[Wikipedia-l] Simple English Wikipedia - Requesting a rethink

Tue Jun 28 23:27:03 UTC 2005

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 at 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 at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> 

-- 
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE