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.

[Anonymous editor]

What a twitchy crowd.

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

that's rational? I would think the opposite. I was at a meetup once and had I known about the Brandt issues, I would have worn a mask. OK, maybe not.

[Somey]

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.

Me too! Though to be honest, I'm probably not the best person to talk about the evils of Facebook and Myspace, since I don't use them. I might also go so far as to say that (IMO) Wikipedia doesn't really "exploit" children any more than it exploits adults. It's an Equal Opportunity Exploiter...

Still, Facebook and Myspace mostly exist for their own participants, don't really pretend otherwise, and also don't have much of a search-engine footprint on common words and phrases, for the most part. Sites like that might suck people in and addict them just as effectively, if not more so, but they don't call themselves a "project," and don't pretend to higher aspirations, basically. I don't know if that absolves them of anything, but their overall impact on culture and society at large seems like it would be a lot smaller, particularly in the long term.

And I also suspect that the point Kato was getting at, about voting ages and drinking ages and so on, is that these arbitrary numbers are imposed not necessarily to keep the kids down, but to protect them from those who would take advantage of their impressionability and lack of experience in order to gain power and profits. If you lowered the voting age to 13, for example, political campaign strategies would change significantly as politicians would do whatever they have to do to obtain votes from the 13-18 demographic. Exactly how they would change might be an interesting question, and in some cases we might actually get better leaders as a result. But the taking-advantage part would occur no matter what - it would actually become an integral part of the political process.

Maybe it would be fairer to allow some underage people to vote or drive cars or drink if they could pass some sort of difficult psychological test, but I doubt that would really make things all that much better, including for them.

[Mike H]

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've organized meetups before. The last one was last summer at a bar. I had a great time. That was the first time I met Sue Gardner, actually. Sadly I got really drunk and I think I blew cigarette smoke in her face. I made sure to apologize though.

The one I'm going to be organizing next is going to be at a casino. I guess I like the social aspect of the meetups more than talking about boring things I could sit on my butt for on IRC.

[GlassBeadGame]

I've organized meetups before. The last one was last summer at a bar. I had a great time. That was the first time I met Sue Gardner, actually. Sadly I got really drunk and I think I blew cigarette smoke in her face. I made sure to apologize though.

The one I'm going to be organizing next is going to be at a casino. I guess I like the social aspect of the meetups more than talking about boring things I could sit on my butt for on IRC.

Yawn.

[Mike H]

Well, considering you were hypothetically interested in coming to one of these things, what would be of interest to you? Mine is actually talking to people and having a good time. That usually involves having some drinks, so everyone gets more chatty.

We had a couple of people who were socially awkward there; they were kind of scared and left after a short time. I'm not that great at faking conversations with people who look like engaging in any sort of talk will give them leprosy.

[Random832]

Maybe it would be fairer to allow some underage people to vote or drive cars or drink if they could pass some sort of difficult psychological test, but I doubt that would really make things all that much better, including for them.

I've occasionally heard the suggestion that a good solution would be to set the driving age and the drinking age up such that for any given individual, one is 16 and the other is 21.

[wikiwhistle]

I've organized meetups before. The last one was last summer at a bar. I had a great time. That was the first time I met Sue Gardner, actually. Sadly I got really drunk and I think I blew cigarette smoke in her face.

That's nothing, I knocked a pint of cider over Ryan Postlethwaite (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) He's not the sort of person to seem to make light of such thing either, except in mockery of you, and can do a good disdainful face. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[dogbiscuit]

The point about real world age limits are that:

1) they have evolved over time with experience.
2) They are capable of being reviewed.

(1) is important. Although arguably random, the ages chosen have been in place for some time, and over the decades have been adjusted in the light of experience. They are not a catch-all, there are 21 year olds who need to be treated like 10 year olds, and 14 year olds that exhibit more sense than many an adult of any age, but without doing an Adulthood test, it has been found to be a system that works.

As a trivial example, I was pleased to be able to take advantage of the fact that my daughter had signed up for something on he Internet, (a NEXT account, as they do not allow you to pay with a debit card without an account), where she had claimed to be 18 (add two years to your birthday and you are in) and then they started offering her credit (clearly no credit check being done) and also started the NEXT scam where you sign up for a catalogue at £4 a pop unless you say no every time. She had no idea of the implications of having a credit account, nor did she take any notice of boring bits of paper being sent to her which had a tiny little notice about future deliveries of catalogues. I rang them up, breezed through their Data Protection Act spiel and got them to cancel the account. I know many adults ignore the issues of a credit account and get caught by dubious business practices, but at least as you grow up you get experience and know to avoid them, or as a young adult you start to realise that you don't know everything and seek advice - unlike the 16 year old who assumes they know everything and do not comprehend the consequences of some trivial action.

What Wikipedia is saying is that, in spite of the experience around the world that 18 represents a reasonable age to let people take adult responsibility, with all its burdens as well as benefits, Wikipedia, in its magic mirror world, sets aside that experience and seems to think that young children should be granted not just a voice, but power over people. I don't see any empirical evidence that Wikipedia has proven that young children are competent, it just claims they are, pointing to a handful of old before their time oddballs as evidence, while ignoring the large number of youngsters who clearly cannot behave themselves.

[wikiwhistle]

It might not have been able to be in a pub if that boy was coming- although I suppose he might be allowed if his dad was there. Not everyone wants a child, and a parent who's probably not into WP, there, and a lot of people would like to have a pint, so legal drinking age (or at least 16 so then they're sort of an adult) makes sense. If you're with a child you sort of feel you have to mind your Ps and Qs, and it's not as relaxing to those who don't have their own kids, which is most wikipedians, who are I think are in their teens/twenties. Unless they are quite young themselves they wouldn't feel as on the same wavelength as a child- I'd be probably old enough to be that boy's mum. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Alex]

That's nothing, I knocked a pint of cider over Ryan Postlethwaite (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) He's not the sort of person to seem to make light of such thing either, except in mockery of you, and can do a good disdainful face. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Not many people can boast something like that!

[Piperdown]

It might not have been able to be in a pub if that boy was coming- although I suppose he might be allowed if his dad was there. Not everyone wants a child, and a parent who's probably not into WP, there, and a lot of people would like to have a pint, so legal drinking age (or at least 16 so then they're sort of an adult) makes sense. If you're with a child you sort of feel you have to mind your Ps and Qs, and it's not as relaxing to those who don't have their own kids, which is most wikipedians, who are I think are in their teens/twenties. Unless they are quite young themselves they wouldn't feel as on the same wavelength as a child- I'd be probably old enough to be that boy's mum. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

in NYC, Fla, and SF, legal drink age is 21. Voting age is 18. So let's go with the more lenient for our tied young friend.

[The Wales Hunter]

I'd certainly be old enough to be that boy's grandmother. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

A question, then: if you were his grandmother, would you have wanted him to attend?

[wikiwhistle]

I'd certainly be old enough to be that boy's grandmother. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

A question, then: if you were his grandmother, would you have wanted him to attend?

