Think about the children...., why minors should not edit wikipedia Options Rating

[Eva Destruction]

My kids are 9 7 and 5 and pretty internet savvy.

Most sites involving social interaction that have any social responsibility put up at least a basic age request and request for parental approval. OK its easy to circumvent for the average kid but it sends a "message" about how things work. My 9 year old has an email address and could easily circumvent such protections with little effort.

The main point is that if she does, she knows she has stepped outside certain boundaries and that affects her behavior. It sends a message. And I monitor her internet access anyway so I know what she is up to.

That how it should be for kids on wikipedia,to be an admin it should require a a parental approval hoop to jump through however easy it is to circumvent. Children are children and we should ensure we remain that - we have created our society on that basis for good reasons.

I went to pubs at 15 years old, got hideously pissed etc, as you do. But I knew I was breaking the rules and I really didnt have full adult status.I find it amazing that wikipedia accepts kids under 16 as arbiter of disputes of fact or civility or whatever.

Funnily enough in the legal world,people appling for arbitration/conciliation jobs tend to be the most experienced and generally over the age of 40.

Ageism is about the difference between a 40 year old and a 60 year old not 10 year old and a 30 year old.

The sum of human knowledge as managed by 14 year olds.... thanks but no thanks!

Well said. My thoughts as a father precisely.

I'd love to hear a response from the WMF as to why they feel these basic hoops to be unnecessary for wikipedia.

Have you asked them?

If you can stand wading through some particularly turgid Wikipedese, the Big Ruling on the matter was here and stemmed from a lot of shouting here.

[Alex]

I'd love to hear a response from the WMF as to why they feel these basic hoops to be unnecessary for wikipedia.

Have you asked them?

If you can stand wading through some particularly turgid Wikipedese, the Big Ruling on the matter was here and stemmed from a lot of shouting here.

Oh that was over two years ago. And ArbCom aren't the foundation. I think someone ought to try pushing this through again. Wikipedia is a very different place from the Wikipedia of late 2006.

[momentos]

Have I asked them?

I live in the UK. From following discussions here I would think it may be fairly fruitless but you have a fair point.

The main point is that most (professional) sites that know that they are going to have a substantial degree of social interaction with kids put the protections in automatically, however much they are built of straw.

I am not saying that a child should require such approval for a basic edit to wikipedia only if they get more involved as, say, an admin.

The demographic of sub-18 year old wikipedia admins is probably skewed to the higher end of the social scale. I do wonder how many of the mummys and daddys of these wannabes know what the lovely little lambs are up to on the internet whilst they sup their 5th glass of pinot grigio downstairs.....

This post has been edited by momentos: Thu 12th March 2009, 11:32pm

[Doc glasgow]

My kids are 9 7 and 5 and pretty internet savvy.

Most sites involving social interaction that have any social responsibility put up at least a basic age request and request for parental approval. OK its easy to circumvent for the average kid but it sends a "message" about how things work. My 9 year old has an email address and could easily circumvent such protections with little effort.

The main point is that if she does, she knows she has stepped outside certain boundaries and that affects her behavior. It sends a message. And I monitor her internet access anyway so I know what she is up to.

That how it should be for kids on wikipedia,to be an admin it should require a a parental approval hoop to jump through however easy it is to circumvent. Children are children and we should ensure we remain that - we have created our society on that basis for good reasons.

I went to pubs at 15 years old, got hideously pissed etc, as you do. But I knew I was breaking the rules and I really didnt have full adult status.I find it amazing that wikipedia accepts kids under 16 as arbiter of disputes of fact or civility or whatever.

Funnily enough in the legal world,people appling for arbitration/conciliation jobs tend to be the most experienced and generally over the age of 40.

Ageism is about the difference between a 40 year old and a 60 year old not 10 year old and a 30 year old.

The sum of human knowledge as managed by 14 year olds.... thanks but no thanks!

Well said. My thoughts as a father precisely.

I'd love to hear a response from the WMF as to why they feel these basic hoops to be unnecessary for wikipedia.

Have you asked them?

Ha, ha!

[Alex]

Have you asked them?

Ha, ha!

Ah, so no then. Thanks for your answer!

[momentos]

How old are you alex, as you seem to have missed doc glasgow's point.

Technically I suppose ethics dont apply until you are 18 as any ethical disputes tend to be civil rather than criminal, and as any fule know, you cant sue a minor.... so perhaps the point is lost.

Do you hold opinions of your own or just diss the opinions of others?

