I would like to add: The internal links used on our projects help avoid many of the problems of not understanding something. As a 13 year old reader of Wikipedia some seven years ago, if I did not understand something, I could always click on the link to a page that would explain it to me. If I were reading the article on [[Earth]] that Ting's quoted and did not understand what "terrestrial planet" meant... well, there's a link right there to help me out. Again, young != stupid.
-m. On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Mark Williamson <node...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <mill...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvand...@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@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
