Wikijunior talk:Style Guide

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Contents 1 Comments 2 Audience 3 Reading Levels 4 Talking down 5 Grade Level 6 Common Words 7 American or British English 8 NPOV 9 Scientific Consensus 10 Weasel Words 11 Scientific Simplification 12 Interesting facts 13 Pictures

[edit] Comments

This is in rough draft form, but I thought it was needed so I put it up hoping that others can help me clean it up. Comments? --Xixtas 01:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have put up a set of topics for discussion related to the Style Guide. They are there because I am not sure of the answers. Any constructive input is welcome. --xixtas 14:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audience

Is there anything additional we should say about the audience for the book? Should we mandate that books describe the intended audience?

From Wikijunior:

The aim of this project is to produce a series of full-color booklets for children aged 8 to 11.

I think this is fine. --Swift 11:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reading Levels

The reading capabilities of 8 year olds are very different from 12 year olds, do we need to be more specific about the audience of each book?

This does makes sense. Unfortunately, however, I'm not sure that the majority of contributors will have a good understanding of what these reading capabilities are. I also think it would be close to impossible to specify any further the audience within the current three or four year range. The Style Guide can certainly mention this dilemma (just avoid instruction creep).

I imagine some topics may appeal more to children at a certain level and there contributors should strive to match the text to the most likely audience. --Swift 12:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talking down

Should we mention that talking down should be avoided? How can talking down be recognized/avoided?

[edit] Grade Level

Is there any way to quantify the reading level that we should mention here?

I'm not sure how useful something like Flesch Grade level is. In the article on Velociraptors, if you change the word velociraptor into a nonsense 2 syllable word like "veepo" It drops the grade level of the text by 1.5 grades. --xixtas 04:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common Words

What constitutes a common word? Should we try to limit ourselves using lists of common words? I don't think so, but it is helpful for me to use http://www.online-utility.org/english/simple_basic_helper.jsp to identify words that might be problematic. --xixtas 04:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so either. This should probably be up to the discretion of the contributors. If that tool is mentioned, it should also be noted that it is by no means normative and simply an aid. --Swift 12:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American or British English

Are American or British English spellings to be used? Should it be mixed or different from book to book?

Consistent within a book. Chosen by principle author. This should be in the Wikibooks:Manual of Style. --12:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Is Neutral Point of View appropriate for writing for children? -- "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source."

Do we really want to represent all significant views? The contrasting points of view seem like they might be confusing and frustrating for kids. --xixtas 04:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't need to represent everything. NPOV is a requirement that those points represented aren't represented unfairly. So if you think there is too much clutter, just reduce the presentation of all evenly, pointing out common threads and just mentioning the areas of disagreement or discreptancy. --Swift 12:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Consensus

Does the term scientific consensus need to be defined?

I fear that it cannot be defined. --Swift 12:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

Should Weasel words be discussed here?

The example Concerning velociraptor's feathers is a weasely statement. Is the suggestion to stipulate the reasoning when using weasel words adequate? I don't know and would like to hear other opinions. --xixtas 04:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Difficult one. I'd propose we don't explicitly say anything about this and address it when we have some more experience with the issues specific to Wikijunior texts. My initial impression is that these aren't really a problem because the WJ modules won't cover as controversial topics as other Wikibooks and thus weasel words will automatically be conservatively used. --Swift 12:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Simplification

Is simplification of scientific concepts advisable? Should we write things that are not strictly true in order to make them more easily understood?

I think scientific simplification will be necessary. --xixtas 04:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Never should concepts be simplified beyond truth! What use is there in understanding something which has no existance in — only mere similarity to — reality. If parallels are drawn with more conventionally understood concepts, the limits should (as with any audience) be mentioned so that readers don't draw unwarranted conclusions. --Swift 12:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Teaching falsehoods will only hurt readers, who will later have to learn the truth. Also, it may embarrass them if they tell an oversimplified fact to a teacher. If something cannot be simplified, it should not be included. PCU123456789 (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting facts

How does one identify which facts are interesting to kids?

Ask some or think back to when you were one? --Swift 12:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Is there anything else we should say about pictures?