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.

I dream of horses

> 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: 
> <>.
> 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 < 
>> <>> 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):
>> <>
>> 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 
>> <> )
>> 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 ( 
>> <>) 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 -- 
>> <>, guidelines at: 
>> <> and 
>> <>
>> Public archives at 
>> <>
>> To unsubscribe send an email to 
>> <>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- 
> <>, guidelines at: 
> <> and 
> <>
> Public archives at 
> <>
> To unsubscribe send an email to 
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list --, guidelines at: and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to

Reply via email to