I said I'm old enough to be his mum lol. If it weren't for the wikipedia pornographers and paedoes or whatever, who are probably in the minority, wikipedia is sort of like the school debating society. On the face of it- which is all the average grandma would know about- you couldn't ask for a more edifying hobby for a boy; unless it made him forget to do his homework.

As to whether I personally would- why not? I do think they could learn something from it academically. And avoiding or having a brush with predators etc online, I suppose is a trial run compared to real life.

Parents should supervise their children online of course, but no-one can be hyper-vigilant all the time. But what do I know, I'm not a mum. However, it might be better than myspace or whatever. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[EricBarbour]

That's nothing, I knocked a pint of cider over Ryan Postlethwaite

A sad waste of a good cider......

[KStreetSlave]

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.

Your paragraph above hardly displays graciousness nor consideration, neither of which can be found in making assumptions as to what a father feels in his child.

[wikiwhistle]

That's nothing, I knocked a pint of cider over Ryan Postlethwaite

A sad waste of a good cider......

Completely! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Moulton]

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.

Wikipedia exploits minors and offers no reasonable protection. What's 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.

Kato has not only put his finger on the crux of the problem, he has done so in plain language.

Wikipedia's exploitative practices are not limited to children, however. Children who do not get their curiosity beaten out of them by Middle School might well grow up to become scientists, academics, researchers, or journalists.

To the extent that the immature characters who dominate Wikipedia have accumulated a storehouse of unsolved problems, who are they going to turn to for help in solving them? On the one hand, Wikipedians are notably hostile to scientists, academics, researchers and journalists who might take up the challenge of studying and chronicling WikiCulture and diagnosing its endemic maladies. But notwithstanding such hostile reception, there remain a scant few of us scientistis, academics, researchers, and journalists who persist in studying and diagnosing the systemic problems of WikiCulture, even as we are blocked, banned, gagged, and unceremoniously stuffed in the janitorial closet, per the prevailing cultural practices of Wikipedia's anachronistic tribal ochlocracy.

What Wikipedia is saying is that, in spite of the experience around the world that 18 represents a reasonable age to let people take adult responsibility, with all its burdens as well as benefits, Wikipedia, in its magic mirror world, sets aside that experience and seems to think that young children should be granted not just a voice, but power over people. I don't see any empirical evidence that Wikipedia has proven that young children are competent, it just claims they are, pointing to a handful of old before their time oddballs as evidence, while ignoring the large number of youngsters who clearly cannot behave themselves.

There is good empirical evidence that young people are competent at mastering technical systems such as WikiGnoming. There is also good empirical evidence that neither children nor adults have the slightest concept of how to exercise political power over others in an appropriate, functional, and mutually acceptable manner. Indeed, oppression is such a ubiquitous unsolved problem in the annals of human history that one could spend a lifetime studying it. The sum of all human knowledge does have something to say about solving the problem of political oppression, but the wooly bullies of Wikipedia do not seem to be familiar with that hallowed branch of human wisdom.

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.

Your paragraph above hardly displays graciousness nor consideration, neither of which can be found in making assumptions as to what a father feels in his child.

Except for the fact that Sam used the term ageism in a manner opposite of its normal usage, I was glad to see him present his point of view. I also noticed in viewing the video that NewYorkBrad exemplified a practice which I respect: He invariably looked at whoever was speaking, demonstrating that he was conscientiously paying respectful attention to their remarks. On the other hand, he is so poker faced that one has to wait for his subsequent comments to learn how he feels and thinks about the remarks of the speaker who has the floor.

I think Sam's remarks suggest a broader problem with Wikipedia. The community has participants of many ages and diverse talents. In a community, it is important that people are able to use their talents effectively and efficiently. Alas, too many immature characters want to exercise political power over rival editors — a function which should not be put into the hands of anyone who wants power for that purpose. In the last two notable ArbCom cases, we saw how much damage is caused by the likes of immature and power-hungry admins who have no compunction about using their power in a self-serving and abusive manner. Paul Mitchell may have been one of the more abusive admins to come before ArbCom, but he is hardly unique in that regard, and he has plenty of accolytes and second lieutenants in IDCab who demonstrate the same tendency to wield power in an abusive manner that brings disgrace to the project.

[Cla68]

I just noticed this on SandyGeorgia's talk page. I wasn't totally aware of this problem. Since that thread may be archived soon, I'll put the statements in quote boxes:

I've come across nine- to 12-year-olds submitting articles to FAC, so when we talk about children on Wiki, it should be clear that we are not talking only about minors close to graduating from high school. A 9-year-old or a 12-year-old ''is'' a child; I'll avoid the euphemisms and call a spade a spade in this discussion.

I raised the concern because I found that video so surprising. Although much of it was hard to hear, the general impression was of a gathering of adults who appeared to be universally and casually accepting, condoning, to even embracing acceptance of child editors and admins on Wiki. Perhaps the discussion was one-sided in deference to the child and parent present, but it was surprising that the serious issues appeared to be ignored.

I'm sure you're already well enough aware of the "personal safety and privacy issues", which are significant (even for adults, more so for children who aren't yet equipped to deal with issues that may present on the internet), but I understand that parental decisions and supervision are not within the scope of this discussion. I'm unaware of what the legal issues are in public schools or in other countries, but for schools in the US that don't rely on federal funding, parents can demand and expect that Wikimedia be placed behind the school firewall, as with any site that contains adult material, because of Wikimedia content that is unacceptable for school children. The content issue, or the notion that children should be able to become admins, is unlikely to change, so I understand you're mainly inquiring about the effects of child editors on content review processes.

Since children will be children, they often engage in reward-seeking behaviors with the ultimate goal to become an admin, and they are aware of or coached to engage processes that will help them accumulate awards on the path to RFA. This reward-seeking behavior affects all processes via the accumulation of DYKs, GAs, "Triple Crowns", barnstars, and attempts at FAs and often creates a drain on already thin reviewer resources, utilizing the time and energy of other editors who could be better engaged in generating and improving content themselves. ''It is unclear that the content generated is commensurate with the effort other editors have to expend in review and cleanup. The concern is whether the content being added aligns with the goals of a professional reference work.''

Tracking down specifc examples would be time consuming, and it might not be helpful to point at specific cases or editors. Often, the problems don't become evident until an article hits FAC, as other processes have fewer reviewers and don't have a director or delegate where the buck stops. Of course, these issues are not unique to children, but are more common with child editors IMO.

; IRC, MySpace and strength in numbers
The child editors tend to congregate together on- and off-Wiki. Quid pro quo FAC supports and GA passes via on- and off-Wiki contact are an issue (you support my articles, I'll support yours). They meet and congregate on MySpace, IRC or secret pages, and may exchange quid pro quo GA passes or pile on support for each other at FAC. This used to be a big problem at GAN, because a GA can be passed by one editor only; when numerous extremely deficient GAs began showing up at FAC, both the GA and FA editors shone a light on this issue, and I believe the problem has substantially subsided. However, it's possible that the quid pro quo deficient GAs are still being passed, but they're no longer being submitted to FAC, as editors now understand they won't get through FAC by piling on IRC-generated supports. When fan or group support is piled on at FAC, serious reviewers have to spend a disproportionate amount of time documenting the issues on ill-prepared nominations. The deficient articles don't (hopefully) pass FAC, but reviewer time is expended on ill-prepared articles: this time could be better spent on maintaining standards and reviewing prepared articles, and reviewers are stretched extremely thin.

