriate in Alabama might be
> thought appropriate or even bowdlerised by parents of ten year olds in
> London.
>
> In other words, are you sure that one single childrens' encyclopaedia is
> the answer to either the problem of reading age or age appropriate content?
>
> Where I think that Wikipedia could and should change re this is in our use
> of jargon. To my mind a "general interest" english language encyclopaedia
> should be written in plain English. I suspect other language versions have
> similar issues.  Perhaps if we focussed more on this we would make it
> easier for those who wish to create childrens' versions.
>
> Regards
>
> WSC
>
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 13:03, 
> wrote:
>
>> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>>
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Re: Small joyy: Txikipedia  of the da(Neurodivergent Netizen)
>
>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:13:33 -0700
>> From: Neurodivergent Netizen 
>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> Message-ID: <8c62ada1-09ee-46ff-b27d-389b6bb3e...@gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> boundary="Apple-Mail=_9EEB7F4B-E2E5-42FB-AED5-C7C07107CEF2"
>>
>> >> That wouldn't be a wise choice that WMF host such a wiki if it brings
>> the risk of being legaly attacked on that ground, even for bad reasons and
>> unsuccessfully, whereas it never happened to Vikidia in 15 years (and very
>> few kind of bad buzz like "look what they teach to the children").
>>
>> And of course, any WMF-affiliated wiki would be more at-risk simply
>> because of the association with the more well-known Wikipedia.
>>
>> > The document is not really public yet. :-)
>>
>> I think I can wait until it’s public and proofread. :-)
>>
>> From,
>> I dream of horses
>> She/her
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 22, 2022, at 1:45 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> > At the moment I am working on a document that extensively explains how
>> > we work on the Klexikon. If someone is interested, please send me a
>> > private message. The document is not really public yet. :-)
>> > Kind regards
>> > Ziko
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Klexikon
>> >
>> > Am Mi., 22. Juni 2022 um 19:27 Uhr schrieb Mathias Damour
>> > :
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> De: "Neurodivergent Netizen" 
>> >> I think a particular hurdle for a standalone WMF-affiliated kidipedia
>> project is the COPPA, and other similar laws both in the US and elsewhere
>> that could potentially increase civil liability. Another hurdle is that
>> America

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

2022-06-23 Thread Clover Moss

Also children are individuals, just like adults. There's vastly different
levels of maturity and interest and that shouldn't be limited based on your
age, outside of extreme situations that are actually relevant to age. 12
year old me would've felt very patronized by something like this. I also
don't like the potential implications, because this could go the route of
removing content that any parent finds objectionable from being accessible.
I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness and part of the reason I lost my faith
was being able to find information about other perspectives (e.g. LGBT+
rights, atheism, blood transfusions, etc).

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm curious as to what level of reading skill you are writing this for and
> also what level of understanding/adulthood.
>
> I see these as two different issues and both are likely to vary sharply
> especially between different countries with very different education
> systems.
>
> A childrens' encyclopaedia written for nine year olds would surely be very
> different than one written for thirteen year olds. And content that parents
> of fourteen year olds thought was age inappropriate in Alabama might be
> thought appropriate or even bowdlerised by parents of ten year olds in
> London.
>
> In other words, are you sure that one single childrens' encyclopaedia is
> the answer to either the problem of reading age or age appropriate content?
>
> Where I think that Wikipedia could and should change re this is in our use
> of jargon. To my mind a "general interest" english language encyclopaedia
> should be written in plain English. I suspect other language versions have
> similar issues.  Perhaps if we focussed more on this we would make it
> easier for those who wish to create childrens' versions.
>
> Regards
>
> WSC
>
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 13:03, 
> wrote:
>
>> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>>
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Re: Small joyy: Txikipedia  of the da(Neurodivergent Netizen)
>
>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:13:33 -0700
>> From: Neurodivergent Netizen 
>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> Message-ID: <8c62ada1-09ee-46ff-b27d-389b6bb3e...@gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> boundary="Apple-Mail=_9EEB7F4B-E2E5-42FB-AED5-C7C07107CEF2"
>>
>> >> That wouldn't be a wise choice that WMF host such a wiki if it brings
>> the risk of being legaly attacked on that ground, even for bad reasons and
>> unsuccessfully, whereas it never happened to Vikidia in 15 years (and very
>> few kind of bad buzz like "look what they teach to the children").
>>
>> And of course, any WMF-affiliated wiki would be more at-risk simply
>> because of the association with the more well-known Wikipedia.
>>
>> > The document is not really public yet. :-)
>>
>> I think I can wait until it’s public and proofread. :-)
>>
>> From,
>> I dream of horses
>> She/her
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 22, 2022, at 1:45 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> > At the moment I am working on a document that extensively explains how
>> > we work on the Klexikon. If someone is interested, please send me a
>> > private message. The document is not really public yet. :-)
>> > Kind regards
>> > Ziko
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Klexikon
>> >
>> > Am Mi., 22. Juni 2022 um 19:27 Uhr schrieb Mathias Damour
>> > :
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> De: "Neurodivergent Netizen" 
>> >> I think a particular hurdle for a standalone WMF-affiliated kidipedia
>> project is the COPPA, and other similar laws both in the US and elsewhere
>> that could potentially increase civil liability. Another hurdle is that
>> America is very aware, perhaps overly aware, of the potential safety risks
>> when children are involved in web

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

oth in promotion and gathering a substantial 
>> set of core articles (picking the best/most usefull, most viewed articles 
>> from several kids wikis and Simple English Wikipedia, translating...)
>>  
>> **
>> *- the original "Wikikids" proposal as a Wikimedia project was made by 
>> german speaking wikipedians in early 2005 : 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-January/015108.html 
>> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-January/015108.html>
>>  https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikikids=89757 
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikikids=89757> but was 
>> chilled down by the reactions on this list...
>> - Grundschulwiki was launched in december 2005, it still exists but is 
>> restricted to works done in primary classroom and therefore is not much 
>> developped : 
>> https://grundschulwiki.zum.de/index.php?title=Hauptseite=prev=history
>>  
>> <https://grundschulwiki.zum.de/index.php?title=Hauptseite=prev=history>
>> - a 2010 project ended as they were told to request a Simple German 
>> Wikipedia and then denied to open it: 
>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redaktion_Medizin/Projekt_Kinderleicht
>>  
>> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redaktion_Medizin/Projekt_Kinderleicht>
>>  
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Simple_German_3
>>  
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Simple_German_3>
>> Meanwhile Wikikids.nl <http://wikikids.nl/> was launched in March 2006 and 
>> Vikidia in French in November 2006.
>>  
>>  
>> Envoyé: jeudi 23 juin 2022 à 21:15
>> De: "Neurodivergent Netizen" > <mailto:idoh.idreamofhor...@gmail.com>>
>> À: "Wikimedia Mailing List" > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
>> Objet: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
>> The English Wikipedia has a “plain language” wikipedia, the Simple English 
>> Wikipedia. It’s targeted not only towards children, but also towards people 
>> who aren’t fluent in English and/or have learning disabilities. A few 
>> “internet hack” memes say “If you can’t understand the Wikipedia article, 
>> change en to simple!” Basically, the English Wikipedia community has two 
>> very general-to-slightly-specialist encyclopedias.
>>  
>> Unfortunately, I’ve witnessed in years past that the Simple English 
>> Wikipedias’ activity level was, shall we say, wanting. I hope that’s 
>> changed; I suspect kids would enjoy learning to research for the purpose of 
>> writing on Simple before moving on to the so-called “real” English 
>> Wikipedia, but that might require some assistance that might not always 
>> exist offline. I think Simple would certainly be a good place to start 
>> making Wikipedia more accessible to 8-10 year olds.
>>  
>> From,
>> I dream of horses
>> She/her
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 11:40 AM, Mathias Damour > <mailto:mathias.dam...@gmx.fr>> wrote:
>>  
>> Hi,
>>  
>>  De: "WereSpielChequers" > <mailto:werespielchequ...@gmail.com>>
>> A childrens' encyclopaedia written for nine year olds would surely be very 
>> different than one written for thirteen year olds. And content that parents 
>> of fourteen year olds thought was age inappropriate in Alabama might be 
>> thought appropriate or even bowdlerised by parents of ten year olds in 
>> London.
>> 
>> In other words, are you sure that one single childrens' encyclopaedia is the 
>> answer to either the problem of reading age or age appropriate content?
>> 
>> There is one thing that is sure, that "one single childrens' encyclopaedia" 
>> is a great step for children (and often teenagers and older people) than 
>> having just Wikipedia available, and they love it.
>>  
>> Where I think that Wikipedia could and should change re this is in our use 
>> of jargon. To my mind a "general interest" english language encyclopaedia 
>> should be written in plain English. I suspect other language versions have 
>> similar issues.  Perhaps if we focussed more on this we would make it easier 
>> for those who wish to create childrens' versions.
>> 
>> Yet there is not realistic hopes that the language of Wikipedia will change 
>> to be easier. That wouldn't address the fact the articles on general 
>> subjects are among the longest ones.
>> It sounds a bit weird that a co

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

2022-06-23 Thread Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l

The Simple English Wikipedia is geared towards writing simple content for
kids and others, but not specifically geared towards children as authors.
Both because the majority of basic topics that they'd want to write about
are already covered, and because only the content is simple, not the site's
administration, writing, or policy. Writing on the Simple English Wikipedia
involves simplifying complex topics, which can require a native or
professional understanding of the language.

