Daniel Mayer wrote: right, us and Keeping in mind that many of "us" will want to work on a Sifter/Edupedia project. -- Toby

If Edupedia follows the model that Sifter was planning on, the main database would remain in one place, at Wikipedia. Any separate Edupedia database would only have to specify which Wikipedia pages (and maybe which versions) are included in the various categories that it supports. To some extent, a <www.edupedia.org> domain will necessitate a separate web interface, but of course it could be very similar to Wikipedia's. The bulk of the data, in any case, would be together. -- Toby

LittleDan wrote: planning on, Wikipedia. specify supports. Wikipedia's. together. willing Plus, We'd I don't think that the colour of the list is a great difference in principle, although you're right that it's not quite the same. I'm not sure what you mean by "reviewing and viewing". The sifters that review Wikipedia content for Edupedia would need special permissions on Edupedia to do this; ordinary users could see only the accepted content (that is those pages that weren't blacklisted), unless they switch over to the other site, Wikipedia. Ordinary users of Edupedia might also edit Wikipedia, by editing Edupedia, which would send the results to Wikipedia. (But they couldn't edit a blacklisted page.) -- Toby

--- Daniel Ehrenberg &lt;littledanehren(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: on blocking all I didn't understand the separate-password-for-parents remark. No matter what category blocks the parents set on their or their kids' accounts, kids can of course still access all Wikipedia content by simply not logging in. Axel

> Keeping in mind that many of "us" > will want to work on a Sifter/Edupedia project. > -- Toby

Also that the programming would probably be much harder if a seperate database and web interface had to be created for approval.

Keeping in mind that many of "us" will want to work on a Sifter/Edupedia project.

Ray Saintonge wrote:

>Toby Bartels wrote:

>>Keeping in mind that many of "us" >>will want to work on a Sifter/Edupedia project.

>... or project'''s'''. That's fine. It's just another fork.

But we don't want a fork. In a firk, we'd have to rewrite (or copy) the whole encyclopedia. We don't want to do that. We want to stay here. We just want to make it *optional* to filter out objectionable content.

Daniel Ehrenberg wrote: to The problem you are mentioning is that school administrators will want to ban Wikipedia on the grounds that students may look up material they find objectionable. The problem is, the responsibility still lies on the user to refrain from viewing it! As an optional system, users could easily opt out of filtering, making this is a very ineffective solution. Whereas, a fork would be very useful. Since we are working with open content, anything on the Wikipedia can be used on the Edupedia. The Edupedia could also have a different way of handling user submissions (perhaps requiring a peer to OK an edit). Administrators can ban the Wikipedia.org site knowing that Edupedia tries their hardest to remain appropriate for educational institutions. And article forks can happen and will be useful. (You had mentioned you felt a fork of [[homosexuality]] would be more appropriate for school.) A fork will make a site that is "appropriate" for schools. A filtering system will introduce several problems. Someone posted that Jimbo would support a project like this. The high school I attended would probably have blocked Wikipedia on the grounds that it was a "Chat/Message Board" site. Whether or not a logged in user can see a photo of a clitoris would not help. -- --cprompt

Well, only a few people want to work on the [[Republic of Ireland]] ariticle, maybe it should be moved off to a seperate 'Irepedia'.

Similarly, only some of us are interested in keeping Wikipedia banned from schools.