Hi,
Le 10/08/2018 à 16:26, Ziko van Dijk a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> I allow myself to add (I am not quite neutral, as related to Klexikon) that
> the children encyclopedias have an important advantage: you can reach
> institutions and audiecnes you usually not reach with Wikipedia.
>
> In general, I can imagine that this user group (as many „evangelists“)
> often starts with Wikipedia as a topci, because WP simply is the most known
> wiki, and occasionally regards other wikis as it fits. For example, I know
> that some initiatives focus on Wiktionary because Wiktionary entries are
> shorter and „easier“ to create than Wikipedia articles.
>
> Kind regards,
> Ziko
This may be the opportunity to tell about the differences between
Klexikon and Vikidia, since you (Ziko) often defined Klexikon in
relation (indeed "by contrast") with other projects. And so to present a
bit further these projects.
I will use excerpts of the Klexikon presentation on meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Klexikon
> When Michael Schulte and Ziko van Dijk did research on these wikis in
> 2014, they noted some issues with these wikis. The articles often
> lacked textual quality: they consisted of loose sentences one after
> the other, for example. Many articles seem were not much easier to
> read and understand than Wikipedia articles. Some content seemed to be
> not really child friendly.
Actually, complaint about Vikidia articles "beeing not really child
friendly" are very rare, since every regular editor, whatever his age
have this objective in mind.
It's right that the quality, length of the articles is quite diverse,
just as on Wikipedia, however children often ask for substantial
content. The fact that some articles may be too difficult for the age
range we aim at is a real question we have in mind.
> The main problem was that these wikis imitated too much the concepts
> of Wikipedia: new contributors can simply give themselve an account.
> It is easy to vandalize.
...and children and teenagers are the most active in fixing vandalism,
which is after all easier than writing. It doesn't take much adult's time.
> Can children write a children's encyclopedia?
>
> Another observation was that many of these wikis want to have children
> as writers. Maybe this stems from the popular idea that children know
> best what other children like. Many people also find it 'cute' that
> children help other people by writing content. Some founders of these
> wikis for children are teachers and wanted a platform to use in the
> class room.
>
> The founders of the Klexikon became very sceptical about children
> authors. In general, think of books or TV shows for children: they all
> are not written or produced by children but by adults. You need a lot
> of skills to write good texts; good writers have learned these skills
> over a large span of time.
>
> There were some experiments with children writing texts for the
> Klexikon, both online and in class rooms. It showed that the texts
> written by the children were very remote from the qualily necessary
> for an online encyclopedia. The texts needed to be rewritten,
> essentially from scratch.
Very few children (and teenagers) write on Vikidia compared to the
number of readers. They often are involved for years (10 to 15 yo ; 12
to 20 yo, 14 to 24 yo...), which mean that they do have these "large
spans of time" to get skilled as writers. I mean, they may learn already
pretty good skills in 3 to 6 month of editing.
Moreover, we develop this point on :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikids/For_children_or_by_children%3F
Among other ideas, I may quote this one : "when a child starts an
article, be it insufficient, he takes the subject seriously. When an
adult that will correct and expand it may therefore be prevented to
write in an infantilizating style. " However, some 15yo, 12yo or younger
editor may produce very valuable content.
> What is the focus of the Klexikon?
>
> The Klexikon concept is actually minimalist. Klexikon articles
> [...]
> - contain no footnotes. If Klexikon writers disagree about a fact or
> statement, they simply look it up in (German) Wikipedia. If someone
> thinks that Wikipedia wrong, he or she has to change it on Wikipedia
> first.
Well, on citing sources, the Vikidia practice is far less strict as on
Wikipedia, however we promote it and there is a notable pressure (and
debate) to require sources, be it for verifiability or for an
educational purpose: to let readers know that the informations come from
somewhere and that they may have in mind to check it at least sometimes.
Interestingly, school projects on Vikidia, often led by
teacher-librarian in middle schools, produce articles which cite sources
more often that usual.
> How are Klexikon articles created?
>
> On Wikipedia, the article creation process is rather messy. Anyone can
> create an article immediately. But it is also part of the reality that
> anyone can contest that article and nominate it for deletion. Articles
> are deleted if their subject is not notable or if they are very poorly
> written.
>
> Discussions about deletions are the cause of stress and hostility on
> Wikipedia. The radical openness of Wikipedia allows people to invest a
> lot of time in a text, and only afterwards they are told that the
> article has no reason to exist.
>
> In Klexikon, the process is different. There is a list of articles
> that are welcome, and a draft name space. The list contains all
> possible articles, with existing articles in blue and desired articles
> in red (red links mean, as in Wikipedia, that the linked page does not
> exist yet).
