Talk:Wikijunior/Archive 1

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

From Wikipedia Junior:

In the October 16, 2004 board meeting it was mentioned that the "Beck Foundation is granting us $10k to create a Junior Wikipedia." As no other page could be found on meta, this page has been created to discuss this.

I think this is great! I would be very interested in getting involved in the project from the start. Things we need to think about are:
  • We need a logo
  • We need a name - junior wikipedia, Childrens wikipedia, Kiddiepedia, juniorpedia, schoolpedia, um that's all i can think of at the moment.
  • Are there any strings attached to this money, if so what are they?
  • What will the target age be?
  • Avoid sex and violence, unless necessary. Trivia is fun.
  • is this to be written by adults for kids, or do we actively ancotage kids to write it themselves. If we opt for the latter we should have guidlines about what goes on user pages etc. I don't want 10 year olds revealing personal information about themselves for example.
  • Yup
  • Wikikids? Wikijunior?
  • Wikid?
  • We have to produce something. Tomorrow I will post the proposal for you to see.
  • include all activities that kids do, don't exclude anything.
  • At first, adults will be doing the writing, though we must come up with ways to incorporate kid's feedback and content. Danny 02:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Theresa knott 18:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Related pages: Proposal, Wikijunior project logo, Wikijunior project name, Recurrent character proposal, "Kiki"


I added the above to wikipedia junior before I saw this page. I see that some of my questions have already been answered. So let's plough on:

Kids Wikipedia?[edit]

from the en:village pump Why not start a Wikipedia for kids? Theresa knott said she's interested in working on it, and while I probably wouldn't be a regular contributor I'd be willing to help during the first few weeks. Is anyone else interested in this? If two or three more people say they are, maybe we could take it to the foundation-l mailing list. anthony (refactored after reply)

As someone else said on that page how do you decide what is suitable for kids and what isn't? Sounds like a major POV problem to me. violet/riga (t) 18:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To me it seems like a minor POV issue which needs to be addressed. anthony 警告 20:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Some parents think it's fine for their kids to see horrific images, others don't. We shouldn't be trying to force our view of what is acceptable for kids onto the parents. violet/riga (t) 20:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We would have to work out some guiding principles. My own view is probably consevative but not draconian. We would need to define those terms of course.Nothing is being forced on parents. If for example we decide not to illustrate an article on War with pictures of dead people, and parents decide that their children should see pictures like this so that their children grasp the full horror of war, they can simply come to Wikipedia. That's why I'm happy for a childrens encylopedia to be fairly conservative. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 21:09, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Exactly (what Theresa said). We wouldn't be forcing our view that horrific images are unacceptable any more than en forces the view that original research is unacceptable, or that pornography is unacceptable, or that dictionaries are unacceptable, or that French is unacceptable, or any of the other things in en:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Any project has to define itself. En has defined itself one way, and no one is trying to change that. Anthony DiPierro 13:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would love to get involved with a kids encylopedia but probably not the sort the censoring types have in mind as i'm pretty liberal myself. I do think that Wikipedia is a great resource for older children but younger children will find the text too difficult to read. I have two daughters. The 15 year old regulaly uses wikipedia as a resource, the 12 year is only just starting to use it, because it is too difficult. I have in mind a typical 10 or 11 year old. They are set research type homeworks but a present don't have an easily available resource. Maybe yahooligans but we can do better than that IMO. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 19:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't this just duplicate simple? [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 20:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No i don't think it would. I always thought simple was intended for an adult readership, maybe I'm wrong about that. The name cetainly doesn't sound like a childrens encylopedia though."Children's Wikipedia" does exactly what it says on the tin. I have in mind something that is very rich in pictures, with text that is not only simple but child centered e.g "A microscope is a cool device that magnifies things. A bit like a magnifying glass only much much stronger. With a microscope you can see realy tiny things, things that are too small to see with your own eyes. A hair looks like [picture] a fly looks like [picture]" and so on. We could also put in animations -adults complain that they find animations destracting, but kids love 'em. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 21:00, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It would seem quite sensible if simple also satisifed the censorship for a kids Wiki (at least in not showing potentially offensive images). Kids in generally will have a smaller vocabulary so simple:Wiki would be appropriate. Sensitive subjects are a fairly small percentage of the total number of articles, these could be handled with interwiki links to the main en:Wiki which adult readers could follow if they wanted. However Simple shouldn't be turned into a purely kids focused version. -- Solipsist 21:45, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've just checked simple's main page. It's intended for adults who do not speak english well. I don't think an adult who doesn't speak English well would want to be adressed as a child. And I really don't think that an adult would want us to censor material from simple. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 21:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sorry Solipist i didn't read what you wrote properly. I've just reread it and understand now what you mean. Yes we could do it that way, but I'm not sure it's the best way to go. I still think starting a seperate childrens wikipedia is the best solution. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 21:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If there were a trivial way to copy most of Simple to a KidsWiki: that would be ideal. On the other hand, as a general rule, kids usually want to be treated as adults too. Further a similar kids censorship problem applies to interWikis in most other languages (we probably don't need to worry about the Klingon one.) -- Solipsist 22:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There is a junior Wikipedia in planning. I know Danny has mentioned it, and it is mentioned here, too. ✏ Sverdrup 22:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Strongly, strongly opposed. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:43, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Um this is not a vote. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 08:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A better project than all the mindless mirrors out there. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:39, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)


Please consider the following points:

  • There are a load of articles that people will argue about
  • What age is considered to be an adult and how does that affect the censorship? Further, what would the minimum age be?
  • What will encourage the kids to look at that specific version when the main en.wiki will a) remain the top search engine result and b) be the target from wikipedia.com. Of my experience kids tend to use google and haven't heard of most child-specific websites.

Don't get me wrong I'm very supportive of child-friendly material, but I don't think a separate kiddy wikipedia would work particularly well. violet/riga (t) 22:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In order:

  • Maybe but that's true here as well. It would be better to work out some guiding principles in the early days to reduce arguments later, but I honestly don't think there will be as many problems as you think.
  • Censorship is not my main aim, my main reason for supporting the idea is to write an article that kids will want to read. IMO we should write it for a bright 10 or 11 year old. Children younger than around 7 are unlikely to want to read an ancylopedia, children older than 14 or so will probably want to read the adult Wikipedia. As far as censorship goes, we could probably be guided by a typical school syllabus. in the UK (and probably in the US but i don't know) Children of that age will for axample have basic sex education for example. We could use educational websites as a guide. If it's in the BBC's bysize key stage 2 revision website then it clearly should be in. I honestly don't think that censorship problems will be very much of a problem.
  • We will have a link to the childrens version along with the other language version on the wikipedia page. Maybe we could add a logo too to really make it easy for a child to spot. The'll come to the wikipedia page, realise they are out of their depth, see the link and find themselves in a wonderful place where all the information they've ever wanted to know about is at their fingertips. When their mates say "Could you do miss Dragonface's homework, I couldn't find any information on the roman empire in britain on the web" they'll them them about wikikids (or whatever we will call it). Teachers will get to know about the site and recommend it to children and parents.That's how my child found out about yahooligans, and the BBC site Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 08:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Parents all have different views as to what is appropriate. I know mothers of 14 year olds taking their kids to clubs and sharing their cigarettes with them. Many kids are taken out of sex ed. lessons because of their religion, or simply because their parents choose not to expose them to that. Some kids know a ton of information about sex, porn and everything related where others are still happy to live in their rainbow-filled world.
The UK government keep changing their mind as to what we should teach to the kids, and many teachers completely ignore that and use their own judgement. Censorship is one of the most difficult topics, especially as time goes by - I heard a presenter say "crap" on Blue Peter recently, and what is acceptable changes all the time.
By all means try a wikikids (please don't call it kidipedia!) and good luck with that, but I think it'll be too much hard work for too little gain. violet/riga (t) 10:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Four Separate Wikipedias[edit]

from the en:village pump

See: Wikipedia with viewership ratings

Content classification vs. removal[edit]