; Plagiarism
DYKs are easy to accumulate: even easier with plagiarism. Reviewers are stretched thin, and checking for plagiarism is one more thing for mature editors to review. Plagiarism is not only a problem among children, but children may be less aware of what constitutes plagiarism and more likely to take shortcuts to gain awards.

; Translations
This issue has shown up at GAN, FAC and DYK; en editor accesses an FA on another language Wiki and runs it through an online translator, cites the foreign sources without accessing or even being able to read them, and ties up multiple content review processes, reaching FAC before serious deficiencies and inaccuracies are discovered. Many resources are expended along the way, again, disproportionate to the value added to Wiki or the reviewer resources expended.

; Triple crowns
All three of the above-mentioned problems come to roost in award-seeking behaviors via Triple Crowns. The problem is not the Triple Crown awards per se (Yellow Monkey has many), but that the children may be taking shortcuts and generating inferior content, stretching reviewers thin, on their award-seeking path to RfA.

;Award centers
Although they are routinely MfD'd, the children tend to form and congregate around award centers where they can earn prizes for generating content. The same problems of quid pro quo supports, plagiarism, misreprentation of sources, translations, etc. result. The goal is to accumulate barnstars and prizes to be touted at RFA.

; GAN
Mentioned already above, seems to be greatly improved since both FA and GA editors shone a light on the issues, but numerous quid pro quo, IRC, and buddy passes among the children were noted in the past. It matters because it ties up reviewer time in sweeps, GAR, etc., as the deficient articles are uncovered.

;FAC
FAC is where the buck usually stops and problems often surface, because FAC is not a vote, and pile-on buddy IRC-generated, quid pro quo support doesn't get an article promoted. But many FAC reviewers can speak to the disproportionate amount of time they have to spend on the articles that make it all the way to FAC before the deficiencies are uncovered. ''The deficiencies are often serious''.

That's a basic framework from me: other GA and FA reviewers will probably elucidate, clarify, and add examples. The bottom line is that it's the childish award-seeking drive to RFA that is impacting articles, sapping reviewer time (most of our better FAC reviewers could be generating conent themselves, rather than trying to address deficient articles that appear at FAC), and generally generating review and cleanup work for other editors that is disproportionate to the content generated. User:SandyGeorgia 04:27, 23 December 2008

Ling.nut then adds:

If you look on my Talk you'll see that Sandy asked me to comment here. Sandy's discussion above seems a bit objective and impersonal. I suppose I can only put a face (or a sig) to her comments, as a near-casualty (from my point of view) of the friction along values-driven fault lines (you'll notice I didn't say age-driven, though age is certainly a proxy for values... see below). The observations she makes above are not hypothetical, as I'm sure you know. What you may not know is the emotional toll they can take on other editors. I've been near to quitting Wikipedia twice during my time here, and both incidents were cases where I invested major time and emotional energy in opposing the actions or planned actions of under-aged editors. When I was finished, I ended up being instrumental in obstructing their goals in both cases... but I was.. I wish the pixels on the screen could come to life and show you the emotional toll the two incidents took on me. I was a basket case.

The main problem, from my point of view, is this: under-aged editors are not reflective enough to step out of their own skins and at least countenance the possibility that their actions are simply ethically wrong. They don't slow up to discuss the possibility that they are wrong; they are too hell-bent to pass the GA (I wasn't initially involved in that one), pass the RfA (my first incident) or to get that bronze star for the FA (my second incident). In all cases, as Sandy pointed out, it's all about Approval. Younger editors are simply (but deeply) blinded by their need for Approval. The second problem is that it's easy for them to find groups of similarly-blind fellow under-aged editors. This isn't a case of the blind leading the blind; it's a case of the blind forming a scrimmage line (with "ageism" as their battle cry) and cheerily trampling others underfoot.

Let's talk concrete ramifications. In these incidents, we had folks swapping pass-for-pass for GA on IRC, divulging personal info as a means of retaliation for a souring RfA, and... how do I describe it? The FA incident was mind-blowing. An editor copied a foreign-language FA, used Google translate to translate the text (very badly, I have been told; I speak no French), NEVER CONSULTED OR READ EVEN ONE of the sources for the article, blindly copied over anti-American propaganda that was cited to a source that in actuality said exactly the opposite of the anti-American claims, never attempted to establish whether any info was missing (by searching for further sources).. and here's the topper of it all... in true MMORPG style, the editor(s) '''contacted the principal contributor to the French FA, told him people were French-bashing and French-wikipedia bashing, and asked him to come Support them in their FA drive.''' They went across the ocean via the Internet to stir up (or perhaps play upon) a meme of bad feelings between en.wiki and fr.wiki, all to get that bronze star— for an article they had simply copied without ever examining, copying propaganda in the process. These are real consequences. That FA was headed for a Pass, I believe, until I started trying to slam on the brakes. Everything about it (if you don't speak French) had a surface air of credibility. FAC is undermanned; it is not impossible for folks to slip stuff through that is profoundly unacceptable.

Finally, emotional ramifications. Really, for quite a while, I felt like a lone voice crying out in the wilderness... and it was '''exhausting'''. It's exhausting, really exhausting, to fight a group of people who cheerfully trample upon all academic norms in the name of gaining Approval. They value Approval more than they value the norms of Wikipedia or of academia. That's the final word; that's the final problem. It's all about values. It's a values-driven conflict. They value Approval more than they value long-established Wikipedia processes (GA and FA). The value Approval more than they value other editors' fundamental right to privacy. They value Approval more than they value the goal of presentng academic-quality articles on the encyclopedia. They value Approval from Wikipedia (in the form of admin buttons, green dots and bronze stars) and from each other (in a process where the groupthink is a hotbed where they reinforce each others' blind spots.. crap.. folks were putting up userboxes saying they '''respected the decision''' of the young adult who divulged personal info during the RfA). They stand ready and willing to sacrifice Wikipedia processes, Wikipedia editors and academic standards for approval. They also stand ready to fight for their perceived right to that approval. in short, they '''don't get it.''' They don't ge the fact that the world outside them is more important than the world inside them. They donn't get it. And that's all. And it drove me once to being so burned out that I could barely log on. Chalk that up as another consequence: discouragement to those whose values are different. User:Ling.Nut 07:11, 23 December 2008

I believe that many of the problem articles are from the Video Game wiki-project. This may be yet another problem with the wiki model.

[Anonymous editor]

Looking for this?

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

[Alex]

A load of drama and whinging over nothing. An incredibly blind view on what actually happens.

[EricBarbour]

Great. Wonderful. We are agreed, it's not good to allow minors to edit WP.

So, restrict access?

NOOOOO!!!!!! Can't do that! It won't be a free and open happy-land anymore!

