Meetups, Kids, and Videotape, Was "Interesting Meetup"; merged with "Underaged Editor Options

[Alex]

The New York City meetup yesterday has a video available of the second part of the meetup. It's quite an interesting discussion about requests for adminship, with participants including Newyorkbrad, MBisanz, DGG and various others. Up to about 25 mins in they discuss RFAs, then it's onto the chapter.

Quite an interesting thing to watch; not only the discussion, but also how meetups work out in other places. I've been to a few meetups, but they've all taken place in a pub/restaurant, and are a lot less formal - no presentations, no meeting room etc, just casual conversation. What are other people's experiences of meetups, or thoughts on the video?

[Giggy]

Who's the kid who starts the meeting off? (I now make myself seem uninformed.)

[Alex]

Who's the kid who starts the meeting off? (I now make myself seem uninformed.)

Shapiros10.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

The New York City meetup yesterday has a video available of the second part of the meetup. It's quite an interesting discussion about requests for adminship, with participants including Newyorkbrad, MBisanz, DGG and various others. Up to about 25 mins in they discuss RFAs, then it's onto the chapter.

Quite an interesting thing to watch; not only the discussion, but also how meetups work out in other places. I've been to a few meetups, but they've all taken place in a pub/restaurant, and are a lot less formal - no presentations, no meeting room etc, just casual conversation. What are other people's experiences of meetups, or thoughts on the video?

Another video from the same author regarding Jasmin St. Claire.

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins:

[Alex]

The New York City meetup yesterday has a video available of the second part of the meetup. It's quite an interesting discussion about requests for adminship, with participants including Newyorkbrad, MBisanz, DGG and various others. Up to about 25 mins in they discuss RFAs, then it's onto the chapter.

Quite an interesting thing to watch; not only the discussion, but also how meetups work out in other places. I've been to a few meetups, but they've all taken place in a pub/restaurant, and are a lot less formal - no presentations, no meeting room etc, just casual conversation. What are other people's experiences of meetups, or thoughts on the video?

Another video from the same author regarding Jasmin St. Claire.

Yeah, maybe start another thread? This one is about meetups. Thanks!

[Pumpkin Muffins]

Yeah, maybe start another thread? This one is about meetups. Thanks!

topic nazi

[Cedric]

The New York City meetup yesterday has a video available of the second part of the meetup. It's quite an interesting discussion about requests for adminship, with participants including Newyorkbrad, MBisanz, DGG and various others. Up to about 25 mins in they discuss RFAs, then it's onto the chapter.

Quite an interesting thing to watch; not only the discussion, but also how meetups work out in other places. I've been to a few meetups, but they've all taken place in a pub/restaurant, and are a lot less formal - no presentations, no meeting room etc, just casual conversation. What are other people's experiences of meetups, or thoughts on the video?

If by "interesting" you mean "cure for insomnia", then I agree. Majorly.

[Newyorkbrad]

The New York City meetup yesterday has a video available of the second part of the meetup. It's quite an interesting discussion about requests for adminship, with participants including Newyorkbrad, MBisanz, DGG and various others. Up to about 25 mins in they discuss RFAs, then it's onto the chapter.

Quite an interesting thing to watch; not only the discussion, but also how meetups work out in other places. I've been to a few meetups, but they've all taken place in a pub/restaurant, and are a lot less formal - no presentations, no meeting room etc, just casual conversation. What are other people's experiences of meetups, or thoughts on the video?

If by "interesting" you mean "cure for insomnia", then I agree. Majorly.

I had fun at the meet-up, and Wikipedians interested in the RfA process or in schools outreach might enjoy the videos, but since this is the Wikipedia Review audience, I should warn that the presentations didn't discuss BLP issues or no-indexing or the other real-life-impact-of-Wikipedia issues that are of greatest concern to the readership here.

[wikiwhistle]

What are other people's experiences of meetups, or thoughts on the video?

I naturally like mingling and like meetups, and would like to go to another one soon. The characters are very interesting! What I did see is that it was more higher-ups- bureaucrats, admins, arbs at the meetup I attended- I was the only mere editor so felt a bit overwhelmed. Most were a fair bit younger than me too, which some people expect and so don't go along, but I didn't expect (not that it was necessarily a bad thing, apart from making me feel raddled lol) oh and there were no other ladies there.

[Newyorkbrad]

What are other people's experiences of meetups, or thoughts on the video?

