User:Fetchcomms/Children and Wikipedia

MUSINGS: CHILDREN AND WIKIPEDIA

DISCUSS THIS ESSAY

Introduction

Just like any major website focusing on user-generated content, Wikipedia attracts children. Wikipedia is not a social networking site like MySpace, Facebook, or Twitter, but it is an online encyclopedia—the largest encyclopedia ever—and this makes it even more of a "noble" pursuit, something that is not just a perceived waste of time.

There have been many debates over the appropriateness of allowing minors (defined here as someone under 18) to edit Wikipedia. There are, of course, many successful users who have publicly stated that they are minors, and even more who cannot be named here. But it is an undeniable fact that children are also a burden on Wikipedia—administrators and oversighters must quickly respond to minors who provide personal information, such as birth dates, full names, addresses, and contact information; bored schoolchildren contribute to a noticeable amount of vandalism, and a number of "MySpacey" children spend much of their time chatting, yet hesitate to improve Wikipedia's articles. This essay seeks to identify the role, whether beneficial or disadvantageous, of child editors on Wikipedia.^*

Guidance for situations involving children

There are several existing essays and policies providing guidance to child editors, as well as how to deal with situations involving children. The brief essay Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy stems from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy and states,

Users who self-identify as children, project a sexually tinged persona, and disclose personal information such as links to sites devoted to social interaction are engaging in disruptive behavior and may be banned. Note that self-identified children may in fact be adults posing as children for a variety of reasons.

When a user self-identifies as a child, especially if they provide personal information, the matter is frequently a subject of discussion among administrators. Sometimes the user is immature and ends up being blocked for disruption. If they are not disruptive, personal information may be removed and the user advised.

...

Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information should be informed of the potential dangers of such disclosure. They should be advised that disclosing personal information is a bad idea and is potentially dangerous. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information.

The official policy on child protection is Wikipedia:Child protection, which says,

Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked.

...

Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel. You should raise your concerns only by email; questions or accusations directed against a particular editor in project space may result in a block for the editor who posted them.

If you are a younger editor and feel that another person on Wikipedia is behaving in a way that you feel threatens your personal safety, please tell a responsible adult. Do not continue to communicate with the other person. Do not give out personal information to anyone.

The blocking policy does not specifically mention children many times:

A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property, or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users, or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to:

...

actions that may compromise the safety of children, in accordance with Wikipedia:Child protection

These excerpts basically state that: pedophiles and anyone who harasses children will be blocked on-sight, self-outing by children will be oversighted, and if child editors don't understand the "stranger-danger" concept, they'll be blocked. But there is currently little clear guidance on how to actually handle children on Wikipedia, as most of the essays and policies focus on protecting children—which is very important—but does not address one of the key issues at hand: how to deal with unclueful, incompetent, and/or immature children on Wikipedia.

The role of children on Wikipedia

Sue Gardner wrote a post on her personal blog on November 26, 2010, titled "Wikipedia Pattern: the very young editor." In the post, she makes several remarks relevant to this essay:

The average Wikipedian is in his or her mid-twenties. Lots are teenagers, particularly editors who function in “wikignome” roles. But every now and I then I run across someone who started editing at an unusually young age – for example, there’s a Korean editor who started at seven, and an Israeli who started at eight.

...

[Calandrella] told me that when he began, the thing he liked most about Wikipedia was that it took him seriously despite his age. He was able to make whatever contributions he was capable of, and they were judged on their merits.

...

We know quite a bit about why people edit Wikipedia. They have an altruistic desire to share information with other people, they like learning new things themselves, and they are fussy types who are irritated by errors and feel compelled to fix them. We know that people like Calandrella appreciate that Wikipedia’s a meritocracy.

But I think there’s something else going on for the very young editors. It used to be that unusually smart kids were typically kind of isolated and lonely, until they met others as smart as them, either in university or later. I think that one of the unsung benefits of the internet, and Wikipedia in particular, is that it makes it possible for smart kids to connect with other people who are equally curious, who share their intellectual interests, and take them seriously, in a way that would’ve been completely unavailable to them 10 years earlier. I think that’s really good for them – it opens up the world for them and makes it possible for them to start making an intellectual contribution, much earlier than they would have been able to otherwise.¹

The key points here correlate with a survey of Wikipedians published in March 2010 by UNU-MERIT:²

The survey found that 24.2% of respondents claimed to be between 10–17 years of age.
Many of them (at least according to Sue and some child editors) are drawn to Wikipedia because of the anonymity factor. The "meritocracy" system allows them to share their own knowledge as well as prove their "worth" where they would normally be rejected based on age.
Child editors are often retained because they are able to identify with other child editors, especially those with similar interests. Many young editors (and many editors in general) have IQs that are above average, and are high achievers educationally—2.3% in the survey's 10–17 range reported having earned an undergraduate degree. The mean number of years of formal education for those in the same range was 10.38.
- Only 1% of responding child editors on Wikipedia were administrators at the time of the survey (March 2010), or around 426 respondents. Compare this to 1.4% of users 18–21, 2.5% of users 22–29, and 3.7% of users 30–85.
The most compelling reason for children to edit is "I like the idea of sharing knowledge," closely followed by "I saw an error I wanted to fix."

The reality is not far from the survey's results and Sue Gardner's observations:

Many Wikipedians have not yet reached the age of majority in their countries of residence, and not all of them reveal this fact on Wikipedia.
The meritocracy factor is both an advantage and a disadvantage for child editors.
Many, if not most, child editors are more intelligent than their peers, receiving high or very high marks in school (or at least possessing the potential to receive high marks). Those editors who do not have very high IQs are often hardworking, devoted, and determined users.
There is still a hesitancy to give child editors certain responsibilities such as bureaucratship and adminship, often due to the maturity factor and the perceived (but usually real) lack of experience in dealing with extreme situations—such as stalking, serious threats of violence, etc. In addition, 43.5% of responding users between 10 and 17 years of age were not registered users—a percentage higher than any other of the age groups in the survey.
Young editors are a vital part of Wikipedia. Without child editors, a significant portion of Wikipedia's articles would either not exist or be of poorer quality than they are currently.

