Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Simple Wikipedia: different projects

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

lodewijk at effeietsanders

Jun 21, 2011, 7:35 AM

Post #1 of 14 (698 views)
Permalink

Simple Wikipedia: different projects

Lets try to approach this from another angle.

Perhaps simple Wikipedia should not be considered as a different language,
but rather as a different project - a simplified Wikipedia. Because the
purpose of simple wikipedia's can be debated of course, but one potential is
to give more people understandable access to the contents. Then the
simplified version might not just be about simpler language, but also
simpler explanations (no long mathematical equations, but only that
introduction in a way that someone can understand the basics - in simple
understandable English). I would find it wonderful if I could let my little
nephew or sister read on a "simple" project without worrying they will panic
over the complexities. Partially for learning the language, partially for
getting the knowledge.

When approached like that, this would not really be a matter for the
language committee, and every language with enough potential community (!)
could get their own simple project.

Another option along the same lines could be a Simple namespace within
Wikipedia, if there would be an interface allowing you easily to focus on
just that namespace.

That way, we don't have to come up with artificial routes and explanations
to allow our communities the creation of such wonderful projects.

Best regards,

Lodewijk

2011/6/21 Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail>

> On 06/21/2011 12:25 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> > Thanks for the detailed response. :-)
> >
> > Milos Rancic wrote:
> >> As usual, discussion would be held on Meta. If there are serious
> >> arguments against creation of Simple French Wikipedia, we would consider
> >> them, of course. However, "arguments" like "I don't like simple
> >> projects" won't be counted.
> >
> > Well, I'm sure some of them would say that in French; would that help?
> ;-)
> >
> > I do wonder if arguments such as "Wikimedia should not be in the business
> of
> > making simplified language-versions of projects" would be counted.
>
> There is one more thing in which I agree with Michael...
>
> As he is in the group which creates BCP 47 language subtags, I told to
> him that we should get generic subtags for simple languages. His
> response was that we should think about it when the time comes, not before.
>
> I think that we will wait for some time, maybe even long, before we get
> a valid request for Simple French Wikipedia. When that time comes, we'll
> think about details.
>
> I mean, there are other things to be done and we've already spent a lot
> of time in it. The only reason why we've done so is to normalize the
> situation. I started with the position "we should recommend to the Board
> to close all simple projects" during the Berlin meeting. However,
> normalization went into other direction and I am fine with it, too.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

ezachte at wikimedia

Jun 21, 2011, 7:50 AM

Post #2 of 14 (675 views)
Permalink

Re: Simple Wikipedia: different projects [In reply to]

Another alternative:

New 'simple/advanced' keywords which would hide specific sections of the
content from the user if he or she asked for it.
I envision a Wikipedia (many years from now) which knows you want math
articles in a simple version but detailed/advanced coverage of say
history items, indicated by your user preferences.
Worst case this could lead to two entirely unrelated articles coded
within the same page, which would defeat its purpose.
Best case it would mean less maintenance, and more synergy between
simple and advanced version of articles, e.g. reuse of info-box and images.

Erik Zachte

On 6/21/2011 16:35, Lodewijk wrote:
> Lets try to approach this from another angle.
>
> Perhaps simple Wikipedia should not be considered as a different language,
> but rather as a different project - a simplified Wikipedia. Because the
> purpose of simple wikipedia's can be debated of course, but one potential is
> to give more people understandable access to the contents. Then the
> simplified version might not just be about simpler language, but also
> simpler explanations (no long mathematical equations, but only that
> introduction in a way that someone can understand the basics - in simple
> understandable English). I would find it wonderful if I could let my little
> nephew or sister read on a "simple" project without worrying they will panic
> over the complexities. Partially for learning the language, partially for
> getting the knowledge.
>
> When approached like that, this would not really be a matter for the
> language committee, and every language with enough potential community (!)
> could get their own simple project.
>
> Another option along the same lines could be a Simple namespace within
> Wikipedia, if there would be an interface allowing you easily to focus on
> just that namespace.
>
> That way, we don't have to come up with artificial routes and explanations
> to allow our communities the creation of such wonderful projects.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2011/6/21 Milos Rancic<millosh [at] gmail>
>
>> On 06/21/2011 12:25 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>>> Thanks for the detailed response. :-)
>>>
>>> Milos Rancic wrote:
>>>> As usual, discussion would be held on Meta. If there are serious
>>>> arguments against creation of Simple French Wikipedia, we would consider
>>>> them, of course. However, "arguments" like "I don't like simple
>>>> projects" won't be counted.
>>> Well, I'm sure some of them would say that in French; would that help?
>> ;-)
>>> I do wonder if arguments such as "Wikimedia should not be in the business
>> of
>>> making simplified language-versions of projects" would be counted.
>> There is one more thing in which I agree with Michael...
>>
>> As he is in the group which creates BCP 47 language subtags, I told to
>> him that we should get generic subtags for simple languages. His
>> response was that we should think about it when the time comes, not before.
>>
>> I think that we will wait for some time, maybe even long, before we get
>> a valid request for Simple French Wikipedia. When that time comes, we'll
>> think about details.
>>
>> I mean, there are other things to be done and we've already spent a lot
>> of time in it. The only reason why we've done so is to normalize the
>> situation. I started with the position "we should recommend to the Board
>> to close all simple projects" during the Berlin meeting. However,
>> normalization went into other direction and I am fine with it, too.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l [at] lists
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--

