Encyclopedia for Children
|The logo for the project, if you already have one|
|Status of the proposal|
|Details of the proposal|
|Project description||Wikipedia is a great place to search for information but adult content makes it unsuitable for children. There are sites that offer this service but are limited in a few languages available. Therefore, the creation of this encyclopedia helps to spread the knowledge to young generations around the world|
|Is it a multilingual wiki?||Multilingual|
|Potential number of languages||Multilingual|
|Proposed tagline||Safer Encyclopedia for children|
|Proposed URL||The (proposed) website for the project|
|New features to require||Mediawiki with simple user interface, beautiful colored themes and large icons.|
|Development wiki||Does your project have a technical-development wiki (e.g., in Wikimedia Labs)?|
|List of project participants|
- WikiChildren.org (proposed domain : Avilable )
Site under construction : wikikids.miraheze.org
- Support most of the existing kids wiki proposals are not perfectly dealt with. given that one of the proposals are closed and the other is proposed by a blocked user, i think that this has a determined proposer who would be able to make this work. As the proposer pointed out, a free kids encyclopedia is desperately needed, and many websites are too compact and bordered to serve such purpose. advertisements and payment offers are spread all around. Simple english wikipedia is just for english children, we could either incubate the SEW or we could approve this proposal. Either way, a childrens encyclopedia is needed. Arep Ticous 05:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support awesome proposal already existed in different languages sound good if this project done with Wikimedia support --Mohammed Bachounda (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support I think this is a good idea that could actually work out ok in practise, like the Simple English Wikipedia. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
You can work with Google Search to improve SafeSearch andfilter pornographic content.--Kitabc12345 (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Thanks @Omda4wady: for this impotrant proposal. In fact it's desperately needed, as wikipedia policies don't prevent adult content. This will be a safe place for children.--Dr-Taher (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Impotrant proposal, childrens encyclopedia is needed. --أبو هشام (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Wikipedia for children is a very good idea and I strongly encourage it. I hope that the proposal will be adopted. فاطمة الزهراء (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support It is a great proposal.Tbiw (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support It's not just about adult content, children's culture is enough big to own their wiki. --Ruwaym (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support This is a good idea, wikipedia has versions for various languages and for simple english but these have overlap with other groups. to have a wiki exclusively for children with wikipedia's size and editing standards sounds like a good idea --Totalstgamer (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose There's Simple English Wikipedia already. It duplicates the scope of another Wiki. Not to mention that there is also Wikiversity if you want teaching/learning resources for children. I'm glad that everyone else is opposing this. Username142857 (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment My only concern is how we will govern what constitutes "kid friendly" content. It's kind of non-objective, as people differ on what they consider to be appropriate for children. While there would be obvious no-no's (like explicit images of genitalia), there would be a lot of grey area. I've wanted this to exist, but worry that there is just too much grey area as to what constitutes appropriate content for such a site. SecretName101 (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- We already have Wikipedia AND Simple Wikipedia. This would be a massive drain of duplicated and triplicated labor. I welcome good sister projects, but this would largely just cannibalize from Wikipedia AND Simple Wikipedia.
- It is based the silly premise that readers can and should access our site via the open internet, but that they cannot/willnot/shouldnot type their search term into the browser search box or any other search engine on that same internet.
- It is also based on the silly premise that visitors cannot/willnot/shouldnot type their search term into our own search box on the site itself! Our own search box has a sidebar that returns search hits from sister projects - including Wikipedia search hits.
- Private "for the children" projects work because you have someone in charge playing dictator. They can and do assert their arbitrary personal opinion on each issue. Our communities don't work like that. This proposal completely fails to acknowledge or address the inevitable social disaster in such a project. I have over 15 years experience in our movement, including dealing with the "child friendly" issue, as well as the relevant social aspects that make our projects work. In 2011 the Board of Trustees directed the Foundation to address controversial content. The resulting community consultation was a flaming train wreck. It is easy to gather people who want to "protect the children", you may even gather a majority who support that abstract position. However those people inevitably end up violently oppose each other. Will the project have an article on Cancer? How about Breast cancer? Foot, Ear, Heart, Lung, Ovary, Puberty, Menstruation, Clitoris? Are you going to have articles for Man and Woman, and if so are they going to have links to articles on Penis, Pregnancy, and Sex? Will it contain Images of Muhammad? How, if at all, will it cover the Islam, the Bible, Scientology, Atheism, Witchcraft, Satanism, and countless other religions and religious-adjacent topics? How about Evolution? Suicide? Tobacco, Cigarette, Alcohol, Alcoholism, Opium, Addiction? Will it cover historically significant artists such as Michelangelo, and famous artworks such as the Sistine Chapel? There are nude penises in Sistine Chapel, and countless other important artworks are partially or fully nude. What about images of women with their face uncovered? (Yes, during the global consultation that standard was seriously argued for.) Will it ban an article on Bikini? Will it cover the Holocaust? How about the rest of World War 2, including the Rape of Nanking? How about political history, and countless leftwing/rightwing issues and ideologies? The French revolution, and Guillotine? The Inquisition, and Torture? Is an article on Time Magazine allowed? National geographic, Playboy? Will there be an article on New York City? What about Las Vegas? And will a Las Vegas article link to articles on Slot Machines, Gambling, and Brothels? Will it allow biographies for Albert Einstein and George Washington? If so, what about biographies for Jefferson Davis, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Hitler, Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy, and famous leaders of Ku Klux Klan? Will it cover Slavery? Racism? Civil rights? Gay marriage? Will it have an article on Homosexuality? Transgender? How about transgender civil rights? I have barely scratched the surface of "controversial" topics. The biggest problem is that proponents of this kind of project think the answers to those questions are obvious. They are shocked... shocked to discover that their supposed allies in the project give obviously wrong answers to many of those questions. When you attempt to impose any sort of result on those questions, losers on various issues will either going to declare the project worthless for failing to censor things that "need" to be censored, or they will be be outraged that the project is being hijacked by radicals censoring things that should not be censored. At best the project will self destruct from all of the infighting. At worst the project will be be taken over by some minority ideological faction abusively driving away anyone who doesn't conform.
- The project WILL attract a lot of hostile media coverage. No matter where you try to draw the line, some media is going to run hostile stories on what is included in the supposedly "child friendly" site while other media runs attack stories about what is being banned. Fox News will have a field day leading the charge on BOTH sides of those attacks. Alsee (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)