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