Hi,
They were quite a few expressed thoughts on the 2015 Strategy - Community consultation that raised in a way or another the idea of a "Wikipedia for children". I've made some excerpt of them on the following page : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikids/Excerpt_from_the_2015_Strategy/Comm...
It actually does exist and are thriving in some languages (especially in Dutch and French, and we actually worked for a while on [[m:Wikikids]]), however they seem to be also some rampant objections. The WMF may not be the most suited organization to host and promote such wikis, is it?
-- Mathias Damour https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Astirmays https://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Astirmays
Thanks for summarizing this, Mathias. I love the work that has been done so far on Wikikids, and think WMF should think about creative ways to make such projects successful. Gathering knowledge for all audiences requires simpler language than most wikipedias have; and building a culture of contribution works best when there are ways for young people to contribute and collaborate.
I don't know if it will work as a WM-hosted project, under the current system. This depends on whether we become more flexible in creating new and independent communities. But we should consider all of the ways to realize our mission, including through partners whose tools & policies & contributor networks look very different.
Sam
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Mathias Damour mathias.damour@laposte.net wrote:
Hi,
They were quite a few expressed thoughts on the 2015 Strategy - Community consultation that raised in a way or another the idea of a "Wikipedia for children". I've made some excerpt of them on the following page : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikids/Excerpt_from_ the_2015_Strategy/Community_consultation
It actually does exist and are thriving in some languages (especially in Dutch and French, and we actually worked for a while on [[m:Wikikids]]), however they seem to be also some rampant objections. The WMF may not be the most suited organization to host and promote such wikis, is it?
-- Mathias Damour https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Astirmays https://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Astirmays
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Le 18/03/2015 02:32, Samuel Klein a écrit :
Thanks for summarizing this, Mathias. I love the work that has been done so far on Wikikids, and think WMF should think about creative ways to make such projects successful. Gathering knowledge for all audiences requires simpler language than most wikipedias have; and building a culture of contribution works best when there are ways for young people to contribute and collaborate.
Sure, I noted that the an article of the 1989 "Convention on the Rights of the Child" looks very closed to the Wikimedia vision and mission statements: "Article 13 - 1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice."
I don't know if it will work as a WM-hosted project, under the current system. This depends on whether we become more flexible in creating new and independent communities. But we should consider all of the ways to realize our mission, including through partners whose tools & policies & contributor networks look very different.
The policy on Wikikids/Vikidia is very closed to the one of Wikipedia, the novelty being just to acknowledge it could be implemented to children content and contributions.
On tools I fully agree with you : for example I think that with some data mining in existing "simple" content (Simple English Wikipedia, Vikidia and Wikikids and others) to point out the best quality/fitting, most usefull, most needed contents and articles, and then translation/adaptation from one another of those pointed out content, with the help of other tools and communities (such as Duolingo), we could greatly develop the content of those existing or to come wikis. That's only my ideas on the subject by the way.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Mathias Damour mathias.damour@laposte.net wrote:
Hi,
They were quite a few expressed thoughts on the 2015 Strategy - Community consultation that raised in a way or another the idea of a "Wikipedia for children". I've made some excerpt of them on the following page : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikids/Excerpt_from_ the_2015_Strategy/Community_consultation
It actually does exist and are thriving in some languages (especially in Dutch and French, and we actually worked for a while on [[m:Wikikids]]), however they seem to be also some rampant objections. The WMF may not be the most suited organization to host and promote such wikis, is it?
On 15-03-18 03:09 AM, Mathias Damour wrote:
[from the Convention on the Rights of the Child] "[...] this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds"
Interestingly enough, to me this reads /against/ the idea of a "Wikipedia for Kids" insofar as the intent is to curate, limit, or restrict the encyclopedia to material or language "apropriate" for children.
For instance, would a Russian Kids' Wikipedia carefully avoid "promotion of homosexuality" as their law now demands (to pick one salient example amongst thousands).