Judging by what they are saying on the BLP protection debate, a whole lot of the
usual nerds would oppose it tooth and nail.

(And Durova would be first in line. Still think she's a total loon, sorry.)

[Cla68]

Looking for this?

Perhaps the two thread should be combined? Anyway, should Wikipedia require participants to be over 16 years old or something like that?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Doc glasgow]

Looking for this?

Perhaps the two thread should be combined? Anyway, should Wikipedia require participants to be over 16 years old or something like that?

I don't think age restrictions should be required for general editing. However, I do think that wikipedia often forgets that it isn't just a community, it is a very visible publisher. And publishing information has huge moral and legal implications for both the subjects and the publishers.

My own view is that no one under 18 should ever be an administrator. But perhaps more importantly, I'd prohibit minors from working on BLPs. I've personally taken the decision never to create or add significant information to a BLP, and particularly if it is information that I suspect the subject might not like, because there's always the danger of litigation or other personal consequences. Now that's my own "risk assessment" - but I really don't think we should allow minors to make that assessment and take on that responsibility for themselves.

And, certainly, if we go for flagged revisions, one option would be to require those approving edits to be of a legally responsible age. I know of plenty publications that publish the work of children - but none that allow children to make final editorial decisions.

[Moulton]

RfC? Request for Cartoons?

I don't think age restrictions should be required for general editing. However, I do think that wikipedia often forgets that it isn't just a community, it is a very visible publisher. And publishing information has huge moral and legal implications for both the subjects and the publishers.

Any university that has a Department of Journalism and Communication where students learn the art of publishing stories purporting to be non-fiction accounts of contemporary society has a required course in Mass Media Ethics. No student can graduate with university credentials in journalism without passing that course, and no reputable publisher will hire a young journalist who has not passed those requirements.

Wikipedia is the fifth largest website on the planet, publishing non-fiction accounts of contemporary society on every imaginable subject save one (there is no article on Narcissistic Wounding). Not only are the editors of Wikipedia unschooled in Mass Media Ethics, they are teaching and practicing just the opposite culture from responsible journalism. They have guzzled the Kool Aid and clambored aboard the Jimbonic Jackboot Juggernaut, utterly oblivious that they are reprising the Stanford Prison Experiment as cyberspace drama that I view as a post-modern, pre-apocalyptic theater of the absurd.

Just last night, someone calling themselves Baseball Bugs Bunny played the role of Elmer Fudd, blasting away at that Wascally Wabbit, as if an RfC were a Saturday morning cartoon.

Yes, but wikipedia isn't a university department; it is a popular website with a mass-participation project.

So, one can legitimately say that, given that fact, it has no business calling itself an encyclopedia, or hosting information on individuals. However, if that's your take, then how, short of legislation are you going to get your way?

The same way Billie Holiday went about it. Cultural changes require a change in consciousness. And changes in consciousness enter the culture through popular art. I'm an atrocious artist, to be sure, but I have faith that better artists will come along to outperform me.

Title: Strange Freight
Artist: Billie Clubaday
Composer: Abel Meeropol (aka Lewis Allan) and Barsoom Tork Associates
YouTube: Strange Fruit (Billie Holiday)

Modern trains bear strange freight
Blocks on the switches and bans to bait,
Banhammers swinging in the Wikisphere tracks,
Strange tools echoing whistled bootjacks.

Utopian scene of the gallant youth,
Games denied by the anxious mouse,
Scent of Kool Aid, sweet and cool,
Then the sudden smack of a Wiki fool.

Here is freight for non-cows to block,
For the pain to gather, for the tunes to mock,
For the pun to zap, for El Reg to rock,
Here is a strange and bitter sock.

CopyClef 2008 Abel Meeropol (aka Lewis Allan) and Barsoom Tork Associates.
Resurrection Hackware. All wrongs reversed.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Doc glasgow]

RfC? Request for Cartoons?

I don't think age restrictions should be required for general editing. However, I do think that wikipedia often forgets that it isn't just a community, it is a very visible publisher. And publishing information has huge moral and legal implications for both the subjects and the publishers.

Any university that has a Department of Journalism and Communication where students learn the art of publishing stories purporting to be non-fiction accounts of contemporary society has a required course in Mass Media Ethics. No student can graduate with university credentials in journalism without passing that course, and no reputable publisher will hire a young journalist who has not passed those requirements.

Wikipedia is the fifth largest website on the planet, publishing non-fiction accounts of contemporary society on every imaginable subject save one (there is no article on Narcissistic Wounding). Not only are the editors of Wikipedia unschooled in Mass Media Ethics, they are teaching and practicing just the opposite culture from responsible journalism. They have guzzled the Kool Aid and clambored aboard the Jimbonic Jackboot Juggernaut, utterly oblivious that they are reprising the Stanford Prison Experiment as cyberspace drama that I view as a post-modern, pre-apocalyptic theater of the absurd.

Just last night, someone calling themselves Baseball Bugs Bunny played the role of Elmer Fudd, blasting away at that Wascally Wabbit, as if an RfC were a Saturday morning cartoon.

Yes, but wikipedia isn't a university department it is a popular website with a mass-participation project.

So, one can legitimately say that, given that fact, it has no business calling itself an encyclopedia, or hosting information on individuals. However, if that's your take, then how, short of legislation are you going to get your way?

The other possibility is to recognise what wikipedia is, and look for it to realistic steps to mitigate against the harm it may cause. Here, I think, the foundation needs to warn all users about the possible personal implications and liabilities. You can't stop people messing about and playing MORPG, but you need to warn that there can be real-world consequences - personally, ethically, and legally, which may impact on your finances, reputation, and employment prospects - not to mention the impact you may have on others.

I also think that, having issued this warning, the Foundation policy should actively discourage all legal minors from editing wikipedia. No, you can't prevent it, any more than you can prevent ten your olds accessing internet porn, but you can state that it is undesirable and officially discouraged. Beyond that, I'd be content with a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on age. Act like an adult and you might get away with it......but you have been warned.

[Doc glasgow]

Oh yes, I am extremely ageist!

(If you have a problem with that, don't worry. You will grow out of it.)

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[Seddon]

I think age is an issue on wikipedia, and there are issue with maturity of younger editors but you must remember that probably half of the "adults" on wikipedia have the maturity of a pre-school kid. I think there are wider issues to consider than simply blanket banning everyone under the age of 18 from editting.

[Alex]

I think age is an issue on wikipedia, and there are issue with maturity of younger editors but you must remember that probably half of the "adults" on wikipedia have the maturity of a pre-school kid. I think there are wider issues to consider than simply blanket banning everyone under the age of 18 from editting.

The problem is, while most editors who are teenage or younger are probably unsuited for adminship for various reasons, there are always going to be many exceptions, and these exceptions we should allow for. The classic example: Anonymous Dissident. SandyG's rant conveniently leaves people like him out of the picture, and goes out of the way to give ALL younger editors a bad reputation. She also leaves out the fact that many adult editors are extremely poorly behaved and immature. As I say, there's always exceptions to the "rule", and we should always allow for them.

