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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Ting Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
