Talk:Simple English Wikipedia/Archive 1

Forums for discussing the future of the SEW
This section's purpose is to compile the appropriate forums for discussion on the future of the Simple English Wikipedia. The specific arbitration process is described on Wikimedia's "meta" site.


 * Wikimedia Foundation's Meta page for discussions concerning Wikimedia projects
 * Wikimedia's Index of Requests and Proposals
 * Wikimedia's language proposal policy
 * Administrators and bureaucrats of simple.wikipedia.org
 * Requirements imposed by Simple English

For full disclosure: I predict a negative outcome from the persistence of the Simple English Wikipedia. The goal of the Regular English Wikipedia is to use the most simple language possible. It is impossible to discuss many topics with the restrictions on English imposed by the Simple English Wikipedia without making the text more difficult to understand. This nullifies the educational benefits for children or non-native speakers. In addition maintenance is extremely difficult due to splitting of most regular procedures into two entirely separate systems. Raazer 17:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed interwiki
This might be controversial (if anything about stubs can be), but the interwiki that went to simple:Simple English Wikipedia is a redirect to simple:Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia. That's a projectspace article, an introduction - it's not written from a perspective of neutrality and verifiability, like our article on Wikipedia is, and so I don't think it should be interwikied. There is, of course, now a link to that article that I used to reference the project's stated aims. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia of dubious value
Having just discovered the existence of Simple Wikipedia I must say that I question the value of the whole project. When I was at school my reading progress was helped by simply reading the adult papers and other information; although learning is helped by initial simplicity I didn't think that wikipedia was a language school. It might be said "just don't contribute, then" but I feel that these parallel projects drain effort from the main idea with little benefit. I have also no intention of registering separately for the Simple offshoot and coming back to the "Real" one. Sorry but as far as I can see it's wasted effort. Britmax 13:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're not alone. A large number of people who have tried out the Simple English Wikipedia have questioned its value: it's populated largely by people who a poor grasp of English writing for other people who have a poor grasp of English, the end result of which is that silly errors and ambiguities end up being propagated all over the site as people learn "better" English in the worst possible way, all while filling the site with low-quality writing that is often not really any "simpler" than the normal English Wikipedia. And it's also true that a lot of much-needed activity is taken away from the English Wikipedia by this project (though at least it's not too much activity, thanks to the project's unpopularity). Even the "having a shorter version of each article" concept itself is dubious, since most people seem to think that it would make more sense to just use the lead section of high-quality articles for that purpose, should we ever need shortened versions of articles. -Silence 14:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Surely it would benefit users with a poor grasp of English more to look up unfamiliar words they find in the "real" Wikipedia and expand their vocabulary in the process, rather than get sheltered in a little cocoon of familiar words, where they'll understand the whole passage at first glance, but won't actually learn anything? 218.212.119.149 10:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. It's like the blind leading the blind - their grasp of English is as bad as that of those who're going to read the articles. Not only will this lead to a lot of poor articles scattered everywhere, as you said, it is going to undermine effective comprehension of the articles by readers, who are trying to learn English. After all, I do not think that readers with a poor grasp of English can understand articles with a low English standard. It only serves to confuse them. 202.156.6.54 12:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Me, too. I agree that the simple English Wikipedia is of no value. It distracts users. It wasts the efforts of the Wikipedia community. Wikipedia is not a school to learn languages.

--Meno25 19:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree wholeheartedly. However, there is one good thing about it: it's often very, very amusing. Specifying that a rapist is "the person who rapes", for example. That makes me laugh. However, the EDUCATIONAL value of the site is almost zero, and I'm fairly certain that it's not there to make bored teenagers laugh (even if that IS the only real purpose it serves). ~ S h i p p i n a t o r M a n d y  (For best results, use twice daily.) 04:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I myself was curious about simple english wikipedia, so I looked up some article. They were poor quality, full of idiotic circumlocutions. But the best was this: "Diabetes means a disease where people make more urine than usual.". Frigo 10:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the Simple English Wikipedia is a ridiculous idea. It's absolutely patronizing at best, and at worst, it is just a collection (albeit a large one ... see, I couldn't say "albeit" on the simple English wikipedia) of dull blather (hey, couldn't say that either, I guess. Writing in a deliberately dumbed down (not just simplified) manner will not help anyone to learn English. However, I don't think that we can vote for its deletion or take other drastic action from here, the English Wikipedia. So, the question is, to whom do we appeal about this travesty of a project? By the way, take a look at the Simple English article on Sex. It's hilarious. M412k 17:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User comment IP confusion
Yesterday, I posted the last comment under 'Simple Wikipedia of dubious value', the one posted at 10:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC). Unfortunately, there was an edit conflict and a comment with the exact same wording (above) was posted by 218.212.119.149. There was only one version of the comment. I'm not accusing anyone of anything but can someone please get this cleared up? Thanks. 202.156.6.54 12:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Should go away
The Simple English Wikipedia should go the same way Esperanza did here, on English Wikipedia. Totally useless and harmful. The worst thing is that it often uses absolutely unidiomatic, extremely bad "artificially simplified" English. It does a great disservice to all trying to learn English. Avoid it. 131.111.8.96 19:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ...It's Esperanto, not Esperanza. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.12.165.191 (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
 * No, I really meant Esperanza. This was a project here on English Wikipedia that existed for some time, and then it was decided that it was detrimental to Wikipedia, and it was discontinued.   I wish the same could be done to Simple English.  It is just so awful.  The articles are absolutely useless, and written for most part in very bad English.  It is absolutely of no help for anyone who tries to learn English, on the contrary, whatever "English" they would pick from it would be totally mangled. 131.111.8.99 03:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It also tends to leave out important facts in its attempt to "simplify" things.