I don't believe younger editors should be banned, or blanket-prevented from things like adminship. We should, however, review them as they come. I would never oppose anyone solely for age because that's really lame, but I would oppose if I'd seen a lot of immaturity from that person. I can think of at least one editor, who identifies as an adult, who is one of most immature people I've come across, ever.

So instead of lumping all the child/teen editors together as all the same, and essentially worthless, we should help them out, and get them to become better editors. Some will undoubtedly get bored, and leave. Some will go on to write a featured article. If we don't even give the chance, we are losing out.

I find the kind of behaviour towards younger editors rather intimidating and unwarranted. It's as though they're a threat or something. We should be friendly and welcoming to all editors, and not bully and intimidate them off the project.

SandyG is basically suggesting all younger editors come to Wikipedia with one goal - adminship. She's saying they all create crappy articles to gain badges and trophies, in order to boost their chances of passing RFA. What she's doing is generalising, without any kind of evidence or proof that such editors are actually a REAL problem. I don't believe they are. IF I see evidence to the contrary, I may change my mind. But for now, it's just somebody listing their thoughts, which I thoroughly disagree with for the most part.

[HappyWanderer]

"Intimidating" like the threat you gave me on IRC to stop criticizing the treatment of a certain editor who writes about Pakistan or get banned from the channel?

This post has been edited by HappyWanderer:

[Alex]

"Intimidating" like the threat you gave me on IRC to stop talking about a certain editor who writes about Pakistan or get off the channel?

It wasn't quite like that, as you know, but this is the wrong place for such discussion.

[Doc glasgow]

I think age is an issue on wikipedia, and there are issue with maturity of younger editors but you must remember that probably half of the "adults" on wikipedia have the maturity of a pre-school kid. I think there are wider issues to consider than simply blanket banning everyone under the age of 18 from editting.

The problem is, while most editors who are teenage or younger are probably unsuited for adminship for various reasons, there are always going to be many exceptions, and these exceptions we should allow for. The classic example: Anonymous Dissident. SandyG's rant conveniently leaves people like him out of the picture, and goes out of the way to give ALL younger editors a bad reputation. She also leaves out the fact that many adult editors are extremely poorly behaved and immature. As I say, there's always exceptions to the "rule", and we should always allow for them.

I don't believe younger editors should be banned, or blanket-prevented from things like adminship. We should, however, review them as they come. I would never oppose anyone solely for age because that's really lame, but I would oppose if I'd seen a lot of immaturity from that person. I can think of at least one editor, who identifies as an adult, who is one of most immature people I've come across, ever.

So instead of lumping all the child/teen editors together as all the same, and essentially worthless, we should help them out, and get them to become better editors. Some will undoubtedly get bored, and leave. Some will go on to write a featured article. If we don't even give the chance, we are losing out.

I find the kind of behaviour towards younger editors rather intimidating and unwarranted. It's as though they're a threat or something. We should be friendly and welcoming to all editors, and not bully and intimidate them off the project.

SandyG is basically suggesting all younger editors come to Wikipedia with one goal - adminship. She's saying they all create crappy articles to gain badges and trophies, in order to boost their chances of passing RFA. What she's doing is generalising, without any kind of evidence or proof that such editors are actually a REAL problem. I don't believe they are. IF I see evidence to the contrary, I may change my mind. But for now, it's just somebody listing their thoughts, which I thoroughly disagree with for the most part.

I disagree. The reason why wikipedia should prohibit minors from editing is NOT because the quality of their edits is low (although on average it certainly is) but because it is simply irresponsible to expose minors to the level of personal risk and liability that editing wikipedia requires.

The are various ways that one may edit wikipedia that can have major consequences for one's future reputation, legal liability, or even personal saftey. With adults it is a case of caveat scriptor - although I would like to see more warnings about personal consequences. With minors, short of obtaining parental permission, wikipedia simply has no right to encourage people to expose themselves to that level of risk.

[The Wales Hunter]

As I've mentioned before, both here and on Wiki, at the very minimum I'd create a new "BLP editor" class which requires both 1) open declaration of real world identity and 2) it being possible to take legal action against the editor.

[Alex]

I disagree. The reason why wikipedia should prohibit minors from editing is NOT because the quality of their edits is low (although on average it certainly is) but because it is simply irresponsible to expose minors to the level of personal risk and liability that editing wikipedia requires.

The are various ways that one may edit wikipedia that can have major consequences for one's future reputation, legal liability, or even personal saftey. With adults it is a case of caveat scriptor - although I would like to see more warnings about personal consequences. With minors, short of obtaining parental permission, wikipedia simply has no right to encourage people to expose themselves to that level of risk.

We don't exactly encourage minors to edit; they just do. And I don't think there's any way that we can prevent them. And I don't believe we should either. It's clear from the example on the video that his parents know very well that he edits, and are happy for him to do so. Therefore a blanket-ban on minors, even those whose parents are well aware of their internet activities, would not be fair on them, or us, because we may be losing out.

[Somey]

Moderator's Note: I've merged this thread with the earlier one and retitled it... Some of you probably won't like the new title. Oh, well.

We don't exactly encourage minors to edit; they just do. And I don't think there's any way that we can prevent them.

At least in the US, WP's only legal obligation is to not do anything that would circumvent content-filtering software on an individual computer, which is assumed to be under the control of the parents, or similar filtering being done at the ISP level that's also (at least nominally) under the customer's/parent's control.

But as we've been told many times, what's legal and what's ethical are often two different things...

[zvook]

Alex should be well aware of many issues SG raises, since immaturity is an overriding feature of #en-wikipedia and the cliquey crap that forms there. Hence we get tit for tat GAs, coffee and peter symonds swapping accounts with steve crossin, and majorly and others conducting a nerd war to get kurt weber banned onwiki, orchestrated from IRC, and for annoying them on IRC. (It was amusing to see NYB weigh in quite supportively on that one, having ruled that IRC was none of wikipedia's business.)

I've long been amazed that people don't die of embarrassment when given an award for contributing for free to a free project, but I suppose people are different. It sure makes sense though that this especially appeals to younger folk.

[Newyorkbrad]

Alex should be well aware of many issues SG raises, since immaturity is an overriding feature of #en-wikipedia and the cliquey crap that forms there. Hence we get tit for tat GAs, coffee and peter symonds swapping accounts with steve crossin, and majorly and others conducting a nerd war to get kurt weber banned onwiki, orchestrated from IRC, and for annoying them on IRC. (It was amusing to see NYB weigh in quite supportively on that one, having ruled that IRC was none of wikipedia's business.)

I've long been amazed that people don't die of embarrassment when given an award for contributing for free to a free project, but I suppose people are different. It sure makes sense though that this especially appeals to younger folk.

I don't understand the reference to myself in this post. Neither the contention that I tried to have Kurt Weber banned nor the contention that I ruled that "IRC was none of Wikipedia's business" is accurate.

[Doc glasgow]

I disagree. The reason why wikipedia should prohibit minors from editing is NOT because the quality of their edits is low (although on average it certainly is) but because it is simply irresponsible to expose minors to the level of personal risk and liability that editing wikipedia requires.