I see Wikijunior (or whatever it will be called) as a project very similar to the Simple Wikipedia, only done with consistent and well-designed policies geared towards kids. I would like to use the criterion of relevant knowledge as opposed to that of age-appropriate information. Both are subjective, but in the former case I believe we can make a lot more consensus-based decisions than in the latter.

To be more precise, on issues like sexual information, opinions and values vary greatly, and not just from country to country. There are different subcultures with very different beliefs about what is and isn't age-appropriate information. Just trying to be somewhere "in between" is something that most publishing houses do, but IMHO we have the tools to do a better job than that.

We don't have to use PICS. We have a category system, and we have user stylesheets. The two combined (with some user interface stuff on top) make for a powerful classification system that can be both page-based and element-based. For example, I could classify a page as [[Category:Description of sexual acts]], and I could choose not to view pages of that category. Or I could mark a diagram of the reproductive organs as such, and hide it from display using stylesheets.

Of course this doesn't address the problem that kids can still see the content if they want to. To address this, we could provide view logins, geared toward different audiences, and describe how people can block anonymous access (directly providing the tools to do so would probably be too controversial among my anti-censorship friends).

For the print edition, I really think we should use printing on demand. There are now several services which offer this without any cost per unit or in advance - they are funded purely through the costs they add on top of every unit. Cafepress is among them. I'm not sure if we can get color printing, this would have to be explored. Print on demand lets us offer multiple editions with a checkbox-like system of what content types to include.

Now, another issue is: What information to include? Should we discuss the creationism/evolution controversy, for example? I would have no fundamental problem with doing so, if done in an NPOV manner, although the "relevant knowledge" criterion could kill it. I would be absolutely against filtering out both topics just because there's a controversy. Knowledge about evolutionary biology is absolutely essential and has to be taught at an early age in order to be a good foundation for future learning.

The details will have to be worked out on the project, perhaps through voting if no consensus can be found. But this is my general principle which I would like to apply to Wikijunior: Do not exclude content just because some people might find it offensive. Instead, include all content that can be considered relevant to kids under different circumstances, and offer different views on this content geared towards different cultures and subcultures.--Eloquence

I believe you're a bit mislead in this Eloquence. I believe this is simply a series of publications, not an entire encyclopedia. Since it isn't a full fledged encyclopedia, we really don't have to worry about sensitive topics like you discuss. However, we may at some point want a sexual education, awareness and safety issue. -- user:zanimum
I can see the online version developing into a fully fledged childrens encylopedia. Why would we want to stop short of that? Theresa knott 01:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not saying it couldn't, and I'm not saying it shouldn't. I'm just saying we should focus more on making a few high-quality issues/editions of this magazine/book series at a time. That content will gradually pile up through time, and turn into a superb encyclopedia. -- user:zanimum
I cant argue with that. And we certainly can start with topics that are unlikely to cause any issues with anyone. Theresa knott 18:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Relationship to Wikibooks[edit]

This sounds like a great idea, but I just want to make sure that development of this happens at Wikibooks and not a brand new wiki. This is exactly the type of thing Wikibooks should be doing. --Daniel Mayer 17:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But wikibooks is open for anyone to edit. Part 5 of the onlinje projecvt says "The website that is accessible to kids will not be identical to the website accessible to contributors. That will avoid having kids who are just trying to do their homework get caught up in flame wars, personal attacks, and other assorted bullshit (you know exactly what I mean)." How do we do that at wikibooks? Theresa knott 19:56, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with presenting a static version for kids to read. Developement would still happen on Wikibooks. --mav
Development should happen on Wikibooks as it fits precisely its stated purpose. The content once passed as being the right quality would then be transferred to the Wikijunior website. This could happen following voting procedures established for featured articles. The Wikijunior project would thus be a major, even the major sub-project, within Wikibooks. This obviously would prove the Wikibooks concept at the same time. :ChrisG 19:31, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yep - Wikibooks needs a good kick-start. The project has slowed down a lot since its main founder and most active user left. --mav
I've put a note on the staff noticeboard at wikibooks. Hopefully some of the regular contributors will want to register an interest in this project. If development is going to happen there, we can get cracking on the first volume pretty much straight away. Which is cool by me because talk is good, but work is better. Theresa knott 11:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to point out that although Wikibooks seems to have been left for dead in the past, it certainly has a current and very active community that is contributing right now. Some very exciting projects are currently being done on Wikibooks, and an attempt to refocus the mission of Wikibooks has been happening. Generally speaking, Wikijunior has been considered to be almost a source of pride among Wikibookians, as demonstrated by the Book of the Month award that Wikijunior Solar System recieved. There are some problems, however, as Wikijunior is also cited among new contributors to Wikibooks as editorial examples when complaints about "abusive" policies come up about other Wikibook projects. That does put Wikibook admins in a bit of a crimp to explain that Wikijunior modules are really a part of another project and only "temporarily" on Wikibooks and have a seperate set of policies.

Mind you, I'm not prepared for a VfD discussion (yet) for Wikijunior, but I don't want to see any new "projects" get started on Wikibooks that really should be in a seperate Wiki... or ones that want to get to that point in due course. Where incubation for new projects should take place is a subject of discussion elsewhere on Meta (and I've said my piece on that topic as well). More importantly, if you are going to be doing some editorial changes to current Wikijunior books, you need to consider that a good portion of the contributor community is not on Meta, but rather on Wikibooks itself. I would dare say that most of it is on Wikibooks and a good number have never even heard of Meta. --Roberth 05:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

A few thoughts[edit]

In reading this material I find that I have become a little warmer to the project than when I first read about it on the mailing list as another Wikispecies where the Board has gone off in its own direction without consulting the masses.

I was also beginning to see the project in a similar way to Mav with Wikijunior being a Wikibooks spinoff well before I reached his comments. One thing that a Wikibook should do is present its material in an organized fashion where the book's structure can give an overall view. A structured Wikibook can be the basis for a structured junior version of the same book.

