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

[Doc glasgow]

I think I've hit a raw nerve here.

I am personally of the opinion that legal minors should not be allowed (and certainly actively discouraged from) editing wikipedia, never mind admining. My reason is not primarily about the quality of their actions, although on average younger editors will be less mature and more problematic. (And before anyone attacks that statement as ageist, I ask what sane society would let a 9 year old drive a car or fly a plane if they showed that they could pass the required proficiency/quality test?). No, my principle reason for discouraging minors is for their own protection. Editing wikipedia can have serious consequences. You can incur legal liabilities for libel. You can unwisely give out information leading to stalking or real-world harassment. And, perhaps most worryingly, you can leave an on-line trail that will follow you into adulthood via google and can have serious consequences for you life and reputation. Those are serious risks, which all editors must weigh up. However, I am of the opinion that it is irresponsible for us to expose minors to such risks. In real life, where minors take on risks, parental consent is required. It should be the same here. No, we can't stop people editing as minors (if they don't declare their age, there's not much we can do), but it ought to be officially discouraged - and indeed known minors should probably be blocked. Sorry, but this hobby is too dangerous for people who are not legally of full age to consent to risk exposure. (An additional reason for preventing minors is that we are also responsible for the protection of out BLP subjects, and I don't think it is responsible for us to place their reputations in the hands of children - or annons, but that's another matter). These are the reasons why I will oppose all minors on RfA as a matter of principle. Is this ageist? Yes, in the same way it is ageist to support prohibitions on minors smoking, driving, flying, fighting in wars, buying firearms, watching porn etc. Discrimination is not always a bad thing.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[GlassBeadGame]

I think I've hit a raw nerve here.

I am personally of the opinion that legal minors should not be allowed (and certainly actively discouraged from) editing wikipedia, never mind admining. My reason is not primarily about the quality of their actions, although on average younger editors will be less mature and more problematic. (And before anyone attacks that statement as ageist, I ask what sane society would let a 9 year old drive a car or fly a plane if they showed that they could pass the required proficiency/quality test?). No, my principle reason for discouraging minors is for their own protection. Editing wikipedia can have serious consequences. You can incur legal liabilities for libel. You can unwisely give out information leading to stalking or real-world harassment. And, perhaps most worryingly, you can leave an on-line trail that will follow you into adulthood via google and can have serious consequences for you life and reputation. Those are serious risks, which all editors must weigh up. However, I am of the opinion that it is irresponsible for us to expose minors to such risks. In real life, where minors take on risks, parental consent is required. It should be the same here. No, we can't stop people editing as minors (if they don't declare their age, there's not much we can do), but it ought to be officially discouraged - and indeed known minors should probably be blocked. Sorry, but this hobby is too dangerous for people who are not legally of full age to consent to risk exposure. (An additional reason for preventing minors is that we are also responsible for the protection of out BLP subjects, and I don't think it is responsible for us to place their reputations in the hands of children - or annons, but that's another matter). These are the reasons why I will oppose all minors on RfA as a matter of principle. Is this ageist? Yes, in the same way it is ageist to support prohibitions on minors smoking, driving, flying, fighting in wars, buying firearms, watching porn etc. Discrimination is not always a bad thing.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a perfectly sensible position. Too bad you have to be defensive, almost apologetic, about it. You anticipated the response correctly.

[Malleus]

This is a perfectly sensible position. Too bad you have to be defensive, almost apologetic, about it. You anticipated the response correctly.

Amen. Some of the rubbish being trotted in that discussion just beggars belief: "There is an unwritten policy that we all agree on, that discrimination on the basis of race, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation is not acceptable as a reason for an RfA opposition. Age should be included in this as well."

What's next? Dying is no reason to remove an administrator's bit, as it may be seen as disrespectful to the relatives? Ridiculous.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[gadfly]

Amen. Some of the rubbish being trotted in that discussion just beggars belief: "There is an unwritten policy that we all agree on, that discrimination on the basis of race, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation is not acceptable as a reason for an RfA opposition. Age should be included in this as well."

What's next? Dying is no reason to remove an administrator's bit, as it may be seen as disrespectful to the relatives? Ridiculous.

I await the first successful neonate admin, though judging by some of the behaviour of the some of them, we have them already. As for dying being no reason to remove an admin's status, since little else seems to be sufficient, I wonder even about dying. How about foetus admins? We may as well have them, after all, its no big deal, and they could hardly do as much damage as some of the admins we currently have.

Seriously, the reasons for not having child admins are very persuasive. Some children might be able to do some admin work, decided upon after seeing some previous work of theirs, but this seems a poor reason to allow them by disregarding the other points against allowing them: after all, some paedophiles might be capable to teaching children well, but one might not want to allow them, regardless, in this case, because of the risk.

