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
It is my position, and it always has been, that any language should have one Wikipedia, and one Wikipedia only.
Simple English is not a separate language from English.
I think that simple: should be closed, and what little unique content there is should be moved to en:.
If there really is a need for "simple" language use, there is always the possibility of using NLP software to intelligently convert articles from normal English to Ogden's Basic English; the same could also be done for other languages (cf proposed Einfach, also people have discussed French and Spanish Simple Wikipedias).
Also a problem with simple: is that it serves to promote delinquency. If you're banned from en:, well, just go edit on simple:. The community is smaller and you can get away with a lot more. It also seems to be true with vandals -- banned from en:, head to simple:.
Sure, there is some measure of delinquent behaviour leeching from en: to all other Wikipedias (I have noted a couple cases with de: and fr:), but in these cases there is the deterrent that for most of these people, they will have to deal with a foreign language.
With simple: there is no such obstacle.
Also, there is no agreement about what exactly Simple English is. Is it Ogden's Basic English? Or what...?
Mark
On 28/06/05, David 'DJ' Hedley spyders@btinternet.com wrote:
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
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
If there really is a need for "simple" language use, there is always the possibility of using NLP software to intelligently convert articles from normal English to Ogden's Basic English;
This idea is interesting, but I am unable to locate software that does reliable machine translation from standard English to Ogden's Basic English. Is there a specific resource you could point me to?
"always the possibility of using NLP software" does not imply that the software already exists.
Also, you said "unable to locate software that does RELIABLE machine translation..." does this mean you were able to locate software that did unreliable machine translation? I'd be interested.
Mark On 02/07/05, Andrew Venier avenier@venier.net wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
If there really is a need for "simple" language use, there is always the possibility of using NLP software to intelligently convert articles from normal English to Ogden's Basic English;
This idea is interesting, but I am unable to locate software that does reliable machine translation from standard English to Ogden's Basic English. Is there a specific resource you could point me to?
David 'DJ' Hedley wrote:
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.
Funny, and I thought there was already widespread concensus to get rid of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it even its original initiator and most enthusiastic supporter (Angela?) is by now convinced that the project was a failure and that the idea was unsound.
Timwi
David 'DJ' Hedley wrote:
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.
Funny, and I thought there was already widespread concensus to get rid of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it even its original initiator and most enthusiastic supporter (Angela?) is by now convinced that the project was a failure and that the idea was unsound.
Timwi
Well, if this is infact true, then its deletion should be looked in to. Consensus needs to be found officially, because as it stands, it isn't getting anywhere fast (or slowly, for that matter).
On 7/2/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Funny, and I thought there was already widespread concensus to get rid of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it even its original initiator and most enthusiastic supporter (Angela?) is by now convinced that the project was a failure and that the idea was unsound.
Not so much unsound as never really developed. What is the point of the wiki? There was never any agreement on whether it was for learners of English as an additional language, or whether it was for children. The way some of it is written, it may even be for English speaking adults with literacy difficulties.
With no shared goal amongst those participating, I can't see the project ever being successful. Other than Netoholic, there are no users who regularly work on this wiki. There have been some over the last few years, but no one who has stayed with it. I was never exactly an enthusiastic supporter. I just looked after it for a while.
I'd prefer the project be changed entirely to reflect something more like what was suggested at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikids (in all languages). People wanting to write simple versions of existing English Wikipedia articles can focus on simplifying the lead sections of those. Having that on a separate wiki has not proved useful, whereas having something that is written by and for children may be different enough from the main Wikipedia to warrant its own project.
Angela
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org