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.
My point is that it should either be done very carefully, by experts (or at least with their help) and with careful research, or not at all. I'm not for doing this only halfway.
-m.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:40 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Phoebe, in my humble opinion, this project is a bit different. I think when we are talking about child development and creating a project for children, there's no room to screw around or create some amateurish product. This is something that, if done wrong, could potentially have a bigger negative impact than if, say, we'd screwed up on Wikinews.
-m.
Wait, weren't you the one arguing just upthread that wikipedia was just fine and dandy for you as an adolescent? Not just wikipedia, but wikipedia of 7 years ago, which was far less complete and stable -- far more amateurish -- than it is today.
I see your argument, but I don't buy it -- lots of kids are autodidacts just the same as many adults, and lots of stuff designed for kids is crap (including "professional teaching materials"). I don't necessarily know that we could do better, but I don't see why it's not worth a shot. Are you concerned about controversial material? Does your concern go away if the project isn't framed for kids, but rather as a simple language version (simple english, german, etc)?
-- phoebe
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l