This post has been edited by gadfly:

[The Wales Hunter]

I'm in full agreement with Scott's views on this one. I would contribute over there but, as per by userpage, I'm not lifting another finger until flagged revs are brought in.

[Alex]

What's next? Dying is no reason to remove an administrator's bit, as it may be seen as disrespectful to the relatives? Ridiculous.

Oh... wow. I actually agree with this. There is a level of insanity in some people that believe in "Once an admin, always an admin", and it should not be possible to desysop unless the person goes through a long drawn out dramatic process, instead of an easy week-long discussion.

Sad as it may be, I have no doubt in my mind that should an admin die (I'm not aware of any enwiki admins dying) there will be several that will cry out it is disrespectful. No - it isn't. A company doesn't keep someone on the payroll if they die. Why should we? Leaving admin status on an account that will never ever be used again serves no purpose whatsoever, much like totally inactive admins having the bit, but if an admin was to die I'd guarantee there will be stupid comments like ones mentioned.

[Chris Croy]

(Blank) can have serious consequences. You can incur legal liabilities for libel. You can unwisely give out information leading to stalking or real-world harassment. And, perhaps most worryingly, you can leave an on-line trail that will follow you into adulthood via google and can have serious consequences for you life and reputation.

I am dumber for having read this, stupid for thinking this thread would be anything but, and retarded for having replied. Let's play Mad Libs! How many things can you think of that can be slotted into there without in any way changing the meaning? Here, let's have a few more.

-Maintaining a blog
-Having a MySpace or other social networking account.

Clearly we need to pass a law saying no one under the age of 18 can engage in any online interactivity without parental supervision. It's the only way we can hope to keep them safe from themselves.

This post has been edited by Chris Croy:

[LaraLove]

I think I've hit a raw nerve here.

<snip> --Scott Mac (Doc) 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well said.

I'm in full agreement with Scott's views on this one. I would contribute over there but, as per by userpage, I'm not lifting another finger until flagged revs are brought in.

We need more people to take this stance.

[Alex]

I think I've hit a raw nerve here.

You know? I actually agree to an extent. I would never support a 9 year old for adminship. You'll have to believe me on that one. The problem is, some continue opposing because an editor is too young, when the editor is in their early 20s. You mention things like smoking, drinking, driving etc. Some of those things are legal in some places at 16, and others even earlier. Yet such people are opposed based on that age. What is the bottom age you require?

Different people have different levels of "aggression" towards minor RFA candidates, so the age they like to see is going to be different. What is acceptable and what is not?

[Doc glasgow]

I think I've hit a raw nerve here.

You know? I actually agree to an extent. I would never support a 9 year old for adminship. You'll have to believe me on that one. The problem is, some continue opposing because an editor is too young, when the editor is in their early 20s. You mention things like smoking, drinking, driving etc. Some of those things are legal in some places at 16, and others even earlier. Yet such people are opposed based on that age. What is the bottom age you require?

Different people have different levels of "aggression" towards minor RFA candidates, so the age they like to see is going to be different. What is acceptable and what is not?

Personally, I'd take the age of full legal majority in the state where the servers are located (presuming that's somewhere between 14 and 19), and no let anyone under that age edit (except perhaps the consent of their legal guardian)

[Malleus]

Different people have different levels of "aggression" towards minor RFA candidates, so the age they like to see is going to be different. What is acceptable and what is not?

I've seen 12 suggested as a minimum age, but for me it would be 16.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Fritz]

I think that, laudable as the sentiment may be, Doc, until there's a way to verify the age of contributors, it's all somewhat difficult to enforce.

I mean, noone can tell if I'm lying or not when I say I'm at University. For all you know, I'm 7 years old.

So this boils down to a need for credentials if ever to be enforced seriously. I'm not convinced either way on that, but I'm sure some regulars will pipe up about now...

[Malleus]

Clearly we need to pass a law saying no one under the age of 18 can engage in any online interactivity without parental supervision. It's the only way we can hope to keep them safe from themselves.

Seems like a good idea to me, although I'd probably make it 16 rather than 18.

I think that, laudable as the sentiment may be, Doc, until there's a way to verify the age of contributors, it's all somewhat difficult to enforce.

I mean, noone can tell if I'm lying or not when I say I'm at University. For all you know, I'm 7 years old.

So this boils down to a need for credentials if ever to be enforced seriously. I'm not convinced either way on that, but I'm sure some regulars will pipe up about now...

But if you put yourself forward for a job based in your claimed credentials (that you've attended university, for instance), wouldn't you expect your prospective employer to check?