I naturally like mingling and like meetups, and would like to go to another one soon. The characters are very interesting! What I did see is that it was more higher-ups- bureaucrats, admins, arbs at the meetup I attended- I was the only mere editor so felt a bit overwhelmed. Most were a fair bit younger than me too, which some people expect and so don't go along, but I didn't expect (not that it was necessarily a bad thing, apart from making me feel raddled lol) oh and there were no other ladies there.

The format of this meet-up, which included somewhat formal presentations as depicted on the video, is different from the usual one which is just people mingling and talking and dining. Of course, we had mingling and talking and dining too, although that part was sensibly not taped.

[Milton Roe]

What are other people's experiences of meetups, or thoughts on the video?

I naturally like mingling and like meetups, and would like to go to another one soon. The characters are very interesting! What I did see is that it was more higher-ups- bureaucrats, admins, arbs at the meetup I attended- I was the only mere editor so felt a bit overwhelmed. Most were a fair bit younger than me too, which some people expect and so don't go along, but I didn't expect (not that it was necessarily a bad thing, apart from making me feel raddled lol) oh and there were no other ladies there.

That's because there are none on the internet in the UK, as you know, except yourself.

[Kato]

The New York City meetup yesterday has a video available of the second part of the meetup. It's quite an interesting discussion about requests for adminship, with participants including Newyorkbrad, MBisanz, DGG and various others. Up to about 25 mins in they discuss RFAs, then it's onto the chapter.

Quite an interesting thing to watch; not only the discussion, but also how meetups work out in other places. I've been to a few meetups, but they've all taken place in a pub/restaurant, and are a lot less formal - no presentations, no meeting room etc, just casual conversation. What are other people's experiences of meetups, or thoughts on the video?

Shouldn't everyone be wearing hoods?

Anyway, at about 10 minutes, they start criticizing you Alex. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I didn't get any further. The whole debate regarding minors being administrators - in fact, the video itself starting with that kid distorting the term "ageism" to mean the opposite of what it was designed to mean and the people it was supposed to protect - was so damn naive I gave up.

Daniel Brandt had it right in this post:

I always thought "ageism" referred to discrimination against the elderly, not the too-young. Every culture has entire systems of discrimination against the young. It all depends on the specific task to which they are entrusted. It wasn't until I came to Wikipedia that I heard the term "ageism" used to refer to those who discriminate against the too-young instead of the too-old.

There are also old people who lose competence in certain areas. For example, in California where you live, if you tell the physician that your elderly father is no longer competent to drive, and you don't know how to get him to stop driving, he will fill out a form if he agrees with you, and the DMV will send your father a letter telling him that he no longer has a license. Perfectly reasonable -- I wouldn't call that ageism.

Do you enjoy driving down a busy street in a little Volkswagen, surrounded by teenagers in SUVs and hulking pickup trucks, yakking on their cellphones? I don't. Would you want 15-year-olds to get the vote? How about sex? Is 13 okay, or 14? What about letting them drop out of school because they find it boring?

It's not a question of age, it's a question of competence for a given task. I submit that no publisher would hire a teenager to edit biographies of living persons. No, they would ask for a resume to determine whether the person applying for this sort of job is qualified. And their work would be checked by a senior editor of proven discretion, you can be sure.

If I ask for similar standards from Wikipedia, why do you throw around words like "ageism"? I think you are completely wrong on this one.

(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/Kato90125/banner3.jpg)

[dogbiscuit]

That's because there are none on the internet in the UK, as you know, except yourself.

...and with this site's record we're not to sure about him (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[wikiwhistle]

That's because there are none on the internet in the UK, as you know, except yourself.

...and with this site's record we're not to sure about him (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Alex has met me, or allegedly met me (unless I sent someone else along as a ruse). I suppose no-one here has seen those parts of the anatomy that would let you know for sure (yet?) though (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Obesity]

Daniel Brandt had it right in this post:

I revere Brandt's sharp mind, sleuthing skillz and his spunk*, and do wish he would come back here and post now and then.

However, his frequently vindictive behavior (to say nothing of the sophomoric cartoons on his website) resembles that of a pouting, tantruming toddler, which undercuts his credibility, at least when critiquing the relative maturity of Internet users.