If we really want to get the project off the ground we need to keep away from the controversial topics for the first few years. I'm ultra-liberal in what I believe should be available to kids, and eventually those subjects should be approached. Nevertheless, until we have built a credibility around the project we are better to avoid these things altogether lest we be remembered only for the controversy. There are many, many subjects that can be worked on in a way that will put our best foot forward.

Just last night I attended a meeting of our School District's Education Committee. (The district is committed to an inclusive approach to education, where opportunity is given for all segments of the community to be heard. I happen to sit as a parent representative on this committee.) At this meeting we had a presentation by two school librarians (one elementary and one secondary) on book selection for school libraries, and the kinds of things that must be considered. It is not enough to randomly select books for a library, but there is a need to serve a wide range of interests and reading levels. Boys are not interested in the same books as girls. Children in one grade may not have the same reading ability, even if their interests are similar. Harry Potter may be popular to kids of a certain age, and the good readers will have no problem with. A poor reader will be unable to manage, and soon get discouraged with attempting to read it. To deal with this there is sometimes a need to direct that child to something similar, where the required language skills are not as onerous. Theresa spoke above about the level of wikipediation that her two daughters have; Wikiholic parents risk breeding wikiholic children. The up side to that is that such children are likely to be good readers and researchers. At the same time I know from my parent association involvement that we are a small minority among parents. We cannot use the example of our own children as representative of what is really happening with children.

To succeed this project will almost certainly need teacher involvement, or at least an understanding of how children learn. We need several books on the same thing, dealing with roughly the same material, but where each is written for the benefit of a particular age group. The question is then how do we present the same material differently enough to satisfy the needs of six-year-old as much as those of a nine-year-old? Eclecticology 22:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(<stands up> My name is theresa and I'm a wikiholic. I last edited wikipedia a few minutes ago <sits down>)My children aren't wikiholics though, my youngest is dyslexic and has only really learned to read properly in the last couple of years, never the less both my children are pretty well educated, and above average intelligence, and you're right, this is probably true of most wikipedians children, because most wikipedians appear to be well educated. Never the less, that doesn't mean to say we can't produce good childrens booklets. I've worked much of my adult life in schools. I'm currently working as a school lab technician though i have done teacher training in the past. I also work in a prep school one day a week as an assitant teacher, which will go up to full time after christmas. (Yes I know prep school kids aren't typical, but they are at least the right age group). Over the years I've produce a sizeable mumber of worksheets, posters and the like and feel i do understand what children like. They are as follows:

  1. Pictures. It's no accident that it's first. Good pictures are really important. Children love pictures. Colour photos are the best, also brightly coloured drawings and diagrams.I know b&w is cheaper but children really do like colour.
  2. Large font size. Sit a child at a wordprocessor and ask then to type something. First thing they always do is up the font size. 10 or 12 point? No way. They like 14, 16, or even 18. I don't know why this is true, they have better eyesight than adults and can see 10 point font perfectly well. They just like their letters big.
  3. Text in manageable chunks. Children are lazy sods by and large.(Aren't we all?)If a section looks like hard work, they more often than not skip it. But small chunks of text, they look easy. Of course when printing, we want as much text on a page as possible, but there are ways round this. Putting text in boxes, or in speech markes, or by annotating diagrams visually chops the text up into easy pieces.
  4. Fun and games. Reading is pretty passive stuff. Children like to be active, anything that actively involves them is good. Quizzes, games, cross word puzzles etc anything to get them involved. Paper is meant to be written on.
  5. Repitition. Children want a need a lot of repitition in order to learn well. Having said that, they also get bored easily, so repitition has to be handled carefully. Saying the same thing in different ways is a good way to go. So you might say "lions live in savanna" in the main body text, but also show a lion in the savanna as a photo, then have a matching game where children have to match each big cat to their habitat, that sort of thing.

The above applies children of all abilities. But we could cater for different abilities by grading the text according to where it appears. For example the main body text could be aimed at average readers. We could then have a cartoon tiger (for example) say things in speech bubbles. The speech bubble text would be particulaly east to read. A younger child could then choose to ignore the main text and simply look at the pictures and read the speech bubbles. We could then put more difficult ideas in text boxes at the bottom of the page. If the text in the boxes is a little smaller than the main body text, this will give the child a visual clue that this stuff is harder. A bright child might choose to read the text boxes. A less able child might decide to skip them. That we we don't need to get into producing multiple versions of each booklet. User:Theresa knott

Personally, I wouldn't go over 14pt font. This is for 7-12 year old, and too big can only make the content look shabby in their highly critical and judgemental minds.
I don't see the issue here anyone, at any time, can change the font size on their own allready.[[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 12:55, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well yes, but don't forget that we are discussing a print version as well as an online version. Theresa knott 14:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You present an interesting concept for including multiple reading levels; it looks part of the whole but isn't. I'm not too sure design wise whether a harder level would look good. I'm speaking layout-wise, not in terms of the obvious educational benefits. Another possibility is just to eventually branched off into multiple magazines. Sesame Street Magazine (preschoolers) brought The Electric Company (5-8?) and 3-2-1 Contact (8-12?). -- user:zanimum


Only one way to find out. Let's try it out and see what it looks like. Wikijunior draft page layout (I'll work on it over the course of the evening.) Theresa knott 16:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ok I've finished the draft layout page, to see if the concept works. Let me know what you think. Theresa knott 19:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rethinking the themes[edit]

I know the project is being called a series of "booklets", but what is it closer to really-- issues of a magazine or series of books? What I'm asking is whether there's a determined start and end (book), or whether it skips about, looking at little bits of the whole (magazine). If we want a high readership for a magazine format, I advise we don't just focus on one topic topic, like Ancient Egypt or The Solar System.

I personally would try to have themes, like "Leading the Way". It would be a look at leaders and leadership. Democracy, royalty, in various religions, in nature (lions), in businesses, in sports teams (captains), in entertainment (directors, lead actors), in music (the conductor), scouts.

These themes might be harder to come by, but we can almost guarantee that they'll be something that will interest everybody in every issue/edition. -- user:zanimum

Some of those didactic, morally uplifting themes sound too much like telling kids what to do. Eclecticology 23:03, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sigh... Here's a better example... A Canadian series called Timeblazers explores a theme at large each week. Security, transportation, money, health, communication, romance, school. Here's a bad episode guide for the series. http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/EpisodeGuideSummary/showid-20527/Timeblazers/ Essentially, one topic throughout history, how ideas and logic surrounding have changed, and what it means to society as a whole. One additional benefit would be being able to develop a stronger narrative to carry readers. -- user:zanimum

To be honest Zanimum. i'm not convinced. Yes, there might be something to interest everyone, but there also might be a lot of stuff that doesn't interest eack kid. Also I don't think a magazine is the best wat to go. Magazines are usually thrown away once read. Some people do keep magazines, but not many, because you can't easily find information again at a later date. Say for example tyou and me are kids again, and we get into an argument about lions. You say "lions are king of the jungle, so they obviosly live in the jungle. Im pretty sure you are wrong, but you not going to accept the fact on my say so now are you? I need written proof, so off I trot to my bookshelf, where i have loads of booklets. I pick up the one labelled "Jungles" and flick through, hmm no mention of lions there. I Try "big cats" great, it's here. I'm right and you're wrong Yippee! Two booklets took two or three minutes to flick through. I know instantly that there is no point in checking "How aeroplanes fly" or "The tudors" or any of the other hundred booklets that I have on my shelf. That would not be the case with a magazine, I'd have to check every issue. Theresa knott 01:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Subscriptions available?[edit]