We do, however, love when teachers use the Simple English Wikipedia as an
educational tool (aka, supervised editing), though more often in user-space
than article-space. For example, see:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Schools

Best,
Rae


User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on Wikimedia
projects
they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter
<https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>)


On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:43 PM Neurodivergent Netizen <
idoh.idreamofhor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think that SEWP was created like it is, partly by fear of creating a
> project openly directed to children, and I'm afraid it precisely make it
> not so compelling for them.
>
>
> I think the solution is to make the Simple Wikipedia more appealable to
> kids, or at least more well-known to them and their parents, and not have a
> separate Wikipedia. Primarily, we could probably do a better job of
> promoting Simple internally, and it most likely wouldn’t hurt to double the
> SEO.
>
> They may be a way to promote a existing (or to be launched) wiki
> encyclopedia for children, to "use the momentum of Wikipedia to make it
> easier to discover"
>
>
> You can’t use the momentum of Wikipedia to promote a non-WMF wiki, when we
> have trouble getting momentum going on the WMF wikis that exist.
>
> From,
> I dream of horses
> She/her
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 23, 2022, at 2:59 PM, Mathias Damour  wrote:
>
> Ok, I did read your message too fast... I nevertheless know Simple English
> Wikipedia.
>
> I think that SEWP was created like it is, partly by fear of creating a
> project openly directed to children, and I'm afraid it precisely make it
> not so compelling for them.
>
> *> The thing is, as the main English Wikipedia more specialist, and
> therefore more complicated, we have a Simple English Wikipedia that we
> shouldn’t let languish in the hopes of creating a children's encyclopedia
> out of whole cloth.*
>
> Actually, Vikidia in english does exist, with 4,035 articles !
> https://en.vikidia.org
> Unfortunately, the developpment of the wikis for children is very uneven,
> and it seems hard to overcome the delay when they were launched later one
> than another or missed their launch. For exemple I know about two or three
> unlucky attempts in german before Klexikon* (and I beleive German had or
> has a very good potential for such a project - demography and cultural
> ground favourable to children participation and their freedom of
> information). Yet it was in Dutch that Wikikids was launched early and is
> now quite big and active.
>
> They may be a way to promote a existing (or to be launched) wiki
> encyclopedia for children, to "use the momentum of Wikipedia to make it
> easier to discover" as just said Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga, but somewhat
> different from the way they chooses on the Basque Wikipedia : That would be
> to let appear the kid equivalent article in the "In other projects"
> section.
>
> Or maybe a very active work both in promotion and gathering a substantial
> set of core articles (picking the best/most usefull, most viewed articles
> from several kids wikis and Simple English Wikipedia, translating...)
>
> **
> *- the original "Wikikids" proposal as a Wikimedia project was made by
> german speaking wikipedians in early 2005 :
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-January/015108.html
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikikids=89757 but was
> chilled down by the reactions on this list...
> - Grundschulwiki was launched in december 2005, it still exists but is
> restricted to works done in primary classroom and therefore is not much
> developped :
> https://grundschulwiki.zum.de/index.php?title=Hauptseite=prev=history
> - a 2010 project ended as they were told to request a Simple German
> Wikipedia and then denied to open it:
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redaktion_Medizin/Projekt_Kinderleicht
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Simple_German_3
> Meanwhile Wikikids.nl was launched in March 2006 and Vikidia in French in
> November 2006.
>
>
> *Envoyé:* jeudi 23 juin 2022 à 21:15
> *De:* "Neurodiverg

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

> I think that SEWP was created like it is, partly by fear of creating a 
> project openly directed to children, and I'm afraid it precisely make it not 
> so compelling for them.

I think the solution is to make the Simple Wikipedia more appealable to kids, 
or at least more well-known to them and their parents, and not have a separate 
Wikipedia. Primarily, we could probably do a better job of promoting Simple 
internally, and it most likely wouldn’t hurt to double the SEO.

> They may be a way to promote a existing (or to be launched) wiki encyclopedia 
> for children, to "use the momentum of Wikipedia to make it easier to discover"

You can’t use the momentum of Wikipedia to promote a non-WMF wiki, when we have 
trouble getting momentum going on the WMF wikis that exist.

From,
I dream of horses
She/her





> On Jun 23, 2022, at 2:59 PM, Mathias Damour  wrote:
> 
> Ok, I did read your message too fast... I nevertheless know Simple English 
> Wikipedia.
>  
> I think that SEWP was created like it is, partly by fear of creating a 
> project openly directed to children, and I'm afraid it precisely make it not 
> so compelling for them.
>  
> > The thing is, as the main English Wikipedia more specialist, and therefore 
> > more complicated, we have a Simple English Wikipedia that we shouldn’t let 
> > languish in the hopes of creating a children's encyclopedia out of whole 
> > cloth.
>  
> Actually, Vikidia in english does exist, with 4,035 articles !
> https://en.vikidia.org
> Unfortunately, the developpment of the wikis for children is very uneven, and 
> it seems hard to overcome the delay when they were launched later one than 
> another or missed their launch. For exemple I know about two or three unlucky 
> attempts in german before Klexikon* (and I beleive German had or has a very 
> good potential for such a project - demography and cultural ground favourable 
> to children participation and their freedom of information). Yet it was in 
> Dutch that Wikikids was launched early and is now quite big and active.
>  
> They may be a way to promote a existing (or to be launched) wiki encyclopedia 
> for children, to "use the momentum of Wikipedia to make it easier to 
> discover" as just said Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga, but somewhat different from 
> the way they chooses on the Basque Wikipedia : That would be to let appear 
> the kid equivalent article in the "In other projects" section.
>  
> Or maybe a very active work both in promotion and gathering a substantial set 
> of core articles (picking the best/most usefull, most viewed articles from 
> several kids wikis and Simple English Wikipedia, translating...)
>  
> **
> *- the original "Wikikids" proposal as a Wikimedia project was made by german 
> speaking wikipedians in early 2005 : 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-January/015108.html 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikikids=89757 but was 
> chilled down by the reactions on this list...
> - Grundschulwiki was launched in december 2005, it still exists but is 
> restricted to works done in primary classroom and therefore is not much 
> developped : 
> https://grundschulwiki.zum.de/index.php?title=Hauptseite=prev=history
> - a 2010 project ended as they were told to request a Simple German Wikipedia 
> and then denied to open it: 
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redaktion_Medizin/Projekt_Kinderleicht
>  
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Simple_German_3
> Meanwhile Wikikids.nl was launched in March 2006 and Vikidia in French in 
> November 2006.
>  
>  
> Envoyé: jeudi 23 juin 2022 à 21:15
> De: "Neurodivergent Netizen" 
> À: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
> Objet: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
> The English Wikipedia has a “plain language” wikipedia, the Simple English 
> Wikipedia. It’s targeted not only towards children, but also towards people 
> who aren’t fluent in English and/or have learning disabilities. A few 
> “internet hack” memes say “If you can’t understand the Wikipedia article, 
> change en to simple!” Basically, the English Wikipedia community has two very 
> general-to-slightly-specialist encyclopedias.
>  
> Unfortunately, I’ve witnessed in years past that the Simple English 
> Wikipedias’ activity level was, shall we say, wanting. I hope that’s changed; 
> I suspect kids would enjoy learning to research for the purpose of writing on 
> Simple before moving on to the so-called “real” English Wikipedia, but that 
> might require some assistance that might not always exist offline. I think 
> Simple would certainly be a good place to start making Wikipedia more 
> acce

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

2022-06-23 Thread Mathias Damour

Ok, I did read your message too fast... I nevertheless know Simple English Wikipedia.

 

I think that SEWP was created like it is, partly by fear of creating a project openly directed to children, and I'm afraid it precisely make it not so compelling for them.


 

> The thing is, as the main English Wikipedia more specialist, and therefore more complicated, we have a Simple English Wikipedia that we shouldn’t let languish in the hopes of creating a children's encyclopedia out of whole cloth.

