Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Children's English

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Children's English Wikipedia[edit]

main page Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Children's English)
submitted verification final decision
Process-stop.svg This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 22:02:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal summary
  • Language details: Children's English (— ISO—)
  • Editing community: Jrothwell (P), Leon2323
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: —
  • External links:
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • This will be a Wikipedia aimed at children, with a less text-heavy interface, more friendly language, explicit content censored and special reference desks for homework help.

Arguments in favour[edit]

  • Support CrnaGora 16:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Milo 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- God of Chaos 02:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I beg to differ with the comment made by 89.176.54.194. Wikijunior is a series of books. Not a free-use site. I think that Simple English Wikipedia is made more for people who are learning English. A Childrens' Wikipedia would be more for teenagers, as many mainstream Wikipedia articles contain too many details, and details that they aren't meant too learn and thus many students will add information to an article (of which they have no idea what it means) may be asked to explain what this means. They will (generally) be incapable of doing so. On the other hand Simple English Wikipedia is way too simple to be accepted as a Upper Primary School/High School assignment. So this wiki should be somewhere in between if it is to work. However it should be re-named to Children's Wikipedia instead of Children's English Wikipedia

Booksworm 13:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Och mein gott, was sind sie blötig schei... you lot are so bloody annoying it's amazing. Wikijunior is still in raw phase. It does not alreadyx exist I mean come on! Booksworm 14:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Strong support I actually came to this page to request for a childrens' Wikipedia after a request at Wikia failed, but hey, there's already a request. I am currently at secondary school but I find that EnWp is sometimes a bit too complex. It can use all these scientific names (blah, blah, blah). As for Simple English, that's for people learning English. On this wiki, we can play around with css and javascript to provide a friendly interface. I think that there are too few Wikipedians who are in the age group mentioned above (see en:Category:Wikipedians by generation). When I get back to school on Monday, I'll set up a petition. I'll send in the link to the 'petition website'. --Leon2323 15:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC) (EnWp)
Ok, I've asked the survey. I asked 22 people questions about wikis. You can find the results in a Microsoft Access database at http://computerprojects.biz/Children.mdb.
  • This is a proprietary format. Would it be possible to make it available in more usable format?
  • Support. Adult language, the desire of LGBT people to insert gays/lesbians into every historical topic and the proliferation of artricles about pornstars and sexual positions often linked from most unexpected places (such as an article about "spoon") is the main argument in many schools against wikipedia. Mikkalai 17:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Americans should give up their bigotry, censorship and sexual deprivation attempts against their growing-ups and young adults. We are talking about teens, i.e. men who have at most 2½ years left before they're able to become parents themselves. They usually need more time to develop their sexuality healthy, not less, and certainly not another set-back of ten more years! You're attmenpt is futile anyways in a society that allows their teens and pre-teens hours of commercial tv consumption each day where 1 out 12 advertisemnts and 8 of 10 music videos is (soft) porn. Come on! If it was only about this kinda stupidity, I'd strongly oppose this motion. -- Purodha Blissenbach 12:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Gray Porpoise 18:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --eebark 14:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Support It will provide good reading for children, as they get older they will probably have better ideas of how to use wikipedia because of what they have learned with the childrens wikipedia. (90.193.186.203 16:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC))

  • Strong Support Kids need the Kids encyclopedia. No everybody goes to an university doesn't finish a school first.--Vladyslav Savelo 02:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Support -- how You see is it fine that children will see nude chick doubly penetrated in "sexual poses" article??? no fine -- KozakiUkr 14:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Support per kozakiukr and mikkalai--Karazi 14:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Arguments against[edit]

  • Oppose There is already Simple English Wikipedia, and as for homework help, this should be in other sites. – rotemlissTalk 14:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The main idea is not the same as in simple english. 71.146.70.205 17:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rotemliss. IJzeren Jan 19:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 17:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Simple English is bad enough, we don't need another one. —Nightstallion (?) 05:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • If it is bad, it is useless, but something age-oriented is necessary. We do have books specifically written to acomodate stages of human development. 71.146.70.205 17:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose unnecessary. - FrancisTyers 19:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • En contra / Oppose. Taragui 12:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • [comment] This seed has already been sowed. Please help it grow instead of starting it all over again. Go here → b:Wikijunior.