-- Marc
On 18 March 2015 at 12:59, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
For instance, would a Russian Kids' Wikipedia carefully avoid "promotion of homosexuality" as their law now demands (to pick one salient example amongst thousands).
Yes it would.
Though this has been bounced about as a project for many years, with a few reasonable examples being implemented (invariably having issues for long term maintenance), it is a difficult and debatable business. The topic of LGBT is a good test, as making educational materials available to children addressing sexuality and gender is always controversial, and at the same time there is no doubt that it is needed.
P.S. The Wellcome Collection in London has a free, year long, exhibition on sexology. Worth dropping in and pondering how this type of educational material can or should be made available to children and young adults via open knowledge. http://wellcomecollection.org/events/stt-tour-institute-sexology
Fae
I'd be the most vocal opponent of an encyclopedia *censored* for children.
But I would be a very vocal proponent of an encyclopedia *adapted* for children. Not by dumbing it down and not by removing information that some cultures, religions or governments consider immoral or mature-audiences-only, but by rewriting the information in a way that children will find interesting and easy - indeed, possible - to learn.
When I grew up in Moscow, I had an encyclopedia for children at home. I liked the pictures, but I didn't read a lot of the text - it was for older children, 14 and more. But I had an aunt who had another encyclopedia for younger children, and every time I visited that aunt, I spent most of time at her home reading that encyclopedia. I learned a lot of what I know from it, and I got my love for encyclopedias in general from it.
Both were printed in Russian in the Soviet Union, so they also had, um, ideological adaptations, which I was smart enough to spot (yay for me), but the reason I loved it is that it had large illustrations, clear and large font and engaging language. It doesn't mean that the articles were short, for example - some of them were several pages long. It just means that it was well-adapted.
I don't know how to create a new thing that would do his well. Maybe some consultation from education experts would be good. And these would have to come from different cultures - again, not fot censorship, but for better adaptation. Children in Arab countries won't necessarily be engaged by the same things as children in France, and children in Russia won't necessarily love the illustration style enjoyed by children in Argentina.
But TLDR - a Wikpedia *adapted* for children is a good idea.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2015-03-18 14:59 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org:
On 15-03-18 03:09 AM, Mathias Damour wrote:
[from the Convention on the Rights of the Child] "[...] this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds"
Interestingly enough, to me this reads /against/ the idea of a "Wikipedia for Kids" insofar as the intent is to curate, limit, or restrict the encyclopedia to material or language "apropriate" for children.
For instance, would a Russian Kids' Wikipedia carefully avoid "promotion of homosexuality" as their law now demands (to pick one salient example amongst thousands).
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 18 March 2015 at 14:02, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
But TLDR - a Wikpedia *adapted* for children is a good idea.
http://schools-wikipedia.org does most of the job. And teachers LOVE it. We should give this project more love and assistance, it's basically the refutation of all attempts to, er, filter the base product.
- d.
On 15-03-18 11:23 AM, David Gerard wrote:
We should give this project more love and assistance, it's basically the refutation of all attempts to, er, filter the base product.
I agree. Whenever a group of people decide to curate some subset of our projects with an eye towards their needs, then I count it as a win (even in the cases where I would object to the curation choices myself).
And I agree that making sure the tools exist to make this possible is part of our mission.
What irks me is the idea of giving imprimatur to something "we" curate, or to do any sort of curation "ourselves" (that is, the movement or the Foundation). "All the knowledge" means "All", not "some subset thereof".
-- Marc
On 18 March 2015 at 15:51, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
What irks me is the idea of giving imprimatur to something "we" curate, or to do any sort of curation "ourselves" (that is, the movement or the Foundation). "All the knowledge" means "All", not "some subset thereof".
In the case of Schools Wikipedia, it's worked quite well - the editorial review heavy lifting was substantially done by en:wp volunteers. They specifically approached it as "what would we expect in an English school situation?" though it was intended for use outside the UK (they just used the English National Curriculum as their guide).
- d.