Erik Zachte

Data Analyst

Wikimedia Foundation

email: ezachte [at] wikimedia <mailto:ezachte [at] wikimedia>

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

millosh at gmail

Jun 22, 2011, 8:10 AM

Post #3 of 14 (671 views)
Permalink

Re: Simple Wikipedia: different projects [In reply to]

On 06/21/2011 04:35 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
> Lets try to approach this from another angle.
>
> Perhaps simple Wikipedia should not be considered as a different language,
> but rather as a different project - a simplified Wikipedia. Because the
> purpose of simple wikipedia's can be debated of course, but one potential is
> to give more people understandable access to the contents. Then the
> simplified version might not just be about simpler language, but also
> simpler explanations (no long mathematical equations, but only that
> introduction in a way that someone can understand the basics - in simple
> understandable English). I would find it wonderful if I could let my little
> nephew or sister read on a "simple" project without worrying they will panic
> over the complexities. Partially for learning the language, partially for
> getting the knowledge.
>
> When approached like that, this would not really be a matter for the
> language committee, and every language with enough potential community (!)
> could get their own simple project.
>
> Another option along the same lines could be a Simple namespace within
> Wikipedia, if there would be an interface allowing you easily to focus on
> just that namespace.
>
> That way, we don't have to come up with artificial routes and explanations
> to allow our communities the creation of such wonderful projects.

There are at least three serious issues in creation of such projects, if
they are not defined strictly linguistically:
* Scope. Which age do we cover, approximately? Any valid theory would be
useful, but it should be defined. According to Piaget, less than 15 [in
Northern France]; according to the age when we could be sure that child
knows to read, more than 7 or 8. Which knowledge is appropriate for that
range of age? What's appropriate for one 8-years old and what's
appropriate for one 14-years old?
* Didactic methods. They have to be reasonably well defined before the
first such project starts.
* Ideological questions. Does human 12 years old need sexual education?
I would say yes and I have serious scientific background for that claim.
However, adherents of many ideologies say opposite, most notably
Christians, Muslims and Jews.

There is serious difference between giving adult people choice and
taking responsibility for minors' education. And, according to the
present state of Wikipedias, I don't have any confidence that it would
be done well out of a couple of languages with large number of speakers
and a couple more North European ones. I have no doubts that it would
just a question of time when strong part of the smaller communities
would require religious education to be introduced in such project;
after which I would require introduction of teaching how to prepare
Molotov cocktails, as they are more useful in real world and less dangerous.

In response to Erik's idea, I would say that we should just take care
about the present guidelines and possible to make small corrections.
I've took a look at the article Acceleration [1]. The article is quite
good for any level of knowledge (although more advanced issues could be
addressed more). It has introduction with the simple description and
just after that it covers more complex definitions. Maybe we should have
the first section inside of every article named "Introduction", where
all basic concepts would be described.

But, anyway, the most important quality of one encyclopedia is to give
introduction into the matter in a readable language, while referring to
the other articles if a person doesn't understand needed concepts. And I
think that English Wikipedia is quite good in that.

What is more appropriate for one person who wants to be introduced
slowly and didactically into some matter -- is not an encyclopedia, but
schoolbook. The fact that Wikipedia is much better than Wikibooks
doesn't mean that we shouldn't work on Wikibooks to make them really
useful, like Wikipedia is.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

lodewijk at effeietsanders

Jun 22, 2011, 1:24 PM

Post #4 of 14 (672 views)
Permalink

Re: Simple Wikipedia: different projects [In reply to]

2011/6/22 Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail>

There are at least three serious issues in creation of such projects, if
> they are not defined strictly linguistically:
> * Scope. Which age do we cover, approximately? Any valid theory would be
> useful, but it should be defined. According to Piaget, less than 15 [in
> Northern France]; according to the age when we could be sure that child
> knows to read, more than 7 or 8. Which knowledge is appropriate for that
> range of age? What's appropriate for one 8-years old and what's
> appropriate for one 14-years old?
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>
>
<snip some very interesting remarks based on this age assumption>

I think you assume too quickly that only young people would benifit from
"simple" texts. In the Netherlands we have 1.5 million "low literate adults"
(people having trouble to read & write) and I think the Netherlands actually
is having quite low percentages in that field compared to many other
countries. These are not even people who speak Dutch as a secondary
language. Besides that there are indeed many children who might also benifit
from this content, and also non-natives (consider for example people from
Wallonia or Surinam (if non-native Dutch) who would like to look up
something in Dutch for some reason.

Now this easily scales towards many other languages. Sure, we could think
about all kind of complicated definitions, detailed scopes etc - but first I
would like to try and get an answer to the more fundamental question: would
we see benifit for such projects? Would we see a potential community to run
such projects?