--89.176.54.194 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. There are other ways for junior readers. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 04:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Please go to Wikijunior. --Taichi - (あ!) 09:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Children learn best when they're not being talked down to. Beatrix Potter famously used the word "soporific" in a children's book; there's no reason children can't learn from the full-fledged English Wikipedia. Angr 16:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The main point here is elimination of sexually explicit content. "Simplified language" does not mean writing everything in 2-syllable words. It is wiki after all: any 20-dollar word may be wikilinked. 71.146.70.205 16:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Worse yet! Children cannot learn anything from censorship. Angr 11:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ek7 13:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What's wrong with Wikijunior? This concept here looks a bit half-baked to me. IMHO, the successful concept of a collaborative, self-organizing online encyclopedia editable by its readers will not work with children. Besides, children can only be prevented from seeing adult content by responsible parents not letting them go on the internet on their own, not by writing a new Wikipedia. --ARBE0 14:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Already simple and WikiJunior. Children are too wide ranging to have a single project. --Oldak Quill 18:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. There is a Simple English and a proposed Wikichildren. I think that's enough. Blue caterpillar 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose 200.217.166.126 13:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC) There's no point in creating one more Wikipedia in English.
  • Oppose 100% unneccessary. Open a kids homework questions answered support page in Wikipedia. --84.60.245.132
  • Oppose I didn't know children speak a different language than adults in english speaking countries... Traroth 21:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Reason: We may use Simple english Wikipedia for simple words. Even childrens don't know some English words like "nigard". A-yao 14:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is already Simple english Wikipedia exists --A1 09:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If you want simpler wording, we have Simple English. If you want topics children would be more into, then write one on Simple. If you don't want explicit content, don't go to an article that might have explicit content. And encyclopaedias are not for homework help. Why do we need a friendly, interface? If you need the information, it's there, it doesn't matter whether pictures are there are not. --Rory096 03:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose If simple is not enough than I don't know what is. --Filip (§) 00:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Creating multiple wikis in the same language is purposeless. Some people want new wikies to become admins there etc. This is not good.--Nxx 09:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If you want it simpler, either write simple introductory paragraphs, or add to the simple English wikipedia already in place. If you want homework support, go to, or create a homework orientated site. If you don't want so-called 'explicit content' (which is hardly existing anyways in wikipedia) see a psychiatrist, and get your hands off children. -- Purodha Blissenbach 01:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - How exactly will this be run. Is it a wiki for children by children? for children by adults? If one of the main complaints is "big words" then look them up in at dictionary.com or something. Simple english is already simple enough. Wikipedia is not homeworkhelper.com. Dinosaur puppy 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Like allready said, we have Wikijunior, Simple English, etc. Jeroenvrp 14:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Children must know everything about sexual life and contraception from the age of ~5-6 years, to prevent child pregnancy and early marriages. -- Raghav 14:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

General discussion[edit]

  • Children english is actually not a language (I gess), and what about other language children ? How will wikipedia be organised when german speaking, french speaking, spanish and eventually every other language vill ask for their children wikipedia ?

Nevertheless the idea is very promising, not only to prevent children on exposure to sexually explicit content, not only to have something more easy to read on a wide range of subject, but for them to be aloud to involve in building it. I thought that it should be a new wikimedia project, and wanted to propose it. It was allready proposed, so I did edit both the discussion and the project page here : wikikids and Talk:wikikids. (it is on the proposal page here : Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikikids). It has even been done in german and dutch, with pretty good sucess (see the links on the pages.) Your comments would be appreciated. Astirmays 20:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Merged from en-Wikipedia[edit]

The following discussion is merged from the deleted page "Childrens' Wikipedia" and its talk page on Meta. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved from the Village Pump on 18 August 2003

Could a Wiki be started for children? It was when viewing 'simple english' translations that I thought of this. If it were given its own subdomain (kids.wikipedia.org maybe?) then articles could be tailored for children (i.e. made very simple to read/understand). I haven't really thought about age range yet, maybe under 14s ?

This would be entered as a 'translation', a new type of language.

Just an idea... --Richard Corbin 10:36, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

