The subject of Simple English Wikipedia has came to the mailing list before, but after reading talk pages there and seeing the dormancy of Recent Changes (bar a few persistent users, and the odd anon editor) I feel it is time to suggest a rethink, or at least look into the direction of Simple English Wikipedia.
Simple English Wikipedia currently has 4,157 articles, the vast majority of which fail to extend further than three sentences in length. There are a few administrators, Netoholic being the most active of them. There is a small user base, but unlike some language Wikipedias where this results in a small and persistent community, the small user base at Simple English often have their priorities understandably set on the main English Wikipedia.
The SE Wikipedia currently has a lack of focus, and a lack of direction. Indeed, it claims to cater for multiple groups of people, which simply isn't working:
"It is focused on readers who tend to be quite different people with different needs: students, children, and translators."
The description there, taken from http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_English_Wikipedia, is too ambiguous to encourage any regular contributors to the Wikipedia. Whereas with the main Wikipedias there is a ultimate cause of creator 'the sum of all human knowledge', Simple English doesn't have a goal, as its not aiming for anything specifically.
The aims of students, children and translators, to me, is wrong on all counts. I've read a few articles on Simple English, and the variation and way of writing is at times so belittiling that I wonder why such a project exists. This quote from the talk page sums it up perfectly:
"One thing that bothers me about this whole thing is that people act like this is supposed to writted towards children, talking down to them and such, when in fact Wikipedia Jr. is there to handle that - this should be aimed at just reposting English articles in a simplified and standardized version of English, as opposed to the "baby talk" many of the articles are crammed with. Simple: A problem I have with this website is that there is a website like it that is already here - Wikipedia Junior. I think that this website should be for people from another country who are learning English, not small children. This website talks to its people badly."
Simple English Wikipedia is, in reality, never going to be used by babies or small children - Infact, unleashing such persons onto Wikipedia is dangerous (as proven by our Recent Changes list :p ). Wikijunior, which is in development, caters for the young market and has a focus to not talk down to people. When I read Simple English trying to explain racism, I felt like it was dumbing me down. Anyone capable of using Wikipedia normally can use normal Wikipedia, whilst Simple English is not going to be used by 4 or 5 year olds. Children is a bad thing to aim at. Aiming at translators is similiarly odd, because a translator wouldn't be a translator if their English wasn't fluent. Simple English Wikipedia needs to, in my opinion, have a huge rethink. It should be aimed at persons wanting to practice their English by reading it, and should be an aid for those learning it as a foreign language. Simple English should read simply, but not so simply that it puts down the reader. People contribute to Wikipedias for a reason, and for a goal - Simple English has no goal, so theres no clear reason for editors to contribute to it. A look at recent changes shows that.
Without a rethink and a real discussion into the direction, policies and descriptions of Simple English Wikipedia, it had mayswell be deleted. Simple English was the second Wikipedia I visited, after main English, and I believe it will be the same for many others. It doesn't reflect well on Wikimedia Foundation to have a Wikipedia in such a bad state, and in the English language - Quality over quantity isn't necessarily always true, but in the case of having Wikimedia Foundation projects and Wikipedias, it is. Simple is way too out there to stay as it is; a rethink is needed.
Yours, David Hedley