The next question would be (independent of your definitions etc) whether
this would work best as a seperate project, or as a part of existing
projects (namespaces or Erik Zachte's solution - that is a rather technical
issue), and then if we would choose for the last, whether we would be
willing to invest into making this technically possible (there are several
challanges, such as how to resolve linking, searching etc). And then there
are many other questions to answer.

But... back to the original question: would you (yes, you who is reading
this. No, don't look behind you, I really mean you!) see benifit & community
potential for this? Are there people out there who would find it *fun* to
write articles in a simple way explaining the basics understandable for
everybody in simple language?

Best regards,

Lodewijk
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

millosh at gmail

Jun 22, 2011, 1:46 PM

Post #5 of 14 (659 views)
Permalink

Re: Simple Wikipedia: different projects [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 22:24, Lodewijk <lodewijk [at] effeietsanders> wrote:
> 2011/6/22 Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail>
>
> There are at least three serious issues in creation of such projects, if
>> they are not defined strictly linguistically:
>> * Scope. Which age do we cover, approximately? Any valid theory would be
>> useful, but it should be defined. According to Piaget, less than 15 [in
>> Northern France]; according to the age when we could be sure that child
>> knows to read, more than 7 or 8. Which knowledge is appropriate for that
>> range of age? What's appropriate for one 8-years old and what's
>> appropriate for one 14-years old?
>> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>
>>
> <snip some very interesting remarks based on this age assumption>
>
> I think you assume too quickly that only young people would benifit from
> "simple" texts. In the Netherlands we have 1.5 million "low literate adults"
> (people having trouble to read & write) and I think the Netherlands actually
> is having quite low percentages in that field compared to many other
> countries. These are not even people who speak Dutch as a secondary
> language. Besides that there are indeed many children who might also benifit
> from this content, and also non-natives (consider for example people from
> Wallonia or Surinam (if non-native Dutch) who would like to look up
> something in Dutch for some reason.

You are then talking about Wikipedia as Simple English Wikipedia is.
My position, but not shared with other LangCom members, is that we
should allow any Wikipedia in simple language if there is a reliable
and published specification of that language (and other regular
criteria are met).

I have a friendly advice for you (and I hope that Michael and Gerard
wouldn't kill me because of that): If you are able to create really
valid community and your language is not considered as a world one (as
the case with Dutch is), and you really want to create Wikipedia in
simple language: (1) Create it inside of the main Wikipedia's
namespace. (2) Ask developers to install Incubator Extension when it
becomes a bit more mature. (3) Ask IETF for the language subtag
(something like "nl-simpel" or "nl-eenvoudige" or whatever you think
it is appropriate). (4) Ask Language committee for redirect.

I suppose that we would need a year or two to full implementation of
the Incubator Extension and redirects. I also think that no one from
LangCom would object such arrangement. Having the whole nl.wp
community behind such project is one thing, having a separate
community is another. If supported by nl.wp community, I wouldn't have
anything against not having scientific basis.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

rupert.thurner at gmail

Jun 23, 2011, 1:30 PM

Post #6 of 14 (665 views)
Permalink

Re: Simple Wikipedia: different projects [In reply to]

people working at teacher schools in switzerland approached us a couple of
times to push into a direction of *having wikipedia for different age groups
*. first discussed ideas included the *groups **kids, junior, standard, *and
* expert*. this would mean maximum four times as many articles, nicely
hidden behind a gui which allows a quick switch between the variants, and
also the inviting "missing article" feeling a red link gives.

up to now we always thought there is a lack of support for such ideas, or it
would be just retargeted to wikijunior. also, we thought there might not be
enough editors. but recently things started to change, at least imo. (1)
editors do not have anything to edit any more because wikipedia is so
complete. (2) the whole wiki movement has more money and energy to improve
the software. (3) and most important, not only professors in ivory towers
but long-standing, reputed wikipedians like you come up with ideas how such
a topic could be addressed.

one challenge of course is to encourage people providing low age contents
because creating it takes so much more time - but i am pretty sure there are
means to address it - let me just steal the brand "wiki loves monuments" and
rephrase it to "wiki loves kids".

what you think?

rupert

ps - to take milos acceleration example, the four variants could be - please
do not beat me if they are not good enough ...

*kids*
a movie, or a picture, e.g.
http://www.kidsknowit.com/interactive-educational-movies/free-online-movies.php?movie=Acceleration

*junior*
Acceleration is a way to measure how fast something is speeding up. Suppose
you are riding your bike. You start out going very slowly, hardly pedaling
at all. Now you begin to pedal as hard as you can, to speed up - you are
accelerating. Now that you are going at a normal speed, you stop pedaling so
hard, and just pedal normally. You're still going, but you're not getting
any faster, just going along at your normal speed. You're not accelerating
anymore.
(from:
http://www.historyforkids.org/scienceforkids/physics/movement/acceleration.htm
)

*standard*
*Acceleration* is a measure <http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure> of
how fast <http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed>
velocity<http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity>
changes <http://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/change>. Acceleration is the
change of velocity divided <http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide> by the
change of time <http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time>. Acceleration is a
vector <http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector>, and therefore includes
both a size <http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size> and a
direction<http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction>
.
(from http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration)

*expert*
In physics <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics>, *acceleration* is the
rate of change of velocity <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity> over
time.[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration#cite_note-0> In one
dimension, acceleration is the
rate<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_(mathematics)> at
which something speeds up or slows down. However, since velocity is a
vector<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_vector>,
acceleration describes the rate of change of both the magnitude and the
direction of velocity.[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration#cite_note-1>
[3] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration#cite_note-2> Acceleration has
thedimensions <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis>
L<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length>
T <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time> −2. In
SI<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units> units,
acceleration is measured in meters per second
squared<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre_per_second_per_second>
(m/s2). (Negative acceleration i.e. retardation, also has the same
dimensions/units.)