*not slang for semen, in this case

[EricBarbour]

That video exactly shows a major problem with WP "governance" as it exists. He's a cute kid, but why is he being allowed to talk about "ageism" at a WP meeting? Really, how valuable would a 12-year-old be to Wikipedia? Even if he's really smart, he's still lacking a great deal of life experience and education.

It makes me think of the old joke "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog".

This video is almost a joke by itself. I had the disturbing feeling that I was watching a sneaky viral parody put together by College Humor or Fark. Sorry, it just seems too Twilight Zone-ish.

[dogbiscuit]

Dipped into this a bit:

Loved the child in suit vs most of the rest in geek dress (though glad to see NYB keeping standards high).

Loved Sam wanting to join in disorganised rabble of a discussion so goes to stick hand up.

Loved Sam's comment that something that happened a couple of years ago was before his time.

Loved how Sam actually spoke in Wikipedia acronyms and catch phrases.

Loved how you can skip forward through videos without having to watch it all (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

My take: if you have to take criticism from a 12 year old seriously, you need to seriously consider why anybody else in the room bothered to turn up.

I'd love to know what Sam's parents thought about what he was doing (did they know, do they approve, do they understand and aren't they worried that he'll lose his dress sense?).

[Newyorkbrad]

I'd love to know what Sam's parents thought about what he was doing (did they know, do they approve, do they understand and aren't they worried that he'll lose his dress sense?).

His father was there.

This post has been edited by Newyorkbrad:

[GlassBeadGame]

I'd love to know what Sam's parents thought about what he was doing (did they know, do they approve, do they understand and aren't they worried that he'll lose his dress sense?).

His father was there.

I believe that I would leave any social gathering that a 12 year old showed up to as a "principal" rather than a child in the care of someone who couldn't make other arrangements. Of course, I would be gracious and considerate of both the child and adult in the latter situation. I'm not sure about my feeling about the parent here. He probably felt some misguided pride in his child's"precociousness" and simply failed to understand the environment his child had fallen into.

[Alex]

I'd love to know what Sam's parents thought about what he was doing (did they know, do they approve, do they understand and aren't they worried that he'll lose his dress sense?).

His father was there.

I believe that I would leave any social gathering that a 12 year old showed up to as a "principal" rather than a child in the care of someone who couldn't make other arrangements. Of course, I would be gracious and considerate of both the child and adult in the latter situation. I'm not sure about my feeling about the parent here. He probably felt some misguided pride in his child's"precociousness" and simply failed to understand the environment his child had fallen into.

So what line would you draw before you stormed out of the meeting? Age 16? 18? 21?

[Piperdown]

to say nothing of the sophomoric cartoons on his [Brandt's] website

i'm looking at obesity's avatar and lol'ing. good one!

So what line would you draw before you stormed out of the meeting? Age 16? 18? 21?

What's the legal age to vote in elections in the country the meeting was held? That one.

And nice use of exagerrating an opponents supposed over-reaction with "stormed out" terminology. Are you a republican by any chance?

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Alex]

So what line would you draw before you stormed out of the meeting? Age 16? 18? 21?

What's the legal age to vote in elections in the country the meeting was held? That one.

And nice use of exagerrating an opponents supposed over-reaction with "stormed out" terminology. Are you a republican by any chance?

I wasn't aware Wikipedia had an age limit applied to it. I don't see any relevance in whether one can vote has anything to do with anything. Besides, the USA is pretty strange with age limits, in my opinion. 16 to drive, 18 to vote, 21 to drink. And the age of consent is as low as 14 in some states (according to Wikipedia).

And no, I'm not a republican, not from the USA, and despite being an adult who can drink, drive, get married, vote etc, it doesn't magically mean I'm suited to be doing any of those things. But I still can because of the magic number.

[Piperdown]

The New York City meetup yesterday has a video available of the second part of the meetup. It's quite an interesting discussion about requests for adminship, with participants including Newyorkbrad, MBisanz, DGG and various others. Up to about 25 mins in they discuss RFAs, then it's onto the chapter.

Quite an interesting thing to watch; not only the discussion, but also how meetups work out in other places. I've been to a few meetups, but they've all taken place in a pub/restaurant, and are a lot less formal - no presentations, no meeting room etc, just casual conversation. What are other people's experiences of meetups, or thoughts on the video?

anyone see Mantanmoreland and Samiharris there at the same time? lol.

i like the kid. Give him Jimbo's spot.

Wonder if that kids' parents realise all the pornography on WP pages. Sure, they block porn sites on his home computer, but they're not blocking WP are they?

