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