Proper acceleration <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration>, the
acceleration of a body relative to a free-fall condition, is measured by an
instrument called an accelerometer<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer>
.
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration)

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 17:10, Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail> wrote:

> On 06/21/2011 04:35 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
> > Lets try to approach this from another angle.
> >
> > Perhaps simple Wikipedia should not be considered as a different
> language,
> > but rather as a different project - a simplified Wikipedia. Because the
> > purpose of simple wikipedia's can be debated of course, but one potential
> is
> > to give more people understandable access to the contents. Then the
> > simplified version might not just be about simpler language, but also
> > simpler explanations (no long mathematical equations, but only that
> > introduction in a way that someone can understand the basics - in simple
> > understandable English). I would find it wonderful if I could let my
> little
> > nephew or sister read on a "simple" project without worrying they will
> panic
> > over the complexities. Partially for learning the language, partially for
> > getting the knowledge.
> >
> > When approached like that, this would not really be a matter for the
> > language committee, and every language with enough potential community
> (!)
> > could get their own simple project.
> >
> > Another option along the same lines could be a Simple namespace within
> > Wikipedia, if there would be an interface allowing you easily to focus on
> > just that namespace.
> >
> > That way, we don't have to come up with artificial routes and
> explanations
> > to allow our communities the creation of such wonderful projects.
>
> There are at least three serious issues in creation of such projects, if
> they are not defined strictly linguistically:
> * Scope. Which age do we cover, approximately? Any valid theory would be
> useful, but it should be defined. According to Piaget, less than 15 [in
> Northern France]; according to the age when we could be sure that child
> knows to read, more than 7 or 8. Which knowledge is appropriate for that
> range of age? What's appropriate for one 8-years old and what's
> appropriate for one 14-years old?
> * Didactic methods. They have to be reasonably well defined before the
> first such project starts.
> * Ideological questions. Does human 12 years old need sexual education?
> I would say yes and I have serious scientific background for that claim.
> However, adherents of many ideologies say opposite, most notably
> Christians, Muslims and Jews.
>
> There is serious difference between giving adult people choice and
> taking responsibility for minors' education. And, according to the
> present state of Wikipedias, I don't have any confidence that it would
> be done well out of a couple of languages with large number of speakers
> and a couple more North European ones. I have no doubts that it would
> just a question of time when strong part of the smaller communities
> would require religious education to be introduced in such project;
> after which I would require introduction of teaching how to prepare
> Molotov cocktails, as they are more useful in real world and less
> dangerous.
>
> In response to Erik's idea, I would say that we should just take care
> about the present guidelines and possible to make small corrections.
> I've took a look at the article Acceleration [1]. The article is quite
> good for any level of knowledge (although more advanced issues could be
> addressed more). It has introduction with the simple description and
> just after that it covers more complex definitions. Maybe we should have
> the first section inside of every article named "Introduction", where
> all basic concepts would be described.
>
> But, anyway, the most important quality of one encyclopedia is to give
> introduction into the matter in a readable language, while referring to
> the other articles if a person doesn't understand needed concepts. And I
> think that English Wikipedia is quite good in that.
>
> What is more appropriate for one person who wants to be introduced
> slowly and didactically into some matter -- is not an encyclopedia, but
> schoolbook. The fact that Wikipedia is much better than Wikibooks
> doesn't mean that we shouldn't work on Wikibooks to make them really
> useful, like Wikipedia is.
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

Jun 24, 2011, 2:40 AM

Post #7 of 14 (664 views)
Permalink

Re: Simple Wikipedia: different projects [In reply to]