Indeed on Vikidia we create articles on the Wikipedia way, this mean we
do have article on minor subjects such as the small town on editor lives
in, and sometimes some subject you wouldn't have think about get many
readers, which was typically the case with "Vitesse des animaux"
(animals speed)
Moreover, the differences is that decisions and administrators
appointment are also done in the Wikipedia way, with users having their
voice whatever age they are. Young users seem to like it very much and
to be very attached to this way. It goes obviously in the footsteps of
the democratic schools/democratic education.
Klexikon an Vikidia took two quite different ways, I don't have enough
matter to compare, say the quality of articles and how they fit to their
reader, yet I guess both reach some achievements!
> Mathias Damour <mathias.damour(a)gmx.fr> schrieb am Do. 9. Aug. 2018 um 23:02:
>
>> By the way you may also think about like-minded wikis, however outside
>> Wikimedia, which are aimed for children and teenagers.
>> I mean Wikikids in Dutch, Vikidia in French, Spanish, Italian, English,
>> and Klexikon in German (the later being less oriented toward children
>> and pupils participation).
>>
>> I think that these "Wikipedias for children" are especially relevant for
>> education projects when the Wikipedia version in your language is very
>> developed, which not only means few available subjects to work on but
>> also long and too high level articles for children and younger peoples,
>> which in turn implies a lack of a well-suited encyclopedic resource for
>> children.
>> I guess it is also relevant if you think that education does not only
>> aim at higher education students !
>>
>> I noticed this tweet:
>> "Would be very cool if @Wikipedia had official support for different age
>> ranges. Such tremendous effort is expended to include different
>> languages / cultures / topics, but nearly all of it remains inaccessible
>> to the 25% of the world population under 14"
>> https://twitter.com/anthonygarvan/status/981584340986540032
>>
>> We may elaborate why the Wikimedia movement missed to support and
>> develop a children-oriented encyclopedic wiki, and still elude this
>> idea. I may have some ideas on the topic, yet it is still a mystery to
>> me. However it does exist and is doing well!
>>
>> Well, come and get involved in Vikidia in Spanish, English, Italian and
>> so on ! ;-)
>> https://www.vikidia.org/
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikids
>>
>> Le 09/08/2018 à 11:21, Shani Evenstein a écrit :
>>> Yes, the brand is what guided the founding members of the group when
>>> choosing the name, especially thinking about global outreach; but we are
>>> certainly looking at all Wikimedia projects.
--
Mathias Damour
https://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Astirmays
Yes, the brand is what guided the founding members of the group when
choosing the name, especially thinking about global outreach; but we are
certainly looking at all Wikimedia projects. Wikidata is very much a focus
- actually, I was the one to suggest and lead the Wikidata & Education
session at WikidataCon and have been including WD in my academic courses
for a few years now, so I have a personal interest in what you're doing,
Daniel. ☺ In general, initiatives around any of the other sister projects
are very much of an interest. There are success stories / best practices
that I can think of about working with WikiQuote, WikiSource, WikiBooks and
of course WikiCommons. We'd love to document more examples we might not be
aware of.
Shani.
On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 10:10 Vojtěch Dostál, <vojtech.dostal(a)wikimedia.cz>
wrote:
> I guess that's just a name, nothing more. Wikipedia is by far the best
> known brand - hence the name of the user group - but our activities will
> AFAIK support educators using all Wikimedia projects.
>
> Vojtěch Dostál
>
> předseda rady / chair of the board
>
> Wikimedia Česká republika
>
> Web <http://www.wikimedia.cz/> | Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.CR> | Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/Wikimedia_CR> | Newsletter
> <http://wikimedia.us7.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=24c9403aa67fc995b69c7e704…>
>
>
> 2018-08-09 8:10 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>:
>
>> Daniel Mietchen, 09/08/2018 08:46:
>>
>>> I'm very interested in matters at the interface between Wikimedia and
>>> education but don't understand whether this user group - as the name
>>> and existing documentation would suggest - is limited specifically to
>>> Wikipedia(s) or what the role would be for other Wikimedia projects.
>>>
>>
>> I agree, it's confusing and not inclusive. Wikimedia activities in
>> education need to be flexible: in many cases Wikipedia is just not a viable
>> option. Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata etc.
>> have proven to be essential educational tools in various cases.
>>
>> Federico
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> education-collab mailing list
>> education-collab(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education-collab
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> education-collab mailing list
> education-collab(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education-collab
>
Dear Wikimedia+Education enthusiasts,
Here is what was shared for the month of July 2018 issue of the Education
Newsletter:
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News
Of special importance: If you want to participate in next year's
Wikipedia+Education Conference, please answer the survey! (on the featured
article)
Also learn from:
- Armenia: about the joy of participating in a WikiClub
- Basque Country: with their detailed yearly report on their sizeable
education program
- Serbia: reaching out at an edtech conference
In the news:
- an opportunity to participate in a UNESCO contest
- short videos on different aspects of Wikimedia for educators
Best Regards,
Vahid.
--
Vahid Masrour
Community Capacity Manager, Wikipedia Education Program
vmasrour(a)wikimedia.org
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education