On 15-03-18 02:19 PM, Mathias Damour wrote:
[...] the content must be appropriate for children
The problem is exactly that. What is or is not "appropriate for
children" is an inherently *political* question, the answer to which is
inherently culture- religion- and governement-centric. What *you*
define as "appropriate" is absolutely different from what *I* would -
illustrated by the very concept of believing that there /is/ such a
thing as "not appropriate for children" to begin with.
Now, we could enter into a (potentially interesting) debate about
selection vs contextualization and curation vs presentation, but that's
would a Russian Kids' Wikipedia carefully avoid "promotion
of homosexuality" as their law now demands (to pick one salient example
There is not thousands examples, this kind af question is definitely not
a day-to-day issue on Vikidia in French. There is so much to write on
There /are/ thousand of examples unless Vikidia is a 1:1 map to the
French Wikipedia with no selection or curation. Every single article
that has not been included is a political statement, and raises a
question about its propriety.
That you think that "this kind of question" is not a day-to-day issue on
Vikidia simply means that you are presuming the answer - otherwise there
would be nothing to curate.
Does it mean that projects like Vikidia are not valid and should not
exist? No. It is perfectly allowable for any group (including groups
of volunteers) to pick and curate some fraction of our projects for
their use and according to their criteria. In fact, we should
*encourage* such reuse.
It *does* mean that it is not apropriate for the projects to create or
endorse such political endeavors, however.