Indeed. http://schools-wikipedia.org is already used around the world - it's a great example of what can be done if Wikimedians work with (even passively with) other orgs.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 18 March 2015 at 15:23, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 March 2015 at 14:02, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
But TLDR - a Wikpedia *adapted* for children is a good idea.
http://schools-wikipedia.org does most of the job. And teachers LOVE it. We should give this project more love and assistance, it's basically the refutation of all attempts to, er, filter the base product.
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 18 March 2015 at 16:07, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Indeed. http://schools-wikipedia.org is already used around the world - it's a great example of what can be done if Wikimedians work with (even passively with) other orgs.
Everyone likes it, not many are coming forward to lead the ongoing update cycle since User:Bozmo left SOS Children (the charity who put it together). (And I'm not volunteering.) Not sure what to do about that.
- d.
Do we have an idea of the time commitment needed - X months of full-time work? (Potentially more now than it took first time around). Might be something which would justify an IEG grant, or a similar small grant from an external body...
Andrew.
On 18 March 2015 at 16:38, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 March 2015 at 16:07, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Indeed. http://schools-wikipedia.org is already used around the world - it's a great example of what can be done if Wikimedians work with (even passively with) other orgs.
Everyone likes it, not many are coming forward to lead the ongoing update cycle since User:Bozmo left SOS Children (the charity who put it together). (And I'm not volunteering.) Not sure what to do about that.
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Le 18/03/2015 16:23, David Gerard a écrit :
http://schools-wikipedia.org does most of the job. And teachers LOVE it. We should give this project more love and assistance, it's basically the refutation of all attempts to, er, filter the base product.
Teachers love it, what about children?
Le 18/03/2015 16:51, Marc A. Pelletier a écrit :
On 15-03-18 11:23 AM, David Gerard wrote:
We should give this project more love and assistance, it's basically the refutation of all attempts to, er, filter the base product.
I agree. Whenever a group of people decide to curate some subset of our projects with an eye towards their needs, then I count it as a win (even in the cases where I would object to the curation choices myself).
The fact is it is "just" a set of curated (and choosen) Wikipedia articles. What if they are still mostly too complicated ?
Le 18/03/2015 17:33, David Gerard a écrit :
On 18 March 2015 at 15:51, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
What irks me is the idea of giving imprimatur to something "we" curate, or to do any sort of curation "ourselves" (that is, the movement or the Foundation). "All the knowledge" means "All", not "some subset thereof".
In the case of Schools Wikipedia, it's worked quite well - the editorial review heavy lifting was substantially done by en:wp volunteers. They specifically approached it as "what would we expect in an English school situation?" though it was intended for use outside the UK (they just used the English National Curriculum as their guide).
Should children be only allowed to be interested to their school curriculum? There is so much subjects to be interested in and to learn about.
Le 18/03/2015 17:38, David Gerard a écrit :
On 18 March 2015 at 16:07, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Indeed. http://schools-wikipedia.org is already used around the world - it's a great example of what can be done if Wikimedians work with (even passively with) other orgs.
Everyone likes it, not many are coming forward to lead the ongoing update cycle since User:Bozmo left SOS Children (the charity who put it together). (And I'm not volunteering.) Not sure what to do about that.
Well I suggest to do it on a full new open wiki, to use the Simple English Wikipedia content when it fits, to promote the translation of already made good work on other languages equivalent of such a wiki, and to allow fully new articles to be written and bettered.
Yet even the Simple English Wikipedia article are not always the best content to have. You may compare: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States https://en.vikidia.org/wiki/History_of_the_USA , written in the last few month by a eleven years old "vikidian" (however a quite experienced user) and... I can't find it on schools-wikipedia.org, there is just http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/u/United_States.htm I wonder how would someone curate the 168,391 bytes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States to make it fit to school children. And here is how we can "curate", that's to say rewrite a few parts and add some images, an article from Simple English Wikipedia : https://en.vikidia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_house&diff=76306&oldi...