[LaraLove]

Clearly we need to pass a law saying no one under the age of 18 can engage in any online interactivity without parental supervision. It's the only way we can hope to keep them safe from themselves.

Seems like a good idea to me, although I'd probably make it 16 rather than 18.

I agree. It's been a while, but some time last year in a similar discussion, I noted that 16 should be the required age to edit and 18 the required age to administrate. Keeping kids off of the internet without adult supervision is a great idea, but it's all pretty much unenforceable.

[Alex]

I think that, laudable as the sentiment may be, Doc, until there's a way to verify the age of contributors, it's all somewhat difficult to enforce.

I mean, noone can tell if I'm lying or not when I say I'm at University. For all you know, I'm 7 years old.

So this boils down to a need for credentials if ever to be enforced seriously. I'm not convinced either way on that, but I'm sure some regulars will pipe up about now...

I've don't think a 7 year old would use the phrase "boils down to" so I think you're safe. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Clearly we need to pass a law saying no one under the age of 18 can engage in any online interactivity without parental supervision. It's the only way we can hope to keep them safe from themselves.

Seems like a good idea to me, although I'd probably make it 16 rather than 18.

I agree. It's been a while, but some time last year in a similar discussion, I noted that 16 should be the required age to edit and 18 the required age to administrate. Keeping kids off of the internet without adult supervision is a great idea, but it's all pretty much unenforceable.

It depends what kind of internet. For example, is a website like this one really a problem? Children do need to learn how to use the internet themselves you know...

[gadfly]

But if you put yourself forward for a job based in your claimed credentials (that you've attended university, for instance), wouldn't you expect your prospective employer to check?

One certainly would, and I agree that 16 would be a useful age. But, checking would no doubt be seen as a case of "not assuming good faith" or some such rubbish. Just like the opposition from some about people making personal comments at RfA, or probing a person's character: if one of the qualities one expects admins to have is trustworthiness, then askihg about personal issues and so on are very centrally relevant! The whole area is inconsistent in its thought out criteria and in the so-called application of those criteria. On the basis of what Epbr123 did after his second, and successful RfA (posted a really nasty gloating message to someone else about it), he should have been de-sysopped in short order on the basis that his character and his behaviour had not changed at all since his first RfA, but nowt was done, despite many people asking for action.

[Milton Roe]

Sad as it may be, I have no doubt in my mind that should an admin die (I'm not aware of any enwiki admins dying) there will be several that will cry out it is disrespectful. No - it isn't. A company doesn't keep someone on the payroll if they die. Why should we? Leaving admin status on an account that will never ever be used again serves no purpose whatsoever, much like totally inactive admins having the bit, but if an admin was to die I'd guarantee there will be stupid comments like ones mentioned.

I agree that the basic idea of "once an admin always an admin" on WP helps give the lie to the idea that adminship is merely a job, not a medal or award. You would take a job title back when somebody quit due to health, retired, or died. A medal, trophy, or other award, no. And there you have it.

[Doc glasgow]

Checking age is obviously a non-starter given that we don't check the identity of anyone who creates an account. However, neither that, nor the self-evident unenforcability is a reason not to have a policy against minors editing.

Everyone knows that children purchase and consume alcohol and nicotine - but that's no reason to legalise child usage. At very least the law communicates "this is bad for you, don't do it" - which will deter some children, and focus the minds of some supervising adults.

Further, whilst some children will/do conceal their age, and more will if their was a ban, a child concealing their age is actually at less risk than one declaring it. Anyone naive enough to declare they are a minor should certainly not be allowed to edit.

Children do lots of dangerous things and go lots of dangerous places. That cannot be stopped. However, responsible institutions still place "R-ratings" on unsuitable films, "over 18s only" on pub and casino doors.

The first responsibility of the community is not enforcement, it is deciding this harmful in principle and actively discouraging as many minors as possible. Promoting known minors to adminship is precisely the wrong move.

Although, truth be told, it should be the WMF that takes the responsible step of warning minors of the risks and discouraging/preventing them editing.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[Fritz]

I think that, laudable as the sentiment may be, Doc, until there's a way to verify the age of contributors, it's all somewhat difficult to enforce.

I mean, noone can tell if I'm lying or not when I say I'm at University. For all you know, I'm 7 years old.

So this boils down to a need for credentials if ever to be enforced seriously. I'm not convinced either way on that, but I'm sure some regulars will pipe up about now...

But if you put yourself forward for a job based in your claimed credentials (that you've attended university, for instance), wouldn't you expect your prospective employer to check?

I know - but they'd check by looking at my CV, contacting the institutions concerned, etc. We were only talking about age, but yeah: you'd end up having to vet everybody and be convinced that the documentation wasn't fake, etc. I'm not saying this is wrong, just that you can't make a selective enforcement "on principle" - that is, it would be nonsense in our current state of affairs to apply such a rule based on the age a person states on their userpage. All that achieves is people hiding their ages.

