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

[GlassBeadGame]

Beginning in 2007, the minimum age requirement (18 or the age of majority at the user's residence, whichever is greater) applicable to checkusers and oversighters has also been applied to the ArbCom elections. (This created some fuss because it was announced in the middle of the 2007 election, and two candidates had to withdraw.) FWIW, I opposed this change, to no particular avail.

I didn't know that you did, or even would, oppose that. I'm beginning to think your advocacy for child participation in Wikipedia absent implementing any child protective measure is problematic on the Durova level.

There was a Foundation-level decision in 2006 that only legal adults should be deciding on Checkuser or Oversight requests and reviewing private information derived from the results, which made sense. In the fall of 2007, it was decided that this implied that arbitrators also needed to be legal adults because private information is discussed among the arbitrators. That was a defensible interpretation of the policy, but not one that I believed was necessary. In any event, the point is now settled fairly conclusively, and my observation here was simply a historical one.

The ArbCom is a 15-member (more or less) committee, intended to be representative of the community as a whole. No individual one of the members has decision-making authority on his or her own, and I didn't see any reason that one or two members of a large committee shouldn't be drawn from the older teen group of editors, if the electorate so decided. (Note the reference to older teens; we're not talking about 12-year-olds as serious ArbCom candidates.) Previously a 16- or 17-year-old editor had served as one of the arbitrators for a year, and this raised absolutely no sort of age-related problems at all.

As for "child protective measures," I appreciate that you have a good-faith concern about this group of issues, but I've never been clear on what sort of protective measures you would suggest, other than banning younger people from editing, which would probably result more in people fibbing about (or not mentioning) their ages than anything else. Note that we are discussing here measures that you think would protect those who edit the encyclopedia. I'm aware of the threads discussing explicit content, some of which I think Wikipedia could use less of, but that's a separate, albeit related, discussion.

A reasonable and probably overdue child protective measure on Wikipedia would be to create a page clearly warning younger editors about the concerns that surround their posting too much identifying information, and giving them some tips on mistakes to avoid so that their Wikipedia experience might be a more positive one (avoiding too much "Myspaceness" being one of the tips I had in mind, which is apropos of this thread). As previously mentioned here on WR, I drafted such a page some time ago, but you among others here told me it would be a horrible mistake to post it, and I have no particular desire to be called various names in this context. Thus, the page and the advice continue not to exist, which is not an epic victory for child protection.

---emphasis added.

Sorry it took a couple of days to reply. I removed this portion from what was otherwise a pretty dreadful thread to restart here. I will PM you to help assure that you see this.

you are correct to believe that I would view a advisory as insufficient, especially if directed at the child him/herself. Such a advisory might have a proper roll as part of a COPPA like process in which parents of young children could use it make a informed decision about allowing them to participate.

My overall approach to child protective measures would be use the same standards and best practices that have been developed over time, and from many hard lessons, from those institutions and programs that have had sustained interaction between adults and children over decades or even centuries, eg churches, schools, civic organizations, social/athletic clubs.

The approach they take is very much standard by now. They recruit adult volunteers carefully. They vet and background check those interested in volunteer. They supervise they provide the adult volunteer with training. They provide ample opportunity for the children raise concerns or complaints.


Wikipedia, the largest collaborative project in the world facilitating adult and child interaction, does absolutely none of these things. It is not enough to say that WP is just a website, knowing the degree and extent that predators have come use web based fora as hunting grounds for children. They have in fact developed their own "best practices" for this kind of environment.

Nor can this discussion take place without considering the content of Wikipedia, which has a radical tolerance for pornography, and extensive attempts by practitioners bestiality and even pedophilia itself to shape articles into a form a friendly as possible to these exploitative sexual practices. This tolerance for the unacceptable is so entrenched that number two staff person of WMF has made public statements indicating that pedophilia is acceptable given the child's "consent" and a WMF-UK spokes person taunted an advocacy group with what he described as a "skull dance" when they were unable to make WP remove images of child pornography.

