Hi again and sorry for this late reply,
Salut Mathias, thank you for your interest and your valuable inputs. I hope
you don't mind me answering a few of the points you have made.
*The funny thing is that I would say that Wikikids.nl is more similar to
Vikidia in its principles than to Wikimini !
One of its promoter wrote recently "The Dutch WikiKids has both
purposes: learn how to edit on a wiki and profide suitable information
for children. Both purposes are important, in my opinion."*
This is the same on Wikimini. In any case all the contributors to Wikimini
are doing their very best to support and enhance these two aspects. At the
same time, Wikimini has from the very beginning put a particularly strong
focus on children's participation because we have always seen more
opportunities for them to learn by contributing rather than by simply
*(...) which is that children schould write for
children, and teenagers for teenagers.
On Wikimini, both children and teenagers (usually around 8 to 15 years old)
develop the content. And they do it with the help of adults. We only
*suggest* and encourage adults to concentrate more their efforts on areas
in which children might need a little more help, and to use their best
efforts to give added value to *(in French I would have said
"valoriser")*the contributions made by children (see
*(in French)*) for more
*I made some statistics to compare these 3 wikis (Wikikids.nl, Wikimini
and Vikidia) and I will upload it soon. It appears
among other things
that the average size of articles of Wikimini is 47% of the one of
Vikidia, wheras Wikikids.nl/Vikidia makes 59%.*
Well, I think you agree that the size of an article doesn't represent a
sign of quality, especially in an encyclopedia written for young readers.
However I can honestly say that I would have expected Wikimini articles to
be much shorter than they actually are, especially because of the age
differences between these projects (and some other differences as well).
Therefore this is a (positive) surprise for me, even if... you know what
they say about statistics ...and
! Anyway, thank you for taking the time to share your findings. The
good conclusion is that we are all still works in progress that will only
become better with time. Hopefully we may also find a way to better
collaborate in the future.
À bientôt... peut-être ? (je serai en Europe du 12 juin au 30 juillet).
Thank you for your kind words.
*On this page, there is a confusion between « libre » and « libre de
Mhh... I'm not sure about this one. On this page, we try to explain (in
very simple words!) what kind of images are allowed on Wikimini. Where is
the confusion? "Free (content)" is a short way to say "Legally free
(content)". Or maybe I'm missing something?
*(...) I tried to view this image:
and could not find copyright information.
When trying to check on flickr, flickr asks me to log in (??).
Thank you for reporting this. It looks like the author of this picture had
moved the file from public to private. I have updated our Flickr templates
to directly incorporate and show the required information.
*Finally, a tiny UI glitch: C-<left-click> on an external link (like
a link to flickr) will ask the user to confirm she
wants to leave
the page, while C-<left-click> will open the link in a new tab for
most browsers I know -- the confirmation is not needed.
Yes, this is a safety setting for children. However, I know that if you try
to open the link in a new tab, the confirmation window won't appear.
Unfortunately I don't know of any way to solve this. And at the same time,
it is not very important. But if anyone has a solution please feel free to
Thank you again for your words of encouragement and constructive feedback.
C'est vraiment très apprécié.
2013/4/23 Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com>
My point is: If there are different sites (like
wikimini and vikidia)
that expressly target different audiences, that's not necessarily a
sign of incompatibility. I think it should be okay to have more than
one article on a given topic, in any wiki for kids, if the different
articles have significantly different language levels.
(There might be only a short set of ~1000 articles in an encyclopedia
for 3-6 year olds -- but certainly those articles would be different
than those written for 8-18 year olds!)
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Mathias Damour
Le 23/04/2013 04:30, Samuel Klein a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Mathias Damour
> <mathias.damour(a)laposte.net> wrote:
>> Your proposal on this 2010 discussion, (
) to which I
>> by the one you mention, was that Vikida would switch its reader target
>> to 18 years old people, and cohabit in this manner with Wikimini which
>> be for 8-13 years old children.
>> One of my arguments against that was that I disagree with the
that this proposal held, which is that children
schould write for
and teenagers for teenagers.
I think "children" and "teenagers" are different audiences.
They are, still every single child may be a different audience...
Authors of any age can write for those two
I could imagine having up to three versions of articles about any
topic: with complexity suitable for audiences of ages "6-12",
One may think about it.
However, I think in regards to legibility and having a clear and
goal, it may not be productive.
There is no working wikikids in some major languages. When they do exist,
say in french, whereas some primary schools websites link Vikidia, many
still rather link Wikipedia, which means it's hard to gather an audience
even if we think we have the content that fits to it.
Someone that is quite involved in the education innovation debate in
now use to tell about how he figure a resource
that would be adapted to
individual. I didn't get easily what he
means, may-be a Facebook-like
that would suggest you content that fits to your
level of knowledge
(automaticaly or by peer suggestion ?) It may be related to the concept
"zone of proximal development" (see on
WP if you need ;-)).
We had a talk and I guess the idea was to integrate Vikidia into this.
However, I don't get it. Be it an automatic system that use Vikidia's
content among others, that's fine. But when it comes to produce content,
have to worry about our own consistency first, in
order to allow the
to work in good conditions.
I personally believe that two new levels (young children and teenagers)
encyclopedic content would be quite challenging
and maybe too ambitious.
Moreover, a system with multiple levels of content or workspaces (for
schools, adults...) wouldn't make it, if not in a completely new way on
which I have no idea neither guarantees it would succeed.
same way, Wikipedia is roughly written by students/academics for
high-school pupils, there is a kind of interval between the average
and average reader.
That's unclear - sometimes there are both short and long versions of
The language for specialized topics is often much more advanced than
suitable for high-school students.
Sure, it is certainly the same on wikis for children regarding short or
articles or their level. Out of this I would make
the argument that it
quite vain to be willing to address every precise
What if a 15 years old has not his dedicated wiki encyclopedia, between a
Wikikids and Wikipedia ?
Well at the moment, a 10 years old German, or English speaking child that
look for information is mostly led to Wikipedia, which can be considered
a more acute issue.
49 rue Carnot
00 33 (0)4 57 09 10 56
00 33 (0)6 27 13 65 51
Education mailing list
Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
Education mailing list