[Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Mike.lifeguard]

While this may be true for Wikipedia (English Wikipedia?), it is
certainly not true of Wikimedia project generally. For example,
Wikibooks has a subproject Wikijunior which is an attempt to create
high-quality children's books. Part of the defined scope here is that
the books are appropriate for children. While I despise censorship (cf
my recent posts, or my statements on Commons) this is commendable in my
mind. Though I don't participate in generating content for Wikijunior on
a regular basis, I do think it is a worthwhile project, and is an
important alternative to be mentioned during such discussions. There is
a safe sandbox at Wikijunior (well, semi-safe, English Wikibooks still
gets vandalism, though we now have FlaggedRevs [which could use a config
change; it's in bugzilla :D]) where people concerned with such things
can generate appropriately-censored content for children.

-Mike

On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 10:29 -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:

> Slippery-slope arguments aside, it seems unfortunate that as creators of 
> "educational resources" we don't actually have anything that's being 
> created with a children's audience in mind -- Wikipedia is primarily 
> being created *by adults for adults*.
> 
> That's fine for us grown-ups but we're missing an important part of the 
> educational "market". Like it or not, part of creating educational 
> material for children is cultural sensitivity: you need to make 
> something that won't freak out their parents.