This post has been edited by momentos: Thu 12th March 2009, 11:59pm

[Alex]

How old are you alex, as you seem to have missed doc glasgow's point.

Technically I suppose ethics dont apply until you are 18 as any ethical disputes tend to be civil rather than criminal, and as any fule know, you cant sue a minor....

Do you hold opinions of your own or just diss the opinions of others?

I certainly have my opinions on things yes. I don't "diss" others' comments, I simply point out their flaws, if there are any. Or I agree with them if I think they're good.

[momentos]

Well give your opinions then.

People have two choices in life - to define themselves by what they stand for or by what they stand against. The latter is of course is the easy option which most people take. Standing up for something is alot harder.

So a simple question, probably asked a zillion times before, does a 14 year old have the social skills and experience to deal with dispute resolution, content disputes and civility issues however advanced they may be for their years? Should they be put in such positions without their parents consent?

This post has been edited by momentos: Fri 13th March 2009, 12:12am

[Alex]

Well give your opinions then.

People have two choices in life - to define themselves by what they stand for or by what they stand against. The latter is of course is the easy option which most people take. Standing up for something is alot harder.

So a simple question, probably asked a zillion times before, does a 14 year old have the social skills and experience to deal with dispute resolution, content disputes and civility issues however advanced they may be for their years? Should they be put in such positions without their parents consent?

Simple answer: no.

[momentos]

Funnily enough, my answer too.

Which is why I will keep my kids away from wikipedia and its ills until and unless it reforms. And I will vocally recommend the same to others. And I am sure I am part of a growing number

This and the prurient content issues really are the main issues. Wikipedia's footfall is probably 50% sub-18's.

My kids all including the 5 year old know, for example, the "mechanics" of sex but the chances I would let them anywhere near the unrepresentative self promoting bullshit on wikipedia are about zero. I don't give a damn whether she grows up straight, lesbian, bestial (!) or whatever, but even now I know she would be better served by going to persiankitty.com (allegedly...) than wikipedia.

A good idea ruined in the implementation. I still wait for Douglas Adams to rise from the grave and claim his true position as sole flounder of the idea way before Larry Sanger....

This post has been edited by momentos: Fri 13th March 2009, 12:35am

[Malleus]

Funnily enough, my answer too.

Which is why I will keep my kids away from wikipedia and its ills until and unless it reforms. And I will vocally recommend the same to others. And I am sure I am part of a growing number

This and the prurient content issues really are the main issues. Wikipedia's footfall is probably 50% sub-18's.

My kids all including the 5 year old know, for example, the "mechanics" of sex but the chances I would let them anywhere near the unrepresentative self promoting bullshit on wikipedia are about zero. I don't give a damn whether she grows up straight, lesbian, bestial (!) or whatever, but even now I know she would be better served by going to persiankitty.com (allegedly...) than wikipedia.

A good idea ruined in the implementation. I still wait for Douglas Adams to rise from the grave and claim his true position as sole flounder of the idea way before Larry Sanger....

The issue of sexual content is one that seems to be dealt with rather strangely. Basic biological articles are what they are, and it's for parents to decide when their children are old enough to read and/or understand them, just like with any other encyclopedia. But lists of big-breasted porn stars? What the hell is that about?

This post has been edited by Malleus: Fri 13th March 2009, 12:46am

[dogbiscuit]

This thread is probably one of the best indications of why there should not be minors on Wikipedia.

Try and have this discussion on Wikipedia, and you get dolts like Shankbone in full screaming Libetarian mode telling you how your own children are being abused by your concerns for their welfare. The ratio of sanity to knee jerk OMGODZTEHChildren!! is something of a relief given that we are supposed to be the evil nutters.

[Malleus]

This thread is probably one of the best indications of why there should not be minors on Wikipedia.

Try and have this discussion on Wikipedia, and you get dolts like Shankbone in full screaming Libetarian mode telling you how your own children are being abused by your concerns for their welfare. The ratio of sanity to knee jerk OMGODZTEHChildren!! is something of a relief given that we are supposed to be the evil nutters.

I have belatedly realised that it's almost impossible to have a rational discussion on wikipedia about anything without some half-witted clot jumping up and down in self-righteous indignation. If only I'd discovered this site sooner ...

[Milton Roe]

The issue of sexual content is one that seems to be dealt with rather strangely. Basic biological articles are what they are, and it's for parents to decide when their children are old enough to read and/or understand them, just like with any other encyclopedia. But lists of big-breasted porn stars? What the hell is that about?