So my point (such as it is) is that it's a much larger change, which I know many here are in favour of.

But, right or wrong, it'll never happen.

[Malleus]

But if you put yourself forward for a job based in your claimed credentials (that you've attended university, for instance), wouldn't you expect your prospective employer to check?

One certainly would, and I agree that 16 would be a useful age. But, checking would no doubt be seen as a case of "not assuming good faith" or some such rubbish. Just like the opposition from some about people making personal comments at RfA, or probing a person's character: if one of the qualities one expects admins to have is trustworthiness, then askihg about personal issues and so on are very centrally relevant! The whole area is inconsistent in its thought out criteria and in the so-called application of those criteria. On the basis of what Epbr123 did after his second, and successful RfA (posted a really nasty gloating message to someone else about it), he should have been de-sysopped in short order on the basis that his character and his behaviour had not changed at all since his first RfA, but nowt was done, despite many people asking for action.

Epbr123 also promised during his RfA to make himself available for recall, but quietly forgot all about that as well as soon he'd got the prize. Assume good faith? Pah! That's the battle cry of the hopelessly idealistic, the stupid, and the corrupt. Assume human nature works just fine for me.

[LaraLove]

It depends what kind of internet. For example, is a website like this one really a problem? Children do need to learn how to use the internet themselves you know...

I think parents may have to assist in their access of that site, thereby giving consent for their participation there. I think COPPA should apply on any websites including those of non-profit status. Wikipedia should be no exception considering not only the risks that Doc pointed out, but also considering the various forms of adult content contained in the uncensored "encyclopedia".

[Malleus]

Checking age is obviously a non-starter given that we don't check the identity of anyone who creates an account. However, neither that, nor the self-evident unenforcability is a reason not to have a policy against minors editing.

No we don't check the identity of those who create an account, but that's no reason why we shouldn't check the identity of those who volunteer to police the site. What harm can one editor do, compared to the harm that one administrator can cause?

[Doc glasgow]

Checking age is obviously a non-starter given that we don't check the identity of anyone who creates an account. However, neither that, nor the self-evident unenforcability is a reason not to have a policy against minors editing.

No we don't check the identity of those who create an account, but that's no reason why we shouldn't check the identity of those who volunteer to police the site. What harm can one editor do, compared to the harm that one administrator can cause?

Harm to the site is NOT the reason to exclude minors. The harm that an admin can do to the site is VERY MINOR indeed. The reason, is exposing a minor to harm to himself, when he/she is not qualified in law to perform a personal risk-assessment.

The consequences of irresponsible usage of wikipedia can be disastrous for the user (google for ever). The risks to the project of allowing a 12 year old to edit (or admin) are, in fact, minimal

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[Alex]

The consequences of irresponsible usage of wikipedia can be disastrous for the user (google for ever).

What if their age was the only bit of personal information given out?

[Malleus]

Harm to the site is NOT the reason to exclude minors. The harm that an admin can do to the site is VERY MINOR indeed. The reason, is exposing a minor to harm to himself, when he/she is not qualified in law to perform a personal risk-assessment.

The consequences of irresponsible usage of wikipedia can be disastrous for the user (google for ever). The risks to the project of allowing a 12 year old to edit (or admin) are, in fact, minimal

Harm to the site is the reason why I'd exclude them, although I understand that your motivation is different. I don't quite see the risks in the way that you do; seems to me, for instance, that it's only a matter of time before the WMF ends up facing a libel suit over some BLP or other. People who can't be charged with the crime shouldn't be allowed to commit it.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Doc glasgow]

The consequences of irresponsible usage of wikipedia can be disastrous for the user (google for ever).

What if their age was the only bit of personal information given out?

Now, you are strawmanning. I'd still block them. They may give out more information later, or enough for someone to out them, and we shouldn't put minors in the position of running that risk, and we shouldn't assume that they are equipped to make the judgement call.

[Alex]

Harm to the site is NOT the reason to exclude minors. The harm that an admin can do to the site is VERY MINOR indeed. The reason, is exposing a minor to harm to himself, when he/she is not qualified in law to perform a personal risk-assessment.

The consequences of irresponsible usage of wikipedia can be disastrous for the user (google for ever). The risks to the project of allowing a 12 year old to edit (or admin) are, in fact, minimal

Harm to the site is the reason why I'd exclude them, although I understand that your motivation is different. I don't quite see the risks in the way that you do; seems to me, for instance, that it's only a matter of time before the WMF ends up facing a libel suit over some BLP or other. People who can't be charged with the crime shouldn't be allowed to commit it.

