[Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia

[Samuel Klein]

i agree that there are many problems with a discussion or vote on one
project impacting another.  community participation and language /
context barriers are one.  having people discussing who themselves
aren't editors or readers is another. privileging "having edited 100
articles in any one wikipedia" over "being an active daily reader,
republisher, and online or offline user" or "being a developer or
researcher working with WP data" is silly.

For the record, lots of people who use simple: are devs or researchers
who need a good small simple testbed, or people who only intend to
read and use in contexts away from the original editable wiki.  I
would bet, though with lower odds, that this is the case for most
users of WP as well,


Cary writes:
> In light of that, I understand that there is some kind of simple
> wikipedia usage among the OLPC (One Laptop per Child) distribution.
> Perhaps someone could clarify, but if this is the case, then that would
> make the likelihood that this already failing proposal would pass even
> more remote.
>
> Cary Bass

The simple-english snapshot has been replaced (in practice and in
popularity) in the OLPC collection list by a larger snapshot from en,
because of the difference in article quality and coverage.

However, simple: snapshots have been requested recently by people
interested in basic literacy (who weren't using WP at all before, but
are coming around to the idea that simple articles can make good short
readers).  (@Pharos: I think French is a good idea, and there is
definite interest in simple spanish articles.)

And two other ideas
 * this is a great thing to combine with wikikids efforts : kids
learning to write articles tend to add simple stubs, write about
topics of interest to other early eards, and may learn many things by
trying to adhere to simplified encyclopedic style.
 * simple: and en: could well come in the same package for offline
use.  a link from the top of an article could take you between the two
(with pride of place before links to other languages, for instance)
one could imagine other same-language variants to show there --
specialist v. overview, for instance.

I don't know the right way to make this visible for online
editors/readers, but harder problems have been overcome.   One of the
primary things limiting the growth of simple:  (and its theoretical
twin, 'specialist:' for 172-style detail) is its lack of visibility,
despite the fact that most editors of en: could contribute
meaningfully, even casually as a fun exercise, in a different english
sublanguage.

SJ

ps - Lars - what the creators of these sublanguages have in mind / how
they test their criteria is fascinating... some cross referencing with
decisions made in creating esperanto et al would be fun OR.

--
Samuel Klein
+1 617 529 4266
One Laptop per Child


On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Cary Bass <cary at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
>>> However my central point that a discussion of something as important as
>>> closing one of our most important projects in a way that few know about
>>> it remains. The !vote is 42:102. We get more at en:WP on a RFA.
>>
>> A further argument against having this principally discussed on Meta is
>> that those who are best served by Simple do not have the language skills
>> to participate fully in a discussion where there is unlimited use of
>> language.
>>
>> Ec
>
> In light of that, I understand that there is some kind of simple
> wikipedia usage among the OLPC (One Laptop per Child) distribution.
> Perhaps someone could clarify, but if this is the case, then that would
> make the likelihood that this already failing proposal would pass even
> more remote.
>
> Cary Bass
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>