On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Tobias Oelgarte < tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com> wrote:
Am 18.06.2012 15:06, schrieb Thomas Morton: I don't think that we need this argument since the filter can't replace parents anyway. But it is a constant part of the discussions with various exaggerated examples that can be seen in bold at Jimmys talk page even right at this moment. For example:
"Wikipedia helps me teach my children about the world in a safe, clean and trustworthy manner. Free from bias, banter, commercial interests and risky content."[1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#UK_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#UK_law
The issue there is that on the one hand, the Foundation's fundraising materials advertise Wikipedia as being God's gift for children, especially underprivileged children, through official fundraiser "stories" like these*:
"Wikipedia helps me teach my children about the world in a safe, clean and trustworthy manner. Free from bias, banter, commercial interests and risky content."
"Wikipedia has been a wonderful recourse for my children and me to learn new terms, knowledge, and culture background as an immigrant family. It is a safe and trustworthy website for children to do their research."
"Thanks to websites like 'Wikipedia', children of all ages can continue their endeavor in learning."
"We are a family that live in the interior of Brazil in a very poor state. We have opened a learning center and work with local children from nearby villages. Wikipedia is INVALUABLE for this work."
"I worked for a non-profit in India and even the poorest children who were receiving education there knew about Wikipedia and were familiar with the site."
So that's one half of the story. The other half of the story is that the community says the exact opposite: Wikipedia is not for children, but for adults, and only a moron or a bad parent would let their children go on Wikipedia unsupervised. Go figure.
Andreas
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Only a moron or a bad parent would let their children go -on the Internet-, unsupervised, Wikipedia or otherwise. Teaching your children to use the Internet responsibly is no different than teaching them to drive-at first, you have them watch you, then you let them start taking the wheel with you watching closely, then as they gain experience, maybe they can take short drives on quiet roads alone, and then on from there. Throwing your kids on the Internet without giving them any idea of what to expect is like handing them the keys when they've never been on the road before.
My oldest kid is kind of in the intermediate stage right now-she can use the Net, but I check in reasonably frequently. As she continues to use it responsibly, the frequency of those checks will drop gradually, until one day she knows how to properly and safely use it with no supervision. My youngest is still at the stage where if she wants to get online, I'm sitting right next to her. My middle one can very briefly go online alone to a few sites I've already agreed to, and I check up on her a lot.
But the whole point is, that's -my- job, not anyone else's, just like it's my job to teach them how to drive, not everyone else's to get the hell off the road before they start to. Why are we figuring this to be any different? The world isn't always safe for children, and it is the job of -parents- to keep children away from areas unsuitable for them, and to alert them to the type of things they might encounter, not the job of everyone else to make sure the whole earth is covered in safety plastic and rubber bumpers.