On 06/22/11 1:46 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 22:24, Lodewijk<lodewijk [at] effeietsanders> wrote:
>> 2011/6/22 Milos Rancic<millosh [at] gmail>
>>
>> There are at least three serious issues in creation of such projects, if
>>> they are not defined strictly linguistically:
>>> * Scope. Which age do we cover, approximately? Any valid theory would be
>>> useful, but it should be defined. According to Piaget, less than 15 [in
>>> Northern France]; according to the age when we could be sure that child
>>> knows to read, more than 7 or 8. Which knowledge is appropriate for that
>>> range of age? What's appropriate for one 8-years old and what's
>>> appropriate for one 14-years old?
>>> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>
>> <snip some very interesting remarks based on this age assumption>
>>
>> I think you assume too quickly that only young people would benifit from
>> "simple" texts. In the Netherlands we have 1.5 million "low literate adults"
>> (people having trouble to read& write) and I think the Netherlands actually
>> is having quite low percentages in that field compared to many other
>> countries. These are not even people who speak Dutch as a secondary
>> language. Besides that there are indeed many children who might also benifit
>> from this content, and also non-natives (consider for example people from
>> Wallonia or Surinam (if non-native Dutch) who would like to look up
>> something in Dutch for some reason.
> You are then talking about Wikipedia as Simple English Wikipedia is.
> My position, but not shared with other LangCom members, is that we
> should allow any Wikipedia in simple language if there is a reliable
> and published specification of that language (and other regular
> criteria are met).
>
> I have a friendly advice for you (and I hope that Michael and Gerard
> wouldn't kill me because of that): If you are able to create really
> valid community and your language is not considered as a world one (as
> the case with Dutch is), and you really want to create Wikipedia in
> simple language: (1) Create it inside of the main Wikipedia's
> namespace. (2) Ask developers to install Incubator Extension when it
> becomes a bit more mature. (3) Ask IETF for the language subtag
> (something like "nl-simpel" or "nl-eenvoudige" or whatever you think
> it is appropriate). (4) Ask Language committee for redirect.
>
> I suppose that we would need a year or two to full implementation of
> the Incubator Extension and redirects. I also think that no one from
> LangCom would object such arrangement. Having the whole nl.wp
> community behind such project is one thing, having a separate
> community is another. If supported by nl.wp community, I wouldn't have
> anything against not having scientific basis.

By attaching enough bureaucratic requirements to an idea you can insure
that anything fails. What is this scientific basis? No other Wikipedia
has had to face that challenge. Leave it up to the people involved in a
simple project to develop their specifications as they go along.
Demanding that before they start is an effective way of blocking the
project before it starts. Wikipedia as a whole never achieved its
success by imposing such barriers on editing.

Simple writing is more difficult than writing for a general audience. If
there is a small group of Dutch speakers ready to put something of the
sort together, preferably with a couple of educators among them, let's
encourage them to get on to it sooner rather than later. If such a
project dies from neglect that's no big deal. If language educators see
this as a viable model it may be just the thing that draws them.

Ray

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

Jun 24, 2011, 2:54 AM

Post #8 of 14 (656 views)
Permalink

Re: Simple Wikipedia: different projects [In reply to]

On 06/23/11 1:30 PM, rupert THURNER wrote:
> people working at teacher schools in switzerland approached us a couple of
> times to push into a direction of *having wikipedia for different age groups
> *. first discussed ideas included the *groups **kids, junior, standard, *and
> * expert*. this would mean maximum four times as many articles, nicely
> hidden behind a gui which allows a quick switch between the variants, and
> also the inviting "missing article" feeling a red link gives.
>
> up to now we always thought there is a lack of support for such ideas, or it
> would be just retargeted to wikijunior. also, we thought there might not be
> enough editors. but recently things started to change, at least imo. (1)
> editors do not have anything to edit any more because wikipedia is so
> complete. (2) the whole wiki movement has more money and energy to improve
> the software. (3) and most important, not only professors in ivory towers
> but long-standing, reputed wikipedians like you come up with ideas how such
> a topic could be addressed.
>
> one challenge of course is to encourage people providing low age contents
> because creating it takes so much more time - but i am pretty sure there are
> means to address it - let me just steal the brand "wiki loves monuments" and
> rephrase it to "wiki loves kids".
>

In the very earliest times of Wiki Junior I remember raising the
question of multi-level writing. It was important to provide examples
of just how this would look, generated by people who truly understood
what was required at each level. What projects of this sort mostly need
is people to implement them.

The group of Swiss teachers would do best by showing initiative, and
working to get the idea off the ground without relying on the rest of us
to accomplish what they know best.

Ray

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

millosh at gmail

Jun 24, 2011, 4:19 AM

Post #9 of 14 (669 views)
Permalink

Re: Simple Wikipedia: different projects [In reply to]

On 06/24/2011 11:40 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> On 06/22/11 1:46 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> I have a friendly advice for you (and I hope that Michael and Gerard
>> wouldn't kill me because of that): If you are able to create really
>> valid community and your language is not considered as a world one (as
>> the case with Dutch is), and you really want to create Wikipedia in
>> simple language: (1) Create it inside of the main Wikipedia's
>> namespace. (2) Ask developers to install Incubator Extension when it
>> becomes a bit more mature. (3) Ask IETF for the language subtag
>> (something like "nl-simpel" or "nl-eenvoudige" or whatever you think
>> it is appropriate). (4) Ask Language committee for redirect.
>>
>> I suppose that we would need a year or two to full implementation of
>> the Incubator Extension and redirects. I also think that no one from
>> LangCom would object such arrangement. Having the whole nl.wp
>> community behind such project is one thing, having a separate
>> community is another. If supported by nl.wp community, I wouldn't have
>> anything against not having scientific basis.
>
> By attaching enough bureaucratic requirements to an idea you can insure
> that anything fails. What is this scientific basis? No other Wikipedia
> has had to face that challenge. Leave it up to the people involved in a
> simple project to develop their specifications as they go along.
> Demanding that before they start is an effective way of blocking the
> project before it starts. Wikipedia as a whole never achieved its
> success by imposing such barriers on editing.
>
> Simple writing is more difficult than writing for a general audience. If
> there is a small group of Dutch speakers ready to put something of the
> sort together, preferably with a couple of educators among them, let's
> encourage them to get on to it sooner rather than later. If such a
> project dies from neglect that's no big deal. If language educators see
> this as a viable model it may be just the thing that draws them.