Oh, that's Guy Chapman's hobby. He is an admin called JzG who amassed much power and got to spend it on his favorite candy as a reward.

Should it be there without some kind of envelope? Who knows? This is Wikipedia, where the powerful do as they please.

[GlassBeadGame]

The issue of sexual content is one that seems to be dealt with rather strangely. Basic biological articles are what they are, and it's for parents to decide when their children are old enough to read and/or understand them, just like with any other encyclopedia. But lists of big-breasted porn stars? What the hell is that about?

Oh, that's Guy Chapman's hobby. He is an admin called JzG who amassed much power and got to spend it on his favorite candy as a reward.

Should it be there without some kind of envelope? Who knows? This is Wikipedia, where the powerful do as they please.

Much, much worse than that in articles about pedophilia and bestiality.

[CharlotteWebb]

Just replace ALL IRL Names in WP with Pseudonyms, including the BLP Subjects — no, wait, Anon №'s

So "Obama" would become, say, "Resident 1600 Penn Ave", or better yet "BLP 965203856451330".

Assuming you wanted a serious response to this, Jon, we generally call people however they prefer to be called. He could say "call me Barry from now on" and just like that everybody would, but they wouldn't forget this is just a pet name for name is Barack.

On the other hand if somebody has used a pseudonym their entire career... let's say they are listed on the ballot under a pseudonym and is elected president using a pseudonym, Wikipedia would uniformly refer to him or her as that pseudonym and (ideally) omit the real name if the person didn't do anything important while self-identifying under their real name.

I'm sure a lot of users would disagree about the last bit. For example, some editors have a creepy obsession with specific porn stars and will search heaven and hell in order to post their real names under which the subject has never been never publicly known. That ain't right.

[CharlotteWebb]

The usual thinking around here is that it has something to do with Section 230 immunity but many other sites rely on the same immunity and they usually have ToSs. The best I can figure it is part of a wider embrace of irresponsibility.

(let's talk like Awbrey today)

more like they don't give a ToSs

Char

[EricBarbour]

Much, much worse than that in articles about pedophilia and bestiality.

I'm glad you brought that up.

The original RFA is a fascinating document.
Not so much shouting there, as simple equivocating and buck-passing.

One thing I noticed:
nearly all of the admins who were actively commenting there are either inactive or retired today.
But the five who voted on the findings are (all too) well-known to most folks here:
Charles Matthews, Fred Bauder, Jayjg, Morven, and The Epopt......

They voted 5-0 to basically nullify any changes and avoid any decisions.

Failure to achieve consensus
3) Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy and alternative policies addressing the same matters have failed to achieve consensus.
Pass 5-0 at 17:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dunno about you, but that disgusts me.

Now let's look a little closer. The admin who did the most talking was Herostratus (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Look at his user page. On June 1, 2008, he added this:

Ever since The Incident — you probably read about it in the papers — they have greatly restricted my computer access, therefore I have not been and will not be as active as I would like. For a while. After a certain period of good behavior the Local Council may restore my computer privileges. Thank you for your patience.

More than a little creepy. And I can't find a single clue as to what the hell he's talking about.

If you look into his talk page, you find he's been heavily involved with editing the Pedophilia and related items.

Extremely creepy.

I think we just stumbled into WP's primary pedophile gang. And they've been involved with
preventing changes to policies---policies that might keep minor children from editing WP.

Thatcher was involved with this. Ask him what the hell went on.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 13th March 2009, 8:30am

[Eva Destruction]

Herostratus came up once before. Nobody seemed to have a clue then, either.

[gadfly]

I, too, don't allow my 12 year old son easy access to wikipedia. In our case, it is somewhat undermined by two factors: (i) his school seems to encourage his class to search out and find information on wikipedia at times for homework (he knows and thinks it is good to only now do that when I am present), and (ii) no other parents, so far as he can tell, seems to have the slightest worry about them having unfettered access to anywhere on the internet. The school did get them to agree not to look at inappropriate sites on the Internet, but that seems to be inadequate and inconsistent if one sees the true nature of wikipedia.

On the matter of how wikipedia has dealt with sexual and paedophilia related issues, as the latest posts in this thread have outlined: if nothing else convinces people that they should be very wary of allowing children unmonitored access to the site, and especially of having children as administrators, surely this is another sufficient reason! It is another matter on top of all the other legitimate concerns raised here (by Doc Glasgow and others) about maturity and ability to be responsible for things, both legally and personally.