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 > <galder...@hotmail.com> 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&agent=user&source=category&start=2022-01-01&end=2022-06-22&subjectpage=0&subcategories=0&target=https%3A%2F%2Feu.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKategoria%3ATxikipedia&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&target=https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategoria:Txikipedia > > <https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews/?platform=all-access&agent=user&source=category&start=2022-01-01&end=2022-06-22&subjectpage=0&subcategories=0&target=https%3A%2F%2Feu.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKategoria%3ATxikipedia&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&target=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 <idoh.idreamofhor...@gmail.com > <mailto:idoh.idreamofhor...@gmail.com>> > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 9:15 PM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <firstname.lastname@example.org > <mailto:email@example.com>> > 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 <mathias.dam...@gmx.fr >> <mailto:mathias.dam...@gmx.fr>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> De: "WereSpielChequers" <werespielchequ...@gmail.com >> <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 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/ <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 >> <mailto: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 >> <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 -- firstname.lastname@example.org >> <mailto:email@example.com>, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> >> Public archives at >> https://firstname.lastname@example.org/message/UHX6EVQUI233NCUHK2HE54HDOYOSSCUB/ >> >> <https://email@example.com/message/UHX6EVQUI233NCUHK2HE54HDOYOSSCUB/> >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org > <mailto:email@example.com>, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > Public archives at > https://firstname.lastname@example.org/message/W2I32LYX4BXDBD3USDCGBGMLESRUCQDZ/ > > <https://email@example.com/message/W2I32LYX4BXDBD3USDCGBGMLESRUCQDZ/> > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > <mailto:wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org>
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://email@example.com/message/PKPOPPDEGLT5HH65CQAY6XIV2J4LILPC/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org