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Kato]

I wasn't aware Wikipedia had an age limit applied to it. I don't see any relevance in whether one can vote has anything to do with anything.

Then, out of interest, why aren't minors allowed to vote?

If you can answer that question, you may be on the road home to common sense, and you may begin to free yourself of this radical cultish mindset that has sprung up out of WP.

The last "Cultural Revolution" made many of the same mistakes. And those old enough have seen it all before.

[Alex]

I wasn't aware Wikipedia had an age limit applied to it. I don't see any relevance in whether one can vote has anything to do with anything.

Then why aren't minors allowed to vote?

If you can answer that question, you may be on the road home to common sense, and you may begin to free yourself of this radical cultish mindset that has sprung up out WP, and warped so many others.

The last "Cultural Revolution" made many of the same mistakes. And those old enough have seen it all before.

Perhaps they will be able to one day. Afterall, at one time, no one had a right to vote. Then it was landowners, then men over 30, then women of a certain age, etc etc. Only by 1928 did women have the same rights as men (at least in the UK - in some places, women still can't vote). Maybe by 2100 younger teenagers will have the right to vote. Who knows.

[Kato]

Why are they not allowed to vote now?

[GlassBeadGame]

I wasn't aware Wikipedia had an age limit applied to it. I don't see any relevance in whether one can vote has anything to do with anything.

Then why aren't minors allowed to vote?

If you can answer that question, you may be on the road home to common sense, and you may begin to free yourself of this radical cultish mindset that has sprung up out WP, and warped so many others.

The last "Cultural Revolution" made many of the same mistakes. And those old enough have seen it all before.

Perhaps they will be able to one day. Afterall, at one time, no one had a right to vote. Then it was landowners, then men over 30, then women of a certain age, etc etc. Only by 1928 did women have the same rights as men (at least in the UK - in some places, women still can't vote). Maybe by 2100 younger teenagers will have the right to vote. Who knows.

...and drink and smoke cigars too. Drunk babies smoking cigar are just so funny.

[Alex]

Why are they not allowed to vote now?

I'm sure British women were asking the same question in 1903. I don't know. It's wrong.

[Kato]

Why are they not allowed to vote now?

I'm sure British women were asking the same question in 1903. I don't know. It's wrong.

You don't know?

I'll ask again.

Q. What is the reason for minors not being allowed to vote in any nation on this planet?

and here is another question

Q. Why don't minors (under 16s) pay tax?

[Newyorkbrad]

Q. Why don't minors (under 16s) pay tax?

Generally because they don't have taxable income. In the United States, at least, if a minor has taxable earnings, he or she is taxed at the same rates as an adult (which can effectively mean a greater rate, because minors tend to have few deductions).

This has nothing in particular to do with the issue of youthful administrators, but you did ask....

[Random832]

Q. [/b]Why don't minors (under 16s) pay tax?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_Tax

(I'm also reasonably sure that they pay income tax if they have a high enough income - it's just that few do. Should a certain income level be a prerequisite for voting? I'm sure Republicans would just love that proposal.)

[Kato]

Q. Why don't minors (under 16s) pay tax?

Generally because they don't have taxable income.

Why don't under-16s have taxable incomes?

[Random832]

Why don't over 18s who lack taxable income get to vote? Oh, wait...

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Newyorkbrad]

Why are minors not allowed to vote now?

Because (1) on average a minor will have narrower life experience and maturity of judgment than an older person, and (2) voter qualifications generally need to be defined by objective rather than subjective criteria, both for ease of administration and to avoid arbitrary or discriminatory application of the voter criteria. Thus a "bright line" minimum age for real-world voting needs to be set, whereas there is no similar need for a task such as editing Wikipedia or performing many wiki administrator functions.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

What a twitchy crowd.

I take it the perennial omg-Brandt-might-see-our-faces!! paranoia has subsided? Touch of rationality creeping in?

[LessHorrid vanU]

I wasn't aware Wikipedia had an age limit applied to it. I don't see any relevance in whether one can vote has anything to do with anything.

Then, out of interest, why aren't minors allowed to vote?

If you can answer that question, you may be on the road home to common sense...

Really? I can answer that one easily enough; it is an arbitrary limit imposed by post-minors so they are not embarrassed by those who fall into that category - with the understanding that some of the embarrassment would be provided by some said minors who are more composed, experienced, civil and otherwise better human beings than the adult.

