Hello Milos,
reading your mail below I am wondering why your reaction on my first
mail was so aggressive. It looks to me as if your consideration is not
that far away from mine. Especially I wrote in my suggestion that first
of all the project must have a very clearly defined scope and audiance,
second that it should have a more rigid editorial and anti-vandal
mechanism and third that we need more research.
Greetings
Ting
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Mark Williamson
<node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The difference was that Wikipedia was not made
for young people.
If I run a social group for adults and there are issues with children
who visit, I can blame it on their parents and say they should control
them better. If I run a social group for children, I'm now a childcare
provider and have a greater degree of responsibility.
It is not [just] about blaming each other. It is about underestimating
child capacities and playing with their trust.
Child is perfectly able to recognize what is "for adults" and what is
"for children": everything not marked ("marked" in various ways) as
"for children" is for adults. And they are able to treat differently
those two types of phenomena. "For adults" is not safe, while "for
children" is safe. Depending on circumstances, "for children"
phenomena could be also boring to them, but safe.
And if we want to make a project in which children will trust as safe,
we have much higher responsibility than we have for creating any other
project not marked as a "project for children".
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l