I know it was mentioned that we're aiming to distribute these at a price that a child themselves can afford, which seems to suggest this will be distributed as a magazine, but format wise the project tends to be more like a book. Which format is it closest to, strictly for a distribution standpoint? -- user:zanimum

clearly magazin. format should depend on the price but DIN A4 is prolly the best. If we decide to be our own publisher then subscriptions are the best way to earn money and finance the project. If we can get 100 subscriptions from the beginning we should not care much about other kinds of distribution. --TomK32 WR Internet 21:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You're talking about paper size now, with the A4 reference? Also, we're not publishing it in my opinion if we only run 100 issues. We've got to have newsstands and sell it to libraries and schools all across the world. Actually, isn't Jimbo or someone speaking at a librarian's conference? Do you all agree that that would be a good place to promote and network the Wikijunior project? -- user:zanimum

Beck Foundation: where can I find out more about them?[edit]

The Beck Foundation doesn't seem to have a website; the most definitive thing I can find is that they offer a scholarship for Purdue. -- user:zanimum

I cannot find out any information about them online, either. I think it would help the WikiJunior project if we knew more about what the donor wanted.

I wish we knew more about

  • The original request to WikiMedia
  • The full text of the grant proposal
  • Any other information about the Beck foundation and/or the WikiJunior project that would place it all in context.

--SV Resolution 13:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Adult provision[edit]

Some things we might consider:

A comic style layout - with speech bubbles - this is fun (even for adults)

Some interesting titles

  • "How to hypnotise your cat"
  • "Weapons of mass destruction with kitchen ingredients"
  • "How to retire by the age of 15"
  • "Is Lesbianism for you?"
  • "Becoming an Evil Genius for Beginners"
  • "Start your own cult"
  • "Brain surgery and rocket science for idiots"
  • "Hotwiring, lockpicking,and breaking in (or out)"


Comments I like the anon's suggestion, but we can't use Beck money for adult titles. There is nothing however to stop us from creating those titles at wikibooks anyway. They could always be printed at a later date and sold at a small profit hopefully. Theresa knott 11:40, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I doubt the cowardly anon was serious in the first place. And to the anon, the whole maagzine isn't in the format you say it is, only sections are. -- user:zanimum

Naming of contributors[edit]

I suggest we put the names of the people who work on the booklets/magazines on the last page of each booklet, as well as a reference to wikibooks and wikimedia. We could put them under titles e.g. authors, copyeditors, fact checkers, layout and designers, photographs and diagrams, and so on. This has two advantages:

  1. It ensures compliance with thr GFDL. On the web we can see who wrote a page by clicking on the history page, we can't do that with a book. A link to the relevant wikibooks page will solve that for children with access to the web, but many children who do not have internet access will be able to buy these books.
  2. It will IMO be much easier to get people to contribute, if they see their name printed on the book. I'm thinking in particluar of photographs. The thought of having thier phtograph and their name on a book, along with the warm feeling that comes of doing good, is I think plenty of incentive for many people to give thier work away for no payment. Theresa knott 11:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, definetly to all the above. There's no way we're going to print the magazine without it, and still expect mainstream acceptance in the industry. Only thing, I was going to create a PDF of the American civics textbook from Wikibooks, but the author only wanted their user name on the cover. Pretty much for that reason, and because people were telling me to wait while things developed, I stopped trying to create the text. That element of trust, if only in a person lacking many credentials, is lost nether-the-less when there are no true credits. -- user:zanimum
Hopefully, most people won't mind putting their real name down. If we expect people to believe what we write, we should be willing to sign it IMO. Theresa knott 02:41, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What's done if a username is not suitable for publishing in a children's book? If they don't change their usernames, do we remove all their contributions and then not list them? — Jeandré du Toit, 2005-09-28t19:05z

Frankly, I don't see the need for full names to comply with the GFDL. Usernames are just modern pseudonyms. -- user:zanimum

IANAL -- are you? Can you run this one past the wikimedia foundation? Surely, "they" can get the opinion of a lawyer. --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
No I'm not. I've sent this to the mailing list foundation-l, hopefully that route will get response. -- user:zanimum

Alternate text types[edit]

If the booklets are going to be produced in a magazine format, it might be good for them to contain a mixture of text types rather than being purely encyclopedic-style text. I don't know how feasible various text types would be. Fiction would be very appealing, but probably the hardest to do. For example a story such as the morning star might fit in well with the section on Venus in the Wikijunior Solar System book. If fiction is going to be too problematic to do collaboratively, there are text types that might be easier that would still add interest to otherwise encyclopedic information. Interviews, diaries, reports etc. Angela 23:59, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a really good idea.We could still get a great deal of educational material over with the different text types. So for an example kiki could interview a cheetah. for the big cats booklet. The cheetah could talk about his life. "Oh yes I am very very fast, well I'm built for it you see. Look at these muscles! Mind you I wouldn't need to be such a fast runner if the thomson gazelles weren't so fast. My they can run. I can barely catch 'em. I usually go for the little ones - they have trouble keeping up with the rest, but even then they often get away" Theresa knott 14:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with everything above. Most kids non-fiction books are in a rather narrative tone, they aren't flat encyclopedia articles. Now, on the topic of Kiki, would you all mind if tried to create a universe for her, some key recurrent friends for example. Like a professor for example, with some sort of "universal translator device" that lets her talk in any language, or to any species. Otherwise, she's Eliza Doolittle mixed with some sort of crazy linguist. On the general topic as a whole, we should balance the magazine-ness layout and formats with book sensibilities and quality. We want these to read like a magazine, but be informative and good enough physical and visual quality that people keep them as they would a book. National Geographic really, but on one topic, and more fun. -- user:zanimum

Español[edit]

I've promoted the project in general, especially the South American book, on the Spanish Wikipedia. I've gotten good response, and pointers to some pictures. -- user:zanimum

I've promoted on the Dutch, French, German, Italian, Japanese, and Portuguese Wikipedia village pump variants since this last post. Each has got a machine translated post say "Wikimedia is making a magazine for children. Wikimedia has a grant from the Beck Foundation to print this magazine. We need anyone with an interest in South America, outer space, or "big cats" (tigers, lions...) . We will need translators in a few months, to translate from the English original. See the English page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikijunior for more information." -- user:zanimum

That is great news. One thing I want to point out though is that more than just translating the English original, we want these languages to develop content independently also and share it with the other languages and groups. This is not just an English project--it should transcend all language boundaries and be a joint effort of Wikipedians everywhere. Danny 23:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A very strong Amen The bellman 10:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Inadvertent benefits for all Wikipedias[edit]

