Over the course of the last month (June 19-July 19, there has been a lengthy discussion on Meta about a proposal to close Simple English Wikipedia (SEWP) and merge its contents into English Wikipedia in a way that would make access to "Simple" content easier, with a higher profile. I am going to do my best to summarize that discussion here, but I strongly urge all LangCom members to look at the discussion directly. Page is herehttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_Wikipedia_(3).
The following arguments were offered in favor of closing and merging (~35 !votes):
* SEWP offers a "dumbed-down" experience with article accuracy and reliability inferior to that of English Wikipedia. * It doesn't address needs of English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) users and other presumed core constituencies (like students). * It is little used compared to English Wikipedia. * There is no scholarly evidence that SEWP reaches its target audiences. * It absorbs volunteer time that could be more productively used on other projects. * SEWP is not well enough known as a separate project; content would be more used (and more useful) if it were integrated into English Wikipedia better. * The project contains plenty of spam, and has become a home for users banned/blocked on other projects.
The following arguments were offered in opposition to closing (~90 !votes):
* Article quality is quite consistent with other projects its size. Comparison with the uniquely well-developed English Wikipedia is not necessarily appropriate. * In some cases, English Wikipedia articles are so difficult and complex to navigate, they are inaccessible except to experts on the subject. * Evidence exists that it does address its community, and that it is used comparably to other projects its size, or more. * Several people noted its utility to them as non-native speakers. * There is no evidence that volunteers would work on other projects, and some risk they would leave WM projects altogether. * Spam is well controlled, and SEWP's "one-strike" rule allows it to indef users who are already blocked elsewhere quickly. * There is no evidence that problems with SEWP are worse than those on any other project its size. As with any project, if there are problems, they should be addressed; closing the project is not necessary. * If the project were closed due to vandalism, that would gives the vandals a victory (contra Deny Recognitionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deny_recognition).
I offer the following personal comments related to technical and policy issues:
* Argument in favor of closing that "it isn't a language"/"doesn't have a code" is not valid, as this project is grandfathered and has previously been permitted. * The community is robust and active. There would be no question about closing any other project having this level of community activity. * At a certain level, the fact that this project is in English gives it wider visibility than is true of most other mid-sized projects. * I have been active on this project in the past. (I am less so now.) But I see no evidence that spam and abusers are not well-controlled on this project. It takes just a bit longer, perhaps, than happens on English Wikipedia, but then there is no other project in our constellation that is as active 24/7 as English Wikipedia. It's inherently unfair to compare any other project to it. * There is clear consensus from the SEWP community itself to stay open. * There is no consensus from the English Wikipedia community on if, and how, it might integrate Simple English content. * Original proposer agrees that SEWP should not actually be closed until there is a clear plan for integrating simple content into the experience of English Wikipedia.
One thing that both sides agree on is that Simple English content would be better used within Wikipedia if there were closer integration between SEWP and English Wikipedia. There are different ideas as to how to accomplish this, and in particular a big difference of opinion as to whether the connections should be between two independent projects or done as an integration of Simple English content into English Wikipedia. But everyone agrees that something along these lines would be worthwhile.
I would offer the following as a preliminary idea on closing this request:
* The proposal to close SEWP is rejected, for several reasons: * The community is active and robust, and spam and vandalism are handled in a reasonable way, given the size of the community. * Because this project existed before the current new projects policy was put in place, the fact that Simple English (a) does not have its own language code, and (b) may not be considered "different enough from English" to have its own wiki, simply is not relevant. * Because of the preceding two points, there is no policy justification to close this project. * Additionally, given that Oppose !votes greatly outnumber Support !votes, it cannot really even be said that the community has developed a consensus to recommend that LangCom close this project. * In the future, requests to close this project that are based on "no language code" or "not different enough from English" may be closed speedily. Requests to close this project that are based on "inactivity" or "vandalism" will probably also be closed speedily, unless things change pretty radically at SEWP. * As far as "merger" requests go, LangCom certainly likes the idea of Simple English content being more accessible from English Wikipedia. Whether that should be accomplished through merging the projects or merely better coordination between the two projects is a matter for the communities to decide, not LangCom. In light of that, we will not entertain a new request to "close and merge" unless it is presented as the consensus of both communities, and at least the broad outline of a plan to accomplish that is in place. * As long as SEWP remains open, any request to close SE Wiktionary may be closed speedily. SE Wiktionary plays a specific support role to SEWP, and can remain open for that purpose in any event (barring uncontrolled vandalism).
I will leave this proposal here for a week, or until discussion dies down.
Steven
Sent from Outlookhttp://aka.ms/weboutlook