There is already the Simple English Wikipedia. CGS 12:06, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC).
A children's wikipedia would need lots of pictures and not much text, unlike the simple english wikipedia, which merely aims to rewrite the current wikipedia using a smaller vocabulary. I remember reading a couple of children's encyclopedias when I was young -- they were great. Each article was short, focused on exciting or interesting aspects of the topic, and was probably 2/3 pictures. And they definitely used a vocabulary bigger than 1000 words. Children know 2500-5000 words by age 5 or 6, and the way to increase that number is not by shielding them from further exposure. -- Tim Starling 12:39, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)
Tim, this is why I think a children's version of Wiki would be a good project. How many online encyclopedia's for children exist on the internet? Or more to the point, how many with such a potential. The children's wiki could eventually be used in schools all around the world, and it would be free. It would save so many education boards money. No longer would they have to purchase software encyclopedias. They could either browse wiki on the net or download a SQL dump and run it on their local network.
So who thinks this is a good idea worth starting? I'll need a little help in getting it going if anyone's interested. --Richard Corbin 13:34, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)
One of the biggest difficulties with such a thing, though, is the question of whether certain material is appropriate for children. Consider en:Wikipedia:Content disclaimer and the accompanying discussion for a glimpse of the kinds of conflict that might arise in trying to determine what is appropriate for children. I really like the idea of a visual encyclopedia with lots of pictures, but we should probably concentrate on making Wikipedia itself well-illustrated before making a simplified version. Probably a Children's Wikipedia would need different sorts of illustrations than the regular Wikipedia would, but IMHO Wikipedia itself can be made easily accessible to children with a little extra effort. Once again, though, there's that appropriateness issue... If we can find a way to resolve that issue, though, I think it's worth trying. -- Wapcaplet 13:36, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Beyond the appropriateness issue (which is a big deal -- some people think children should know about issues such as homosexuality and contraception as early as possible, others want to keep these issues away from children for as long as possible), translating NPOV to a children's project is also very difficult. Children need emotional language and clear values. The "Some people think .. these other people argue that .." methodology doesn't work very well for children. Should a children's encyclopedia have an article about en:creationism? If so, what would be in it? IMHO such a project would need more rules beyond NPOV.—Eloquence 13:51, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)
Wow! Good question. I propose that we should keep en:creationism OUT of a children's encyclopedia. The challenge would be to come up with a NPOV rule that would keep OUT en:creationism but allow en:Jack and the Beanstalk. Rednblu 15:56, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't agree. An article on en:creationism should be allowed (if it gets created!) ... As long as it is understandable for children then there won't be a problem. Of course, I also think there should be a simple explanation of evolution on that page too. What is the harm in teaching kids new things?... they will have to learn some day. Maybe there should also be links to other religions' pages so as to come from a NPOV. BTW, In case any of you were wondering, I am not religious at all and do not wish to be associated with any religion, so I am unbiased. When thinking of a kid's wiki I was assuming that if an article was too difficult to convert (e.g. en:nuclear physics), then it simply wouldn't be converted for children. --Richard Corbin 16:15, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)
It's already been suggested -- someone started making pages called "Chemistry/Kids" a while ago. You might still find them. -- Tarquin 16:59, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is an interesting idea; but it will not be a wikipedia. To design it for any particular audience, distinguishing content by any other criteria besides language, implies a set of rules that would disqualify it from being part of the same project. Mkmcconn 17:32, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How about entering it as a 'sister project'? There is a list of sister projects on the main page, some of which do not qualify either. --Richard Corbin 19:24, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

I suggested a Wikipedia for "kids" once but it didn't get anywhere. Although the problem I have with wikipedia at the moment is that a young child could find something only adults are meant to know. I think there should be a new prefrance where you can click and not view certain "rude" pages. -fonzy

Wow! You all manage to sound so condenscending...

Maybe the main issue is would it be of benefit. There are other issues to consider but a wiki for kids would be a fantastic resource and would be a great way for children to collaborate.

You could make a childwiki, but I would tell children not to explore it. Young William Shakespeare, I'm sure, didn't learn poetry from looking at pictures and reading simplified English. There's plenty of experimental evidence on expert studies concluding that prodigies are strictly a result of determination and application, not random genetic phenomena. Out of respect, I would set standards higher for children, and advise them to mingle with adult themes in an adult world. I don't know of any evidence which concludes that learning about the existence of bad things at an early age must be dangerous. I hold the position that depriving children of wisdom is worse than early exposure, which I hypothesize will prepare the child for maturity at a stage when most children are conditioned to be immature, a lesson they often carry with them into adulthood. I believe lying to children -- telling them their teeth are the treasure of fairies, that an old man flys around the world and delivers prizes based on obedient behavior, that a bunny lays eggs -- contributes more to a child's developmental delay than pure, guilty, truth.
That some things only grown-ups should be allowed to know sounds more like a cultural superstition that has been left unchallenged than a well-founded guideline. That children have trouble understanding the basis of everything it means to be alive, well, nobody understands everything all at once, but to say, "You're too little to understand. Go watch cartoons," is the same as saying, "If you don't know, I won't tell you." If you're hungry, I'm not going to feed you. If you're lost, I won't guide you. If you want my attention, go on the computer.

--Orloff, December 2006

I am a kid (12)and I would find a kids wikipedia really helpful for revision and homework (usually science!). If it is possible then i am sure kids al over the world would use it. I think your age range sounds about right and I get most of my information from the key word/info. boxes at the right hand side of the page. the writing is long and usually sends me of to sleep! hahahaha! no im joking but simpler is better and better is fab! Thanks Jemima Conlon England/london