This is an environment much more problematic than the typical boyscout troop or after-school catechism class. But it is presently almost beyond either my own or probably your imagination that WP would in any time soon adopt these tried and true child protective practices. So I lower the bar to something that might be achieved sooner:

• Include child protective language in TOS;
• Use standard COPPA Screen Software (parental consent required for < 13 y/o);
• Disallow minors (up to 18) from identify themselves as such;
• Disable email of all minors, and;
• Make policing this policy an important program objective staffed by employees of the WMF, possibly assisted by volunteers and/or users with appropriate vetting, training and supervision.

This is based on two ideas. First make WP meet at least those standards that commercial websites have to meet in order to protect children from much less serious exploitation by business sites. Sites such as high sugar cereals or trendy Christmas toys have to meet (COPPA) which requires parental permission for very young child. Second make identification of older children difficult by people seeking to exploit them and make off-wiki and hidden communication more difficult as well. If this was done on the staff level, supervised by employees answerable to the WMF Board of Directors possibly assisted by volunteers (vetted, trained and supervised themselves) this would do much to protect children. Yes children would circumvent COPPA requirements. But even if they did there presence would be hidden from the predators and that would do significant good.

But today I am asking even less. As an immediate first step I ask that use your influence and status on Wikipedia to support a policy of over-sighting the user pages and disabling the email of any user that gives significant reasons to believe they are children. This would at least put some immediate barrier between children and predators on Wikipedia.

[Malleus]

But today I am asking even less. As an immediate first step I ask that use your influence and status on Wikipedia to support a policy of over-sighting the user pages and disabling the email of any user that gives significant reasons to believe they are children. This would at least put some immediate barrier between children and predators on Wikipedia.

That does seem like a sensible first step, I have to admit.

[Jake Wartenberg]

The foundation should be doing background checks on those with oversight access. They would be given access to lists of underage users.

This post has been edited by Jake Wartenberg: Sat 7th November 2009, 10:16pm

[anthony]

[*] Disallow minors (up to 18) from identify themselves as such;
[*] Disable email of all minors, and;

I still don't see how these two are not redundant. If Minors aren't allowed to identify themselves as such, how would their email get disabled?

Are you saying disallow them from identifying themselves as such publicly? If so, what's considered "publicly"?

[GlassBeadGame]

[*] Disallow minors (up to 18) from identify themselves as such;
[*] Disable email of all minors, and;

I still don't see how these two are not redundant. If Minors aren't allowed to identify themselves as such, how would their email get disabled?

Are you saying disallow them from identifying themselves as such publicly? If so, what's considered "publicly"?

I would want them to identify themselves as less than 18 in registration. They would then agree to not identify themselves as children in order to be permitted to edit. This would allow staff and vetted/trained volunteers to monitor them better. Of course some would evade this, but not all. For those children who evade the rule the further they are driven out of the view of predators the better.

The current proposed "baby-step" would not benefit from this disclosure at registration. It would only be able to address the most flagrant and obvious children drawing attention to themselves, but those are the ones who need protection the most.

"Publically" means anywhere on wiki or elsewhere pointing to their account on wiki. The swath is broad but the consequence is small. They could simply re-register under a new user name, not draw attention and edit. This is a remedial policy and should be applied liberally.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Child protection is the thin end of the wedge, as regards inserting some more sanity back into the Pee-dia, and it comes with a lot of very high power social leverage out there in the real world.

I play my cards far too wild to be able to take this one on but I support it entirely and I can see how the right person or persons could do it, and take it further than Glassbead is suggesting, e.g. age confirmations to access XXX Pee-dia pages.

There are numerous NPOs to involve, e.g. National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families, Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection, Internet Watch Foundation, religious and youth groups etc.

I reckon that, with a decently produced report, you would find yourself a senator to champion it, for the Pee-dia to dig their heels or refuse would bring back a heap of bad PR.

The added benefit being that it would be like dawn rising on the vampires that inhabit the gloom of the Wiki-bardo ... someone pulling moral rank on them and actions beyond their self-obsessed discussion and consensus bringing about positive change will horrify and enrage some.

[GlassBeadGame]

The article on Denmark says "Denmark is the smallest country in Scandinavia." This would be true if two points were accepted:

* Iceland is not in Scandinavia; some would agree but others wouldn't and under NPOV that should be recognised.
* Greenland is not part of Denmark. That indeed seems to be the Wikipedia mythology. They draw a non-existent distinction between Denmark and the Kingdom of Denmark.