I'm not dismissing other approaches! I'm noting one approach that did work :-)
On 18 March 2015 at 20:02, Mathias Damour mathias.damour@laposte.net wrote:
Le 18/03/2015 16:23, David Gerard a écrit :
http://schools-wikipedia.org does most of the job. And teachers LOVE it. We should give this project more love and assistance, it's basically the refutation of all attempts to, er, filter the base product.
Teachers love it, what about children?
Le 18/03/2015 16:51, Marc A. Pelletier a écrit :
On 15-03-18 11:23 AM, David Gerard wrote:
We should give this project more love and assistance, it's basically the refutation of all attempts to, er, filter the base product.
I agree. Whenever a group of people decide to curate some subset of our projects with an eye towards their needs, then I count it as a win (even in the cases where I would object to the curation choices myself).
The fact is it is "just" a set of curated (and choosen) Wikipedia articles. What if they are still mostly too complicated ?
Le 18/03/2015 17:33, David Gerard a écrit :
On 18 March 2015 at 15:51, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
What irks me is the idea of giving imprimatur to something "we" curate, or to do any sort of curation "ourselves" (that is, the movement or the Foundation). "All the knowledge" means "All", not "some subset thereof".
In the case of Schools Wikipedia, it's worked quite well - the editorial review heavy lifting was substantially done by en:wp volunteers. They specifically approached it as "what would we expect in an English school situation?" though it was intended for use outside the UK (they just used the English National Curriculum as their guide).
Should children be only allowed to be interested to their school curriculum? There is so much subjects to be interested in and to learn about.
Le 18/03/2015 17:38, David Gerard a écrit :
On 18 March 2015 at 16:07, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Indeed. http://schools-wikipedia.org is already used around the world - it's a great example of what can be done if Wikimedians work with (even passively with) other orgs.
Everyone likes it, not many are coming forward to lead the ongoing update cycle since User:Bozmo left SOS Children (the charity who put it together). (And I'm not volunteering.) Not sure what to do about that.
Well I suggest to do it on a full new open wiki, to use the Simple English Wikipedia content when it fits, to promote the translation of already made good work on other languages equivalent of such a wiki, and to allow fully new articles to be written and bettered.
Yet even the Simple English Wikipedia article are not always the best content to have. You may compare: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States https://en.vikidia.org/wiki/History_of_the_USA , written in the last few month by a eleven years old "vikidian" (however a quite experienced user) and... I can't find it on schools-wikipedia.org, there is just http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/u/United_States.htm I wonder how would someone curate the 168,391 bytes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States to make it fit to school children. And here is how we can "curate", that's to say rewrite a few parts and add some images, an article from Simple English Wikipedia : https://en.vikidia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_house&diff=76306&oldi...
-- Mathias Damour https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Astirmays https://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Astirmays
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Le 18/03/2015 15:02, Amir E. Aharoni a écrit :
Both were printed in Russian in the Soviet Union, so they also had, um, ideological adaptations, which I was smart enough to spot (yay for me), but the reason I loved it is that it had large illustrations, clear and large font and engaging language. It doesn't mean that the articles were short, for example - some of them were several pages long. It just means that it was well-adapted.
I don't know how to create a new thing that would do his well. Maybe some consultation from education experts would be good. And these would have to come from different cultures - again, not fot censorship, but for better adaptation. Children in Arab countries won't necessarily be engaged by the same things as children in France, and children in Russia won't necessarily love the illustration style enjoyed by children in Argentina.
Thanks for backing up the idea, yet it's not like nothing would have been done to that day. The method was nearly simply to pick up the method of Wikipedia, and gather contributors of all ages just as Wikipedia gather contributors of all educational backgrounds/levels. They is also some "progressive education" ideas behind this functioning. Actually they didn't give a method, but rather just made us think or know that it was feasible with and for children. The result you can get an idea by this Google Trends on Wikibooks, Commons, Wikiversity, Wikisource and Vikidia in France or Wikibooks, Commons, Wikiversity, Wikisource und Wikikids in the Netherlands: http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=wikibooks%2C%20commons%2C%20wiktionar... http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=wikibooks%2C%20commons%2C%20wiktionar... But it took more than 8 years.
