Child Protection on Wikipedia, A Minimum Program and a Babystep Options

[GlassBeadGame]

This is the result of the failure of WMF to address child protection on a board level. Instead of an overall policy informed on the best practices of other organizations with child protection concerns "the community" responds to incidents, which invariable involve child subjects. This places Wikipedians who might be rightly concerned about children in a delicate position. Because they are themselves a part of the cult of amateurs they often lack the needed skills and insight needed to handle this in a responsible matter.

[carbuncle]

This ANI discussion may prove to be interesting (or possibly just a magnet for more criticism of the originator).

It's not that the thread starter should get undue criticism, it's just it didn't make sense to bring it to public awareness if the goal was to protect the minor child. It'd have been better to email an admin to consider doing the revision delete, or emailing oversight directly.

I emailed oversight as rev delete is difficult on ANI, and I also emailed the poster explaining the reason for concern, i.e. there are dirty people lurking everywhere. Now instead of having one removed post that was unlikely to be noticed by anyone else, we have a thread highlighting the fact that they're a minor, along with multiple posts linking to it, including on the user's own talk page. Not smart really.

I've never bought into the idea that there are paedophiles lurking in the woodwork waiting to snatch up defenceless children. Of course, we know that there are active paedophiles working steadily on WP to normalize their views, but in this particular case I have my suspicions that they may be lying about their age to continue their trolling. Regardless, more eye on this user is better than fewer if they actually are in any danger. Incidentally, this is the second such admission by the user - the first was to another underage user who was much younger.

The questions should not be is it smart to highlight this one slip by a self-admitted 13year-old, but what do we do to deal with all future slips and how can we prevent them? The complete lack of policy is disturbing.

This post has been edited by carbuncle: Sat 5th December 2009, 4:02pm

[Nja247]

I don't know, as to me it seems that rather than being concerned about the privacy of this particular minor, and the possible danger they may have been putting themselves in by disclosure, the ANI thread was more to draw attention to one's own personal agenda. Of course a minor is going to do unwise things, such as disclose this information more than once, that's what being a child is all about. It's up to responsible adults to handle the situation in an appropriate manner.

[GlassBeadGame]

The questions should not be is it smart to highlight this one slip by a self-admitted 13year-old, but what do we do to deal with all future slips and how can we prevent them? The complete lack of policy is disturbing.

I outlined very specific proposals at the beginning of this thread. Whether this person is a child, a pedophile acting like a child or something else, disabling the email and oversighting anything remotely identifying him/her as such, whether made by the child user or others in discussion would be prudent.

[Kelly Martin]

I emailed oversight as rev delete is difficult on ANI, and I also emailed the poster explaining the reason for concern, i.e. there are dirty people lurking everywhere. Now instead of having one removed post that was unlikely to be noticed by anyone else, we have a thread highlighting the fact that they're a minor, along with multiple posts linking to it, including on the user's own talk page. Not smart really.

There is virtually no way to do anything discreetly on Wikipedia, in large part because of the large number of so-called "watchdogs" who are really just drama whores.

Whether this person is a child, a pedophile acting like a child or something else, disabling the email and oversighting anything remotely identifying him/her as such, whether made by the child user or others in discussion would be prudent.

Which brings up another issue, regarding oversight: one of the severe weaknesses of Wikipedia's use of a wiki for discussions is that it's very very hard to effectively redact from view inappropriate comments. This gets illuminated on a regular basis: in this instant matter; several times during the Gerard/Godwin incident; just about any time someone does something inappropriate on a talk page or on a project discussion page.

Wikipedia needs to get past its absurd doctrinaire idolism of the wiki as the best solution to every problem and adopt some sort of meaningful, manageable discussion system to replace talk pages.

[Somey]

It's not that the thread starter should get undue criticism, it's just it didn't make sense to bring it to public awareness if the goal was to protect the minor child. It'd have been better to email an admin to consider doing the revision delete, or emailing oversight directly.

Would that have changed the result? I doubt it, personally... That thread is at least instructive in demonstrating that the prevailing opinions of WP'ers hasn't changed - it's either "it's OK as long as it isn't illegal," or "hey, the more the merrier!"

The way I see it, "revision hiding is impracticable on a page ... with thousands of edits" is a poor technical excuse, or rather, a minor technical challenge that has yet to be met, or even addressed. It may be a valid excuse given the software's limitations, but all that's needed is a means of string extraction from multiple stored revisions. It would be an easy feature to implement technically, but an impossible feature to implement politically, in a community that's hell-bent on showing that it can do whatever it wants, irrespective of social responsibility or any perceived need to show cultural sensitivity - much less any real concern for "child protection."

(Edit - Oops, I guess Kelly beat me to the punch on that point, as is often the case... )

[GlassBeadGame]

I emailed oversight as rev delete is difficult on ANI, and I also emailed the poster explaining the reason for concern, i.e. there are dirty people lurking everywhere. Now instead of having one removed post that was unlikely to be noticed by anyone else, we have a thread highlighting the fact that they're a minor, along with multiple posts linking to it, including on the user's own talk page. Not smart really.