In people's experience, do I stand a fart's chance in hell of being allowed to sort that out?

Actually, there has been extensive discussion on Wikipedia of the current constitutional relationship between Denmark and Greenland.

Imagine that. Time to discuss the "current constitutional relationship between between Denmark and Greenland" but still a non-show politician on child protective issues on the world largest collaboration between adults and children.

[Newyorkbrad]

The article on Denmark says "Denmark is the smallest country in Scandinavia." This would be true if two points were accepted:

* Iceland is not in Scandinavia; some would agree but others wouldn't and under NPOV that should be recognised.
* Greenland is not part of Denmark. That indeed seems to be the Wikipedia mythology. They draw a non-existent distinction between Denmark and the Kingdom of Denmark.

In people's experience, do I stand a fart's chance in hell of being allowed to sort that out?

Actually, there has been extensive discussion on Wikipedia of the current constitutional relationship between Denmark and Greenland.

Imagine that. Time to discuss the "current constitutional relationship between between Denmark and Greenland" but still a non-show politician on child protective issues on the world largest collaboration between adults and children.

As I mentioned to you privately, I've hesitated to join that discussion here because the last time I did I was called various names, and recent developments here on WR (now tarpitted) have made this an even less friendly venue toward developing that particular subject. For example, if I explain in detail why your suggested mechanism of identifying younger editors and disabling their ability to create Wikipedia e-mail accounts could be entirely counterproductive, I am certain I will be accused of seeking to facilitate dangerous interactions.

It remains the case that Wikipedia needs a prominent page on-wiki giving strongly worded guidance to the younger editors about matters such as avoiding self-identification, and yet it's been strongly suggested by you and others here that I should not post a draft of one. I'm still trying to figure out how to work through that.

Oh, and "the world's largest collaboration between adults and children" is almost certainly an exaggeration. Largest online collaboration or largest encyclopedic collaboration, possibly (though I don't know much about competitors for the former designation).

[GlassBeadGame]

The article on Denmark says "Denmark is the smallest country in Scandinavia." This would be true if two points were accepted:

* Iceland is not in Scandinavia; some would agree but others wouldn't and under NPOV that should be recognised.
* Greenland is not part of Denmark. That indeed seems to be the Wikipedia mythology. They draw a non-existent distinction between Denmark and the Kingdom of Denmark.

In people's experience, do I stand a fart's chance in hell of being allowed to sort that out?

Actually, there has been extensive discussion on Wikipedia of the current constitutional relationship between Denmark and Greenland.

Imagine that. Time to discuss the "current constitutional relationship between between Denmark and Greenland" but still a non-show politician on child protective issues on the world largest collaboration between adults and children.

As I mentioned to you privately, I've hesitated to join that discussion here because the last time I did I was called various names, and recent developments here on WR (now tarpitted) have made this an even less friendly venue toward developing that particular subject. For example, if I explain in detail why your suggested mechanism of identifying younger editors and disabling their ability to create Wikipedia e-mail accounts could be entirely counterproductive, I am certain I will be accused of seeking to facilitate dangerous interactions.

It remains the case that Wikipedia needs a prominent page on-wiki giving strongly worded guidance to the younger editors about matters such as avoiding self-identification, and yet it's been strongly suggested by you and others here that I should not post a draft of one. I'm still trying to figure out how to work through that.

Oh, and "the world's largest collaboration between adults and children" is almost certainly an exaggeration. Largest online collaboration or largest encyclopedic collaboration, possibly (though I don't know much about competitors for the former designation).

On November 5, in a post on WR. you asked me to elaborate on what kind of child protective measures I thought would be appropriate. On November 7 I started a thread specifically to answer your question. Also on November 7 you responded by pm indicating you would respond to thread. Nothing until November 18, after I comment on your non-response. Then you indicate in PM that you would not respond on WR because of your concern that your attendance of event with children and a resulting photograph have been unfairly characterized and your resented being called a politician. You also indicated you would participate in the discussion on the Foundation-List Newsgroup. Again you failed to show, being content to let the topic raised by Privatemusings on F-L to die out without achieving any real discussion.