More on http://blog.wikimedia.fr/vikidia-in-english-opens-today-lets-build-a-childre...
Le 18/03/2015 13:59, Marc A. Pelletier a écrit :
On 15-03-18 03:09 AM, Mathias Damour wrote:
[from the Convention on the Rights of the Child] "[...] this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds"
Interestingly enough, to me this reads /against/ the idea of a "Wikipedia for Kids" insofar as the intent is to curate, limit, or restrict the encyclopedia to material or language "apropriate" for children.
I really don't see your point. Children and older contributors can perfectly understand and comprehend that the the content must be appropriate for children, just as (and additionaly) it as to be encyclopedic content and respect the NPOV. They can go somewhere else for another kind of content. When they are on such a wiki for some time, they often are the most active defenders of its principles and rules.
For instance, would a Russian Kids' Wikipedia carefully avoid "promotion of homosexuality" as their law now demands (to pick one salient example amongst thousands).
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 other subjects.
Le 18/03/2015 14:22, Fæ a écrit :
On 18 March 2015 at 12:59, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
For instance, would a Russian Kids' Wikipedia carefully avoid "promotion of homosexuality" as their law now demands (to pick one salient example amongst thousands).
Yes it would.
Though this has been bounced about as a project for many years, with a few reasonable examples being implemented (invariably having issues for long term maintenance), it is a difficult and debatable business. The topic of LGBT is a good test, as making educational materials available to children addressing sexuality and gender is always controversial, and at the same time there is no doubt that it is needed.
Where did you hear about such project "having issues for long term maintenance" ? The main issue some (not all) of these projects have is just a very common one : to gather a significant community. I must say we don't have enough content on sexuality on fr.vikidia (in my opinion) yet the controversies on those subjects are not no frequent. I remember one about the content on the article "Masturbation", some wanting it to remain vague and allusive, some other ones wanting it more informative. That's not such a big deal.
By the way, there is a frequent asked questions/Questions and answers on: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikids/Questions_and_answers
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 off-topic.
For instance, would a Russian Kids' Wikipedia carefully avoid "promotion of homosexuality" as their law now demands (to pick one salient example amongst thousands).
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 other subjects.
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.
-- Marc
Le 18/03/2015 20:41, Marc A. Pelletier a écrit :
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.
It still seems odd to me that those considerations would be some prevailing reason NOT to develop such a resource. In the same time, we have to take it as a fact and it can be a reason why the WMF may not be the appropriate organization to host and promote such wikis, being immersed in a certain climate surrounding children.
I quoted above the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was not ratified by the US. One of the reason for that may be a conception of the rights of the parents to control what their children can be taught or the information they can reach, which would be slightly more extended in the US than in the average country. I mean rights of the parents against the rights of the government and against the eventual rights of the children to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds", be it very resembling to the "freely share in the sum of all knowledge - empower people..."
That would be the ground for a tacit policy I've heard of on en.wp that would be "don't tell us you are a minor". The basis of Simple English Wikipedia are also resembling it : "don't tell it's for children" (and consequently it isn't really for children).
Undoubtedly it doesn't prevent people from the US, among other countries, to be involved in and to benefit from such a resource. And the chapters may be more suited to support such a project/resource. Several of them already do.
For instance, would a Russian Kids' Wikipedia carefully avoid "promotion of homosexuality" as their law now demands (to pick one salient example amongst thousands).
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 other subjects.
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.
Vikidia is not a selection or curation, it's about writing new articles which are independent from their counterpart on Wikipedia in the same language. Otherwise we couldn't meet the objective to be more affordable for children. However we make it easy by interwiki links to reach the Wikipedia article on the same subject if one want to know more about it. Some article are even longer on Vikidia than their counterpart on Wikipédia, such as : https://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/%C3%8Atre_vivant
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.
-- Mathias Damour https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Astirmays https://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Astirmays
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org