Isn't 10 years old the youngest you can prosecute someone?

[Malleus]

The consequences of irresponsible usage of wikipedia can be disastrous for the user (google for ever).

What if their age was the only bit of personal information given out?

I hate to be seen to be agreeing with you, but yeah, you're right, so what? The worst case scenario is that it causes a minor brouhaha during their RfA.

[Son of a Yeti]

What's next? Dying is no reason to remove an administrator's bit, as it may be seen as disrespectful to the relatives? Ridiculous.

This gave me an idea. I have to start claiming I'm the incarnation of a dead admin and need his my administrator's bits back. Of course on the way through samsara I forgot my password.

Do you think it could work?

[Jon Awbrey]

For those of us who think that education has more to do with character, conduct, and critical thinking skills than the mindless sponging and regurgitation of "contents", Wikipedia is a threat to everyone's education, but one that becomes ever more threatening the earlier the exposure.

Jon Awbrey

[Malleus]

Isn't 10 years old the youngest you can prosecute someone?

I believe it is in criminal cases, at least in England. But libel is a civil case, different rules apply.

[The Wales Hunter]

Isn't 10 years old the youngest you can prosecute someone?

If we're talking the age of criminal responsibility, It's six in North Carolina!

It's 10 in England and Wales but eight in Scotland (being reviewed right now).

But as has been said, it's impossible to prove unless all editors have to identify. At the very least, I'd bring in a class of BLP editors who have to identify, publicly.

For those of us who think that education has more to do with character, conduct, and critical thinking skills than the mindless sponging and regurgitation of "contents", Wikipedia is a threat to everyone's education, but one that becomes ever more threatening the earlier the exposure.

Jon Awbrey

Agreed. Take the various laws of physics. Education should be about learning how to get to the final formula (be it E=mc2, apologise for my lack of superscript, or whatever) from first principles, rather than just being able to repeat that formula in parrot fashion.

This post has been edited by The Wales Hunter:

[Malleus]

What's next? Dying is no reason to remove an administrator's bit, as it may be seen as disrespectful to the relatives? Ridiculous.

This gave me an idea. I have to start claiming I'm the incarnation of a dead admin and need his my administrator's bits back. Of course on the way through samsara I forgot my password.

Do you think it could work?

I'm working on a rather similar idea myself, to try and wake up some of the dozy buggers who believe there's no harm in leaving long inactive administrators on the books.

[gadfly]

Epbr123 also promised during his RfA to make himself available for recall, but quietly forgot all about that as well as soon he'd got the prize. Assume good faith? Pah! That's the battle cry of the hopelessly idealistic, the stupid, and the corrupt. Assume human nature works just fine for me.

Amen to that!

[Malleus]

But as has been said, it's impossible to prove unless all editors have to identify. At the very least, I'd bring in a class of BLP editors who have to identify, publicly.

Why not all administrators?

[The Wales Hunter]

But as has been said, it's impossible to prove unless all editors have to identify. At the very least, I'd bring in a class of BLP editors who have to identify, publicly.

Why not all administrators?

I'd be happy with that, but I'm trying to be realistic and suggest something that may get off the ground.

[Jon Awbrey]

For those of us who think that education has more to do with character, conduct, and critical thinking skills than the mindless sponging and regurgitation of "contents", Wikipedia is a threat to everyone's education, but one that becomes ever more threatening the earlier the exposure.

Jon Awbrey

Agreed. Take the various laws of physics. Education should be about learning how to get to the final formula (be it E=mc², apologise for my lack of superscript, or whatever) from first principles, rather than just being able to repeat that formula in parrot fashion.

"&sup2;" works in this environment.

Ja³

[gadfly]

But as has been said, it's impossible to prove unless all editors have to identify. At the very least, I'd bring in a class of BLP editors who have to identify, publicly.

Why not all administrators?

I think it reasonable that all administrators should provide more information about themselves, and age would be just one more bit. I don't see why this could not be done just for them with no implications for identification for other editors. As for BLP: either just not allow any biographies of living people, or else have flagged revisions for them, with the people who check suggested edits having to have the same requirements for additional information as administrators would (assuming administrators are told they should).

[CharlotteWebb]

Keeping kids off of the internet without adult supervision is a great idea, but it's all pretty much unenforceable.

I don't know about that. They need some way to acquire the knowledge which the school district fails to impart. If you subtract the countries and the chemical elements, how many of the "core topics" will the average kid learn anything about in a public school? Half, maybe less?