When promoting on the Portugese Wikipedia, I saw someone promoting Wikicommons. Of all the images to show, they chose one of these: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Panthera_tigris_sumatrae , which just made me think-- we can actually inadvertently help out an elsewise stagnent and thus useless project into being more useful, if only in small pockets of knowledge. -- user:zanimum

gfdl[edit]

i know, i know, i know, nobody (save trolls and rms) like to talk about copyright law, but as far as i know nobody has raised the issue yet. gfdl is not good for publishing things on dead trees becuase you have to print out the whole freaking multipage license every time. So does anyone know what the status of talks between jimbo, lessig and rms on cc-gfdl compatibility is? and if it doesnt look like these talks will be concluded before we go to print do we want to try dual-licensing what we write under the gfdl and cc (this would mean that we couldn't use anything from the other wikis in Keiki/wikijunior, but also that we could print what we have without printing out a whole license (which no kid is gonna want to have in thier book))? The bellman 04:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My guess is it would depend the amount of human resource available to this project. If we are in short of people, we would want to make use of existing wikipedia articles and pictures (though images may trun out to be insufficient in quality for printing). That means the license, history section, etc. should be included into the booklet. If we have plenty of contributors, then we can perhaps create our own from the scratch, dual-license the online concent and print version could be in CC-by or CC-by-sa. Tomos 10:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As far as I know, there's no actual deadline on the grant. We can take as long as we need to create the issues, as I'm sure Beck would appreciate an extended effort more than just plunking in content we already have. -- user:zanimum
From the grant proposal "To launch this project, we would like to release our first pamphlet of 48 full-color pages (8½" by 11") on a topic related to animals by December 2005 (other projects will be released more frequently). As a trial run, we foresee printing 5,000 pamphlets for worldwide distribution." A year and a bit hardly means that we need to be hurrying. But if we want to realease the print version under CC-BY-SA we need to dual license NOW, while we still only have a few contributors, who can all be contacted for consent. The bellman 21:16, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

money[edit]

Another general question which may have been answered elsewhere... where is the 10k from the beck foundation going? into general expenses or into printing and disrubuting dead trees or into my bank account? i personaly prefer the last option, but doubt that i could gain consensus for it. The bellman 04:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Printing and pre-press. Hopefully we can convince some printers to print at cost. We'll have to figure out the cheapest yet best inks, papers, page size, direct to print/from a series of plates... -- user:zanimum

first three volumes.[edit]

I'm confused. are we creating a series of south america keiki/wikijunior/wikiworld books (as in one 48 page book on brasil, one on argentina, etc.) or are we creating one 48 page book with a chapter on brasil, argentina, bolivia, etc.)? the same question goes for the solar system and big cats. If it is just one book per subject area (ie. South america) then we need an introduction to go into the list of contents yes? i didnt want to create these incase i was misinterpreting what we were doing. The bellman 06:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is a 48-page booklet about South America and needs an introduction Danny 12:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thanksfor clearing that up, i was a tad bit confused.The bellman 03:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Eclectic topics[edit]

I think that we have a terrific market in the making for eclectic topics - stuff more off the beaten path than "big cats" or "the solar system," which, while they are good topics, are perennial kids' favorites that we see all the time. Kids, including ones in family, tend to like funny and unusual topics that are educational without seeming so. How about volumes that could encompass things like Exploding whale or the sort of things on Wikipedia:Unusual articles? Of course, there are a lot of inappropriate things there - but a lot of them could be good for kids' books. Some not quite as unusual but still unique and kid-friendly suggestions for Wikijunior volumes might include "humor" - which could include such good stuff as International Talk Like a Pirate Day or my favorite, No soap radio. A book on the recent history of music could appeal to pre-teenagers, which we certainly have loads of articles on. NPOV encyclopedia-type books for kids about topics like sports, television, and other entertainment topics are a major rarity as well. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make here is that we should take advantage of the topics that Wikipedia covers and the World Book for Kids doesn't and won't. The breadth of unique and interesting topics is one of Wikipedia's big strengths. Andre (talk) 22:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By book, I mean magazine or whatever this is going to be. Andre (talk) 22:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that the exploding whale one could be interesting, if we moved away from straight encyclopedic information, and into a lighthearted scientific investigation of why the whales exploded. (en:User:Ta bu shi da yu must be so proud his pet article has almost become the wikpedia mascot.) The bellman 23:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If we were a straight magazine, we could devote a bit of space to this, a bit of space to that. Just one country each issue, one animal, one weird thing, one entertainment (which would be regionally changed), one tech toy, one explorer, one innovator. Just a plethora in every issue. However, then people aren't as likely to keep the publication, and it isn't a true reference. Even if you did keep all the issues, it would be hard to find anything. Each variant of the format has its own merits, but which one has more merits is up in the air for me. -- user:zanimum

intended age group.[edit]

The grant from the Beck foundation says 8-11 year olds, however them main page says 7-12 year olds. I am personaly of the opinion that a narrower age group will make the writing easier. Was there a reason that the age group got broadened along the way and would anyone have any objections to reinstating the origanal age range? The bellman 04:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We got it for 8-11, so we should follow up on that element. We don't want to "re-neg" on promises. And yes, I definetly agree that it would be easier to do. -- user:zanimum
Agreed. Andre (talk) 15:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok ill change it to 8-11 on the front page. The bellman 21:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kennisnet[edit]

Kennisnet is a Dutch website that specialises in info for kids from the primary and secondary schools. They create a lot of content and, they use nl:wikipedia content already. After a discussion with Jimbo, I am going to have some explatory talk with Kennisnet on 15 dec with Oscar, another sysop from nl:.

Please have a look at their site and forward any questions to me :) GerardM 22:16, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for pointing it out. So are you suggesting we partner with them, or what? Also, to anyone criticising Kiki as being insulting to 8-11 year olds, check out http://www.kennisnet.nl/cpb/po/kids/ . -- user:zanimum
There is no partnership yet, they want partners and we can use partners. We are going to explore what is possible. GerardM 14:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh wow, they're actually outright looking for partners? Cool. -- user:Zanimum

Standards[edit]

The main page has some criteria about "appropriateness" that seem to come from a very US POV. For example: "...in other words, even if we do something on human reproduction, it will be done tastefully, without any references to specifics of the exterior process of intercourse." There are countries where such taboos are not as strong. Take a look at, for example, http://www.nvsh.nl/informatie/ , which is a perfectly serious educational web site. 131.215.167.114 02:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Look. We are not doing any of these topics until we've completely run out of anything else to cover. There's hundreds of other topics we can right about, other than sex. Let's just let this lie. Besides, who's going to sponsor an issue on sex? This is primarily a print project, backed up by content on the web, not vice-versa. -- user:zanimum

Danish page for children and teenagers is allready up and running[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to show you our danish page for children and teenagers (børn og unge) [1]. Maybe some of our ideas can be used here too? The links on the page says:

"Contest", "Take the bus", "Writing an assignment", "Simple experiments", "Ask Wikipedia a question", "Hello world", "About Wikipedia", "To the teacher".

