[Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia"

[Milos Rancic]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp at 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>