Should there be a criticism section on this article?
I personally don’t have much of a problem with the Simple English Wikipedia, but whenever I here about the Simple English Wikipedia all I here is about how bad it is. It would be something it was just a few Wikipedians that said a few bad things about it, but I have seen countless people question about it effectiveness or even its existence. Whenever someone suggests a simple Wikipedia in another language all anyone ever dose is say that the simple English one was bad enough and that there didn’t need to be one in another language. The talk page of the simple Wikipedia has a few users trying to vote for deletion. Heck even this talkpage has people complaining about it. There’s just too much criticism about the simple Wikipedia to go unnoticed in this article. I would add a section myself, but I wouldn’t be able to cite my sources or make it sound unbiased enough. I would really like it if someone with better editing skills add this section for me.--66.176.63.70 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, it would be amusing if one could cite an article's talk page as a reference... not sure if that would be legit unless there were an overwhelming number of negative comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.243.2.30 (talk) 02:45, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

An article's talk page, or Wikipedia, or basically any wiki at all, can almost never be cited. Rare cases, e.g. the Chris Benoit thing, do occur though. Secondly, this talk page isn't to discuss the project but to discuss the article on the project, and any material not doing so should be removed. If you want criticism, find a reliable source. If there are none (and there seems barely enough coverage in any form of media to warrant this article's existence, or many of the other Wikipedia article's for that matter), then it must be left out. Richard001 05:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pointless
I realise this has been covered above. However, I am making a new section. The SEW is inherently pointless. While those learning a language will not benefit from a huge pile of jargon at first, requiring simplicity in teaching, the SEW can often be a permanent cradle because a) the language found there is terrible or b) being used to the "care" of the SEW users are hesitant to move on to the EN wiki. Besides, it is incredibly condescending. I laughed out loud when I saw "some users may be young (they may be children)" somewhere on an SEW page in the WP namespace. It conjured up images of kindergarten students. Seriously. While some may see me as insensitive for supposedly describing SEW users with such a term, I am doing nothing of the sort. This was seriously what I thought of, especially when I looked up Microsoft and found that it was a "very big company". It just smacks me as incredibly condescending and patronising. Exposure to normal language helps language development. I see no reason why a cocoon should be created. Let me use an analogy. If you lock a toddler up in a room with lots of toys and other toddlers, and a regular food supply, so that no major problems are encountered, then come back in 10 years, will you get normal teenagers? No, because they have never been exposed to the outside world, or even to people who have been exposed to the outside world. This is exactly what the SEW is doing. -- WPholic (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I wouldn't mind so much were it not for the fact that it due to Google's pagerank, SE-Wikipedia often gets front-page search hits, and thus (for the reasons mentioned across this talk page) spreads poor understanding and misinformation (in some bad cases I've seen, like neither mentioning STDs nor condoms on the page about sex before editors added that in -- YAY AIDS! -- since fixed by many people) and thus detracts from wikipedia's mission.18.243.2.30 03:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you expect to do? "Delete" the SEW, even though it's made thousands of articles? And I find it is sometimes a lot more helpful than Wikipedia; I use it all the time. → C Teng   [talk]  16:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your point. From my perspective, it's like English translated to English, which wouldn't be very useful at times, since it is the actual basic terminology that you want to know. An English-to-[whatever language you want] translator and basic knowledge of English grammar would be helpful in this case. On the other hand, even my parents, who are not perfectly fluent and well-versed in English, choose English Wikipedia, as opposed to the Simple English Wikipedia.