Do you honestly believe that there is some entity ("the sensible fairy") that has the power to suddenly impose common sense and mature appreciation overnight when you go to bed aged X years, 11 months and 30 (plus 1/minus 3 or 2) days and wake up officially another year older?

If it is determined you are able to drink alcohol at 21 responsibly, and drive a car safely at 16, there is a an incredibly high chance you could have done those things at 20 and 15 respectively, 19 and 14 for most, and 18 (um, when Brits are considered mature enough) and 14 (though Brits are not allowed on public roads until they are 17) for a sizeable minority. Go back far enough and there will be individuals who would safely pilot an automobile on the highways from the age they can see over the steering wheel - although I admit the physical properties of adolescents mean they are unable to process alcohol. The age limits, which vary depending on the hosts cultural conceptions of some of the "duties" and pleasures that come with adulthood, are generally placed high enough that those who are incapable of attaining the level of maturity to responsibly carry out those functions are likely never to achieve them - so they may as well be allowed to fuck up and take the responsibility for their actions. It is a very lazy system, but society is generally indoctrinated sufficiently that very few even think of questioning it and, anyway, only those who have reached that age of majority are permitted to use the processes permitted to change it - and they no longer have any reason to.

By all means complain of the immaturity, childish behaviour, lack of mature consideration, absence of experience on which to base judgements on the part of a sizeable slice of the Wikipedia contributorship - but please don't make the mistake of saying, "ban the under XX year olds!" and think you will have solved the problem. You haven't, you have just disenfranchised those among that group whose contributions never previously caused any problems, and given all the idiots above that age limit permission to be as stupid, crass and juvenile as they always were.

(edit) Oh, in respect of Kato's subsequent comments - children used to work, in the fields, down the mines, in factories, etc. to the extent that they were physically and mentally capable, and doubtless some of that meagre income was taxed, whether through the family or by the duties imposed on purchases as were the adults. In some parts of the world they still do - and they are still not permitted to vote. Some two hundred years ago some adults in Europe got the idea that placing children into indentured slavery was not a great idea, and it made economic sense to educate the individuals so that their ability to produce wealth when they were older was greatly enhanced. Laws were changed, and there was this sudden belief that Citizenship only began at 15... 16... 18... er... 21? Nope, 18 (ish).

Like I said, it is an arbitrary concept of when a majority are mature enough to be responsible for themselves - based around the speed of the slowest developer.

[Moulton]

The last "Cultural Revolution" made many of the same mistakes. And those old enough have seen it all before.

And those old enough (and diligent enough) to study history have an even deeper perspective on the long sequence of fits and starts, tragic and appalling mistakes, and occasional heartwarming gains in the long and bloody process known as the Advance of Civilization. It's all there, in the history books, in the literary arts, in the scriptures and myths, and in the Akashic Record known to Wikipedians as "the sum of all human knowledge." Within that cumulative knowledge is some hard-won wisdom that can still take a lifetime to wrap one's 3-lb caffeine-powered brain around. Alas, the vast majority of living souls (many of whom are young and only partially educated) have not assimilated the lessons of 4000 years of human history. And so , it comes to pass that many of the classical political dramas that chronicle the slow and painful Advance of Civilization down through the ages are being awkwardly reprised on Wikipedia (and sister WMF-sponsored projects).

There is a reason humans learned to develop increasingly functional and sophisticated models of self-governance.

And it is heartbreaking to witness so many Wikimedians reprising that painful learning curve all over again, from an anachronistic starting point that was already going out of style some 3768 years ago.

[Kato]

Really? I can answer that one easily enough; it is an arbitrary limit imposed by post-minors so they are not embarrassed by those who fall into that category - with the understanding that some of the embarrassment would be provided by some said minors who are more composed, experienced, civil and otherwise better human beings than the adult.

Do you honestly believe that there is some entity ("the sensible fairy") that has the power to suddenly impose common sense and mature appreciation overnight when you go to bed aged X years, 11 months and 30 (plus 1/minus 3 or 2) days and wake up officially another year older?

