Will someone explain what we have these "Simple English" sites for?
It's recently come to my attention that there's a simple.wiktionary.org as well (probably created by accident when Wiktionaries were bulk-created) and somebody's been editing it and is now requesting a custom logo.
In the four years or so I've been here, nobody's *ever* had a clear picture of what the "Simple English" Wikipedia was meant for: who it's targetted at, what kind of "simple" is meant, what's appropriate or not appropriate.
Having a Wiktionary too looks completely useless IMHO. It's bad enough that it's an unstructured wiki for a dictionary, but without knowing its purpose? Bah.
What are we doing with these? What are they here for? Who are they here for? Do we actually want to keep them?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
In the four years or so I've been here, nobody's *ever* had a clear picture of what the "Simple English" Wikipedia was meant for: who it's targetted at, what kind of "simple" is meant, what's appropriate or not appropriate.
I can see the point of the Simple English Wikipedia, but IMO it's not likely to attract enough attention to be useful.
The argument is that since so much of the world turns to English as a second language for information, it would be useful to have an English Wikipedia written in simple, easy-to-understand English, but at the same time we don't want to banish the use of "big words" from the normal English Wikipedia and require it to be written in some sort of lowest-common-denominator English, so instead create a separate Wikipedia explicitly for that purpose.
A good idea in theory, but the problem is that very few people seem to want to work on such a thing. Even people who speak English relatively poorly as a second language seem (based on current evidence) to prefer to struggle through editing the "real English Wikipedia" than to contribute to the simple-English one.
-Mark
On 2/22/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I can see the point of the Simple English Wikipedia, but IMO it's not likely to attract enough attention to be useful.
The argument is that since so much of the world turns to English as a second language for information, it would be useful to have an English Wikipedia written in simple, easy-to-understand English, but at the same time we don't want to banish the use of "big words" from the normal English Wikipedia and require it to be written in some sort of lowest-common-denominator English, so instead create a separate Wikipedia explicitly for that purpose.
A good idea in theory, but the problem is that very few people seem to want to work on such a thing. Even people who speak English relatively poorly as a second language seem (based on current evidence) to prefer to struggle through editing the "real English Wikipedia" than to contribute to the simple-English one.
Simple English wikipedia makes fantastic sense as a resource for people who do not speak English as a primary language.... and it isn't quite as adrift as Brion made it sound, at least last I checked there was a proposed vocabulary.
I think the most important counter is the argument "How can we expect to make a usable Simple English, when the English Wikipedia still lacks sold coverage of so many fairly basic subjects you would expect to find in an encyclopedia?". If you accept that argument it would follow that it makes sense to shut down simple English until English moves on to the next stage of it's existence.... better tasking what little resources are currently going into simple English.
But it's not that simple...
At least on English Wikipedia we've been almost completely unable to agree on what is important and focus our resources on those tasks. For some reason (perhaps inexperience?) most people seem to believe that 'volunteer' means completely disorganized... and as a result, even though we have an unimaginable amount of man-hours of work being put into the project, many basic things which are considered important are being left to rot because we're afraid of telling people what to work on.
I've even seen it argued that we must permit and even encourage various unprofessional looking content on userpages in order to attract volunteers. ... I wonder if the people making these arguments have ever been a volunteer at a off-internet organization? Using volunteer labor means simple that, it doesn't mean abandoning professional standards, accountability, or proven practices for reaching goals. But this has been lost on English Wikipedia.
Under this current model, the impact of keeping around a bit-rotting and infrequently edited simple English Wikipedia is no different than the impact of the multitude of elementary school stubs which are created and then forgotten on En. Harmless by itself, and there no compelling reason to discourage it since we would be unable to effectively focus any recovered resources.
Brion, would turning off simple english recover much of *your* time? If so I could see a case for removing it, ... but that isn't the argument you seemed to be making.
The argument is that since so much of the world turns to English as a second language for information, it would be useful to have an English Wikipedia written in simple, easy-to-understand English, but at the same
I recently created a widget where you hold the mouse over an acronym and press some key combination and the definition of the acronym pops up. It reads the acronyms from a QuickBase database - almost 800 acronyms in the db (used at Intuit).