 

Actually, Vikidia in english does exist, with 4,035 articles !

https://en.vikidia.org

Unfortunately, the developpment of the wikis for children is very uneven, and it seems hard to overcome the delay when they were launched later one than another or missed their launch. For exemple I know about two or three unlucky attempts in german before Klexikon* (and I beleive German had or has a very good potential for such a project - demography and cultural ground favourable to children participation and their freedom of information). Yet it was in Dutch that Wikikids was launched early and is now quite big and active.

 

They may be a way to promote a existing (or to be launched) wiki encyclopedia for children, to "use the momentum of Wikipedia to make it easier to discover" as just said Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga, but somewhat different from the way they chooses on the Basque Wikipedia : That would be to let appear the kid equivalent article in the "In other projects" section.

 

Or maybe a very active work both in promotion and gathering a substantial set of core articles (picking the best/most usefull, most viewed articles from several kids wikis and Simple English Wikipedia, translating...)

 

**

*- the original "Wikikids" proposal as a Wikimedia project was made by german speaking wikipedians in early 2005 : https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-January/015108.html https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikikids=89757 but was chilled down by the reactions on this list...

- Grundschulwiki was launched in december 2005, it still exists but is restricted to works done in primary classroom and therefore is not much developped : https://grundschulwiki.zum.de/index.php?title=Hauptseite=prev="">

- a 2010 project ended as they were told to request a Simple German Wikipedia and then denied to open it: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redaktion_Medizin/Projekt_Kinderleicht https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Simple_German_3

Meanwhile Wikikids.nl was launched in March 2006 and Vikidia in French in November 2006.

 

 

Envoyé: jeudi 23 juin 2022 à 21:15
De: "Neurodivergent Netizen" 
À: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
Objet: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia



The English Wikipedia has a “plain language” wikipedia, the Simple English Wikipedia. It’s targeted not only towards children, but also towards people who aren’t fluent in English and/or have learning disabilities. A few “internet hack” memes say “If you can’t understand the Wikipedia article, change en to simple!” Basically, the English Wikipedia community has two very general-to-slightly-specialist encyclopedias.

 

Unfortunately, I’ve witnessed in years past that the Simple English Wikipedias’ activity level was, shall we say, wanting. I hope that’s changed; I suspect kids would enjoy learning to research for the purpose of writing on Simple before moving on to the so-called “real” English Wikipedia, but that might require some assistance that might not always exist offline. I think Simple would certainly be a good place to start making Wikipedia more accessible to 8-10 year olds.
 




From,

I dream of horses

She/her

 



 

 

On Jun 23, 2022, at 11:40 AM, Mathias Damour <mathias.dam...@gmx.fr> wrote:
 




Hi,
 
 De: "WereSpielChequers" <werespielchequ...@gmail.com>

A childrens' encyclopaedia written for nine year olds would surely be very different than one written for thirteen year olds. And content that parents of fourteen year olds thought was age inappropriate in Alabama might be thought appropriate or even bowdlerised by parents of ten year olds in London.

In other words, are you sure that one single childrens' encyclopaedia is the answer to either the problem of reading age or age appropriate content?

There is one thing that is sure, that "one single childrens' encyclopaedia" is a great step for children (and often teenagers and older people) than having just Wikipedia available, and they love it.
 
Where I think that Wikipedia could and should change re this is in our use of jargon. To my mind a "general interest" english language encyclopaedia should be written in plain English. I suspect other language versions have similar issues.  Perhaps if we focussed more on this we would make it easier for those who wish to create childrens' versions.

Yet

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

The thing is, as the main English Wikipedia more specialist, and therefore more 
complicated, we have a Simple English Wikipedia that we shouldn’t let languish 
in the hopes of creating a children's encyclopedia out of whole cloth.

From,
I dream of horses
She/her





> On Jun 23, 2022, at 12:35 PM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'm reading your points with great interest, and I don't want to become this 
> a (literal) Encyclopedia selling. All the solutions (Klexikon, Vikidia, 
> Wikimini, Wikijunior, Txikipedia) are part of the same reasoning: we can't 
> write an Encyclopedia fitting all the readers at the same time. It's plainly 
> impossible. And the trend for Wikipedia is to be more and more thick, 
> specialized and complex, not the opposite. That's why children Encyclopedias 
> are needed. Is not only about children writing, is considering them readers 
> who can't understand some articles not because of the language used, but 
> because the topic is explained for University level students and adult public 
> with some previous knowledge on the topic. 
> 
> Our point for Txikipedia is only that children are using Wikipedia, teachers 
> are using it and their parents are using it. So making the effort in Vikidia 
> or something like Klexikon would be fine, but it is more difficult for them 
> to discover, because they need an adul that would tell them that it exists. 
> And this is not so easy. When we launched Txikipedia we wanted to use the 
> momentum of Wikipedia to make it easier to discover. This may be easier in an 
> external website for large languages (where Google makes great), but for 
> small languages is more difficult, especially when most of the computers in 
> the schools are not configured in Basque (because Chromebooks aren't 
> available in the language students are using in their classroom). So having 
> both entry points (Txikipedia directly or Wikipedia in Basque and then 
> Txikipedia) makes it easier. I don't know how much visits Vikidia has, I hope 
> they are millions, but we are quite happy with nearly half a million visits 
> year-to-date: 
> https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews/?platform=all-access=user=category=2022-01-01=2022-06-22=0=0=https%3A%2F%2Feu.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKategoria%3ATxikipedia=views=1=list=https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategoria:Txikipedia
>  
> <https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews/?platform=all-access=user=category=2022-01-01=2022-06-22=0=0=https%3A%2F%2Feu.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKategoria%3ATxikipedia=views=1=list=https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategoria:Txikipedia>.
>  
> 
> At the end of the day, we need to talk about the big picture: how are we, as 
> wikimedians, providing content for those who need it more and can't 
> understand our great work.
> 
> Have a good solstice,
> 
> Galder
> From: Neurodivergent Netizen  <mailto:idoh.idreamofhor...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 9:15 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List  <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
>  
> The English Wikipedia has a “plain language” wikipedia, the Simple English 
> Wikipedia. It’s targeted not only towards children, but also towards people 
> who aren’t fluent in English and/or have learning disabilities. A few 
> “internet hack” memes say “If you can’t understand the Wikipedia article, 
> change en to simple!” Basically, the English Wikipedia community has two very 
> general-to-slightly-specialist encyclopedias.
> 
> Unfortunately, I’ve witnessed in years past that the Simple English 
> Wikipedias’ activity level was, shall we say, wanting. I hope that’s changed; 
> I suspect kids would enjoy learning to research for the purpose of writing on 
> Simple before moving on to the so-called “real” English Wikipedia, but that 
> might require some assistance that might not always exist offline. I think 
> Simple would certainly be a good place to start making Wikipedia more 
> accessible to 8-10 year olds.
> 
> From,
> I dream of horses
> She/her
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 11:40 AM, Mathias Damour > <mailto:mathias.dam...@gmx.fr>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>>  
>>  De: "WereSpielChequers" > <mailto:werespielchequ...@gmail.com>>
>> A childrens' encyclopaedia written for nine year olds would surely be very 
>> different than one written for thirteen year olds. And content that parents 
>> of fourteen year olds thought was age inappropriate in Alabama might be 
>> thought appropriate or even bowdlerised by parents of ten year olds in 
>> London.
>> 
>> In other words, are you sure that one single childrens' encyclopaedia is the 
>> answer to

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

2022-06-23 Thread Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga

I'm reading your points with great interest, and I don't want to become this a 
(literal) Encyclopedia selling. All the solutions (Klexikon, Vikidia, Wikimini, 
Wikijunior, Txikipedia) are part of the same reasoning: we can't write an 
Encyclopedia fitting all the readers at the same time. It's plainly impossible. 
And the trend for Wikipedia is to be more and more thick, specialized and 
complex, not the opposite. That's why children Encyclopedias are needed. Is not 
only about children writing, is considering them readers who can't understand 
some articles not because of the language used, but because the topic is 
explained for University level students and adult public with some previous 
knowledge on the topic.

Our point for Txikipedia is only that children are using Wikipedia, teachers 
are using it and their parents are using it. So making the effort in Vikidia or 
something like Klexikon would be fine, but it is more difficult for them to 
discover, because they need an adul that would tell them that it exists. And 
this is not so easy. When we launched Txikipedia we wanted to use the momentum 
of Wikipedia to make it easier to discover. This may be easier in an external 
website for large languages (where Google makes great), but for small languages 
is more difficult, especially when most of the computers in the schools are not 
configured in Basque (because Chromebooks aren't available in the language 
students are using in their classroom). So having both entry points (Txikipedia 
directly or Wikipedia in Basque and then Txikipedia) makes it easier. I don't 
know how much visits Vikidia has, I hope they are millions, but we are quite 
happy with nearly half a million visits year-to-date: 
https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews/?platform=all-access=user=category=2022-01-01=2022-06-22=0=0=https%3A%2F%2Feu.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKategoria%3ATxikipedia=views=1=list=https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategoria:Txikipedia.