The main difference between simple and natural languages is that simple
languages are not natural. They are constructed (or, more precisely,
controlled) languages with particular purpose.

So, the logical questions are: is that a valid constructed language (a
reliable and published definition is needed) and what's the purpose of
that language? Basic English and French definitions sound good (have to
check other) as the basis, and it is possible to write an encyclopedia
in those languages.

Because of the same reason why we are not able to allow encyclopedia in
pidgin languages (not to be confused with creole languages with the word
"pidgin" in their names), we are not able to allow writing encyclopedia
in COBOL, no matter how it looks like a natural language: it is not
possible to create encyclopedia in those languages. Similar would be
applied to any controlled language which doesn't have possibility to
express the full variety of contemporary knowledge. Because of the same
reason, encyclopedias in historical languages are not possible. [1]

Humans are intelligent enough to develop any language into fully
functional one. That's not a question. I am curious enough to see
encyclopedia written in COBOL, as well as contributors of Classical
Chinese and Old Church Slavonic are doing that interesting task whenever
they try to explain a thing which didn't exist in the time when those
languages were used.

I agree that there is significant difference between COBOL, Classical
Chinese and Old Church Slavonic at one side and any simple language at
the other. Encyclopedia written in the first three is of questionable
value, while the last one could be very useful.

Because of that LangCom didn't change its position in relation to the
historical languages, but in relation to the simple languages.

We could be sure that efforts for creation a project are valid if a
language could be recognized as a valid one by relevant linguist or by
community of speakers. In the case of simple language projects, there is
no community of speakers of that language as-is.

Note, also, that the project with the main purpose to be used by
children and not fully literate people is not, by its nature, an open
wiki, like any Wikimedia content project is, because: (1) they are not
likely to be able to write good definitions and good content according
to the prescribed rules; and when they are able (2) all of them tend to
develop full language. Lingua franca usage is completely other issue:
literate adult people are able to find a common ground to understand
each other and they are able to work according to the basic principles.

Then, who are the editors of our projects? Any organized group of
professionals around? I don't remember one. Simple English Wikipedia has
been built by the same volunteers of various backgrounds and inside of
the set of rules which are regularly treated as not welcoming by
professionals. The best future for a separate project in a simple
language with less than approximately 100M of speakers is to be started
by a group of teachers and then abandoned. And if we are talking about
Dutch, I would remind you that Dutch community doesn't have enough
manpower to drive Wikinews, which is hard to maintain, but it is more
general project than one intended to be driven by specific group of
professionals.

Because of those reasons, I've given a straight-forward path for
creation of Simple Wikipedia in non-world-languages: Please, be
supported by your community, do the job and then we'll do the best to
meet your needs. Incubator Extension will be more and more useful for
such cases. If you followed a couple of previous discussions, that
extension is intended to be a full substitute for a full project, when
project has small community: anyone who comes to
"nl-simple.wikipedia.org" would see Simple Dutch Wikipedia as it is the
only project under that domain. I think that it is not about making
unreasonable bureaucratic requirements, but a fair offer.

Besides all of the things above, I am sure that Wikimedia Netherlands is
able to create a wiki not editable by the Internet to support a group of
teachers to create an encyclopedia in Simple Dutch; something like
"simple.wikipedia.nl" (or whatever) would be good enough. BTW, we have
similar issue because of different reasons for Native Australian
languages: It is likely that the only option for the most of those
languages is to create a set of private wikis hosted by WM AU. Wikimedia
Serbia has offered its domain and hosting for one Papuan language
(Alekano; they would get gah.wikipedia.rs) to omit regular requirements
by LangCom for the initial time and allow those people to "have their
own Wikipedia".

Bottom line is that I would personally host such projects, if no one
else is willing.

[1] That's, of course, about the present situation. When we conclude
that we've reasonably covered the most of natural languages, I would say
that we could experiment by allowing Wikimedia projects in other types
of languages, including the historical ones.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

lodewijk at effeietsanders

Jun 24, 2011, 4:42 AM

Post #10 of 14 (664 views)
Permalink

Re: Simple Wikipedia: different projects [In reply to]

Hi Milos,

First of all, in my opinion this should not be a discussion about language
but rather about viability. Like Ray explained, if you try to define
everything into detail ("we cannot allow...") then you might kill the idea
before it is born. Let us first think about whether we /want/ to have such
projects before we dive into details about specific definitions etc. That is
also the reason why I personally think this should not be an issue for the
Language Committee in the first place.

