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

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

It seems to me doubtless that there is a substantial number of active
Wikimedians who see the need in a simple or children-encyclopedia and
would like to invest some of their own sweat, blood and tears. Others,
who disagree, may stand on the side line and comment if they like.

There are a lot of single questions when defining the exact scope
etc., but the main question remains: Would WMF accept such a project,
or would it reject it for being just another Wikipedia in already
existing languages. So, how different the new project must be from
Wikipedia. The original fear is that a linguistic group is split into
two communities whereas the forces usually should be concentrated in
one Wikipedia. A Wikipedia in "simple English", we were told, is
essentially a Wikipedia in English.

But if a project, for example, directs itself to a relativeley limited
group of readers (children), with consequences for the content
(limited length of articles, no explicit images), usage of language
(no hard words), wouldn't it be different enough from a "usual"
Wikipedia?

Kind regards
Ziko



2010/6/27 Ting Chen <wing.philopp at gmx.de>:
> Hello Milos,
>
> reading your mail below I am wondering why your reaction on my first
> mail was so aggressive. It looks to me as if your consideration is not
> that far away from mine. Especially I wrote in my suggestion that first
> of all the project must have a very clearly defined scope and audiance,
> second that it should have a more rigid editorial and anti-vandal
> mechanism and third that we need more research.
>
> Greetings
> Ting
>
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The difference was that Wikipedia was not made for young people.
>>>
>>> If I run a social group for adults and there are issues with children
>>> who visit, I can blame it on their parents and say they should control
>>> them better. If I run a social group for children, I'm now a childcare
>>> provider and have a greater degree of responsibility.
>>>
>>
>> It is not [just] about blaming each other. It is about underestimating
>> child capacities and playing with their trust.
>>
>> Child is perfectly able to recognize what is "for adults" and what is
>> "for children": everything not marked ("marked" in various ways) as
>> "for children" is for adults. And they are able to treat differently
>> those two types of phenomena. "For adults" is not safe, while "for
>> children" is safe. Depending on circumstances, "for children"
>> phenomena could be also boring to them, but safe.
>>
>> And if we want to make a project in which children will trust as safe,
>> we have much higher responsibility than we have for creating any other
>> project not marked as a "project for children".
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
> --
> Ting
>
> Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Ziko van Dijk
Niederlande