Even if we did impose a drastic restriction like not letting minors edit, that should at least be limited to articles. I think our mission of providing human knowledge would still leave us the responsibility of allowing inquisitive juveniles to ask questions about the content, and to answer those questions and help them better understand whatever they are reading (in other words keep the talk pages, ref desks, etc. open)

I could look at this another way too. In the realm of informal education (a.k.a. life in general, if you don't tune it completely out), we're all teachers and we're all students too. Right now I'd say I learn more from young people than my own cohort.

Seriously though I think adults would more convincingly pose as children (maybe unintentionally in some cases?) than children would pose as adults.

How about foetus admins?

Eh, surely that would be meat-puppetry. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

But if you put yourself forward for a job based in your claimed credentials (that you've attended university, for instance), wouldn't you expect your prospective employer to check?

I've found they don't in most cases. There were a few times I arranged for friends and family to pose as former supervisors, but they claim never to have gotten any calls and I was hired nonetheless.

[gadfly]

But if you put yourself forward for a job based in your claimed credentials (that you've attended university, for instance), wouldn't you expect your prospective employer to check?

I've found they don't in most cases. There were a few times I arranged for friends and family to pose as former supervisors, but they claim never to have gotten any calls and I was hired nonetheless.

In my time as a university lecturer, the three occasions I transferred between institutions was never accompanied by any request to see any proof for my claimed degrees. However, it isn't as clear-cut as "never checking": when I was on appointment boards at universities, at least someone would know the referees and expect them to write from academic addresses on headed paper. In my later years, after any job changes on my part, I did notice that we were expected to be able to confirm the identity of referees by ringing up if required, and on one occasion, doing it formally as the referee had by then retired and was writing from a home address.

That experience was, however, only concerning some universities in the UK, and private companies might be different.

[gadfly]

For those of us who think that education has more to do with character, conduct, and critical thinking skills than the mindless sponging and regurgitation of "contents", Wikipedia is a threat to everyone's education, but one that becomes ever more threatening the earlier the exposure.

I agree with this. Additionally, there seems to be little critical thinking displayed in some of the administration at wikipedia. But this is part of a much larger problem, as I consider much university education is now geared to a "pile 'em high and shove them out" approach to being a degree factory, in which the erosion of standards and critical thinking skills needed to get a degree have been working continuously (certainly in most UK universities) after the analogy was pushed too far that students were merely "customers". In the UK, the ludicrous idea that 50% of education-leavers should have a degree merely contributes to this. My experience was, however, talk about this within universities, and you get condemned by their administration for undermining their work (or "business" I should say). It exactly parallels what seems to happen if various things are questioned on wikipedia, and it often represents a kind of emergent groupthink, which is not just unconducive to critical thinking, but is an antithesis of it.

I know some academics who work in the area of researching methods of teaching and the structure of critical thinking: to a person, they refuse point-blank to work on wikipedia as the critical thinking articles on there are poor, not up to date, and are so vulnerable to the vagaries of certain kinds of vandalism that is often not capable of being noticed by non-experts.

This post has been edited by gadfly:

[EricBarbour]

Funny.....the consensus on the RFA item is more-or-less the exact opposite of the consensus on this WR thread.

Wikipedia INVITES irresponsibility. And then they have to endlessly revert the results, leaving no time to actually write or improve the Irresponsi-pedia. The system AND the attitudes of its leadership are just begging for abuse.

[Jon Awbrey]

Wikipedia INVITES irresponsibility. And then they have to endlessly revert the results, leaving no time to actually write or improve the Irresponsi-pedia. The system AND the attitudes of its leadership are just begging for abuse.

Next Question —

WHY does Wikipedia Management INVITE irresponsibles and BEG FOR abusive users?

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon14.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

I think it reasonable that all administrators should provide more information about themselves, and age would be just one more bit. I don't see why this could not be done just for them with no implications for identification for other editors. As for BLP: either just not allow any biographies of living people, or else have flagged revisions for them, with the people who check suggested edits having to have the same requirements for additional information as administrators would (assuming administrators are told they should).

I support flaggedrevs too but the "even if we only care about BLPs, we don't have enough people to handle this" argument is the one I've found most difficult to refute. We'd need real numbers, editing statistics, etc. to get a better idea. Or hell, just try it and see if it's manageable. If it's a miserable failure it will be even easier to turn it back off.

I don't see what personal info would do other than provide a vector for real-world harassment. How does being known by one's real name make them better suited for controlling BLP articles?

Consider JoshuaZ, MZMcBride, Pmanderson, SeraphimBlade, Badlydrawnjeff, Alexfusco, Ned Scott, Willmcw, etc. or anyone else whom WR has identified as a "BLP extremist", or JzG, Sidaway, Gerard, or those disliked by WR in general, which would be pretty much everyone on hivemind except for Lar, who has curiously disappeared yet again (don't worry, he'll be back soon to pick up his leisure suit).