If it is determined you are able to drink alcohol at 21 responsibly, and drive a car safely at 16, there is a an incredibly high chance you could have done those things at 20 and 15 respectively, 19 and 14 for most, and 18 (um, when Brits are considered mature enough) and 14 (though Brits are not allowed on public roads until they are 17) for a sizeable minority. Go back far enough and there will be individuals who would safely pilot an automobile on the highways from the age they can see over the steering wheel - although I admit the physical properties of adolescents mean they are unable to process alcohol. The age limits, which vary depending on the hosts cultural conceptions of some of the "duties" and pleasures that come with adulthood, are generally placed high enough that those who are incapable of attaining the level of maturity to responsibly carry out those functions are likely never to achieve them - so they may as well be allowed to fuck up and take the responsibility for their actions. It is a very lazy system, but society is generally indoctrinated sufficiently that very few even think of questioning it and, anyway, only those who have reached that age of majority are permitted to use the processes permitted to change it - and they no longer have any reason to.

By all means complain of the immaturity, childish behaviour, lack of mature consideration, absence of experience on which to base judgements on the part of a sizeable slice of the Wikipedia contributorship - but please don't make the mistake of saying, "ban the under XX year olds!" and think you will have solved the problem. You haven't, you have just disenfranchised those among that group whose contributions never previously caused any problems, and given all the idiots above that age limit permission to be as stupid, crass and juvenile as they always were.

(edit) Oh, in respect of Kato's subsequent comments - children used to work, in the fields, down the mines, in factories, etc. to the extent that they were physically and mentally capable, and doubtless some of that meagre income was taxed, whether through the family or by the duties imposed on purchases as were the adults. In some parts of the world they still do - and they are still not permitted to vote. Some two hundred years ago some adults in Europe got the idea that placing children into indentured slavery was not a great idea, and it made economic sense to educate the individuals so that their ability to produce wealth when they were older was greatly enhanced. Laws were changed, and there was this sudden belief that Citizenship only began at 15... 16... 18... er... 21? Nope, 18 (ish).

Like I said, it is an arbitrary concept of when a majority are mature enough to be responsible for themselves - based around the speed of the slowest developer.

Leaving aside the fact that yes, in the past in Western society, child labor was exploited by unscrupulous beneficiaries, and that was a disgrace, you are ignoring the ramshackled nature of Wikipedia. The known risks. The known problems. The irresponsible ethos that dominates the place, that appears to be handed down from above by the likes of Eric Moeller.

Wikipedia does not conform to good practice and minors should be discouraged from participation at all times, for everyone's sake. WP's lack of Duty of Care impacts on the innocent victims of content, as well as the willing contributors. Wikipedia operates under the Law of The Bully and that is no place for a minor.

Here is the UK Government's recommendations on "Social networking".

...there are concerns that young people may upload content that is inappropriate, offensive or even illegal to their online spaces, posting material that could damage their reputations or the reputations of others. Equally they may post inappropriate comments to the profiles of others, which can result in the bullying, slander or humiliation of others.

Another key area of concern is the permanency of content posted online – once published online a photo or video clip can be freely copied and circulated and will potentially exist forever.

Many young people maintain very detailed online profiles, including a large amount of personal information, photos and accounts of daily routines which could lead to them being identified or contacted in person. The contact risks of other forms of new technology are well documented, and those that seek to harm or exploit children and young people will use social networking sites as another way to contact and groom potential victims.

Most social networking sites do contain privacy settings, allowing a profile to be set to private and only viewed by approved contacts, but these are not always used. Indeed, one of the big attractions of social networking sites is the large numbers of ‘virtual’ friends that can be linked from a profile, but this can expose children and young people to the risks of unwelcome contact.

A further risk includes the amount of time that children and young people may spend on social networking sites to the detriment of relationships with family, friends and peers in the real world.

Wikipedia exploits minors and offers no reasonable protection. Whats more, Wikipedia's zeal to exploit these children, who are less equipped to make informed, balanced judgments on complicated ethical matters, impacts on innocent victims. As we saw in the Seth Finkelstein deletion debates, and the other instances of article subjects being bullied by self-identified minors.

[Obesity]

to say nothing of the sophomoric cartoons on his [Brandt's] website

i'm looking at obesity's avatar and lol'ing. good one!

Don't get smart with me, Piperdown. This happens to be the funniest illustration in history. You're just jealous.

[One]

The extent to which Wikipedia exploits children pales compared to the social networking sites. Those things ore very much based on other people's content, and the efficiency in drawing it all together. I find Facebook horrifying on a number of dimensions.

Wikipedia is probably not even among the top forty greatest time sinks for the internet's youth.