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 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 > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikids/Documentation_and_Vikidia> > > > De: "Ziko van Dijk" <zvand...@gmail.com> <mailto:zvand...@gmail.com> > 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" <galder...@hotmail.com> > 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 writer of for maintenance and > community tasks. > > Adults as well have to learn to write on Vikidia, be they educators or not. > Just as it is well know that a journalist or a scientist, which are supposed > to be skilled is writing articles, often don't fit immediatly with the style > that is expected on Wikipedia. > > 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/UHX6EVQUI233NCUHK2HE54HDOYOSSCUB/ > 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/KF426ALI77IUT6X7F6INLSAIBSD66Z2D/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