The are various ways that one may edit wikipedia that can have major consequences for one's future reputation, legal liability, or even personal saftey. With adults it is a case of caveat scriptor - although I would like to see more warnings about personal consequences. With minors, short of obtaining parental permission, wikipedia simply has no right to encourage people to expose themselves to that level of risk.

We don't exactly encourage minors to edit; they just do. And I don't think there's any way that we can prevent them. And I don't believe we should either. It's clear from the example on the video that his parents know very well that he edits, and are happy for him to do so. Therefore a blanket-ban on minors, even those whose parents are well aware of their internet activities, would not be fair on them, or us, because we may be losing out.

The question is not what's fair - life isn't. The question is what's responsible - and encouraging (or not discouraging) minors to edit isn't.

There should be a policy of banning any identified minors from editing, blocking all school editing, and asking all users at account creation to certify that they are over 18. No, that will not prevent minors from editing, but it would mean that the Foundation had taken all reasonable steps to discourage it.

I'd doubt we'd miss them that much overall (some individuals certainly), but we would be doing the correct, ethical, and responsible thing.

[Alex]

The question is not what's fair - life isn't. The question is what's responsible - and encouraging (or not discouraging) minors to edit isn't.

There should be a policy of banning any identified minors from editing, blocking all school editing, and asking all users at account creation to certify that they are over 18. No, that will not prevent minors from editing, but it would mean that the Foundation had taken all reasonable steps to discourage it.

I'd doubt we'd miss them that much overall (some individuals certainly), but we would be doing the correct, ethical, and responsible thing.

Perhaps only adults should become administrators. I still don't think it's for the best banning minors outright though.

[Doc glasgow]

The question is not what's fair - life isn't. The question is what's responsible - and encouraging (or not discouraging) minors to edit isn't.

There should be a policy of banning any identified minors from editing, blocking all school editing, and asking all users at account creation to certify that they are over 18. No, that will not prevent minors from editing, but it would mean that the Foundation had taken all reasonable steps to discourage it.

I'd doubt we'd miss them that much overall (some individuals certainly), but we would be doing the correct, ethical, and responsible thing.

Perhaps only adults should become administrators. I still don't think it's for the best banning minors outright though.

Actually, it is the power to publish edits that has the real consequences. We need to prevent them editing - I've no problem with them being admins.

[Alex]

The question is not what's fair - life isn't. The question is what's responsible - and encouraging (or not discouraging) minors to edit isn't.

There should be a policy of banning any identified minors from editing, blocking all school editing, and asking all users at account creation to certify that they are over 18. No, that will not prevent minors from editing, but it would mean that the Foundation had taken all reasonable steps to discourage it.

I'd doubt we'd miss them that much overall (some individuals certainly), but we would be doing the correct, ethical, and responsible thing.

Perhaps only adults should become administrators. I still don't think it's for the best banning minors outright though.

Actually, it is the power to publish edits that has the real consequences. We need to prevent them editing - I've no problem with them being admins.

But for many minors, the point of being on Wikipedia is to become an admin. If it was a rule that suggested otherwise, then perhaps they'd be less inclined to edit.

[zvook]

Alex should be well aware of many issues SG raises, since immaturity is an overriding feature of #en-wikipedia and the cliquey crap that forms there. Hence we get tit for tat GAs, coffee and peter symonds swapping accounts with steve crossin, and majorly and others conducting a nerd war to get kurt weber banned onwiki, orchestrated from IRC, and for annoying them on IRC. (It was amusing to see NYB weigh in quite supportively on that one, having ruled that IRC was none of wikipedia's business.)

I've long been amazed that people don't die of embarrassment when given an award for contributing for free to a free project, but I suppose people are different. It sure makes sense though that this especially appeals to younger folk.

I don't understand the reference to myself in this post. Neither the contention that I tried to have Kurt Weber banned nor the contention that I ruled that "IRC was none of Wikipedia's business" is accurate.

I didn't say you tried to have him banned. I said you were quite supportive of the people seeking to have him banned, in a thread about having him banned. This is my interpretation of your telling the tale in that thread of how he asked you on IRC why you hated wikipedia and recounting that he seemed genuinely to believe that you did. (I'm not looking at the thread, this is from memory.)

If you didn't rule that IRC was none of wikipedia's business, I don't know what you did rule.

[lolwut]

Interesting thread, but I'm not sure if there's anything in particular I want to add. If I would say anything, it's that Wikipedia, for all its flaws, is still a step above many other internet websites. On MySpace, Bebo, YouTube and various forums, there are many people who appear to be barely literate. I guess it's just not normal for a kid to be speaking amongst a group of adults like that; it's normal for a kid to be vandalising Wikipedia or using one of the aforementioned websites with barely intelligible garbage - yet this may be more of a normal social use of the internet (for the age group) than communicating with a bunch of Wikipedia editors all the time.

But who's to say? I'm certainly not one to celebrate ignorance in the world, of which there is far too much. I personally continually seem to be talking about things IRL that people don't know enough about to relate with, and my knowledge is generally good except on some mainstream pop culture topics (like television and sport) which I often find boring anyway. Wikipedia, for all its flaws, is still highly educational, for adults as well as children. I was talking to some relatives of mine recently and the gaps in the knowledge of the world of some of them, who were just a few years younger than myself, was astounding. They would do well to read Wikipedia, provided they knew how to read it critically (i.e. seperate the unreferenced, biased, rambling junk from quality, cited material, and so on), and that Wikipedia wasn't their only source of information about the world (that'd be hellish talking to someone like that)...

Another thing that I would say is that Wikipedia essentially dictates the actions of its editors rather than allowing for a more free-flowing, creative approach that other websites may have. This rigidity might be particularly difficult for a young person to cope with, given that it's difficult for many adults to cope with.

As for the legal aspects of anonymous editors and BLPs, I'm not really inclined to comment. Sure, Wikipedia is a powerful publisher - much more powerful than many things, and much more powerful than the editors in question might assume, and I can certainly see why it shouldn't be thought of as a game - many notable people will indeed see their Wikipedia biography and may have complaints about its accuracy. On the other hand, I strongly advocate freedom of speech and the ability to report, satirise, discuss any topic at length without any chilling effects rooting in.

And finally, the ages of legal majority, or legal ages to undertake particular activities... well, my opinion is that you have to draw the line somewhere. Let's put it this way; it was very, very easy for me to buy alcohol in bars when I was 17, despite that being illegal. Voting? I personally think that the version of democracy that we are offered is a scam anyway, and besides, there are many inherent problems with the concept of democracy, and the democracy that we today know is subservient to money, big business and the economy, like everything else. A benevolent dictator might even be better. And driving? Well, if you can ride a bike...

Oh well, maybe there was something I wanted to add after all.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by lolwut:

[Kennedy]

Oh yes, I am extremely ageist!

(If you have a problem with that, don't worry. You will grow out of it.)

I like that (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Seriously though, I have spoken to Shapiros10, and you wouldn't really know he was young until you see him.