At the end of the day, we need to talk about the big picture: how are we, as 
wikimedians, providing content for those who need it more and can't understand 
our great work.

Have a good solstice,

Galder

From: Neurodivergent Netizen 
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 9:15 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

The English Wikipedia has a “plain language” wikipedia, the Simple English 
Wikipedia. It’s targeted not only towards children, but also towards people who 
aren’t fluent in English and/or have learning disabilities. A few “internet 
hack” memes say “If you can’t understand the Wikipedia article, change en to 
simple!” Basically, the English Wikipedia community has two very 
general-to-slightly-specialist encyclopedias.

Unfortunately, I’ve witnessed in years past that the Simple English Wikipedias’ 
activity level was, shall we say, wanting. I hope that’s changed; I suspect 
kids would enjoy learning to research for the purpose of writing on Simple 
before moving on to the so-called “real” English Wikipedia, but that might 
require some assistance that might not always exist offline. I think Simple 
would certainly be a good place to start making Wikipedia more accessible to 
8-10 year olds.

From,
I dream of horses
She/her





On Jun 23, 2022, at 11:40 AM, Mathias Damour 
mailto:mathias.dam...@gmx.fr>> wrote:

Hi,

 De: "WereSpielChequers" 
mailto:werespielchequ...@gmail.com>>
A childrens' encyclopaedia written for nine year olds would surely be very 
different than one written for thirteen year olds. And content that parents of 
fourteen year olds thought was age inappropriate in Alabama might be thought 
appropriate or even bowdlerised by parents of ten year olds in London.

In other words, are you sure that one single childrens' encyclopaedia is the 
answer to either the problem of reading age or age appropriate content?

There is one thing that is sure, that "one single childrens' encyclopaedia" is 
a great step for children (and often teenagers and older people) than having 
just Wikipedia available, and they love it.

Where I think that Wikipedia could and should change re this is in our use of 
jargon. To my mind a "general interest" english language encyclopaedia should 
be written in plain English. I suspect other language versions have similar 
issues.  Perhaps if we focussed more on this we would make it easier for those 
who wish to create childrens' versions.

Yet there is not realistic hopes that the language of Wikipedia will change to 
be easier. That wouldn't address the fact the articles on general subjects are 
among the longest ones.
It sounds a bit weird that a content for 12 yo would not fit well for a 8 yo, 
and then that Wikipedia could fit to children. The "reading level" of articles 
on Vikidia is not perfectly homogenous, nor their developpment is. They can be 
usefull for adult beginners on a subject just as

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

2022-06-23 Thread Ziko van Dijk

Am Do., 23. Juni 2022 um 20:40 Uhr schrieb Mathias Damour
:
> Vikidia in French and Wikikids in Dutch are by far the biggest wiki 
> encyclopedias for children, with about 35000 articles each. Yet young reader 
> on the Vikidia's guestbook still ask for "more content", which certainly mean 
> both

One way to know what people are looking for is the search box. I
explain about that in the mentioned document. :-)
Kind regards
Ziko
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/HHNJPR4XVK2YZQ223XEI6U2HE5KIOGJ3/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

The English Wikipedia has a “plain language” wikipedia, the Simple English 
Wikipedia. It’s targeted not only towards children, but also towards people who 
aren’t fluent in English and/or have learning disabilities. A few “internet 
hack” memes say “If you can’t understand the Wikipedia article, change en to 
simple!” Basically, the English Wikipedia community has two very 
general-to-slightly-specialist encyclopedias.

Unfortunately, I’ve witnessed in years past that the Simple English Wikipedias’ 
activity level was, shall we say, wanting. I hope that’s changed; I suspect 
kids would enjoy learning to research for the purpose of writing on Simple 
before moving on to the so-called “real” English Wikipedia, but that might 
require some assistance that might not always exist offline. I think Simple 
would certainly be a good place to start making Wikipedia more accessible to 
8-10 year olds.

From,
I dream of horses
She/her





> On Jun 23, 2022, at 11:40 AM, Mathias Damour  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  
>  De: "WereSpielChequers" 
> A childrens' encyclopaedia written for nine year olds would surely be very 
> different than one written for thirteen year olds. And content that parents 
> of fourteen year olds thought was age inappropriate in Alabama might be 
> thought appropriate or even bowdlerised by parents of ten year olds in London.
> 
> In other words, are you sure that one single childrens' encyclopaedia is the 
> answer to either the problem of reading age or age appropriate content?
> 
> There is one thing that is sure, that "one single childrens' encyclopaedia" 
> is a great step for children (and often teenagers and older people) than 
> having just Wikipedia available, and they love it.
>  
> Where I think that Wikipedia could and should change re this is in our use of 
> jargon. To my mind a "general interest" english language encyclopaedia should 
> be written in plain English. I suspect other language versions have similar 
> issues.  Perhaps if we focussed more on this we would make it easier for 
> those who wish to create childrens' versions.
> 
> Yet there is not realistic hopes that the language of Wikipedia will change 
> to be easier. That wouldn't address the fact the articles on general subjects 
> are among the longest ones.
> It sounds a bit weird that a content for 12 yo would not fit well for a 8 yo, 
> and then that Wikipedia could fit to children. The "reading level" of 
> articles on Vikidia is not perfectly homogenous, nor their developpment is. 
> They can be usefull for adult beginners on a subject just as a child can 
> prefer Wikipedia on a subject he's fond of and allready informed.
> That was developped in this post (in english):
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikids/Documentation_and_Vikidia 
> 
> 
>  
> De: "Ziko van Dijk"  
> Ideally, one would have
> * an encyclopedia for the very young, that parents read to them,
> * an encyclopedia for the 8 to 13 year olds, the target group for many
> of the existing kids' wikis,
> * an encyclopedia for juvelines, 14 to 18 years
> * an encyclopedia for everyone; this is what "regular Wikipedia" should be,
> * an encyclopedia for specialists; this is what "regular Wikipedia"
> actually develops into.
> And maybe encylopedias for people with specific challenges such as
> dyslexia.
> 
> Most language don't have a single wiki encyclopedia for children or an 
> under-developped one. So I guess that's not realistic nor wise to wish such a 
> division in this work. So let's work on the allready allready launched ones ! 
> (Especially the one of the Vikidia family of course ;) see 
> https://www.vikidia.org/ )
>  
> You actually do not need millions of articles for a good encyclopedia, some 
> thousand well written articles are enough.
> 
> Vikidia in French and Wikikids in Dutch are by far the biggest wiki 
> encyclopedias for children, with about 35000 articles each. Yet young reader 
> on the Vikidia's guestbook still ask for "more content", which certainly mean 
> both enought developped articles (not just a few lines) and more subjects. So 
> yes, we need, if not millions of articles, at least several dozens of 
> thousands articles.
> Of course, we see that (as everywhere) 20 % of the articles make more than 80 
> % of the pageviews. But you can't really guess in advance which subject will 
> be in the top 20 %.
>  
>  De: "Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga" 
> About Txikipedia: the age range is 8-12, but is more 10-12 than 8-9. The 
> problem is that some of the writers are 8-9 years old, so their content is 
> quite simple.
> 
> (...)
> 
> When I read French Vikidia I think that most of the contents are still too 
> difficult for 8-9 years old students, but French education system maybe more 
> advanced in some issues. Or it might be that Vikidia is centered in 8-13 
> years old, and 13 years old readers are way better reading and understanding

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

2022-06-23 Thread Mathias Damour

Hi,
De: "WereSpielChequers"

In other words, are you sure that one single childrens' encyclopaedia is the answer to either the problem of reading age or age appropriate content?

There is one thing that is sure, that "one single childrens' encyclopaedia" is a great step for children (and often teenagers and older people) than having just Wikipedia available, and they love it.
Where I think that Wikipedia could and should change re this is in our use of jargon. To my mind a "general interest" english language encyclopaedia should be written in plain English. I suspect other language versions have similar issues. Perhaps if we focussed more on this we would make it easier for those who wish to create childrens' versions.

Yet there is not realistic hopes that the language of Wikipedia will change to be easier. That wouldn't address the fact the articles on general subjects are among the longest ones.
It sounds a bit weird that a content for 12 yo would not fit well for a 8 yo, and then that Wikipedia could fit to children. The "reading level" of articles on Vikidia is not perfectly homogenous, nor their developpment is. They can be usefull for adult beginners on a subject just as a child can prefer Wikipedia on a subject he's fond of and allready informed.
That was developped in this post (in english):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikids/Documentation_and_Vikidia

De: "Ziko van Dijk"

Ideally, one would have
* an encyclopedia for the very young, that parents read to them,
* an encyclopedia for the 8 to 13 year olds, the target group for many
of the existing kids' wikis,
* an encyclopedia for juvelines, 14 to 18 years
* an encyclopedia for everyone; this is what "regular Wikipedia" should be,
* an encyclopedia for specialists; this is what "regular Wikipedia"
actually develops into.
And maybe encylopedias for people with specific challenges such as
dyslexia.