Now your concerns about whether a simple Dutch community would be viable are
reasonable ones, and I agree it would worry me too. Not because of Wikinews
(because that just has little interest) but because of the diversity of
goals etc. So that is why a significant group of editors should be a
prerequisite - then that worry has been taken away - or it should be part of
existing structures (namespaces etc). I agree with Rupert that it would be
great to see which technical developments would be needed to make this
possible (although I personally am no big fan of many different
age-projects. But also there: as long as there is a viable community... why
not?)

If it is technically viable, I would love to see some way to create such
projects (standalone or not) - although I am not sure if incubator would be
the best option for that. After all, in the case of simple Dutch, the Dutch
Wikipedia community would be much better equipped to nourish such a new
initiative than incubator.

Best,

Lodewijk

2011/6/24 Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail>

> On 06/24/2011 11:40 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > On 06/22/11 1:46 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> >> I have a friendly advice for you (and I hope that Michael and Gerard
> >> wouldn't kill me because of that): If you are able to create really
> >> valid community and your language is not considered as a world one (as
> >> the case with Dutch is), and you really want to create Wikipedia in
> >> simple language: (1) Create it inside of the main Wikipedia's
> >> namespace. (2) Ask developers to install Incubator Extension when it
> >> becomes a bit more mature. (3) Ask IETF for the language subtag
> >> (something like "nl-simpel" or "nl-eenvoudige" or whatever you think
> >> it is appropriate). (4) Ask Language committee for redirect.
> >>
> >> I suppose that we would need a year or two to full implementation of
> >> the Incubator Extension and redirects. I also think that no one from
> >> LangCom would object such arrangement. Having the whole nl.wp
> >> community behind such project is one thing, having a separate
> >> community is another. If supported by nl.wp community, I wouldn't have
> >> anything against not having scientific basis.
> >
> > By attaching enough bureaucratic requirements to an idea you can insure
> > that anything fails. What is this scientific basis? No other Wikipedia
> > has had to face that challenge. Leave it up to the people involved in a
> > simple project to develop their specifications as they go along.
> > Demanding that before they start is an effective way of blocking the
> > project before it starts. Wikipedia as a whole never achieved its
> > success by imposing such barriers on editing.
> >
> > Simple writing is more difficult than writing for a general audience. If
> > there is a small group of Dutch speakers ready to put something of the
> > sort together, preferably with a couple of educators among them, let's
> > encourage them to get on to it sooner rather than later. If such a
> > project dies from neglect that's no big deal. If language educators see
> > this as a viable model it may be just the thing that draws them.
>
> The main difference between simple and natural languages is that simple
> languages are not natural. They are constructed (or, more precisely,
> controlled) languages with particular purpose.
>
> So, the logical questions are: is that a valid constructed language (a
> reliable and published definition is needed) and what's the purpose of
> that language? Basic English and French definitions sound good (have to
> check other) as the basis, and it is possible to write an encyclopedia
> in those languages.
>
> Because of the same reason why we are not able to allow encyclopedia in
> pidgin languages (not to be confused with creole languages with the word
> "pidgin" in their names), we are not able to allow writing encyclopedia
> in COBOL, no matter how it looks like a natural language: it is not
> possible to create encyclopedia in those languages. Similar would be
> applied to any controlled language which doesn't have possibility to
> express the full variety of contemporary knowledge. Because of the same
> reason, encyclopedias in historical languages are not possible. [1]
>
> Humans are intelligent enough to develop any language into fully
> functional one. That's not a question. I am curious enough to see
> encyclopedia written in COBOL, as well as contributors of Classical
> Chinese and Old Church Slavonic are doing that interesting task whenever
> they try to explain a thing which didn't exist in the time when those
> languages were used.
>
> I agree that there is significant difference between COBOL, Classical
> Chinese and Old Church Slavonic at one side and any simple language at
> the other. Encyclopedia written in the first three is of questionable
> value, while the last one could be very useful.
>
> Because of that LangCom didn't change its position in relation to the
> historical languages, but in relation to the simple languages.
>
> We could be sure that efforts for creation a project are valid if a
> language could be recognized as a valid one by relevant linguist or by
> community of speakers. In the case of simple language projects, there is
> no community of speakers of that language as-is.
>
> Note, also, that the project with the main purpose to be used by
> children and not fully literate people is not, by its nature, an open
> wiki, like any Wikimedia content project is, because: (1) they are not
> likely to be able to write good definitions and good content according
> to the prescribed rules; and when they are able (2) all of them tend to
> develop full language. Lingua franca usage is completely other issue:
> literate adult people are able to find a common ground to understand
> each other and they are able to work according to the basic principles.
>
> Then, who are the editors of our projects? Any organized group of
> professionals around? I don't remember one. Simple English Wikipedia has
> been built by the same volunteers of various backgrounds and inside of
> the set of rules which are regularly treated as not welcoming by
> professionals. The best future for a separate project in a simple
> language with less than approximately 100M of speakers is to be started
> by a group of teachers and then abandoned. And if we are talking about
> Dutch, I would remind you that Dutch community doesn't have enough
> manpower to drive Wikinews, which is hard to maintain, but it is more
> general project than one intended to be driven by specific group of
> professionals.
>
> Because of those reasons, I've given a straight-forward path for
> creation of Simple Wikipedia in non-world-languages: Please, be
> supported by your community, do the job and then we'll do the best to
> meet your needs. Incubator Extension will be more and more useful for
> such cases. If you followed a couple of previous discussions, that
> extension is intended to be a full substitute for a full project, when
> project has small community: anyone who comes to
> "nl-simple.wikipedia.org" would see Simple Dutch Wikipedia as it is the
> only project under that domain. I think that it is not about making
> unreasonable bureaucratic requirements, but a fair offer.
>
> Besides all of the things above, I am sure that Wikimedia Netherlands is
> able to create a wiki not editable by the Internet to support a group of
> teachers to create an encyclopedia in Simple Dutch; something like
> "simple.wikipedia.nl" (or whatever) would be good enough. BTW, we have
> similar issue because of different reasons for Native Australian
> languages: It is likely that the only option for the most of those
> languages is to create a set of private wikis hosted by WM AU. Wikimedia
> Serbia has offered its domain and hosting for one Papuan language
> (Alekano; they would get gah.wikipedia.rs) to omit regular requirements
> by LangCom for the initial time and allow those people to "have their
> own Wikipedia".
>
> Bottom line is that I would personally host such projects, if no one
> else is willing.
>
> [1] That's, of course, about the present situation. When we conclude
> that we've reasonably covered the most of natural languages, I would say
> that we could experiment by allowing Wikimedia projects in other types
> of languages, including the historical ones.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

