On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de wrote:
*Earth* (or *the Earth*) is the third planet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet from the Sun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun, the fifth-largest and the densest of the eight planets in the Solar System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System. It is also the largest of the Solar System's four terrestrial planets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_planet. It is sometimes referred to as the World, the Blue Planet,^[note 7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#cite_note-blue_planet-21 or by its Latin name, /Terra http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Terra/.^[note 8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#cite_note-Terra-22
This is the start of the article Earth on en-wp. I don't think that a primary school child can really comprehend what is said here.
As Piaget says something different for 10+ years old children, I would like to get some relevant scientific research to start to trust to your claim.
The fact that 10 years old child probably doesn't know what density means, doesn't mean that she or he can't read about that on encyclopedia.
Encyclopedia is not symbolist poetry or satire. It has (or should have) clear style without metaphors.
And if you want to create something useful for 6 years old child, you should know that that child probably don't know to read. Or if he or she knows to read, it is about very simple terms and without possibility to connect terms without images or movies. In other words, for children below ~8, different form is needed. Spoken encyclopedia -- yes. Pictures of particular concepts -- yes. Written encyclopedia -- which is the main goal behind simple Wikipedia projects -- no.
And this thread is not about sexually explicit content, but about encyclopedia and other educational material for children.
<POV> I am really sick of tries for making Family Friendly Wikipedia with various excuses. This reminds me on switching from "Creationism" to "Intelligent Design" by religious fundamentalists in US. </POV>