These people are already known to us by presumably real names. If not enough other people agree to your terms and are even interested in the task, you may find yourself in the unenviable position of waiting for these cats to approve or reject your edits on BLP pages.

But hey it's your story so tell it like you want. No matter what the rules are you'll need all the help you can get.

[Jon Awbrey]

I don't see what personal info would do other than provide a vector for real-world harassment.

Sic (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

But, hey, that's gives me an idea (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/idea.gif)

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".

It's only fair …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

I think it reasonable that all administrators should provide more information about themselves, and age would be just one more bit. I don't see why this could not be done just for them with no implications for identification for other editors. As for BLP: either just not allow any biographies of living people, or else have flagged revisions for them, with the people who check suggested edits having to have the same requirements for additional information as administrators would (assuming administrators are told they should).

I support flaggedrevs too but the "even if we only care about BLPs, we don't have enough people to handle this" argument is the one I've found most difficult to refute. We'd need real numbers, editing statistics, etc. to get a better idea. Or hell, just try it and see if it's manageable. If it's a miserable failure it will be even easier to turn it back off.

I don't see what personal info would do other than provide a vector for real-world harassment. How does being known by one's real name make them better suited for controlling BLP articles?

Consider JoshuaZ, MZMcBride, Pmanderson, SeraphimBlade, Badlydrawnjeff, Alexfusco, Ned Scott, Willmcw, etc. or anyone else whom WR has identified as a "BLP extremist", or JzG, Sidaway, Gerard, or those disliked by WR in general, which would be pretty much everyone on hivemind except for Lar, who has curiously disappeared yet again (don't worry, he'll be back soon to pick up his leisure suit).

These people are already known to us by presumably real names. If not enough other people agree to your terms and are even interested in the task, you may find yourself in the unenviable position of waiting for these cats to approve or reject your edits on BLP pages.

But hey it's your story so tell it like you want. No matter what the rules are you'll need all the help you can get.

Not that Wikipedia would ever learn from outsiders, especially critics, but WR has addressed this issue already. We use two means. First we use a COPPA screen, just like commercial sites do, to disallow participation to anyone self identifying as under 13 unless they obtain parental permission. Second we do not allow any discussion of any member being under 16, whether by the young member or anyone else. This acts as an additional shield meant to protect the child from any exploitative contact. The thinking here is if the children cannot be identified they can't be exploited.

At a minimum Wkipedia ought to provide a voluntary COPPA screen. Additional protection could be provided by various provisions of a Terms of Service agreement, which is also currently lacking on Wikipedia. Both of these protection would require implementation on the "foundation" rather than "the community" level.

[CharlotteWebb]

Not that Wikipedia would ever learn from outsiders, especially critics, but WR has addressed this issue already. We use two means. First we use a COPPA screen, just like commercial sites do, to disallow participation to anyone self identifying as under 13 unless they obtain parental permission. Second we do not allow any discussion of any member being under 16, whether by the young member or anyone else. This acts as an additional shield meant to protect the child from any exploitative contact. The thinking here is if the children cannot be identified they can't be exploited.

At a minimum Wkipedia ought to provide a voluntary COPPA screen. Additional protection could be provided by various provisions of a Terms of Service agreement, which is also currently lacking on Wikipedia. Both of these protection would require implementation on the "foundation" rather than "the community" level.

Well, we sorta have "terms of service" albeit scattered across hundreds of different policy/guideline pages, of which "WP:TOS" redirects to the "five pillars" (among the least informative).

So, something on the "create account" page that basically says "if you are under 16 [or 18 better yet], do not publish your name, age, etc. (this is for your own protection). if you are under 13, do also ask your parent or guardian before participating".

I would support these changes, but I agree the community is more likely to reject it.

[Samuel Culper Sr.]

Holy Hell!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=276817971

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

So many errors.

[Alex]

Holy Hell!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=276817971

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

So many errors.

It is unfortunately things like that that make me want to agree with some of the people here...

[Doc glasgow]

Yup. Loosely this is "Wikipedia is a video game and no-one gets hurt, so please let the children play"

It precisely demonstrates why kids are not fit to do the risk assessment required to participate in this project.

[The Wales Hunter]

I'm tempted to suggest any editor who honestly believes "But really, Wikipedia is not that serious" should be banned on sight.

[Malleus]

Yup. Loosely this is "Wikipedia is a video game and no-one gets hurt, so please let the children play"

It precisely demonstrates why kids are not fit to do the risk assessment required to participate in this project.

I think that translation's about right.

The issue I'm not sure I fully understand though is why children want to edit wikipedia. Is it just because they want to feel important as an administrator on a large, high-profile web site? Does that have some kind of a social cache amongst teenagers?