Most language don't have a single wiki encyclopedia for children or an under-developped one. So I guess that's not realistic nor wise to wish such a division in this work. So let's work on the allready allready launched ones ! (Especially the one of the Vikidia family of course ;) see https://www.vikidia.org/ )
You actually do not need millions of articles for a good encyclopedia, some thousand well written articles are enough.

Vikidia in French and Wikikids in Dutch are by far the biggest wiki encyclopedias for children, with about 35000 articles each. Yet young reader on the Vikidia's guestbook still ask for "more content", which certainly mean both enought developped articles (not just a few lines) and more subjects. So yes, we need, if not millions of articles, at least several dozens of thousands articles.
Of course, we see that (as everywhere) 20 % of the articles make more than 80 % of the pageviews. But you can't really guess in advance which subject will be in the top 20 %.
De: "Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga"

About Txikipedia: the age range is 8-12, but is more 10-12 than 8-9. The problem is that some of the writers are 8-9 years old, so their content is quite simple.

(...)

When I read French Vikidia I think that most of the contents are still too difficult for 8-9 years old students, but French education system maybe more advanced in some issues. Or it might be that Vikidia is centered in 8-13 years old, and 13 years old readers are way better reading and understanding texts. Klexikon seems very suitable, but it's logical, since it is written by educators, and not children or whoever wants to write. When we make courses with university students who will be the next primary school teachers, they write longer articles, but not necessarily better. The main goal there is to explain things as easily as possible, and not granting anything for known. We advise them to write shorter sentences, without dependencies and to explain all technical concepts inline, if possible. Also, they normally add boxes of "did you know?" so they can add a layer for curious children.

Just as on Wikipedia, article don't have only one author. That makes them better, more accessible and accurate.

You can't just test an average child to write on such a wiki to tell if children and teenagers are able to participate to a wiki encyclopedia for several reasons :

the 1% rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule) fully apply there (or less than 1%)
regular editors are few but very motivated,
they typically learn and are engaged for months and years, which is VERY different than having been trained to edit for one or two hours.

A 12 yo with 2 years of participation, or a 15 yo with 3 years of experience are often very valuables editors, either as

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

2022-06-23 Thread Anders Wennersten

We have discussed at svwp the target group for our articles and to which 
we should adjust our language.



And we have come to the conclusion 15-16 years old (good) students. If 
younger it is too hard to understand the elements we use in an article 
to describe an issue. And to write without basic elements will make the 
article unreadable. Think of to describe "low pressure" and "coriolis 
force" without using some level of elementary items.



But younger persons can enjoy writing and reading of a limited number of 
subject, like fan pages for sportspeople



Anders




Den 2022-06-23 kl. 16:16, skrev Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga:
About Txikipedia: the age range is 8-12, but is more 10-12 than 8-9. 
The problem is that some of the writers are 8-9 years old, so their 
content is quite simple.


Basque language readers are concentrated in a narrow area. We are in 
two different states, and three different education administrations, 
but we share a common curriculum and things may be different from a 
school to another, but not so different as Alabama-London (following 
your example).


When I read French Vikidia I think that most of the contents are still 
too difficult for 8-9 years old students, but French education system 
maybe more advanced in some issues. Or it might be that Vikidia is 
centered in 8-13 years old, and 13 years old readers are way better 
reading and understanding texts. Klexikon seems very suitable, but 
it's logical, since it is written by educators, and not children or 
whoever wants to write. When we make courses with university students 
who will be the next primary school teachers, they write longer 
articles, but not necessarily better. The main goal there is to 
explain things as easily as possible, and not granting anything for 
known. We advise them to write shorter sentences, without dependencies 
and to explain all technical concepts inline, if possible. Also, they 
normally add boxes of "did you know?" so they can add a layer for 
curious children.


The last issue is accuracy. When you simplify a text, you might 
sacrifice accuracy, but these shouldn't collide with truth/neutrality. 
A good example would be: "Nearly all animals have a mouth, you have a 
mouth, so you are an animal. There are some animals that don't have a 
mouth: sponges. You may know sponges from cartoon, and there they have 
a mouth, but not in reality. Be aware that the sponge you use at home 
may be human-made.". Well, this is an example from the article about 
animals that is both correct and simple.


Best

Galder

*From:* WereSpielChequers 
*Sent:* Thursday, June 23, 2022 3:56 PM
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
Hi,

I'm curious as to what level of reading skill you are writing this for 
and also what level of understanding/adulthood.


I see these as two different issues and both are likely to vary 
sharply especially between different countries with very different 
education systems.


A childrens' encyclopaedia written for nine year olds would surely be 
very different than one written for thirteen year olds. And content 
that parents of fourteen year olds thought was age inappropriate in 
Alabama might be thought appropriate or even bowdlerised by parents of 
ten year olds in London.


In other words, are you sure that one single childrens' encyclopaedia 
is the answer to either the problem of reading age or age appropriate 
content?


Where I think that Wikipedia could and should change re this is in our 
use of jargon. To my mind a "general interest" english language 
encyclopaedia should be written in plain English. I suspect other 
language versions have similar issues.  Perhaps if we focussed more on 
this we would make it easier for those who wish to create childrens' 
versions.


Regards

WSC

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 13:03, 
 wrote:


Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/

You can reach the person managing the list at
wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Small joyy: Txikipedia  of the da(Neurodivergent Netizen)



--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:13:33 -0700
    From: Neurodivergent Netizen 
    Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Message-ID: <8c62ada1-09ee-46ff-b27d-389b6bb3e...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_9EEB7F4B-E2E5-42FB-AED5-C7C07107CEF2"

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

2022-06-23 Thread Ziko van Dijk

Hello WSC,

It is even more complicated: two 10 year olds may be not on the same
level with regard to reading or knowledge of the world.
The Klexikon has a "little sister", the MiniKlexikon with articles
that are even more simple and targetted to beginning readers and
people with specific challenges.

Ideally, one would have
* an encyclopedia for the very young, that parents read to them,
* an encyclopedia for the 8 to 13 year olds, the target group for many
of the existing kids' wikis,
* an encyclopedia for juvelines, 14 to 18 years
* an encyclopedia for everyone; this is what "regular Wikipedia" should be,
* an encyclopedia for specialists; this is what "regular Wikipedia"
actually develops into.
And maybe encylopedias for people with specific challenges such as
dyslexia. You actually do not need millions of articles for a good
encyclopedia, some thousand well written articles are enough.

It is sad that there is no more support for encyclopedias other than
Wikipedia. As when it comes to news or fiction, there is not "one that
fits everything/everybody".

Kind regards,
Ziko

Am Do., 23. Juni 2022 um 15:57 Uhr schrieb WereSpielChequers
:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm curious as to what level of reading skill you are writing this for and 
> also what level of understanding/adulthood.
>
> I see these as two different issues and both are likely to vary sharply 
> especially between different countries with very different education systems.
>
> A childrens' encyclopaedia written for nine year olds would surely be very 
> different than one written for thirteen year olds. And content that parents 
> of fourteen year olds thought was age inappropriate in Alabama might be 
> thought appropriate or even bowdlerised by parents of ten year olds in London.
>
> In other words, are you sure that one single childrens' encyclopaedia is the 
> answer to either the problem of reading age or age appropriate content?
>
> Where I think that Wikipedia could and should change re this is in our use of 
> jargon. To my mind a "general interest" english language encyclopaedia should 
> be written in plain English. I suspect other language versions have similar 
> issues.  Perhaps if we focussed more on this we would make it easier for 
> those who wish to create childrens' versions.
>
> Regards
>
> WSCail to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/24UQM5L2UZ57OP3KOPIRHU2YWRB4LEXY/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

2022-06-23 Thread Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga

About Txikipedia: the age range is 8-12, but is more 10-12 than 8-9. The 
problem is that some of the writers are 8-9 years old, so their content is 
quite simple.

Basque language readers are concentrated in a narrow area. We are in two 
different states, and three different education administrations, but we share a 
common curriculum and things may be different from a school to another, but not 
so different as Alabama-London (following your example).

When I read French Vikidia I think that most of the contents are still too 
difficult for 8-9 years old students, but French education system maybe more 
advanced in some issues. Or it might be that Vikidia is centered in 8-13 years 
old, and 13 years old readers are way better reading and understanding texts. 
Klexikon seems very suitable, but it's logical, since it is written by 
educators, and not children or whoever wants to write. When we make courses 
with university students who will be the next primary school teachers, they 
write longer articles, but not necessarily better. The main goal there is to 
explain things as easily as possible, and not granting anything for known. We 
advise them to write shorter sentences, without dependencies and to explain all 
technical concepts inline, if possible. Also, they normally add boxes of "did 
you know?" so they can add a layer for curious children.