Malene 23:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

rimming[edit]

As it is not my first language, I have no clue what rimming is .. GerardM 12:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it now. I wish I had caught that sooner... little too descriptive for things we're not going to discuss. Rimming, according to Wikipedia, is "Anal-oral contact (commonly referred to as anilingus and colloquially known as rimming or tossing salad) is sexual activity involving contact between the anus or perianal areas of one person and the mouth of another. Thus, anilingus is simultaneously anal sex and oral sex." Don't you wish you didn't ask? ;-) -- user:zanimum

[edit]

If we are going to start a universal project, like every wikimedia project the logo should be more "human diversity representative". For example, the kids have to be more representative from every human races (kinds?) (blacks, white, yellow, etc) --GengisKanhg (my talk) 22:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pardon? Are you saying the logo should have images of kids from different ethnicities? That's okay, but it's overdone really. And these magazines aren't just about understanding other cultures, but also understanding science and nature. -- user:zanimum
Yes is what I try to said. Thanks. --GengisKanhg (my talk) 00:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where's the artwork section?[edit]

I'm a cartoonist. I don't know if you already need them, so I made some sketches today for you to make an idea of my style. I didn't see any section on wikijunior about artwork, so I think it's correct to put a link here: image:DrJones-Wikijunior-Sketch.jpg

I'm from Spain, and I prefer to draw cute and funny things, kids and animals. :) DrJones 18:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Very cool! There was some discussion about a cartoon guide with speech bubbles. I'll try and fing a link in a min. Can you draw a cute alien for the solar system book? My own effort was a bit crap. Theresa knott 23:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

That is an interesting question. After many tries, I think that the answer is no. I wish I could help, but it is difficult to find cute aliens wanting to pose for me. The one I found was making funny faces all the time, so I couldn't drawn him properly. I had to make up this one, but I'm not entirely satisfied with it. Bad luck! DrJones 19:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hear you go Wikijunior draft page layout Theresa knott 23:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

DrJones-Martian-colour.PNG

Ive taken the liberty of working on your little martian. Here is my version . I think he looks great. I really don't know why you're not satisified.Actually I'm not 100% satisfied with the colour. It looks very bright, but that could be the grey background of this page. Anyway it can easily be fixed. Theresa knott 22:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not that he is not drawn well. It is that he doesn't give me the feelings I was looking for. A picture is as good as the emotions it inspires. Your version of the martian looks great, I would change only two or three tiny details. About the color, I think the problem is that it's too strong. You should pale the tone. The image must look good in greyscale. I'm a bit busy these days, but I will give it a try myself, too.
Also, you are free to change my wikijunior pictures without having to ask permission, just tell it is a derivated work. I wouldn't have uploaded the pictures here otherwise. DrJones 09:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

If everyone could visit Wikijunior project Nikki character designs to discuss who's design is best. Once we've narrowed it down, then we can work on fine tuning the designs. -- user:zanimum

News: Wikijunior Solar System has been named Wikibook of the Month (August 2005)[edit]

Just in case you havn't been frequenting Wikibooks lately, the Wikijunior Solar System book has just won the vote for Wikibook of the Month. While I don't know if this is something to congradulate or cry about (in terms of the state of other Wikibooks not even reaching this level of quality), it is an important distinction that should be recognized for what it is: An honor to a large group of people who have added content to this project over the past while.

I've also provided a PDF file that you can download and turn the whole contents into one printed volume. I'm going to try and update the content as of August 1st to reflect the book of the month status. Certainly take a look at this Wikibook if you havn't been around lately to look at it. Content does continue to get added all of the time. --Roberth 01:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It's shaping up pretty well. IMO. Theresa knott 05:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Board to discuss giving Wikijunior seperate wiki[edit]

During the upcoming September 18 Wikimedia Foundation board meeting, the Board will discuss registering a seperate domain for Wikijunior, presumably wikijunior.org. Presumably Wikijunior will still be developed on Wikibooks, but it will go live on a seperate site. Alternatively, we could have en.wikijunior.org for viewing, and en2.wikijunior.org for editing, which would allow for a greater ease in developing pages, as they could be part of a freeform encyclopedia (on limited topics), rather than the isolated books they are now. If we were to develop off Wikibooks, I'd like us to retain most, if not all of the structure of Wikibooks, it's worked well so far. -- user:zanimum

Hey, that's great. I think getting a separate wiki for wikijunior would be the best option. One of the big problems with wikibooks is that all the special pages, like random page, most wanted and the stub categories don't work per book. And if we're going to create a different frontend for the kids, it'd be nice to have our own database, instead of having to pull stuff from the wikibooks database. Having our own wiki might even encourage people to contribute, because it makes us look more serious.

Wikijunior dot org appearance[edit]

Btw, has any thought been given to the kids' site? Like who's going to create it and what it will look like? I think it would be about time to at least start a discussion on this. Risk 00:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I had tried contacting one of the other Wikipedians (they were German I think), who had created this cool Egyptian desert Mediawiki skin, asking them if they'd consider working for us, to develop a Wikijunior one. No response, and this is almost a year later. For starters, we likely should go with a bit bigger font, but nothing too big. Also, if we can slightly increase the text's leading, that would be great.

I don't know how feasible this is, but what if where toolbox is now on the site, we had a few rainbow coloured buttons. Click on one, the site instantly refreshes with a pink skin. Click on another, it's aquamarine. No matter what, we need colour. Not too much to make it distracting or hard on the eyes, but enough to make it a little bit more lively. -- user:zanimum

I think that's a pretty simple CSS trick.

The kids' site, however, should probably be more than just a different CSS skin. Maybe it would be feasible to set up a general addon to the mediawiki software that lets people define a read-only site that takes it's content from a mediawiki database, and turns it into a regular website. You'd have a wiki for editing and a front website for the visitors (the kids in our case). Software like that could turn a mediawiki into a kind of collaborative website management system. That really contributes to mediawiki's value, so the mediawiki coders might be interested in contributing, and we'd just need to do the basic design for our particular front to turn it into wikijunior. The system could fetch the new wiki content in real-time, or the latest version of an article that was deemed appropriate by some peer review system on the wiki backend. It sounds to me like a pretty simple system that can use a lot of code that's already been written for mediawiki. I could take a stab at programming it myself, but my php skills are pretty much nonexistant, so if we can get someone else ethusiastic about it, that would be best. Risk 01:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Cool ideas... but no real-time... ever. Unless we had some scrutinous membership approval process to guarantee things, but that's impossible if we're part of Wikibooks. -- user:zanimum
Good point. It might be possible to create a kind of approval system where a version of an article needs to be approved by several other editors (such that getting your edit approved increases your weight in approving other edits). If we couple that with a simple vandalism detection system (which I believe already exists in wikipedia), that should take care of all but the most subtle and labor intensive vandalism. It's a bit of work, but we wouldn't have to resort to giving certain users a 'status' to let them approve edits. That kind of system would be horribly un-wiki. We could start out with a relatively high approval threshold (many approvals needed) and set up a page in the community portal for pages that need approving. A system like this could be implemented in all sorts of wiki's for all sorts of purposesm, so again development wouldn't just be useful for wikijunior.
Of course this kind of thing would neccesitate our own wiki, but I think that's a good idea anyway. Risk 21:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I've looked around a bit and there is already a lot of effort going into creating a validation system. See Article validation proposals. I've dropped a note explaining that we need a validation system and that we could probably work together. Wikijunior would get a validation system with the techs looking after it and they can test their system out on a small wiki before enabling it on wikipedia. Risk 13:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"New project policy"[edit]

