Comments on: Simple English Wikipedia

By: Alexander

Alexander — Tue, 05 May 2009 02:00:18 +0000

There is no need for a profound study of Applied Linguistics to come to the conclusion that language learning is NOT understood. In fact, our understanding of the process is so limited that there isn't a single teaching method with any reasonable grounding. Most don't even try.

The "Simple English Wikipedia" is, unfortunately, just another futile attempt by those with "simple" ideas about language learning. Moreover, it preys on the gullibility of those that consider non-native English speakers to be mentally handicapped.

The effort is a patronizing as it is useless.

By: awfulstink

awfulstink — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 22:08:57 +0000

In grad school I came to believe that the word count of a scholarly article is inversely proportionate to how much an author actually has to say. The memory of slogging through 40 pages of phlegm to find a conclusion that could have been sent with a box top to Battle Creek Michigan for a brand-new squirt gun makes my head hurt. After slogging through all that language, which was so often MEANT to be obfuscating in order to conceal a lousy methodology, to make someone’s redundant research seem tenure-worthy, or to simply make an insecure academic feel smart and important, I fully embrace any effort to get writers to shit or get off the pot. I understand Erin’s fear of dumbing down the language (especially since that seems to be our national pastime of late), but it’s important to remember that simple doesn’t necessarily mean simple-minded. It’s not that hard to make things understandable, and doing so opens a door of opportunity for people who might otherwise not be able to make the leap into more esoteric stuff.

By: Mani

Mani — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:24:36 +0000

I think this has nothing to do with vocabulary, at heart, and everything to do with syntax and mentality.

The problem with the "full" screenwriting article isn't that it's not simple, it's that the ideas are strung together without much sequence or thought: "This is a thing. This is a thing that has to do with the thing. This is another related thing. This is what yet another term, related to yet another related thing, means." Nothing there needs to be simplified. It needs to be organized.

I think this underlies what James (#8) was getting at.

Jargon is necessary and useful because it is accurate and specific - and widespread; news pieces covering science (for example) will use the jargon, even if they don't use or explain it correctly. Jargon should be clarified and explained, not avoided.

Further, I worry that there's a dangerous implicit assumption here: "If people have to strain in the slightest to learn a thing, they won't; therefore we should proactively cater to that kind of cursory and simplistic learning, or people won't learn at all." In simple English: This is very bad.

I agree that knowledge needs to be made more accessible. But the place for simple English is in the introduction to the articles (and sections) of the "full" articles.

(On a larger scale: The last thing we need as a culture is to put more imagined distance between specialists or experts and laymen. Especially in the sciences and in economics.)

By: Ken Walker

Ken Walker — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:58:34 +0000

James--Your parallel is also apropos to the point I was making:

"There is a parallel in mathematics as well, as simple equations are esteemed over complicated ones..."

Newton was able to use algebra to express the basics of gravity, and that's still the simple language we all initially learn gravity from. But we needed to develop calculus before we could master gravity and send someone to the moon...

Ken

By: emily blake

emily blake — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:03:00 +0000

I am required to take an online class about teaching ESL students. It’s like you’re part of the class.

By: Paul Ramos

Paul Ramos — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:46:27 +0000

I think the idea is good. But I worry that this is just the harbinger of an Idiocracy style downfall to our society where native english speakers will use it because understanding the more scientific version is just too hard.

But like I said, it's a good idea and certainly opens up knowledge to non native english speakers.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:24:09 +0000

simple version rocks!

By: Erin

Erin — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:11:51 +0000

All this simplifying of language, although useful, can’t help but remind me of 1984… I get the practical purposes, but I always cringe a little when I hear about anything that restricts language. That’s my biggest problem with Twitter, too. What can I do, it’s the crazy extremist in me…

By: Schmetterling

Schmetterling — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:06:24 +0000

Third graders of the word, UNITE!

I think many articles written in "off-putting" hi falutin' scientificalese are done that way necessarily.

Me? Overwrite my audience? I resent your insinuation.

By: screenwriting student

screenwriting student — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:33:25 +0000

simple version is great!!

http://www.nyfa.com/film_school/programs/screenwriting/

By: coeur42

coeur42 — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:53:33 +0000

@S.D.Eric: Such a link exists, actually: In the left sidebar at the bottom, you’ll find links to several other languages. These links lead directly to the article about the current subject in that particular language. That part of the Wikipedia navigation isn’t named properly though.