The last issue is accuracy. When you simplify a text, you might sacrifice 
accuracy, but these shouldn't collide with truth/neutrality. A good example 
would be: "Nearly all animals have a mouth, you have a mouth, so you are an 
animal. There are some animals that don't have a mouth: sponges. You may know 
sponges from cartoon, and there they have a mouth, but not in reality. Be aware 
that the sponge you use at home may be human-made.". Well, this is an example 
from the article about animals that is both correct and simple.

Best

Galder

From: WereSpielChequers 
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 3:56 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

Hi,

I'm curious as to what level of reading skill you are writing this for and also 
what level of understanding/adulthood.

I see these as two different issues and both are likely to vary sharply 
especially between different countries with very different education systems.

A childrens' encyclopaedia written for nine year olds would surely be very 
different than one written for thirteen year olds. And content that parents of 
fourteen year olds thought was age inappropriate in Alabama might be thought 
appropriate or even bowdlerised by parents of ten year olds in London.

In other words, are you sure that one single childrens' encyclopaedia is the 
answer to either the problem of reading age or age appropriate content?

Where I think that Wikipedia could and should change re this is in our use of 
jargon. To my mind a "general interest" english language encyclopaedia should 
be written in plain English. I suspect other language versions have similar 
issues.  Perhaps if we focussed more on this we would make it easier for those 
who wish to create childrens' versions.

Regards

WSC

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 13:03, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org>>
 wrote:
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>

To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit

https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/

You can reach the person managing the list at

wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org>

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Small joyy: Txikipedia  of the da(Neurodivergent Netizen)

--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:13:33 -0700
From: Neurodivergent Netizen 
mailto:idoh.idreamofhor...@gmail.com>>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
Message-ID: 
<8c62ada1-09ee-46ff-b27d-389b6bb3e...@gmail.com<mailto:8c62ada1-09ee-46ff-b27d-389b6bb3e...@gmail.com>>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_9EEB7F4B-E2E5-42FB-AED5-C7C07107CEF2"

>> That wouldn't be a wise choice that WMF host such a wiki if it brings the 
>> risk of being legaly attacked on that ground, even for bad reasons and 
>> unsuccessfully, whereas it never happened to Vikidia in 15 years (and very 
>> few kind of bad buzz like "look what they teach to the children").

And of course, any WMF-affiliated wiki would be more at-risk simply because of 
the association with the more well-known Wikipedia.

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

2022-06-23 Thread WereSpielChequers

Hi,

I'm curious as to what level of reading skill you are writing this for and
also what level of understanding/adulthood.

I see these as two different issues and both are likely to vary sharply
especially between different countries with very different education
systems.

A childrens' encyclopaedia written for nine year olds would surely be very
different than one written for thirteen year olds. And content that parents
of fourteen year olds thought was age inappropriate in Alabama might be
thought appropriate or even bowdlerised by parents of ten year olds in
London.

In other words, are you sure that one single childrens' encyclopaedia is
the answer to either the problem of reading age or age appropriate content?

Where I think that Wikipedia could and should change re this is in our use
of jargon. To my mind a "general interest" english language encyclopaedia
should be written in plain English. I suspect other language versions have
similar issues.  Perhaps if we focussed more on this we would make it
easier for those who wish to create childrens' versions.

Regards

WSC

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 13:03, 
wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Small joyy: Txikipedia  of the da(Neurodivergent Netizen)


>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:13:33 -0700
> From: Neurodivergent Netizen 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Message-ID: <8c62ada1-09ee-46ff-b27d-389b6bb3e...@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="Apple-Mail=_9EEB7F4B-E2E5-42FB-AED5-C7C07107CEF2"
>
> >> That wouldn't be a wise choice that WMF host such a wiki if it brings
> the risk of being legaly attacked on that ground, even for bad reasons and
> unsuccessfully, whereas it never happened to Vikidia in 15 years (and very
> few kind of bad buzz like "look what they teach to the children").
>
> And of course, any WMF-affiliated wiki would be more at-risk simply
> because of the association with the more well-known Wikipedia.
>
> > The document is not really public yet. :-)
>
> I think I can wait until it’s public and proofread. :-)
>
> From,
> I dream of horses
> She/her
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 2022, at 1:45 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> > At the moment I am working on a document that extensively explains how
> > we work on the Klexikon. If someone is interested, please send me a
> > private message. The document is not really public yet. :-)
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Klexikon
> >
> > Am Mi., 22. Juni 2022 um 19:27 Uhr schrieb Mathias Damour
> > :
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> De: "Neurodivergent Netizen" 
> >> I think a particular hurdle for a standalone WMF-affiliated kidipedia
> project is the COPPA, and other similar laws both in the US and elsewhere
> that could potentially increase civil liability. Another hurdle is that
> America is very aware, perhaps overly aware, of the potential safety risks
> when children are involved in websites. Then you add in the fact that kids
> are likely to continue editing Wikipedia instead of Kidipedia, and it’s not
> worth the extra effort.  This effort would include hiring/reassigning staff
> so you can have a team of people for just Kidipedia, along with the
> background checks and identity verification needed. None of that are
> obstacles that aren’t in the way of kids editing the existing projects.
> >>
> >> I predict a WMF-affiliated kidipedia would largely be abandoned quite
> quickly.
> >>
> >> You are probably right. I would say COPPA may not be the biggest
> hurdle, yet the british "UK Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006" is
> another one, and moreover the fact that "America is very aware, perhaps
> overly aware, of the potential safety risks when children are involved in
> websites" (and I would also say that "America" weight more the right of
> parents to control what is taught to their children and less the right of
> the children to inform themselves - the latter being upheld by the
> Convention on the Rights of the C

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

>> That wouldn't be a wise choice that WMF host such a wiki if it brings the 
>> risk of being legaly attacked on that ground, even for bad reasons and 
>> unsuccessfully, whereas it never happened to Vikidia in 15 years (and very 
>> few kind of bad buzz like "look what they teach to the children").

And of course, any WMF-affiliated wiki would be more at-risk simply because of 
the association with the more well-known Wikipedia.

> The document is not really public yet. :-)

I think I can wait until it’s public and proofread. :-)

From,
I dream of horses
She/her





> On Jun 22, 2022, at 1:45 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> At the moment I am working on a document that extensively explains how
> we work on the Klexikon. If someone is interested, please send me a
> private message. The document is not really public yet. :-)
> Kind regards
> Ziko
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Klexikon
> 
> Am Mi., 22. Juni 2022 um 19:27 Uhr schrieb Mathias Damour
> :
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> De: "Neurodivergent Netizen" 
>> I think a particular hurdle for a standalone WMF-affiliated kidipedia 
>> project is the COPPA, and other similar laws both in the US and elsewhere 
>> that could potentially increase civil liability. Another hurdle is that 
>> America is very aware, perhaps overly aware, of the potential safety risks 
>> when children are involved in websites. Then you add in the fact that kids 
>> are likely to continue editing Wikipedia instead of Kidipedia, and it’s not 
>> worth the extra effort.  This effort would include hiring/reassigning staff 
>> so you can have a team of people for just Kidipedia, along with the 
>> background checks and identity verification needed. None of that are 
>> obstacles that aren’t in the way of kids editing the existing projects.
>> 
>> I predict a WMF-affiliated kidipedia would largely be abandoned quite 
>> quickly.
>> 
>> You are probably right. I would say COPPA may not be the biggest hurdle, yet 
>> the british "UK Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006" is another one, and 
>> moreover the fact that "America is very aware, perhaps overly aware, of the 
>> potential safety risks when children are involved in websites" (and I would 
>> also say that "America" weight more the right of parents to control what is 
>> taught to their children and less the right of the children to inform 
>> themselves - the latter being upheld by the Convention on the Rights of the 
>> Child, which the US didn't ratificate - compared to other countries).
>> We reviewed it on https://en.vikidia.org/wiki/Vikidia:Legal_matters
>> 
>> That wouldn't be a wise choice that WMF host such a wiki if it brings the 
>> risk of being legaly attacked on that ground, even for bad reasons and 
>> unsuccessfully, whereas it never happened to Vikidia in 15 years (and very 
>> few kind of bad buzz like "look what they teach to the children").
>> 
>> You tell about "hiring/reassigning staff so you can have a team of people 
>> for just Kidipedia", well, that's quite exactly the point I adressed on this 
>> blog post :
>> Vikidia, l’anti-professionnalisation
>> https://www.wikimedia.fr/vikidia-lanti-professionnalisation/
>> ...to tell that the vision of children needing to be only alongside their 
>> closed family and professionals workers - and that it should be the same if 
>> a wiki for children is set (that we would need professionnal educators 
>> either to write the articles, to design the project or to manage the 
>> community or all that together) - did cause much delay to the wiki 
>> encyclopedias for children, and how we do otherwise on Vikidia.
>> 
>> Reminder, the Wikikids project was developped on this page and subpages :
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikids
>> 
>> Envoyé: mercredi 22 juin 2022 à 12:37
>> De: "Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga" 
>> À: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
>> Objet: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
>> From our experience, is just the opposite: Wikipedia is not asking any extra 
>> step nor age confirmation, and legally you can have an account even if you 
>> are underage. Children are consulting Wikipedia without limits, and they can 
>> find adult content easily. We don't have any advice about that, nor filters 
>> at Commons, where you can find even porn using words that were not intended 
>> for that. The place is open, and we have massive visits from children, so 
>> providing them a better place, thought for them (as our strategic directio