BTW, if you want to make a seperate wiki, please follow New project policy that has been previously adopted by the foundation. This was also mentioned on Foundation-l, but I'm adding this comment here to reinforce the idea. It would be wise to add it on Proposals for new projects, just as Wikiversity has done as well, not to mention placing the discussion about Wikijunior as a new project with Goings-on, and a fair bit of discussion elsewhere. Organizing the vote is harder than it would seem at first, so this is not a trivial move. There doesn't seem to be much movement on Wikibooks to jetison Wikijunior right now, and Wikijunior does not seem to have a whole lot of activity to justify a new wiki yet, from my viewpoint. I guess I'm asking why this move needs to be made, and what benefits are there going to be from having everything on a seperate wiki? The special pages are neat functions, but I don't see how that really benefits kids wanting to look at Wikijunior content at the moment. There are only a few dozen "articles" right now, with Wikijunior Solar System having the most at the moment, so that level of organization IMHO is not really needed. A move to change Wikijunior to a junior Wikipedia might have some merit, but that is a huge change that really needs to be discussed as a new project proposal. --Roberth 13:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought mav/anthere/my comments on foundation-l had cleared this up already. We're looking for a seperate site for children to access us from, not a seperate wiki. Look, we've got a grant for US$10K to make a children's reference, we either use it or loose it. Web hosting a stable version of the content is cheap, and it's good PR. Eventually, what I hope Wikijunior will morph into is a kids Wikipedia, but we'll release a few new articles into it every week, not necessarily related as these books are. -- user:zanimum

Why not make wikijunior the new site, instead of mapping to the wikijunior page at wikibooks? Then WikiJunior becomes the site where the kids go. The content can be developed elsewhere, for publication at WikiJunior. --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Kids would go to en.wikijunior.org (et al) no matter what situation happens, presuming the board approves our seperate domain in tomorrow's board meeting. Why can't we just have our seperate editing wiki, on the wikijunior.org domain? Wikispecies. People complained it was pushed through without a lengthy public vote, got angry at the board. Thus, now everything has to sit dormant on the Proposals for new projects page forever, hoping to get approved. -- user:zanimum
Things do not have to sit forever on the New Project Proposals page. There just has to be a strong enough leader to see that the organization for the project actually happen, and that you follow the New project policy in order to get the project started. Having gone through the effort for Wikiversity, it is not easy but it is possible and you can even be a little antagonistic toward the Foundation board as well as cynical about the whole process. If you (user:zanimum) want to get this to really happen, I'm willing to help out. Unlike Wikiversity, I would be an outspoken critic of the proposal to create a new domain, however. This is mainly because I think creating a seperate Wikijunior project is perhaps a little bit premature. As for the read-only mirror proposal is concerned, that needs considerably more community input and discussion on Wikibooks with the active participants, not the few people who happen to make it here to Meta. The considerable lack of community input is primarily why I tried to shoot the proposal down. Having Wikijunior be one of the early (or perhaps 1st) projects on the proposed Wikimedia Incubator Wiki is concerned, that is another story. Essentially this is a meta wiki of a sort that is for new project ideas that fall somewhere between having the Wikimedia Foundation say no and giving a solid green light to an idea. I would like to see this done on Meta itself, but the admins on Meta don't want to see that happening for their own reasons. Perhaps a dedicated group of admins who have proven that they know how to assist new projects can be asked to help out on this new incubator Wiki to keep things under control. --Roberth 00:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

New domain name for Wikijunior[edit]

At zanimum's request, a new domain name for Wikijunior was discussed at a Wikimedia meeting on September 18 (which was attended by the board, people with official positions, and local chapter reps). I asked at that whether Wikijunior should move to its own domain name. Anthere said that she does not consider it the board's decision alone and suggested the Wikibooks community should decide this, thinking a new domain meant a new project. I felt the project was already approved (since it's running on Wikibooks and we have a grant for it), and said that I didn't see the move to a new domain as a huge issue. Jimmy clarified that the proposal is for Wikijunior be a place to put 'finished' work, with Wikibooks still being the development community, so it would be a 'view' on the work, not a new project per se. I asked whether there had been any objection to it moving, but this wasn't clear. Jimmy proposed that we notify the Wikibooks community that we're saying yes to this, but giving a week or two for people to voice objections, and if there are none then we can approve it and let the Wikibooks community work out how to proceed.

So, if there are any objections to moving the finished Wikijunior texts to Wikijunior.org and keeping the editing processes on Wikibooks.org, please raise those, either on the textbook-l mailing list, or at the Wikibooks Staff lounge. Angela 19:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any objection. I can work in one location as well as another. the new wikijunior.org will be empty for a little while yet, though. --SV Resolution(Talk) 00:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
If "Wikijunior" = Wikibooks for young people, how about calling it "Wikibooks Junior"? Or if "Wikijunior" is to be an umbrella term for junior versions of Wikimedia projects, I suggest what it currently appears to reference is called "Wikijunior Books". Hope I have not misunderstood what's going on and/or my query is not dealt with elsewhere - apologies if so. David Kernow 12:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Node ue's opposition vote[edit]

I undid Zanimum's removal of Node ue's trollish "opposition" to Wikijunior. If Node ue did have something interesting to say about wikijunior, I think he would have said it. As it is, I don't think his lone dissenting opinion will have much affect on the wikijunior project, which is maturing. Since there has not been a call for a vote, it is not a vote. Since the Wikijunior page has become somewhat of a talk page anyway, it seems counter to the spirit of the wiki to eliminate someone's opinion. Even if it is mildly trollish.