[GlassBeadGame]

Not that Wikipedia would ever learn from outsiders, especially critics, but WR has addressed this issue already. We use two means. First we use a COPPA screen, just like commercial sites do, to disallow participation to anyone self identifying as under 13 unless they obtain parental permission. Second we do not allow any discussion of any member being under 16, whether by the young member or anyone else. This acts as an additional shield meant to protect the child from any exploitative contact. The thinking here is if the children cannot be identified they can't be exploited.

At a minimum Wkipedia ought to provide a voluntary COPPA screen. Additional protection could be provided by various provisions of a Terms of Service agreement, which is also currently lacking on Wikipedia. Both of these protection would require implementation on the "foundation" rather than "the community" level.

Well, we sorta have "terms of service" albeit scattered across hundreds of different policy/guideline pages, of which "WP:TOS" redirects to the "five pillars" (among the least informative).

So, something on the "create account" page that basically says "if you are under 16 [or 18 better yet], do not publish your name, age, etc. (this is for your own protection). if you are under 13, do also ask your parent or guardian before participating".

I would support these changes, but I agree the community is more likely to reject it.

You more or less described the COPPA screen correctly. If they indicate a age under 13 they have to fax or mail a signed permission sheet from the parent. This in practice almost never happens as the child just goes away. I think raising the age as high as might be achieved would be a good thing.

As far as ToS goes all that you describe is just user generated content, on the same level as a FA or vandalism. A ToS agreement is between the individual user and the site operators (WMF). The only thing remotely like that is the "privacy policy" which is a unilateral grant of a set of expectation given by the Foundation on one narrow issue. A ToS would also be concerned with setting limits on acceptable use and conduct. Oddly under the current set up outright vandalism is perfectly ok as far as WMF is concerned. It is only the distribution of buttons that stops outright destructive conduct.

It is a puzzle why WMF shuns having a ToS agreement. 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.

[Alex]

Yup. Loosely this is "Wikipedia is a video game and no-one gets hurt, so please let the children play"

It precisely demonstrates why kids are not fit to do the risk assessment required to participate in this project.

I think that translation's about right.

The issue I'm not sure I fully understand though is why children want to edit wikipedia. Is it just because they want to feel important as an administrator on a large, high-profile web site? Does that have some kind of a social cache amongst teenagers?

Some actually do a lot of article work. People don't notice them though, because they keep quiet, don't cause problems and don't involve themselves in silly wikipolitics like RFA, FAC, ANI etc.

[Malleus]

Yup. Loosely this is "Wikipedia is a video game and no-one gets hurt, so please let the children play"

It precisely demonstrates why kids are not fit to do the risk assessment required to participate in this project.

I think that translation's about right.

The issue I'm not sure I fully understand though is why children want to edit wikipedia. Is it just because they want to feel important as an administrator on a large, high-profile web site? Does that have some kind of a social cache amongst teenagers?

Some actually do a lot of article work. People don't notice them though, because they keep quiet, don't cause problems and don't involve themselves in silly wikipolitics like RFA, FAC, ANI etc.

I've seen some good content from editors I believe to be 15-year-olds (4th/5th grade, not sure what that means in real money) as part of the AP Biology project, and I've even helped one or two of them. But I very much doubt they'll still be editing once their project is over. Fifteen or sixteen is one thing though, but intellectually snobbish or not, I find it difficult to believe that many 12-year-olds will have much to add to any topic, or even a basic level of ability to say it.

The posting linked to above was made by an indignant 13-year-old, for instance.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Eva Destruction]

Yup. Loosely this is "Wikipedia is a video game and no-one gets hurt, so please let the children play"

It precisely demonstrates why kids are not fit to do the risk assessment required to participate in this project.

I think that translation's about right.

The issue I'm not sure I fully understand though is why children want to edit wikipedia. Is it just because they want to feel important as an administrator on a large, high-profile web site? Does that have some kind of a social cache amongst teenagers?

Some actually do a lot of article work. People don't notice them though, because they keep quiet, don't cause problems and don't involve themselves in silly wikipolitics like RFA, FAC, ANI etc.

Alex is right (no, really). You only notice the kids who, well, act like kids. I'm sure plenty of those who work quietly in the background never causing problems are kids – but kids with enough sense to know their limitations and not to act like they've found a new toy.

[momentos]

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!

This post has been edited by momentos:

[Kato]

In my time as a university lecturer, the three occasions I transferred between institutions was never accompanied by any request to see any proof for my claimed degrees.

[...]

That experience was, however, only concerning some universities in the UK, and private companies might be different.

Of course, if you want to work as a teacher, you must be CRB checked by law.

[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.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[Alex]

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?