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

>
> In fact, we’ve pretty much concluded that disclosing a minor editors age
> publicly, or to more people than necessary, would decrease their safety.
> Requiring age verification may not disclose the childs’ age publicly, but
> it would expose their age to more people. One would hope these people have
> secure accounts, but that’s difficult to impossible to enforce. It would be
> more ideal if no one knew the exact age of minor editors (“minor” being
> defined as 15 and under at the moment), so accidental exposure is
> impossible.


I've realized that I'm having trouble reconciling a minors right to privacy
while proving that they are, in fact, minors.

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 5:04 AM Neurodivergent Netizen <
idoh.idreamofhor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wikipedia is not asking any extra step nor age confirmation, and legally
> you can have an account even if you are underage.
>
>
> In fact, we’ve pretty much concluded that disclosing a minor editors age
> publicly, or to more people than necessary, would decrease their safety.
> Requiring age verification may not disclose the childs’ age publicly, but
> it would expose their age to more people. One would hope these people have
> secure accounts, but that’s difficult to impossible to enforce. It would be
> more ideal if no one knew the exact age of minor editors (“minor” being
> defined as 15 and under at the moment), so accidental exposure is
> impossible.
>
> Children are consulting Wikipedia without limits, and they can find adult
> content easily. We don't have any advice about that, nor filters at
> Commons, where you can find even porn using words that were not intended
> for that.
>
>
> I’d like to disclaim that I think pornographic pictures on Commons is a
> genuine issue, and we need to take steps to decrease the amount of them.
> However, one controversy we run into is the definition of “adult content,”
> and also “appropriate for teenagers but not for children.” Even with porn,
> you kind of know it when you see it but you can’t *quite* define
> it, particularly when there might be an academic need to visually depict or
> describe sexual acts or human anatomy (like, for example, on Wikipedia).
> This makes filtration, even if installed on a computer instead of a
> website, problematic.
>
> I’ll respond to your “there’s no advice” below.
>
> The place is open, and we have massive visits from children, so providing
> them a better place, thought for them (as our strategic direction says) is
> better that not providing at all.
>
>
> We’ve actually think of children quite a bit on Wikipedia. Hence, my last
> few paragraphs, which have been partially informed by discussions with
> other Wikimedians. If there’s any doubt, here are multiple links for proof:
>
> *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protecting_children%27s_privacy
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protecting_children's_privacy>
> *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection
> *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guidance_for_younger_editors
> *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_for_parents
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_for_parents>
> *
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children%27s_privacy
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children's_privacy>
>
> And that’s just from one search. I’m sure I can find other essays in more
> obscure parts of Wikipedia, but I think six essays/policy/guideline pages
> is quite enough. :-)
>
> From,
> I dream of horses
> She/her
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 22, 2022, at 3:37 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> From our experience, is just the opposite: Wikipedia is not asking any
> extra step nor age confirmation, and legally you can have an account even
> if you are underage. Children are consulting Wikipedia without limits, and
> they can find adult content easily. We don't have any advice about that,
> nor filters at Commons, where you can find even porn using words that were
> not intended for that. The place is open, and we have massive visits from
> children, so providing them a better place, thought for them (as our
> strategic direction says) is better that not providing at all.
>
> If you want to know more about Txikipedia, contact us, please.
>
> Galder
> --
> *From:* Neurodivergent Netizen 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 22, 2022 2:59 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
>
> I think a particular hurdle for a standalone WMF-affiliated kidipedia
> project is the COPPA, and other similar

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

> Wikipedia is not asking any extra step nor age confirmation, and legally you 
> can have an account even if you are underage.

In fact, we’ve pretty much concluded that disclosing a minor editors age 
publicly, or to more people than necessary, would decrease their safety. 
Requiring age verification may not disclose the childs’ age publicly, but it 
would expose their age to more people. One would hope these people have secure 
accounts, but that’s difficult to impossible to enforce. It would be more ideal 
if no one knew the exact age of minor editors (“minor” being defined as 15 and 
under at the moment), so accidental exposure is impossible.

> Children are consulting Wikipedia without limits, and they can find adult 
> content easily. We don't have any advice about that, nor filters at Commons, 
> where you can find even porn using words that were not intended for that.

I’d like to disclaim that I think pornographic pictures on Commons is a genuine 
issue, and we need to take steps to decrease the amount of them. However, one 
controversy we run into is the definition of “adult content,” and also 
“appropriate for teenagers but not for children.” Even with porn, you kind of 
know it when you see it but you can’t quite define it, particularly when there 
might be an academic need to visually depict or describe sexual acts or human 
anatomy (like, for example, on Wikipedia).  This makes filtration, even if 
installed on a computer instead of a website, problematic.

I’ll respond to your “there’s no advice” below.

> The place is open, and we have massive visits from children, so providing 
> them a better place, thought for them (as our strategic direction says) is 
> better that not providing at all.

We’ve actually think of children quite a bit on Wikipedia. Hence, my last few 
paragraphs, which have been partially informed by discussions with other 
Wikimedians. If there’s any doubt, here are multiple links for proof:

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protecting_children%27s_privacy 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protecting_children's_privacy>
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection>
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guidance_for_younger_editors 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guidance_for_younger_editors>
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_for_parents 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_for_parents>
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children%27s_privacy

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children's_privacy>

And that’s just from one search. I’m sure I can find other essays in more 
obscure parts of Wikipedia, but I think six essays/policy/guideline pages is 
quite enough. :-)

From,
I dream of horses
She/her

> On Jun 22, 2022, at 3:37 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
>  wrote:
> 
> From our experience, is just the opposite: Wikipedia is not asking any extra 
> step nor age confirmation, and legally you can have an account even if you 
> are underage. Children are consulting Wikipedia without limits, and they can 
> find adult content easily. We don't have any advice about that, nor filters 
> at Commons, where you can find even porn using words that were not intended 
> for that. The place is open, and we have massive visits from children, so 
> providing them a better place, thought for them (as our strategic direction 
> says) is better that not providing at all.
> 
> If you want to know more about Txikipedia, contact us, please.
> 
> Galder
> From: Neurodivergent Netizen 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 2:59 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
>  
> I think a particular hurdle for a standalone WMF-affiliated kidipedia project 
> is the COPPA, and other similar laws both in the US and elsewhere that could 
> potentially increase civil liability. Another hurdle is that America is very 
> aware, perhaps overly aware, of the potential safety risks when children are 
> involved in websites. Then you add in the fact that kids are likely to 
> continue editing Wikipedia instead of Kidipedia, and it’s not worth the extra 
> effort.  This effort would include hiring/reassigning staff so you can have a 
> team of people for just Kidipedia, along with the background checks and 
> identity verification needed. None of that are obstacles that aren’t in the 
> way of kids editing the existing projects.
> 
> I predict a WMF-affiliated kidipedia would largely be abandoned quite quickly.
> 
> From,
> I dream of horses
> She/her
> 
>> On Jun 21, 2022, at 1:53 PM, Mathias Damour > <mailto:mathias.dam...@gmx.fr>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Ziko,

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

2022-06-22 Thread Ziko van Dijk

Hello,
At the moment I am working on a document that extensively explains how
we work on the Klexikon. If someone is interested, please send me a
private message. The document is not really public yet. :-)
Kind regards
Ziko
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Klexikon