alecmconroy at gmail

Jun 24, 2011, 5:02 AM

Post #11 of 14 (662 views)
Permalink

Re: Simple Wikipedia: different projects [In reply to]

> If it is technically viable, I would love to see some way to create such
> projects (standalone or not)

Do we have any data on the resource usage of a creating a new
standalone project? If it's, as I expect, relatively trivial, then
why not make a simplified dutch project? The worst that could happen
is that nobody would edit it and it wouldn't thrive.

Is there any overt downside to just making the project, recruiting .nl
admins to watch over it, and then seeing if people show up to work on
it?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

millosh at gmail

Jun 24, 2011, 5:23 AM

Post #12 of 14 (661 views)
Permalink

Re: Simple Wikipedia: different projects [In reply to]

On 06/24/2011 01:42 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
> Let us first think about whether we /want/ to have such
> projects before we dive into details about specific definitions etc. That is
> also the reason why I personally think this should not be an issue for the
> Language Committee in the first place.

LangCom's decision and LangCom's good will is the best which simple
projects could get inside of the Wikimedia community. Requests for
simple projects regularly don't pass community's confidence. Simple
English Wikipedia would be turned off if it would go to voting.

And note that I've given to you at least two valid paths to create
Simple Dutch Wikipedia.

Anyway, good luck!

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

lodewijk at effeietsanders

Jun 24, 2011, 7:56 AM

Post #13 of 14 (662 views)
Permalink

Re: Simple Wikipedia: different projects [In reply to]

Hi,

just to be totally clear: I do not intend to pursue simple Dutch Wikipedia
myself, I only took that as an example of a typical language that is not a
world language etc - for major languages present in many countries/regions
the need can only be higher (simple Spanish, French, Chinese, German,
Portuguese to name a few).

Alec, I think the biggest resource would be time. However, if we would want
a new technical interface allowing to have both simple and normal Dutch (or
Spanish etc) in one wiki, then it would probably require more technical
development - I cannot estimate honestly how much work that would be. Maybe
someone with a better technical background and insight in what already
exists (maybe other parties have developed something similar?) can give a
fair estimate on that.

Best,

Lodewijk

2011/6/24 Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail>

> On 06/24/2011 01:42 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
> > Let us first think about whether we /want/ to have such
> > projects before we dive into details about specific definitions etc. That
> is
> > also the reason why I personally think this should not be an issue for
> the
> > Language Committee in the first place.
>
> LangCom's decision and LangCom's good will is the best which simple
> projects could get inside of the Wikimedia community. Requests for
> simple projects regularly don't pass community's confidence. Simple
> English Wikipedia would be turned off if it would go to voting.
>
> And note that I've given to you at least two valid paths to create
> Simple Dutch Wikipedia.
>
> Anyway, good luck!
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

rupert.thurner at gmail

Jun 24, 2011, 10:28 AM

Post #14 of 14 (654 views)
Permalink

Re: Simple Wikipedia: different projects [In reply to]

what could be done to get wikipedia for different age groups off the ground?
would there be a possibility to get pilot space?

On Jun 24, 2011 11:55 AM, "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge [at] telus> wrote:

On 06/23/11 1:30 PM, rupert THURNER wrote:
> people working at teacher schools in switzerland approa...
In the very earliest times of Wiki Junior I remember raising the
question of multi-level writing. It was important to provide examples
of just how this would look, generated by people who truly understood
what was required at each level. What projects of this sort mostly need
is people to implement them.

The group of Swiss teachers would do best by showing initiative, and
working to get the idea off the ground without relying on the rest of us
to accomplish what they know best.

Ray

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads