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.phil...@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...@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Ziko van Dijk Niederlande _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l