Since b:Wikijunior is, by now, an established fact, maybe we should archive all the discussion about who supports creating it and leave only the "where to go next" stuff, anyway. Much of the discussion could be moved to this talk page, which could do with an archiving as well. If there is no disagreement on that, I'd be happy to do the archiving myself. I'd hate to start without a consensus, though. I'd hate to see my work reverted. :-) --SV Resolution(Talk) 00:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Bah, just go ahead, most of the action seems to still be taking place on Wikibooks anyway. Garrett 14:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikijunior: Different books for different kids?[edit]

What about gifted kids? Gifted 10-year-olds might need a harder book than the ones currently presented here. --WikiFan04Talk Contribs 19:24, 9 October 2005 (CDT)

Yes, indeed! That is a very good point, however I really don't think we can incorporate gifted children into our concept at the moment. They have far beyond the IQ of the majority of adults so we would basically be writing adult-level material within a fun children's-themed cover.
Example: my town has a relatively small public library; by the time I was ten I'd exhaused the children's section's lack of information on several topics so began broswing the adult section; one time I lugged home Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, a tome so thick (despite being allegedly abridged) that you could no doubt club and kill intruders with it... and I pored over it for hours.
Now if I could cope with its archaic English usage with my probably just-above-average IQ I'm sure truly gifted children are already doing similar and are well used to it. However I still brought home particular children's books repeatedly to use as visual supplements to what the sparsely black-and-white or even text-only books were describing.
This is therefore a difficult thing to achieve; we would need to incorporate the adult-level material that their brain craves with the children's-level presentation that is best for their age group. At the same time we would also need to make it clear to parents, without it somehow coming across as insulting, that the book's content would make an average child's brain hurt.
Actually now that I think about it the wonders of the digital age have allowed books that I always dreamed of as child to become reality, that being a perfect mix of full-page, full-colour reconstruction illustrations together with no-nonsense text.[2] I do wonder if perhaps this should be the realm of Wikijunior at all, that instead we should aim to have illustrated Simple English and even EN Wikibooks that due to the level of visual content would no doubt have an intrinsic appeal to gifted children.
Also I should point out that I was often turned off by over-child-friendly books, especially if they had "Junior" somewhere on the cover, as I'd already worked out that there was usually little I didn't already know inside such books; I'm sure gifted children have reached the same conclusions. The last thing we want to do is aim material at them and find them turned off by our brand name.
The fact that the grant's specified physical age group certainly does not include a gifted child's mental age group is immaterial; I think this is something we do need to discuss, funding or no funding, and I'm meaning in even more depth than my 2 AM ramblings have just provided... however I'm not sure if such a production would even be in the "Junior" field at all any more. Garrett 13:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Introduction[edit]

I made some changes to the parents introduction on the Solar System project. Purhaps there should be an introduction for all wikijunior books to share and then another introduction for each individual topic. Beck or other publishers could then include a statement in the books that they print.--Gbleem 18:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikijunior now has its own IRC Channel![edit]

To all who are interested, I have created for the participants and editors/administrators of the Wikijunior project, our very own IRC Channel, seperate of #wikipedia - I did this because I am a frequent visitor to #wikipedia and notice sometimes, the discussion gets a bit out of hand. This new channel, #wikijunior (on irc.freenode.net - port 6667) is just purely for workers on Wikijunior to come and discuss the project and make suggestions to each other live. I hope you enjoy it. Best Wishes! Tmalmjursson 03:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Talk with me

Some thoughts on Wikijunior online[edit]

The Wikibooks for children is a great idea, and the material so far looks very good. It needs to be more available online. That means it needs to be more prominent and accessible, perhaps via a 'junior' icon on the main Wikipedia pages.

There is a problem with this, and it is the exact same problem we have with an online junior encyclopaedia, namely content control.

A few thoughts on security.

Nothing is 100% safe and secure. It is a matter of balancing benefits and risk. The potential benefits of junior online are enormous, and worth accepting a degree of risk.

Wikipedia itself is not immune to vandalism. Children use it anyway.

There are advantages in an open, public forum. It is generally self-policing. The sort of audience and the sorts of editors involved in the project would guarantee a pretty high level of vigilance.

Relatively straightforward procedures can be used to minimise foreseen problems.

Procedures

Restricted access to editing could be realised by requiring contributors to register their identities before being granted an account. This could be accomplished by sending account details to a postal address. To tighten up further, applications for accounts could require proof of ID, proof of address and/or references.

Why Junior Online?

It can reach many more children than the printed book.

It can attract many more contributors who may have enthusiasm, knowledge and experience in areas not covered by the current book projects. --Barry Desborough 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The alternative, original plan was to have editing on a wiki, and articles validated by sysops, much like what Wikipedia itself is now planning. However, the community complained that this was as if we were starting a completely new project, and not a subproject of Wikibooks, and then nothing happened. If you think you can convince the community there is a need for a seperate, stable site, beyond Wikibooks, be my guest. We do have wikijunior.org registered an waiting. -- user:zanimum
If you want to make something happen, let me know and let's turn this into a formal proposal that can get some votes for approval and a formal presentation to the Wikimedia Foundation board (or a special projects sub-committee, as is being proposed). I've gone through this process now twice, for Wikiversity and Wikistandards. I guarentee that within 3 months we will get an up or down vote on Wikijunior if we can get a formal proposal put together and work together to get this accomplished. I was just pointing out that Wikijunior content was not quite ready for prime time yet as a stable version, as the two most significant volumes, b:Wikijunior Solar System and b:Wikijunior Big Cats are still going through some major revisions even though they are both Books of the Month at Wikibooks. When the editorial review is completed for the Solar System book in particular, I think it would be ready to put onto a more stable Wiki. Certainly no Wikijunior content is ready for formal publication at the moment, even though some is getting very close. --Roberth 20:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
zanimum, Robert, give me a little more time and I'll prepare a case, plus some example content. Thanks, Robert, for your e-mail reply.. --Barry Desborough 21:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at A Case for an Online Wiki for Children--Barry Desborough 19:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry to have been unfaithful, but due to the feeling of inertia I get from Wikibooks, I've been trying to work out some ideas at Wikispaces. See Wikids. I'm an 'operational thinker'. I like to work out my ideas in a concrete fashion. I'd love to see Wikimedia take up some of these ideas, so much so that I'd consider putting up as much as the Beck foundation did for their initial grant to Wikibooks. Take a look at what I've done, including my soapbox and see what you think. --Barry Desborough 19:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Name[edit]

The front page says Wikijuniour is a working title and suggestions are open. How about Wikikids or just Wikids. That one sounds like "We, kids" and also "Wicked" combined - 01:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That line should've been removed a while ago (I've deleted it now). There was a big vote on the name, with many, many suggestions (including yours). Wikijunior won. See Wikijunior/Project name. Risk 10:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fun Page[edit]

Would a "Fun Page" in each issue be permitted? It could have riddles, crosswords, etc. related to the issue that it's in (e.g. "Match each dinosaur to what its name means."). See the Wikijunior talk page for the original discussion. --Gray Porpoise 00:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

How to start Wikijunior in Sindhi?[edit]

I would like to start Wikijunior in Sindhi. How to? Aursani 17:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, Wikijunior is in almost all cases being "hosted" on the same language version of Wikibooks. To see a list of currently "active" Wikibooks projects in various languages, open this page to find a language related to what you are looking for.
In terms of the Sindhi language, that unfortunately is not currently an edition of Wikibooks. Instead you should try instead to add to the proposal on Requests for new languages#Sindhi Wikibooks. I am surprised, but it appears as though creating a Wikibook for this language is currently being contimplated. That there already is an existing Wikipedia for this language, the only other concern that there may be for the Wikimedia Foundation is to find enough people who speak this language (especially native speakers) that can demonstrate that they will be regular participants to get this project going. --Roberth 20:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)