Something like that would be great for English-as-a-second-language folks. An English-to-whatever dictionary widget. Hmmm... maybe I'll just write it real quick...
- MHart
MHart wrote:
The argument is that since so much of the world turns to English as a second language for information, it would be useful to have an English Wikipedia written in simple, easy-to-understand English, but at the same
I recently created a widget where you hold the mouse over an acronym and press some key combination and the definition of the acronym pops up. It reads the acronyms from a QuickBase database - almost 800 acronyms in the db (used at Intuit).
Something like that would be great for English-as-a-second-language folks. An English-to-whatever dictionary widget. Hmmm... maybe I'll just write it real quick...
Acronyms are jargon, and should mostly not be a part of simple English.
Ec
Acronyms are jargon, and should mostly not be a part of simple English.
I wasn't clear - it's not about acronyms, but rather about a translation widget (adapted from one I wrote for acronyms). I got it working - you highlight words you don't understand and the translation pops up (in Spanish, French, Portuguese, Latin, Italian, German - whichever you pick).
- MHart
Brion Vibber wrote:
Will someone explain what we have these "Simple English" sites for?
I don't have time to say too much right now, but figured I'd just shoot this out quick:
Simple English Wikipedia: I can see good reasons for such a thing, but actually working it out seems difficult, and I'm not at all interested in it (I lean toward 'needlessly complex English', myself).
Simple English Wiktionary: Completely pointless, IMHO. I can't think of any possible reason for such a thing, given as Simple English is basically just a subset of English. A full dictionary is exactly what simple-english people need to get their way to full-english. (And if the issue is the verbiage in definitions themselves... they've got a dictionary open right there to look that up in!)
Just a half a thought on that.
-- Jake Nelson [[User:Jake Nelson]]
Brion Vibber wrote:
Will someone explain what we have these "Simple English" sites for?
It's recently come to my attention that there's a simple.wiktionary.org as well (probably created by accident when Wiktionaries were bulk-created) and somebody's been editing it and is now requesting a custom logo.
In the four years or so I've been here, nobody's *ever* had a clear picture of what the "Simple English" Wikipedia was meant for: who it's targetted at, what kind of "simple" is meant, what's appropriate or not appropriate.
Having a Wiktionary too looks completely useless IMHO. It's bad enough that it's an unstructured wiki for a dictionary, but without knowing its purpose? Bah.
What are we doing with these? What are they here for? Who are they here for? Do we actually want to keep them?
While I don't use them myself because I am addicted to big words. I find that these projects have some value for those with a limited knowledge of the English.
The simple Wiktionary was indeed started when the bulk creation occurred. It did not receive much attention for a long time, but I'm glad to see that some people have finally taken an interest. I have no opinion on their logo request. I would simply let the people interested in them carry on.
I don't find an unstructured wiki for a dictionary to be very much of a problem.
Ec
I've often thought that the 'simple English' was the right product aimed at the wrong market.
Instead of targetting it at people how have English as a second language (who, quite rightly, want to learn English "properly"; long words and all) why not consider it as targetted at that other group who *need* simple English ...
Children.
Simple English is, I would have thought, perfect for pre-schoolers and under-12s generally as it sets out to explain concepts in simpler language and as that means a reduced vocabulary then let us target it at those who already daily use that reduced vocabulary.
Alison
Alison Wheeler wrote:
I've often thought that the 'simple English' was the right product aimed at the wrong market.
Instead of targetting it at people how have English as a second language (who, quite rightly, want to learn English "properly"; long words and all) why not consider it as targetted at that other group who *need* simple English ...
Children.
Simple English is, I would have thought, perfect for pre-schoolers and under-12s generally as it sets out to explain concepts in simpler language and as that means a reduced vocabulary then let us target it at those who already daily use that reduced vocabulary.
Alison
This, in theory, is what Wikijunior currently covers. Wikijunior is currently a bunch of Wikiprojects that are organized in a format like a Wikibook, but include largely a bunch of encyclopedia-like articles. The editorial policies for Wikijunior strongly encourage simplification for our target audience (currently 8-12 year olds in most Wikijunior projects).
