Daniel Alston wrote:
There are other lnaguage wikipedias, so why not a
childrens one?
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Although there is commendable intent to this suggestion, the possible
problems make it unworkable. This is without considering any possible
technical ones about which I claim complete ignorance.
What age level would this be aimed at, considering both content and
reading ability?
Who among us is competent to say what kind of vocabulary is readable by
children?
A single class in school often includes a wide variety of reading
abilities; how can we account for that?
How do we account for extreme variation in reading abilities between
countries, between states and even between school districts?
How do we account for children who are readers of English as a Second
Language?
How do we account for different views about the content that is
appropriate for children? At one end of the spectrum are those people
who censor out anything questionable; at the other end are those who
feel that children should have everything available to them providing
there is appropriate guidance.
If there is a children's Wikipedia, what would prevent children from
visiting the regular Wikipedia?
For all the above my feeling is that a children's Wikipedia would be a
wasted effort, and a non-starter.
Eclecticology
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l -------
The point is to have artciles that are not as sceintific. I eman i dotn know how many
young children know what kelvin is? tehyw oudl be use to Celcius or possibly faranheight.
I dotn know how many of them are used to power noatation but not many i tell you.