Four things that make SE Wikipedia useless, in my opinion:
 * Not enough articles and too many red links or empty pages
 * Pages undeveloped or underdeveloped
 * Pages themselves use English words
 * Complicated concepts may not be defined very well in terms of limited vocabulary, which ultimately leads to wordiness 164.107.189.191 (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Do NOT use this page as a forum!
The purpose of the discussion is to discuss the article, not the topic it's about. ~DarkZero
 * I agree with DarkZero however the matter clearly needs to be discussed. Maybe this page is the best location to express personnal views.
 * Ghaag (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot image
Hello. I just wanted to point out that the "screenshot" in the infobox needs to be updated, as Simple English Wikipedia had its Main Page redesigned. If someone could take an updated picture of it, that would be great. Thanks, RyRy  ( talk ) 04:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably not notable enough for mention in the article...
... but a rather funny comic panel about the Simple [English] Wikipedia: http://xkcd.com/547/ - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It can't hurt; added. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Objections?
I had redirected this to English Wikipedia, but a few days later someone suggested I post on the talk page first to see if anyone objects. The only reference is a Guardian article called "Wikipedia too long-winded for you? Try the simple version" - which is about the project in the context of the English Wikipedia. So speak up if you disagree with me. :) Recognizance (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I object. Simple Wikipedia has been the subject of alot of media coverage lately, has even been the subject of a few major comic strips. The Guardian source alone is enough IMO since it is talking about Simple Wikipedia despite its context. The biggest problem is that references on google for example get lost amongst the actual simple.wiki pages. -Djsasso (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a lot of school project groups going over to edit. This shows the increasing significance of Simple English Wikipedia when it comes to the teaching of English. Sources can probably be found if we look hard enough. Chenzw    Talk   14:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Simple English Wikipedia isn't the English Wikipedia. There isn't a reason to redirect the page to English Wikipedia. There are differences and simple isn't a synonym for enwp. Barras (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * seWP is not enWP. Please stop redirecting without consensus. Pmlin  editor  12:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

AFD it. It's not notable. لenna vecia  16:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This wiki is much bigger than others. Why should it be not notable? Barras (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually think it deserves a mention on the English Wikipedia article. But other stuff exists arguments don't change the fact that this would be better served there if we look at it objectively rather than through the lens of a fellow Wikipedia edition. And Pmlinediter, that's why I'm posting here - to gauge consensus. Apparently the Simple English IRC consensus is against me, so I'll drop it. Recognizance (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh! So now I have to AFD it? Look, Simple is not notable. Notable within the project, I suppose, but not out in the world. It has not received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. A very good thing for Wikipedia, in fact. لenna  vecia  18:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd vote to redirect if you nominated. It merits a sentence or so, just not its own article. I do agree, though, about its notability being within the community. Things from Wikimedia projects do not count as sources. Recognizance (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Biased against Simple English Wiki and those who support it?
I was alarmed and upset by the large amount of users who use such demeaning terms to refer to the Simple English Wikipedia. Sure it may be dumbed down, but alas, for some of us, we need that if we are to understand the concept at all. Contrary to popular belief, the Simple English Wiki doesn't just cater to foreigners. It also is for children, younger people, people with learning differences, and those who are simply unable to grasp the huge technical language used in the ordinary Wikipedia. These people may seem too simple minded to even grasp part of many concepts, but you will be suprised at the effectiveness of simple, howstuffworks.com-esque explanations can go. Yes, it is also true that many of the articles are not written fluently, but you must forgive us on that level. Although we might not be the best writers, who else will do the job for us as long as the techies are busy debating the fine points of philosophy?

I myself have looked up many things in the ordinary Wikipedia, ranging from basic but fundamental things such as morality to more complex things to the Pathagoream Therom, and in many cases of longer articles, the (or however you spell it) I was not able to understand not one subsection. Yes, longer articles have more information for the technocrats, but in this, many also lose touch with the simplicity that makes it understandable to the masses.

We need the Simple English Wiki for those who are, in your eyes, the simple minded people. Fusion7 (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Really; "foreigners [...] may seem too simple minded to even grasp part of many concepts"? They need "simple, howstuffworks.com-esque explanations"? The audience matters, and Simple English Wiki doesn't have a coherent one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we would like "Howstuffworks.com-esque" explanations. Trust me. My math teacher's explanation of the Octet Rule was much easier to understand than the wikipedia article here.Fusion7 (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple Vocabulary or Simple Articles?
Does the Simple English aim to have easy to understand Vocab or easy to understand articles?