I think it is clear the characterization as a “politician” in this matter is fair if not generous.

[Newyorkbrad]

GBG, could you perhaps refrain from hijacking threads?

Oh, why the fuck am I even asking.

Or perhaps split into a new thread; "Why smart wikipedians won't touch this topic with a ten-foot pole". Brad's silence on the topic says a lot.

As I've mentioned several times before, I actually wrote a page (to be captioned "Advice for Younger Editors" or the like) that was intended to be posted on Wikipedia to try to improve the situation in this area. This was a significant effort on my part and took several hours.

I did that months ago, and as best I recall it was not prompted by anything that happened on Wikipedia Review, although the subject has been discusssed here as well. Points covered in the draft page included the importance of minors' (particularly younger minors) not giving out too much identifying information about themselves, as well as avoiding other common mistakes that sometimes causes stress and unhappiness to new and especially younger editors.

When I mentioned here on WR that I was thinking of posting a draft of such a page for Wikipedia community review, I was basically told (by several people, GlassBeadGame being the loudest) that I would be tarred and feathered here if I did. So I didn't. One person suggested that creating such a page was a Foundation responsibility, meaning that if the Foundation didn't do it then it would never get done. To no one's surprise, that is what exactly what has happened, at least so far.

Of course, there is a substantive issue that divides those who have commented on Wikipedia Review on this issue, which is whether minors should be allowed to participate on Wikipedia at all as Wikipedia is currently constituted. For those for whom the answer is no, I can see how the idea of a page suggesting how to best and most carefully participate would be undesirable. But I don't believe that that is the "consensus" position here, and for better or worse, it certainly is not the consensus on Wikipedia itself.

I've been considering anew for weeks whether to undertake this effort on my own, and put up with whatever might be said, or whether to try to assembly a group of wiki editors to take the project on. I've admittedly been uncertain about how best to proceed, which explains my delay in proceeding. (Those who prefer to think that the delay is due to my being a "politician" on wiki are asked to explain what exactly I might try to use my so-called political power to achieve at this point.)

I feel right now about the way I did when I was told here a year and a half ago that I obviously didn't give a damn about BLP problems on Wikipedia, even though I'd arguably written some of the more descriptive posts about that issue in the history of the site. That is, I think I'm singled out sometimes here on WR as the face of Wikipedia's not solving a problem, or satisfactorily solving a problem, simply because I'm one of the more prominent Wikipedians to post here. That's not a role I particularly signed up for, quite honestly; I'm a volunteer just like everyone else. I'm not sure if there's a good answer to this problem, other than the one that Mr. Awbrey will likely suggest, in words or pictures. An answer that sometimes has more to recommend it than I used to think.

[A Horse With No Name]

As I mentioned to you privately, I've hesitated to join that discussion here because the last time I did I was called various names...

You have to tell us what you were called in order to avoid repeats -- there is nothing more dull than a twice-told putdown.

It remains the case that Wikipedia needs a prominent page on-wiki giving strongly worded guidance to the younger editors about matters such as avoiding self-identification...

How about: Hey, kids, turn off the computer and go play outside!

I'm still trying to figure out how to work through that.

It's not Rubik's cube, you know.

Oh, and "the world's largest collaboration between adults and children" is almost certainly an exaggeration.

No, it is certainly not an exaggeration. This is an exaggeration!

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Sun 29th November 2009, 10:13pm

[Newyorkbrad]

It remains the case that Wikipedia needs a prominent page on-wiki giving strongly worded guidance to the younger editors about matters such as avoiding self-identification...

How about: Hey, kids, turn off the computer and go play outside!

I actually have a section on that....

[MZMcBride]

Newyorkbrad: Post the essay please.

[Cedric]

Second.

[GlassBeadGame]

Moderator Note: This thread is currently mostly not about child protection. I am inclined to split thread into one about Kelly's mod-ness and the old List Leak and another (with only a couple posts actually about chld protection) to be combined with my previous thread about child protection. If NYB does in fact choose to post his essay it will make more sense there. If not then there really isn't much for a new thread in any event. Awaiting comments etc. GBG

[GlassBeadGame]

Split off child protection posts from thread that had become mostly about Kelly's becoming a Mod on WR and combined them with this thread. The remains of the old thread can be found here.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

We often relate the works of the Wikipedia to the working of a cult.