I don't know to what degree the current group of Simple English participants are also involved in Wikijunior, but my sense of things is that they are two very different groups of editor/contributors. Still, it is an interesting thought that perhaps some collaboration between the two groups of editors ought to take place and could be beneficial to both of them.
Wikijunior is also multi-lingual, with the French Wikijunior having been just started, and some very interesting content on the Chinese Wikijunior project. I have not seen any efforts to go multi-lingual among the Simple English group (aka Simple Spanish or Simple French).
Alison Wheeler wrote:
why not consider it as targetted at that other group who *need* simple English ...
Children.
There are also books in simplified language for people with various kinds of reading/understanding handicap, so that is also a possible audience. But either way, it ruins the wiki concept that the readers are the writers. You cannot make a useful childrens encyclopedia by letting 10 year olds publish their school papers on dinosaurs. Rather, you need pretty good authors, possibly with teacher training, who don't only know the subject, but who also know what to cut away to make it useful for children. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but I think it could be hard to achieve.
"Your parents and teachers can edit this page now."
Alison Wheeler wrote:
I've often thought that the 'simple English' was the right product aimed at the wrong market.
Instead of targetting it at people how have English as a second language (who, quite rightly, want to learn English "properly"; long words and all) why not consider it as targetted at that other group who *need* simple English ...
Children.
Simple English is, I would have thought, perfect for pre-schoolers and under-12s generally as it sets out to explain concepts in simpler language and as that means a reduced vocabulary then let us target it at those who already daily use that reduced vocabulary.
Pre-schoolers are not the right target for this. They build their essential vocabulary through conversation, and not through staring at a computer screen. Subject matter also needs to conform to children's views of what is important in their world.
ESL people or others with reading problems are much better targeted. The subject areas can be more advanced, but they must be put in simpler language. Before they get into reading the long words, they need to master the short ones.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alison Wheeler wrote:
I've often thought that the 'simple English' was the right product aimed at the wrong market.
Instead of targetting it at people how have English as a second language (who, quite rightly, want to learn English "properly"; long words and all) why not consider it as targetted at that other group who *need* simple English ...
Children.
Simple English is, I would have thought, perfect for pre-schoolers and under-12s generally as it sets out to explain concepts in simpler language and as that means a reduced vocabulary then let us target it at those who already daily use that reduced vocabulary.
Pre-schoolers are not the right target for this. They build their essential vocabulary through conversation, and not through staring at a computer screen. Subject matter also needs to conform to children's views of what is important in their world.
ESL people or others with reading problems are much better targeted. The subject areas can be more advanced, but they must be put in simpler language. Before they get into reading the long words, they need to master the short ones.
Ec
Eight to twelve year olds are hardly pre-schoolers. Yes, they are beginning readers, and to be honest, when I was learning a second language by actually living in the country where it was spoken natively, one of the best sources of learning basic grammar and understanding the language (once I made the initial breakthrough to decode the vocabulary mentally in the first place) was to sit down with a group of elementary school students and go through their language primers. Content that is oriented toward an eight year old is also understandable (generally) to a foriegner who is just picking up the langauge. Generally a lot more thought goes into those kind of primers as well compared to say a Berlitz grammar guide, and they are paced toward an audience with a very short attention span (children). The only problem with trying to learn a language this way is 1) obtaining the materials in the first place (getting to know a large family with lots of kids does help to do this) and 2) some adults are not prepared to try and learn out of the same lesson books that children are using because of personal pride or honor of some sort.
ESL and Early Childhood Education are usually seperated on most university campii by seperate colleges, ESL in a Humanities or Foriegn Language college and Early Childhood Education usually in a completely seperate college of Education. My contention here is that they do essentially the same thing from two different viewpoints, but because of pure political reasons that have nothing to do with the students themselves but instead quests for academic power, these discliplines are rarely coordinated or merged. There is no reason to continue such a struggle within Wikimedia projects.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org