We describe it as "presenting only basic information"

While on Simple Wikipedia, they say "Articles do not have to be short to be simple; expand articles, include a lot of information, but use basic vocabulary."

So which is it?

Take, for example, the article on General Relativity (Simple: 4.2K Wikipedia: 167k) On the simple wikipedia it uses the word perihelion without defining it inline, but the article remains short. It is a simple article with difficult Vocab.--RaptorHunter (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * SEWP uses the simple:WP:BE850 as a basis for its vocab. You note the word "perihelion". In cases where unsimple words must be used to keep the accuracy of the article, they are wikilinked to the article. A good example is Evolution, a VGA (the FA equivalent on simple). Griffinofwales (talk) Simple English Wikipedia - Come and join! 00:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Writing simply and accurately summarizing in the lead of an article is difficult,time consuming and requires depth of knowledge of a subject. This is the problem.   SW balkanizes WP.  Codwiki (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Simple Arabic?
Perhaps this isn't the place to say, but...

Though there aren't any similar wikipedias in existence at this point in time, I call despairingly for an Arabic counterpart. I can put across a few reasons why this would work; Arabic, as it is today, is a language written wholly without vowelisation and is introduced to the learner through diacritical marks. The learning materials that are used through exposure of the language are scarce — all for the simple reason that in popular use, vowels are not included. This makes mastering the language a behemoth task, and leaves the student with only a handful of materials to learn from. The Qur'an is one of those materials, but for an entire language, with all its vocabulary and complexity; political, secular, or anti-philosophical, there ought to be a solution. I think the proposed idea could serve this purpose. --Huss4in (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You're correct; this isn't the place to do this. That place is Requests for new languages. However, it should probably be noted that several other simple language projects have been proposed and failed repeatedly, and also that the simple English Wikipedia has been proposed to be shut down as "not a real language" for the same reasons at least twice.
 * If, however, you can find a large enough group of people who will work on material for this project in the incubator, it may have more of a chance of being created. Without an interested community, a wiki is pointless. sonia ♫ 06:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

i have Down syndrome and i think Simple English is good i learn a lot so i am against deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.248.227 (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Imma retard and me thinks good wikipedias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert14nx05y (talk • contribs) 10:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Counterpoint
If the purpose of wikipedia is to bolster knowledge throughout the whole world, then I think for now, SEwiki is still needed. Anecdote, but even since my friend (high-schoolers, SE asians) knew about the SEwiki, if they encounter some page that they really cannot understand at the regular wikipedia, they'll go to SEwiki and then back again to learn some more complex ideas/pages. It's not really a dumbing down of wikipedia pages, it's just an equalizing tool for us backwater young people to learn. After all, not every country could invade other countries for literally hundred of years and live off their lands, spices and people.

Sorry for the snark, seriously though; why the animosity? It's well known that some of the current wikipedia pages for college-level concepts or themes are pretty much an antithesis to what Wikipedia strives to be, no? Look at the page for Uncertainty principle, page for algebra; or other pages that should include at least an introductory basics for the less-people, but for some reason, don't.

There are many unregistered wikipedia users from developed countries (like mine) who will, in the future, become the major internet population because of easier technology access and literacy (and generations born on high-speed internet access). Some of them maybe very fluent in english, but most of them, I presume, will have to learn, and I think SEwiki is a great tool for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.204.167 (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2013
 * I suspect the animosity is a result of the clash between Idealism and (Realism/Pessimism/Practicality). I.e. SimpleEnglish is a grand/good idea, but it can take more writing skills to impart complex ideas using simple vocabulary, and we're (always/chronically) lacking in sufficient quantity of high-quality volunteers to maintain/build the regular WP. Secondly, much of the existing content there is unchanged duplication of content from here, or worse.
 * However, I suspect there are enough people who recognize the worth of that project, to keep it going until such time as it's worth can be quantitatively proven (i.e. eventualism at its finest). So: have no fear, and help out if you can. –Quiddity (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to close the Simple English Wikipedia
In June 2018, there was a proposal to close the English Wikipedia (see Village pump (proposals)). This could be mentioned in the article. Vorbee (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You mistyped slightly by omitting the "Simple". The proposal was at Meta: Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikipedia (3). --Pipetricker (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa -  I did indeed leave out the word "Simple". Many apologies for that  - I hope your perceptive observation of my typing error clarifies what I really meant! Vorbee (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This proposal was closed as unsuccessful, and Simple English Wikipedia will remain open. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)