- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- No need to discuss anymore. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
|The logo for the project, if you already have one|
|Status of the proposal|
|Reason||Unanimous opposition to the creation of a new project. * Pppery * it has begun 22:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)|
|Details of the proposal|
|Project description||See below|
|Potential number of languages||English, Español, Français, Deutsch, British English, Nederlands, हिंदी, 中文（简体), 中文(傳統), Čeština, العربية, Tiếng Việt, Bahasa Indonesia, Português (Brasil), Português (Portugal), Ænglisc, others|
|Proposed tagline||Does your project have a tagline? (optional)|
|New features to require||There will be a Kids skin, that is very child friendly. However, in preferences, you could choose Vector, Monobook or Timeless. For mobiles, Timeless would be default. The font family for the whole wiki will be Calibri. However, there will be two other new skins available: Boy and Girl, so kids of different genders can choose a skin for them.|
|List of project participants|
The kids wikipedia would aim to give children between for schoolwork and their own curiosity. This makes the goal of wikimedia (a world where knowledge is free) go further by giving a wikipedia for children.
On the main page, it would link to levels. As the levels progress, harder and more mature content is available.
The following twelve levels will take effect:
- Level 1: Children under 6
- Level 2: Children 6-7
- Level 3: Children 7-8
- Level 4: Children 8-9
- Level 5: Children 9-10
- Level 6: Children 10-11
- Level 7: Children 11-12
- Level 8: Children 12-13
- Level 9: Children 13-14
- Level 10: Children 14-15
- Level 11: Children 15-16
- Level 12: You are ready to read English Wikipedia!
With the levels, there will always be a quiz to test knowledge. As the students complete the quiz, they can achieve mastery.
Children themselves would not be allowed to edit articles, but teachers could. A teacher would have to make an account no matter what.
The teacher would also make accounts for his/her students in the Children user group.
The teacher would also be able to see quiz scores for quizzes their students submit.
https://kids.wikipedia.org (main; links to all languages)
https://en-gb.kids.wikipedia.org (british english)
https://zh.kids.wikipedia.org (simplified chinese)
https://zh-hans.kids.wikipedia.org (traditional chinese)
https://ptbr.kids.wikipedia.org (brazillian portuguese)
https://pt.kids.wikipedia.org (european portuguese)
https://ang.kids.wikipedia.org (old english)
Mailing list links
Eshaan011 (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- I Oppose for the following reasons
- first of all... wiki kids is a common idea on this website, its being repeated a number of times and most end up on their nose... here are some examples for wikipedia-kids related project proposals-
- Encyclopedia for Children-This one is actually something i like
- Wiktionary Kids- Kids dictionary- absolutely ridiculous
- Wikikids/Wikichild-Wikikids original
- So there is a lot in this field
- Second of all... 'children's encyclopedia' is a common topic outside of the WMF... like Britannica kids, Nat GEO kids... so there won't be a necessity of publishing this website
- My third argument is basically stating that the Simple-English Wikipedia exists... it was made for the ones who do not know English as much, and I think that its fairly suitable for kids, even though some flaws do exist.
- So i think that you should either drop this project or merge it with Encyclopedia for Children, since it's the only proposal that stands to be a little logical.
- (pardon me for grammar errors and etc... English is not my native tongue and you might have trouble understanding.) Arep Ticous 13:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral: Could this idea be included as part of Abstract Wikipedia? Which aims to "let more people share in more knowledge in more languages." When you think about Wikipedia Kids, you're asking for the same articles to be created in twelve different (English-derived) "languages" that kids can understand. If Abstract Wikipedia is capable of generating readable articles based on abstract ideas, it's also capable of constructing those articles at different levels of complexity, which when you think about it, is just changing they way you convey abstract ideas so that a different group of people can understand it. Imagine then being able to read any article, in any language, at any level of competency in a language.Supertrinko (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- +1 to Supertrinko's comment. I doubt anyone would be interested in taking up that much work (i.e. duplicating so many articles on multiple languages). Using Abstract Wikipedia to generate content seems to be the most sensible way forward. If/when it supports the ability of certain facts being optionally classed for age groups, perhaps maybe another domain could be opened to channel those "kids content" through, with the ability of switching languages (and maybe even age groups), within that domain itself. Rehman 04:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose There are many libre encyclopaedias, some of them, like Vikidia, have relations with some Wikimedia chapters. Maybe it would be better supporting and improving an existing libre project instead of creating one. On the other hand, I like a lot the Supertrinko's proposal. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose the proposal seems confused. It starts with the idea that boys and girls need different skins. There's no reason to bring gender into skin choices, it's needlessly devisive.
- The proposal speaks about having a website in the Wikipedia namespace but having tests in addition to articles. While a website with tests might have it's uses, it doesn't belong in the Wikipedia namespace.
- The relationship to projects like simple.wikipedia and wikiversity is unclear.
- It's unclear who's expected to write the content for the huge breakdown in individual levels. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 02:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- I worry that this particular proposal has too much possible overlap with other projects (many of its goals can be addressed within existing wikis), would possibly require more effort to create content for than is likely able to materialize, and has features that may be out of step with Wikimedia projects (such as quizzes). SecretName101 (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per others, this could be integrated into Abstract Wikipedia, as Supertrinko said. AnotherEditor144 t - c 12:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose that's what simplewiki exists for. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 09:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is already rejected, nothing to be continue opposing. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.