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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Mark Williamson
<node.ue(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l