The leaders of the cult I am most informed about, the Brahma Kumaris covered up and hid incidents of child sex abuse happening at the two main centers, and sought to disassociate the sect from any public discussion of it.

To the best of my knowledge, the perpetrators were never identified nor brought to prosecution. According to their philosophy, the child deserved it because of similar crimes carried out in past lives. They believe it is good fortune for bad karma to be clear at its headquarters, the only place on earth "pure" enough for God to incarnate in person and speak through the cult's psychic mediums (or chaneller).

One individual took it upon themselves to address these matters and pursue the leadership to bring about a Child Protect Policy. It took over 4 years of persistent follow up to runaround and delays in a high centralized, "god empowered" cultic hierarchy with considerable communication networks.

The documentation of this is, here: Child Abuse and Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (Raja Yoga), June 2004 [v 4d 180604] by eromain eromain@nildram.co.uk.

Perhaps the more useful parts of it, proposed child protection policies are, here:

Child Protection Policy.

What luck do you think you will have with the Wikipedia and what is your best strategy?

Personally, I have to think starting a 'Wiki Truth/ Wiki Concern" trust, documenting the correspondence with the Wikipedia foundation in a similar way, publishing it in public, reaching out to related charities and campaigns is the only way to go forward. All it would take is one or two people sitting down for an hour or so, now and again, following up on correspondence and making a few phone calls.

In short, getting serious about Wikipedia Review. Why not? It is shaping the way generations think. (Having said which, it would obvious be better to have it disassociated with this site).

It is very hard for me NOT to correlate the "birds of a feather, flocking together" in the so-called consensus created by a handful of addicts, normalizing graphically illustrated hard core porn and sexual perversion as material for what constitutes an "Encyclopedia" pushed towards child.

In the recent David Shankbone incident, we see the Jimbo Wales ... porn ... David Shankbone ... porn ... Israeli Consultate wikipedia campaign ... porn connection. Again it rises in the recent discussions on, e.g. Cock and Ball torture and Bestialists and Pedophiles editing Wikipedia and numerous others brought up here. Remember the image we removed of a young Asian girl, exposing herself, urinating in the street obvious unhappy at the photo being taken ... a photo whose inclusion was defend by "Wikipedians".

Not all child abuse is sexual. Where does it move from liberalism to conflict of interest/POV pushing to 'grooming' on a cultural scale.

For me, I also see the same "birds of a feather, flocking together" at the other end ... where Wiki cultist first move to defend and protect the religious cultists. The Brahma Kumaris page being an example of this, where a cultist has applied the largest tag I have ever seen on an otherwise extensively referenced page. So extensively referenced because of the persistent attempt of the Brahma Kumari cultists to discredit it. The kneejerk of the Wikipedians being to defend the other cultist.

I am attempting to use the work "cult ... cultic ... cultist" specifically, not as a derogatory, to point at a combination of social and psychological factors that manifest in such environments. The Brahma Kumaris depending, much like the Wikipedia, on a business plan exploiting the free labor of its serf classes' both leaderships enjoying ultimate unaccountability ... at least in their own minds.

Whereas the leadership of the BKWSU might hand out 'indulgences' as an encouragement and the reward of ruling Heaven on Earth for 2,500 years after the nuclear "Destruction" of this world; the leaders of the Wikipedia appears to accommodate 'sexual indulgences' and reward their faithful with everlasting status and "special powers".

And damn any children who might be dragged into it all ...

[carbuncle]

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

[Milton Roe]

In the recent David Shankbone incident, we see the Jimbo Wales ... porn ... David Shankbone ... porn ... Israeli Consultate wikipedia campaign ... porn connection. Again it rises in the recent discussions on, e.g. Cock and Ball torture and Bestialists and Pedophiles editing Wikipedia and numerous others brought up here.

I'm pretty sure I remember Cock_and_Bull_Torture and the connection to Jimbo. Had something to do with the text of his public speeches, right?

[Nja247]

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

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

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