There is virtually no way to do anything discreetly on Wikipedia, in large part because of the large number of so-called "watchdogs" who are really just drama whores.

Whether this person is a child, a pedophile acting like a child or something else, disabling the email and oversighting anything remotely identifying him/her as such, whether made by the child user or others in discussion would be prudent.

Which brings up another issue, regarding oversight: one of the severe weaknesses of Wikipedia's use of a wiki for discussions is that it's very very hard to effectively redact from view inappropriate comments. This gets illuminated on a regular basis: in this instant matter; several times during the Gerard/Godwin incident; just about any time someone does something inappropriate on a talk page or on a project discussion page.

Wikipedia needs to get past its absurd doctrinaire idolism of the wiki as the best solution to every problem and adopt some sort of meaningful, manageable discussion system to replace talk pages.

The most direct way to establish this is to make some areas not within the purview of "the community." A prerequisite is the WMF B/D taking responsibility on a range issues, including but not limited to child protection and the privacy policy. Until that happens ad hoc and flawed efforts by segments of "the community," including ArbCom, can be expect and at times even need to be supported.

[Nja247]

Somey, it's not a poor excuse on my part, as I tried and was unable to do it due to software.

[Jake Wartenberg]

Not a bad start.

[carbuncle]

Not a bad start.

But but but there is no "underage" on WP!!! Anyone can edit!

[GlassBeadGame]

Not a bad start.

If this feature does not exist it certainly needs to be created. I'm surprised that it doesn't already exist to curb spammers. It would be good if it were available to all admins. But this is "not a bad start." Thanks.

[Jake Wartenberg]

Not a bad start.

If this feature does not exist it certainly needs to be created. I'm surprised that it doesn't already exist to curb spammers. It would be good if it were available to all admins. But this is "not a bad start." Thanks.

An admin can keep a user from sending email, but not from receiving it. And the former can only be done as part of and for the duration of a block.

This post has been edited by Jake Wartenberg: Thu 10th December 2009, 9:30pm

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

From another thread ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kasuga is responsible for these images ... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Works_by_Kasuga

It was he who drew this notorious image ... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lolicon_Sample.png

His website is here ... where you can find many images of underage girls drawn in a sexualized way ... Cartoons of little girls being tortured. Why is he linking to this? Why is the artist behind the famous Wikipedia 'Wikipe-tan' linking to websites showing little girls with their genitalia being mutilated, screaming in pain? Another site he links to portrays graphic sexual abuse of minors

Add it to the resource of critiques.

Wikipedia Counsel Godwin said ...

I've reviewed the image, and it is neither obscene (according to the Miller test) nor child pornography as the concept is understood in the United States (no actual use of children). The image isn't even terribly controversial.MGodwin (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the image on it own is not "terribly controversial" ... I would still argue that it was sexualizing young children ... but in context of the rest one has to look at it in a different light, would not one?

Original topic is here.

[Peter Damian]

From another thread ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kasuga is responsible for these images ... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Works_by_Kasuga

It was he who drew this notorious image ... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lolicon_Sample.png

His website is here ... where you can find many images of underage girls drawn in a sexualized way ... Cartoons of little girls being tortured. Why is he linking to this? Why is the artist behind the famous Wikipedia 'Wikipe-tan' linking to websites showing little girls with their genitalia being mutilated, screaming in pain? Another site he links to portrays graphic sexual abuse of minors

Add it to the resource of critiques.

Wikipedia Counsel Godwin said ...

I've reviewed the image, and it is neither obscene (according to the Miller test) nor child pornography as the concept is understood in the United States (no actual use of children). The image isn't even terribly controversial.MGodwin (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the image on it own is not "terribly controversial" ... I would still argue that it was sexualizing young children ... but in context of the rest one has to look at it in a different light, would not one?

Original topic is here.

Looks like someone who complained about this has already been blocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...of_the_children

For being 'disruptive'.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 2nd January 2010, 4:11pm

[Peter Damian]

User:Think of the children certainly has some odd interests. If it is indeed true that this artist also draws scandalous works in a similar style, the Foundation might want to consider the ramifications any official endorsement or use. But that's the organization's policy and it's really not a matter for us editors. Regarding content policy on the encyclopedia, as fan art, or as an illustration in an article about anime, I don't see what the problem is with the tame images, certainly nothing that would suggest banning an artist's entire body of work because some of the works are this particular type of cartoon porn. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's right: complain about something nasty and you have 'odd interests'. As for "particular type of cartoon porn", we are talking about images of very young girls having salt sprayed on their vagina to make them scream in pain, bottles shoved up vagina and so on.

[thekohser]

An interesting question just came up on Yahoo! Answers.

Due to its provocative nature, it may not last the day.