3 ms·

Keep in mind that the "simple" in "simple English wikipedia" (SEW) does not refer to the simplicity of the explanation/exposition, only to the simplicity of the

Keep in mind that the "simple" in "simple English wikipedia" (SEW) does not refer to the simplicity of the explanation/exposition, only to the simplicity of the language; it is intended for readers less proficient in English. >Use Basic English words and shorter sentences. This allows people to understand complex terms or phrases. > Write good pages. The best encyclopedia pages have useful, well-written information. > Use the pages to learn and teach. These pages can help people learn English. You can also use them to make a new Wikipedia to help other people. > Simple does not mean short. Writing in Simple English means that simple words are used. It does not mean readers want basic information. Articles do not have to be short to be simple; expand articles, add details, but use basic vocabulary. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page It's true you might find a explanation on SEW that you find simpler or easier than on the regular English Wikipedia page, and this might (or might not) be because the constraint of using simple English forces it. However, there is no reason this explanation could not also be put in the regular English Wikipedia page. So you should be bold and consider improving the regular English Wikipedia if you find it inaccessible to the intended audience.

petercooper 5y ago
does not refer to the simplicity of the explanation/exposition, only to the simplicity of the language Sure, but the use of simple language commonly seems to play out in easier to follow explanations of things on Simple Wikipedia. So you should be bold and consider improving the regular English Wikipedia if you find it inaccessible to the intended audience. I appreciate your confidence, but I find the topic almost unintelligible. I dare say a science educator or the like would make a more reliable job of it. Plus, I'm not sure articles should be dumbed down, because for topics I do understand, I would find it annoying if Wikipedia entries were boiled down into layman's terms.
- stavros 5y ago
  But it's not Simple Wikipedia. It's Wikipedia in Simple English. I do agree the two correlate, though, even though I think you could use simple language to describe complex topics without losing information.
  - petercooper 5y ago
    I appear to have been caught out by Google's rewriting of page titles – https://zyppy.com/seo/google-title-rewrite-study/ https://zyppy.com/seo/google-title-rewrite-study/ – since if you Google "simple wikipedia" it gives the title of the site as "Simple Wikipedia". But if you don't, it doesn't(!)
    - stavros 5y ago
      Jeez, I had no idea they did that! You are correct, I get the same result.
    - jessriedel 5y ago
      This is unfortunate and indeed is going to contribute to confusion about what Simple English Wikipedia is. Ugh.
- jessriedel 5y ago
  > does not refer to the simplicity of the explanation/exposition, only to the simplicity of the language > Sure, but the use of simple language commonly seems to play out in easier to follow explanations of things on Simple Wikipedia. I explicitly acknowledged this in my comment: "It's true you might find a explanation on SEW that you find simpler or easier than on the regular English Wikipedia page, and this might (or might not) be because the constraint of using simple English forces it." > I appreciate your confidence, but I find the topic almost unintelligible. I dare say a science educator or the like would make a more reliable job of it. Plus, I'm not sure articles should be dumbed down, because for topics I do understand, I would find it annoying if Wikipedia entries were boiled down into layman's terms. The article should be intelligible to its intended audience. If that audience includes non-experts, the article should include descriptions that are intelligible to non-experts. This does not require removing expert-level descriptions, although it is good to warn the reader of what sections can be understood at what level. Depending on the circumstance, it may also be appropriate to split the discussion into two articles, as is done with the Introduction to Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics There are some articles on Wikipedia that are essentially only of interest to experts, and here it is probably not worth the effort to make them accessible, but the Negative Temperatures article is not one of them. It should include laymen understandable descriptions in addition to ones more useful to experts. I must again emphasize: Simple English Wikipedia is for Simple English language. It's not Non-Technical Wikipedia and it's not for dumbing down anything. If something's not appropriate for the regular English Wikipedia, it's not appropriate for Simple English Wikipedia.

petercooper 5y ago

does not refer to the simplicity of the explanation/exposition, only to the simplicity of the language Sure, but the use of simple language commonly seems to play out in easier to follow explanations of things on Simple Wikipedia. So you should be bold and consider improving the regular English Wikipedia if you find it inaccessible to the intended audience. I appreciate your confidence, but I find the topic almost unintelligible. I dare say a science educator or the like would make a more reliable job of it. Plus, I'm not sure articles should be dumbed down, because for topics I do understand, I would find it annoying if Wikipedia entries were boiled down into layman's terms.

stavros 5y ago
But it's not Simple Wikipedia. It's Wikipedia in Simple English. I do agree the two correlate, though, even though I think you could use simple language to describe complex topics without losing information.
- petercooper 5y ago
  I appear to have been caught out by Google's rewriting of page titles – https://zyppy.com/seo/google-title-rewrite-study/ https://zyppy.com/seo/google-title-rewrite-study/ – since if you Google "simple wikipedia" it gives the title of the site as "Simple Wikipedia". But if you don't, it doesn't(!)
  - stavros 5y ago
    Jeez, I had no idea they did that! You are correct, I get the same result.
  - jessriedel 5y ago
    This is unfortunate and indeed is going to contribute to confusion about what Simple English Wikipedia is. Ugh.
jessriedel 5y ago
> does not refer to the simplicity of the explanation/exposition, only to the simplicity of the language > Sure, but the use of simple language commonly seems to play out in easier to follow explanations of things on Simple Wikipedia. I explicitly acknowledged this in my comment: "It's true you might find a explanation on SEW that you find simpler or easier than on the regular English Wikipedia page, and this might (or might not) be because the constraint of using simple English forces it." > I appreciate your confidence, but I find the topic almost unintelligible. I dare say a science educator or the like would make a more reliable job of it. Plus, I'm not sure articles should be dumbed down, because for topics I do understand, I would find it annoying if Wikipedia entries were boiled down into layman's terms. The article should be intelligible to its intended audience. If that audience includes non-experts, the article should include descriptions that are intelligible to non-experts. This does not require removing expert-level descriptions, although it is good to warn the reader of what sections can be understood at what level. Depending on the circumstance, it may also be appropriate to split the discussion into two articles, as is done with the Introduction to Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics There are some articles on Wikipedia that are essentially only of interest to experts, and here it is probably not worth the effort to make them accessible, but the Negative Temperatures article is not one of them. It should include laymen understandable descriptions in addition to ones more useful to experts. I must again emphasize: Simple English Wikipedia is for Simple English language. It's not Non-Technical Wikipedia and it's not for dumbing down anything. If something's not appropriate for the regular English Wikipedia, it's not appropriate for Simple English Wikipedia.