There is another editor of roughly the same age who acts no-where near the same level of intelligence as Shappy. In fact, there is an editor of 18 who acts like a 12 year old...

[LaraLove]

Oh yes, I am extremely ageist!

(If you have a problem with that, don't worry. You will grow out of it.)

I like that (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Seriously though, I have spoken to Shapiros10, and you wouldn't really know he was young until you see him.

There is another editor of roughly the same age who acts no-where near the same level of intelligence as Shappy. In fact, there is an editor of 18 who acts like a 12 year old...

Shapiros10 was my last adoptee. That was a rough adoption and he "graduated", as he referred to it, himself (dropped out) because my assignments were too hard. Very immature at the time, which was understandable, as a 12-year-old. However, since that time, I've noticed a good change in him. I don't think getting adminship should be on his to-do list anytime soon, but I've seen a great deal of maturity from him recently, including him apologizing for some of his early behavior which he'd realized in looking back over things. You don't see a lot of 12-year-olds doing voluntary self-reflection.

I'm not sure where I stand on having minors at WP meetups. I think I'd prefer adults only, but as it was, I think he carried himself quite well. Surely he was the classiest WP there. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[Kennedy]

Surely he was the classiest WP there. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

QFT!

I heard there was a guy sleeping? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Oh yes, I am extremely ageist!

(If you have a problem with that, don't worry. You will grow out of it.)

I like that (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Seriously though, I have spoken to Shapiros10, and you wouldn't really know he was young until you see him.

There is another editor of roughly the same age who acts no-where near the same level of intelligence as Shappy. In fact, there is an editor of 18 who acts like a 12 year old...

Shapiros10 was my last adoptee. That was a rough adoption and he "graduated", as he referred to it, himself (dropped out) because my assignments were too hard. Very immature at the time, which was understandable, as a 12-year-old. However, since that time, I've noticed a good change in him. I don't think getting adminship should be on his to-do list anytime soon, but I've seen a great deal of maturity from him recently, including him apologizing for some of his early behavior which he'd realized in looking back over things. You don't see a lot of 12-year-olds doing voluntary self-reflection.

I'm not sure where I stand on having minors at WP meetups. I think I'd prefer adults only, but as it was, I think he carried himself quite well. Surely he was the classiest WP there. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

I never had a chance to discuss "being a mentor" with any Wikipedian before. I have a lot of concerns but first I would like to make sure

• Did you self select for the role or was there any kind of "nomination?"
• Was any kind of parental consent and/or notification obtained?
• Did you provide any form of ID verification as a part of becoming a "mentor."
• Was any background check or other vetting preformed?
• Did you receive any training? If so, what duration and form was this training?
• Did you receive supervision? If so, from whom?
• Did you contact the "adoptee" by email? chat? IRC? phone? in person contact?
• Are there any rules governing each type of contact described above?
• Did you receive any form of review or evaluation?
• Was the adoptee ever debriefed or exit interviewed?

I don't have any concerns about you specifically of course. I don't know enough about you to form them even if warranted. Each of the above is a common sense step that any non-profit that sought to engage adults and children in any ongoing relationship would need to address. Also such relationships would generally be seen as having the purpose benefiting the child. Any benefit to any other "social good" would be seen as ancillary and any kind of exploitation (in terms of servicing the "social good" by excessive edits, etc., not just the more gross types of exploitation) would be strictly avoided. I'm not sure that this is the case on Wikipedia.

[LaraLove]

I never had a chance to discuss "being a mentor" with any Wikipedian before. I have a lot of concerns but first I would like to make sure

• Did you self select for the role or was there any kind of "nomination?"
• Was any kind of parental consent and/or notification obtained?
• Did you provide any form of ID verification as a part of becoming a "mentor."
• Was any background check or other vetting preformed?
• Did you receive any training? If so, what duration and form was this training?
• Did you receive supervision? If so, from whom?
• Did you contact the "adoptee" by email? chat? IRC? phone? in person contact?
• Are there any rules governing each type of contact described above?
• Did you receive any form of review or evaluation?
• Was the adoptee ever debriefed or exit interviewed?

I don't have any concerns about you specifically of course. I don't know enough about you to form them even if warranted. Each of the above is a common sense step that any non-profit that sought to engage adults and children in any ongoing relationship would need to address. Also such relationships would generally be seen as having the purpose benefiting the child. Any benefit to any other "social good" would be seen as ancillary and any kind of exploitation (in terms of servicing the "social good" by excessive edits, etc., not just the more gross types of exploitation) would be strictly avoided. I'm not sure that this is the case on Wikipedia.

Wow. Well, it's not an official non-profit organization training program. I just adopted the kid to get him back on track after the lift of an indef block from MBisanz. Check out [[WP:ADOPT]]. I signed up for adoption when I was new. Neil (Fish & karate) was my adopter (wiki-daddy). Some time after graduating, I became an adopter. Shap emailed me one day, I responded and we negotiated, for lack of a better word, the terms of an adoption. I wasn't really fond of the idea of dealing with a kid, but I eventually created a classroom page for him. We went through assignments, like I had him read the deletion policy and comment on some random AFDs, later told him to be the first responder in some and link them to his class page. Had him actually vet random RFA candidates instead of making random comments that made it clear he'd done zero research. I had to give him most assignments twice because he'd not done them right the first time. He dropped out when it went into content work.

It's not any sort of official thing. It's just a program to help new users figure out what's going on. Some have classrooms where they get the adoptees into areas and see how they do. Others, like Neil, just make themselves available to answer questions. I chose a more involved approach, but it's all up to the adopter how they want to do it. Contact is all dependent on the users, and all the same you normally hear about as far as email, IRC, IMs, whatever else.

[GlassBeadGame]

Wow. Well, it's not an official non-profit organization training program. I just adopted the kid to get him back on track after the lift of an indef block from MBisanz. Check out [[WP:ADOPT]]. I signed up for adoption when I was new. Neil (Fish & karate) was my adopter (wiki-daddy). Some time after graduating, I became an adopter. Shap emailed me one day, I responded and we negotiated, for lack of a better word, the terms of an adoption. I wasn't really fond of the idea of dealing with a kid, but I eventually created a classroom page for him. We went through assignments, like I had him read the deletion policy and comment on some random AFDs, later told him to be the first responder in some and link them to his class page. Had him actually vet random RFA candidates instead of making random comments that made it clear he'd done zero research. I had to give him most assignments twice because he'd not done them right the first time. He dropped out when it went into content work.

It's not any sort of official thing. It's just a program to help new users figure out what's going on. Some have classrooms where they get the adoptees into areas and see how they do. Others, like Neil, just make themselves available to answer questions. I chose a more involved approach, but it's all up to the adopter how they want to do it. Contact is all dependent on the users, and all the same you normally hear about as far as email, IRC, IMs, whatever else.

"Wow" is the desired response. Also I appreciate that you had some reservation about taking on a child. You certainly seem to be well intended. I just want to give people a chance to reflect upon what kind or rigors are required in the wider world when people take on the responsibility of engaging children. Wikipedia "adoption,"which does not uncommonly involved adult to child interaction, is yet another "made up as we go along" Web 2.0 seat of the pants kind of thing. This is really not good enough when working with children.

