[Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia"

Fri Jul 2 07:39:37 UTC 2010

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Just my 2c thoughts exploring the idea.

I don't know if wikipedia should have a chapter specific to children
because it would be culturally biased by our views about education.
I think it would be better to aim for a specific psychological profile
and skills, ie:
- - for the non-semantic persons (who don't rely much on words), more
direct images (or photos) and animations (or videos). For example
explaining the size of the sun and of planets showing their relative
size works better than sheer numbers for most of people, or at least is
a necessary intermediate step for understanding the numbers.
- - for people not fluent with vocabulary, use only the 500 (200? 1000?)
most common english words (a bot could signal rare words)
- - for people with few abstracting skills, use concrete objects and
familiar analogies to explain (like explaining the curve of 3d space
with a sheet of paper)
- - replace complex equations with qualitative explanations
- - Etc.

Also, for illiterate persons, it would be great to include a "play"
button that would automatically read the article out loud. It should be
included so that illiterate persons don't have to install their own
text-to-speech software.

What would really be interesting would be to study people with internet
access who *don't* use wikipedia because they feel uneasy or find it
unadapted or too difficult. Find the main psychological categories of
these people and understand how to interact with them and transmit them
information, and define the kind of chapter that they'd need.
Eventually, check if several of those special chapter could be merged
(for example, visual.wikipedia with analogous.wikipedia).

Then check if there are voluntaries for this work and the sum of work
required.

On 28/06/2010 20:40, Ting Chen wrote:
> Hello Ziko,
> 
> speaking for myself. I am for such an approach. But I would also like to 
> see such a project, because it is so important, to be prepared 
> carefully. The suggestions is not made the first time, and last time 
> when the suggetion was on meta, it was discussed until no one can give 
> it a chance anymore.
> 
> I also don't see such a project really as a compititor to the "adult" 
> Wikipedia. I think both projects can benefit from each other alot.
> 
> Now one step back. Encyclopedia for kids is not new. A lot of classic 
> encyclopedia has their kid version. This shows that a kid encyclopedia 
> is not just an encyclopedia in "dumn" language. Contrarily, I think a 
> kid encyclopedia is far more challenging to write, because you need more 
> pedagogic skills. And building up such skills by our contributors can 
> again benefit Wikipedia. There are also other online kid encyclopedia 
> from which we can learn from their experiences. I definitively would 
> like to see what Robert would find out in this respect and how his 
> research can encourage us or help us in this new endeavor.
> 
> Greetings
> Ting
> 
> Ziko van Dijk wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> It seems to me doubtless that there is a substantial number of active
>> Wikimedians who see the need in a simple or children-encyclopedia and
>> would like to invest some of their own sweat, blood and tears. Others,
>> who disagree, may stand on the side line and comment if they like.
>>
>> There are a lot of single questions when defining the exact scope
>> etc., but the main question remains: Would WMF accept such a project,
>> or would it reject it for being just another Wikipedia in already
>> existing languages. So, how different the new project must be from
>> Wikipedia. The original fear is that a linguistic group is split into
>> two communities whereas the forces usually should be concentrated in
>> one Wikipedia. A Wikipedia in "simple English", we were told, is
>> essentially a Wikipedia in English.
>>
>> But if a project, for example, directs itself to a relativeley limited
>> group of readers (children), with consequences for the content
>> (limited length of articles, no explicit images), usage of language
>> (no hard words), wouldn't it be different enough from a "usual"
>> Wikipedia?
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
>>
>>
>>
>> 2010/6/27 Ting Chen <wing.philopp at gmx.de>:
>>   
>>> Hello Milos,
>>>
>>> reading your mail below I am wondering why your reaction on my first
>>> mail was so aggressive. It looks to me as if your consideration is not
>>> that far away from mine. Especially I wrote in my suggestion that first
>>> of all the project must have a very clearly defined scope and audiance,
>>> second that it should have a more rigid editorial and anti-vandal
>>> mechanism and third that we need more research.
>>>
>>> Greetings
>>> Ting
>>>
>>> Milos Rancic wrote:
>>>     
>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>       
>>>>> The difference was that Wikipedia was not made for young people.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I run a social group for adults and there are issues with children
>>>>> who visit, I can blame it on their parents and say they should control
>>>>> them better. If I run a social group for children, I'm now a childcare
>>>>> provider and have a greater degree of responsibility.
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>> It is not [just] about blaming each other. It is about underestimating
>>>> child capacities and playing with their trust.
>>>>
>>>> Child is perfectly able to recognize what is "for adults" and what is
>>>> "for children": everything not marked ("marked" in various ways) as
>>>> "for children" is for adults. And they are able to treat differently
>>>> those two types of phenomena. "For adults" is not safe, while "for
>>>> children" is safe. Depending on circumstances, "for children"
>>>> phenomena could be also boring to them, but safe.
>>>>
>>>> And if we want to make a project in which children will trust as safe,
>>>> we have much higher responsibility than we have for creating any other
>>>> project not marked as a "project for children".
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> --
>>> Ting
>>>
>>> Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>     
>>
>>
>>
>>   
> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMLZe4AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LUiQIAL8F9Gr4jMuD4dT3Jgx3Je8k
xHWfBTob3Aso0GbcPTihq6oju1HmXIG54KdbGsbMLkeodqfUVtvJWtbyUpJp5Wkk
ERb9bQkM3hT81URlffPG7hLFe2ITKOHMJhKkeosryqRxCi8yBw3A9067JxroMiK+
j429Mk9ZzR3QhxDSEcTrP1pctgnC4mxC04yJmGYfiirdRq4j0aHZ70yvpKihDAjI
CWPVvJl7J9o1X6VOvNmuaV2INkCD1gkrOytaCoOt97yIpIK/rYe+0jeDkAR1474a
FtQgTKE92dyLovXte0b0pYDj8jMywnrfTvm3TNxmFxSULurgFNSjQa25V4EzEEo=
=X3lF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----