Hello Ziko, hello Milos, some time ago, when the board was discussing about the sexual content problems I made the following proposal. I didn't published it because I feel it still very premature and also because I wanted to wait for the research work that Sue should do and see what the experts propose. But it fit in this discussion:
So in my imagination the audience of the project are mainly primary school children, at most the lower grades of secondary schools, so of the age between 6 and 12, at most 14. I think to define the audience is very important, because thus it also frames the scope. Let's take an example: *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. Another good example is the first sentence on en-wp of the article "United States". By defining the audience, we necessarily also defines what language to use, what content to tell. It doesn't necessarily exclose every content. Children of 7 or 8 years (or even eariler) ask where do babies come from, but the answer to a child that age would be a totally different one as to an adult, both in language as well as in the form of the explaination. I would also suggest that the project start with Flagged Revision in the version that only approved content would be shown to the reader. The flagged revision does not prevent dedicated attacks but is very good to prevent casual vandalism. I would suggest using this feature at the beginning because the audience of the project is quite different to the audience of Wikipedia or other our projects. Often they cannot decide even in a very basic way what is correct and what not. And they probably would not be the ones who edit the content. There are certainly quite some problems like how to handle NPOV (how to explain to a child what is God in an NPOV way?), how to handle disputes. But I am quite confident that the community would seek ways for these "technical" problems. What we should do is to define a clear frame for them. Greetings Ting How do you think about this? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