[Kennedy]

I hate this thing where we all have to watch how we talk to kids. What would you (honestly) do if you saw a kid in the street crying?

Option 1: Go up and speak to him/her and leave yourself open for all sorts of accusations

Option 2: Let someone else deal with it.

I know which option I'd choose. I used to coach kids football (soccer) with a professional football club. I went to the toilet and a kid followed me in to the toilet rooms (not the stalls to clarify (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)) and I had to leave.

Scary stuff dealing with kids. Especially on the internet.

Anyway, enough of my tangents...

[LaraLove]

"Wow" is the desired response. Also I appreciate that you had some reservation about taking on a child. You certainly seem to be well intended. I just want to give people a chance to reflect upon what kind or rigors are required in the wider world when people take on the responsibility of engaging children. Wikipedia "adoption,"which does not uncommonly involved adult to child interaction, is yet another "made up as we go along" Web 2.0 seat of the pants kind of thing. This is really not good enough when working with children.

There's a lot of stuff that I just don't think about. I didn't want to deal with a kid because I didn't want to deal with the immaturity and such. I do watch myself when I know I'm around kids on the net. I try to watch my language and the content of my discussions. The BRC, for example, decided after Chet (16) that we would no longer accept any minors. Our IRC chan was often a playground for off-colored humor, but we'd mind our manners around the young ones. One very young WPian recently asked to chat with me on the phone, but I declined as I don't believe it's appropriate. Perhaps it's really not that much different than chatting by instant messenger, IRC or email... or even WP, for that matter... but I just don't feel it's appropriate. I have spoken with Chet on the phone multiple times, but it regarded a serious real-world matter, and was undoubtedly necessary.

Anyway, this is another reason I like this board. It makes me think about stuff I normally wouldn't. I withdrew from the adoption program several months ago, but I'll surely put greater thought into my interactions on Wikipedia and other related nooks of the web when it comes to dealing with minors.

How is it that there are so many sites on the internet restricting usage to those 13 years and older, but WP has no age restriction whatsoever regardless of the fact that it's uncensored as far as language and pornography?

[thekohser]

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?

I wonder where that video disappeared to?

[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?

I wonder where that video disappeared to?

It was taken down, partly at my suggestion, as potentially affecting the privacy of the child editor who appeared in it.

[A Horse With No Name]

I wonder where that video disappeared to?

You could include it here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Somey]

It was taken down, partly at my suggestion, as potentially affecting the privacy of the child editor who appeared in it.

Well, it's a no-win situation. You keep the video up there where people can see it, you potentially risk having it turn "viral" later on when/if the kid does something that's actually attention-worthy. Take it down, and you arouse people's curiosity about it - and worse, leave the actual content to their imaginations.

So if I remember correctly, the video showed User:Shapiros10 playing ping-pong with a gorilla who was wearing a Minnesota Vikings jersey, right? And there was a food fight, and he got covered with spaghetti sauce?

[Newyorkbrad]

It was taken down, partly at my suggestion, as potentially affecting the privacy of the child editor who appeared in it.

Well, it's a no-win situation. You keep the video up there where people can see it, you potentially risk having it turn "viral" later on when/if the kid does something that's actually attention-worthy. Take it down, and you arouse people's curiosity about it - and worse, leave the actual content to their imaginations.

Actually, I doubt that anyone had thought about this video for a year and a half, until this thread was suddenly revived for no apparent reason. If the current interest is in what I had to say, I've given much more substantive talks since then, one of which is linked on my Wikipedia userpage.

[thekohser]

Actually, I doubt that anyone had thought about this video for a year and a half, until this thread was suddenly revived for no apparent reason. If the current interest is in what I had to say, I've given much more substantive talks since then, one of which is linked on my Wikipedia userpage.

Sorry about the "no apparent reason". My reason was a comment on this news media blog.

Seems the commenter, Bob Kerns, thought there was no possibility of adults every interacting with children as a result of involvement with Wikipedia.

Of all the online and real-world venues we parents need to worry about our kids encountering pedophiles, Wikipedia has to be near the absolute bottom.

Precisely because the type of interaction you worry about simply doesn't exist there in any meaningful way. Nobody offers to "help you out" on Wikipedia. In its normal mode of usage, there is no conversation whatsoever. While not quite the online equivalent of your shelf of encyclopedias, it's pretty close.

I thought the video might be a nice example of how one tiny tot got very involved with the project.

[GlassBeadGame]

Actually, I doubt that anyone had thought about this video for a year and a half, until this thread was suddenly revived for no apparent reason. If the current interest is in what I had to say, I've given much more substantive talks since then, one of which is linked on my Wikipedia userpage.

Sorry about the "no apparent reason". My reason was a comment on this news media blog.

Seems the commenter, Bob Kerns, thought there was no possibility of adults every interacting with children as a result of involvement with Wikipedia.

Of all the online and real-world venues we parents need to worry about our kids encountering pedophiles, Wikipedia has to be near the absolute bottom.

Precisely because the type of interaction you worry about simply doesn't exist there in any meaningful way. Nobody offers to "help you out" on Wikipedia. In its normal mode of usage, there is no conversation whatsoever. While not quite the online equivalent of your shelf of encyclopedias, it's pretty close.

I thought the video might be a nice example of how one tiny tot got very involved with the project.

I guess the guy never heard of "adoption," meet-ups or even that private email button. I see NYB popped in to head off the potential for comments on his unseemly interaction with young children. Has he improved his own "not a problem" position on Wikipedia and children?

[A Horse With No Name]

Seems the commenter, Bob Kerns, thought there was no possibility of adults every interacting with children as a result of involvement with Wikipedia.

Of all the online and real-world venues we parents need to worry about our kids encountering pedophiles, Wikipedia has to be near the absolute bottom.

Precisely because the type of interaction you worry about simply doesn't exist there in any meaningful way. Nobody offers to "help you out" on Wikipedia. In its normal mode of usage, there is no conversation whatsoever. While not quite the online equivalent of your shelf of encyclopedias, it's pretty close.

I thought the video might be a nice example of how one tiny tot got very involved with the project.

In all fairness, Shappy was no "tiny tot" - he was 13 at the time and his father was present at the Wiki meet-up. And there was technically no interaction - he just read a sincere and earnest speech on "ageism" while the grumpy, lumpy old grown-ups stared into space with bored expressions. As for his involvement in Wikipedia, Shappy quit the project several months later.

[thekohser]

As for his involvement in Wikipedia, Shappy quit the project several months later.

You say "quit". I suspect "renamed with a new account".

Whatever the case, he typed up a potty mouth article.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[A Horse With No Name]

As for his involvement in Wikipedia, Shappy quit the project several months later.

You say "quit". I suspect "renamed with a new account".

I used to suspect the same thing. However, I've seen no evidence that he came back. (And if you know the kid, you'd recognize his style immediately.) I believe that he has moved on to the proverbial bigger and better.