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

[Mark Williamson]

Miloš,

I am inclined to agree with you. As someone who is not so far removed
from his own adolescence, I can attest that I've always found
"Children's writing" to be incredibly condescending and even
demeaning. Perhaps I was not a typical child, but ever since about 7
years of age I really hated those books that talked down to children
as if we were dumb. I have heard (and I am not an expert) from many
people the idea that you will get what you give, meaning that if you
treat an adolescent as if they were a criminal, they will often become
a criminal; it seems to me that if we treat children as dumber
versions of adult human beings, they will grow up to be just that.
(again, I'm not an expert)

-m.


On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Recently there has been a controversy on Wikipedia in German about
>> extra articles in simple language. Authors of its medical group wanted
>> to create sub pages suitable for children, believing in an urgent
>> need. [1]
>>
>> In the discussion, the question of creating a Wikipedia in simple
>> German came up.
>>
>> As we know, to-day Wikimedia language committee policies prohibit a
>> new Wikipedia in a language that already has a Wikipedia. The
>> existence of a Wikipedia in simple English refers to the fact that it
>> had been created before that policy of 2006.
>>
>> There are a number of ideas and initiatives to create online
>> encyclopedias in "simple language", in and outside the Wikimedia
>> world. Wouldn't it be suitable to reconsider and try to give those
>> initiatives a place? Who else is more capable to create and support
>> such encyclopedias than we are?
>
> Wait!
>
> Writing dumb articles because of thinking that children are dumb is
> dumb. And not just dumb, but deeply ageist and discriminatory.
>
> Considering, for example, Piaget's [1] theory, timeline of cognitive
> development is:
> * The earliest usual learning of writing is around 5.
> * At around 8 children are able to read without problems.
> * At around 10 children cognitive system is almost the same as adult.
> * Between 13 and 15, depending on climate, life conditions and
> culture, and not counting extremes, cognitively there are no children
> anymore, there are young adults. Cognitively, the only difference
> between them and 10-20 years older humans is in experience and
> knowledge.
>
> That means that the target for writing "simple" Wikipedia is for
> children between 8 and 10.
>
> So, I would like to see scientific background *before* mentioning
> "simple" or "junior" or whatever project: For which age should be,
> let's say, Junior Wikipedia? For all minors? For primary school
> minors? One article for those old 7 and 15 years? Considering Simple
> English Wikipedia, this is purely pseudoscientific attempt. Wishful
> thinking of creating family friendly project with dumb language.
>
> But, I am not trying to say that WikiMedia Junior won't be useful.
> Yes, it will be very useful if it would be driven well. However, I am
> deeply skeptical about crowd sourcing of such thing. It will finish as
> Simple Wikipedia, which main purpose is having fun by reading random
> articles on parties -- at the best. At the worst, it will finish like
> Conservapedia with dumb language. Actually, with many dumb languages.
>
> If we really want to go this way, the only relevant approach is by
> finding relevant pedagogues who would lead child contributors. Such
> project has to be very well structured, with year or two of relevant
> work before going online. However, I see this as very unrealistic at
> this moment.
>
> [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>