Am Mi., 22. Juni 2022 um 19:27 Uhr schrieb Mathias Damour
:
>
> Hi,
>
> De: "Neurodivergent Netizen" 
> I think a particular hurdle for a standalone WMF-affiliated kidipedia project 
> is the COPPA, and other similar laws both in the US and elsewhere that could 
> potentially increase civil liability. Another hurdle is that America is very 
> aware, perhaps overly aware, of the potential safety risks when children are 
> involved in websites. Then you add in the fact that kids are likely to 
> continue editing Wikipedia instead of Kidipedia, and it’s not worth the extra 
> effort.  This effort would include hiring/reassigning staff so you can have a 
> team of people for just Kidipedia, along with the background checks and 
> identity verification needed. None of that are obstacles that aren’t in the 
> way of kids editing the existing projects.
>
> I predict a WMF-affiliated kidipedia would largely be abandoned quite quickly.
>
> You are probably right. I would say COPPA may not be the biggest hurdle, yet 
> the british "UK Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006" is another one, and 
> moreover the fact that "America is very aware, perhaps overly aware, of the 
> potential safety risks when children are involved in websites" (and I would 
> also say that "America" weight more the right of parents to control what is 
> taught to their children and less the right of the children to inform 
> themselves - the latter being upheld by the Convention on the Rights of the 
> Child, which the US didn't ratificate - compared to other countries).
> We reviewed it on https://en.vikidia.org/wiki/Vikidia:Legal_matters
>
> That wouldn't be a wise choice that WMF host such a wiki if it brings the 
> risk of being legaly attacked on that ground, even for bad reasons and 
> unsuccessfully, whereas it never happened to Vikidia in 15 years (and very 
> few kind of bad buzz like "look what they teach to the children").
>
> You tell about "hiring/reassigning staff so you can have a team of people for 
> just Kidipedia", well, that's quite exactly the point I adressed on this blog 
> post :
> Vikidia, l’anti-professionnalisation
> https://www.wikimedia.fr/vikidia-lanti-professionnalisation/
> ...to tell that the vision of children needing to be only alongside their 
> closed family and professionals workers - and that it should be the same if a 
> wiki for children is set (that we would need professionnal educators either 
> to write the articles, to design the project or to manage the community or 
> all that together) - did cause much delay to the wiki encyclopedias for 
> children, and how we do otherwise on Vikidia.
>
> Reminder, the Wikikids project was developped on this page and subpages :
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikids
>
> Envoyé: mercredi 22 juin 2022 à 12:37
> De: "Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga" 
> À: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
> Objet: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia
> From our experience, is just the opposite: Wikipedia is not asking any extra 
> step nor age confirmation, and legally you can have an account even if you 
> are underage. Children are consulting Wikipedia without limits, and they can 
> find adult content easily. We don't have any advice about that, nor filters 
> at Commons, where you can find even porn using words that were not intended 
> for that. The place is open, and we have massive visits from children, so 
> providing them a better place, thought for them (as our strategic direction 
> says) is better that not providing at all.
>
> I can only agree!
>
>
> Mathias Damour
> [[User:Astirmays]]
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/HS4SV6YSS5G7M4R53YJGFPGWHX24GMP3/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/IZDXGSZXB7ZPMLCNVBISGRI5XP7EAQHS/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

2022-06-22 Thread Mathias Damour


Hi,
 

De: "Neurodivergent Netizen" 


I think a particular hurdle for a standalone WMF-affiliated kidipedia project is the COPPA, and other similar laws both in the US and elsewhere that could potentially increase civil liability. Another hurdle is that America is very aware, perhaps overly aware, of the potential safety risks when children are involved in websites. Then you add in the fact that kids are likely to continue editing Wikipedia instead of Kidipedia, and it’s not worth the extra effort.  This effort would include hiring/reassigning staff so you can have a team of people for just Kidipedia, along with the background checks and identity verification needed. None of that are obstacles that aren’t in the way of kids editing the existing projects.

 

I predict a WMF-affiliated kidipedia would largely be abandoned quite quickly.






 

You are probably right. I would say COPPA may not be the biggest hurdle, yet the british "UK Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006" is another one, and moreover the fact that "America is very aware, perhaps overly aware, of the potential safety risks when children are involved in websites" (and I would also say that "America" weight more the right of parents to control what is taught to their children and less the right of the children to inform themselves - the latter being upheld by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the US didn't ratificate - compared to other countries).

We reviewed it on https://en.vikidia.org/wiki/Vikidia:Legal_matters

 

That wouldn't be a wise choice that WMF host such a wiki if it brings the risk of being legaly attacked on that ground, even for bad reasons and unsuccessfully, whereas it never happened to Vikidia in 15 years (and very few kind of bad buzz like "look what they teach to the children").


 

You tell about "hiring/reassigning staff so you can have a team of people for just Kidipedia", well, that's quite exactly the point I adressed on this blog post :

Vikidia, l’anti-professionnalisation

https://www.wikimedia.fr/vikidia-lanti-professionnalisation/


...to tell that the vision of children needing to be only alongside their closed family and professionals workers - and that it should be the same if a wiki for children is set (that we would need professionnal educators either to write the articles, to design the project or to manage the community or all that together) - did cause much delay to the wiki encyclopedias for children, and how we do otherwise on Vikidia.


 

Reminder, the Wikikids project was developped on this page and subpages :

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikids


 


Envoyé: mercredi 22 juin 2022 à 12:37
De: "Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga" 
À: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
Objet: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia



From our experience, is just the opposite: Wikipedia is not asking any extra step nor age confirmation, and legally you can have an account even if you are underage. Children are consulting Wikipedia without limits, and they can find adult content easily. We don't have any advice about that, nor filters at Commons, where you can find even porn using words that were not intended for that. The place is open, and we have massive visits from children, so providing them a better place, thought for them (as our strategic direction says) is better that not providing at all.




 

I can only agree!

 

 

Mathias Damour

[[User:Astirmays]]




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/HS4SV6YSS5G7M4R53YJGFPGWHX24GMP3/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

2022-06-22 Thread Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga

>From our experience, is just the opposite: Wikipedia is not asking any extra 
>step nor age confirmation, and legally you can have an account even if you are 
>underage. Children are consulting Wikipedia without limits, and they can find 
>adult content easily. We don't have any advice about that, nor filters at 
>Commons, where you can find even porn using words that were not intended for 
>that. The place is open, and we have massive visits from children, so 
>providing them a better place, thought for them (as our strategic direction 
>says) is better that not providing at all.

If you want to know more about Txikipedia, contact us, please.

Galder

From: Neurodivergent Netizen 
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 2:59 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia

I think a particular hurdle for a standalone WMF-affiliated kidipedia project 
is the COPPA, and other similar laws both in the US and elsewhere that could 
potentially increase civil liability. Another hurdle is that America is very 
aware, perhaps overly aware, of the potential safety risks when children are 
involved in websites. Then you add in the fact that kids are likely to continue 
editing Wikipedia instead of Kidipedia, and it’s not worth the extra effort.  
This effort would include hiring/reassigning staff so you can have a team of 
people for just Kidipedia, along with the background checks and identity 
verification needed. None of that are obstacles that aren’t in the way of kids 
editing the existing projects.

I predict a WMF-affiliated kidipedia would largely be abandoned quite quickly.

From,
I dream of horses
She/her

On Jun 21, 2022, at 1:53 PM, Mathias Damour 
mailto:mathias.dam...@gmx.fr>> wrote:

Hi Ziko, Samuel and everybody,

De: "Ziko van Dijk" mailto:zvand...@gmail.com>>
Hello Samuel,

Thank you for your mail. I would like to see more attention from the Wikimedia 
movement for the target group children age ca. 8-14.

I am afraid there is no real comprehensive study about the best way to provide 
encyclopedic wiki content to children, or even to involve them in the content 
creation.

In general, children are a very special and vulnerable group. This can become 
problematic when they are directly involved on a platform, and when it comes to 
the content itself.

And yet it works well with Vikidia, which has been active for more than 15 
years, writing an average of 6 articles par day since the beginning !
There is some blog posts that elaborate how it works, what it implies and what 
it means to let a multi-age community work together, unfortunatly only in 
french (except one in english):
https://www.wikimedia.fr/author/astirmays/
My english is certainly not good enought to translate them properly, yet I 
would be glad to get some help to do so or to find a way to get them translated 
(anybody tell me if you wish to help translating 2 or 3 of theses posts !)
One also reviews some of the commons objections to such a project and how we 
adress them.

Samuel Klein mailto:meta...@gmail.com>> schrieb am Mo. 20. 
Juni 2022 um 02:25:

More languages should try that.   a) simple skin hack, b) loving and lovely 
idea, c) more compelling to me than the standalone kidipedia projects :)   
Anyway, thanks for improving my weekend, Txikipedians.   SJ

Actually when you have a "standalone kidipedia project", it has the great 
benefit to allow to have its own community, and not to be marginalized inside a 
much bigger project. Both young readers and young editors love it. I guess that 
the choice may depend on the size of the "mother" Wikipedia and the potential 
community to gather on this project.

Mathias Damour
[[User:Astirmays]]
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- 
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, 
guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/44SJI3LVF2SIZUMTQS43F5MRBENZYEQT/
To unsubscribe send an email to 
wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ROGUHPZ7YSQNZVP3VE4A2AAU2H6DIUSL/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Small joy of the day: Txikipedia