Differences in child editors

There are various "types" of child editors, and while there is no "official" research about this topic, the main types are described below, based on observations. It is necessary to note that these categories certainly do not encompass all child editors.

By age

Users aged 0–11

There are very few child users in this age group. These editors may contribute to some of the more puerile vandalism on Wikipedia (such as "I love unicorns :)" or "Jake is cute") but are not likely to devote much time to editing and content development, due to a variety of reasons:

They have limited access to the Internet.
They do not yet have enough knowledge to understand most encyclopedic topics and are thus less able to write articles about them.
They have not yet developed the writing skills necessary to write in standard written English and at a level expected in an encyclopedia.
They do not yet have enough "real-world" experience in communicating effectively in a professional setting and in dealing with emergency situations (such as responding to death threats or a user who claims to be a pedophile).

This is not to say, of course, that editors in primary school are all unsuccessful in their pursuits on Wikipedia. Most of the time, these users are either exclusively readers (who may edit occasionally, fixing typos and the like) or try to contribute actively but are not able to do so effectively in Wikipedia's professional, and often brutal, setting. The latter may be due to undeveloped communications skills or a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose. This is discussed in greater depth below.

Users aged 12–14

There is an increasing number of users in this group, but the quality of their work is decreasing. Possibly attributable to the rise of the Internet and other media (particularly social networking sites), "preteen" users are more likely to cause a problem for other Wikipedians. Despite the fact that most users aged 12–14 are highly intelligent (indeed, children in this age group would likely not be attracted to Wikipedia if they didn't feel they had knowledge to share), they are often unable to communicate effectively in an adult-oriented environment, one that does not expect many instances of "LOL!!!!!!!" or "sorry i didnt know what that ment can u fix it pls." Focusing largely on maintenance tasks, they develop content less often and prefer to "help the world" through largely repetitive actions; they tend (and prefer) to be shielded from most of the "drama," not because their juvenile view points are less likely to win arguments—but because they simply tend to make incorrect judgments due to their mentalities. There is a difference between those who change hyphens to endashes and those who add maintenance tags to articles. Both believe they are helping Wikipedia, but the difference in actions shows a difference in mentalities.

The mentality of a twelve-year-old is very different from that of an adult, especially if the child has not yet trained him- or herself to respond appropriately to criticism and the fact that they in fact do not know everything there is to know. A common symptom of this issue is excessive literalism (following the rules but ignoring the spirit of the rules), related to a lack (or ignorance) of common sense. Common sense must be used very carefully, however, because what a child finds sensible is often the opposite of what an adult finds sensible. This is less of a competence issue than a maturity issue; a child simply has not been exposed to the "real world" for as long as an adult has dealt with difficult situations. This is not to say that adults never make mistakes nor that a child's actions are never correct or adequately justifiable.

Users aged 15–18

The users in this group are more likely to understand the importance of professionalism on Wikipedia. Users aged 15–18 are more likely to be interested in writing content than simply doing maintenance tasks, as they are becoming more mature and their mindsets begin to match their intelligence. They are, while not perfect, well-suited to working with older users and their "social competence" matures as well. This changing mentality means a changing sense of common sense and a better understanding of how to "fit in" with the professional nature of collaboration on Wikipedia.

By behavior

"MySpacers"

The "MySpacers" are an age-independent group of users, although they are usually younger than 15. However, MySpacers aged at least 15 must be dealt with similarly.

The MySpacers in the "0–11" age range usually misunderstand Wikipedia's purpose altogether, and may use it purely as a free webhost or blogging/chatting service. They are often simply dealt with by a series of warnings, deletion of the offending MySpacey material, and blocking, when necessary.

Those in the "12–14" age range may both assist in improving articles and treat Wikipedia as a free webhost. They often spend too much time posting on user talk pages, redesigning user pages, and overuse abbreviations in cases like "LOL!!!" and "OMG!!!." Occurrences of "?!?!?!?" and sentences with poor grammar and/or spelling ("oh ok sorry i didnt know i was just follwing the rules") are often a sign of a MySpacey attitude (or simply language incompetence). This MySpacey group is often reluctant to contribute to the article creation and development process, citing poor writing skills and/or lack of interesting topics. This behavior is much more difficult to change because some users may feel the amount of constructive editing being done by a MySpacer gives him or her slightly more freedom and are thus unwilling to take immediate action. Fortunately, many other users are not afraid to enforce the policy against using Wikipedia as a socializing site. The key in these situations is the quick installation of anti-MySpacing measures against the offending editors before the behavior becomes rampant. Unfortunately, as these children are still young, the behavior may soon become rampant.

Maintenance-focused users

Some young users may be WikiGnomes, users who make minor edits and do "behind-the-scenes" work. They may also focus on patrolling for vandalism in areas such as Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. These users usually prefer such work over content development (or may be involved in both areas of work) and are sometimes part of the "MySpacer" group as well. Editors performing primarily maintenance tasks may be very mature or immature; there is no clear stereotypical user in this group.

Content-focused users

Some child editors prefer to focus their time on writing articles and development of other content, as opposed to mainly maintenance and administrative work. This group comprises a large portion of the highly intelligent child users, but occurrences of content-focused users are not very rare. Often, however, users who author articles are also involved in administrative and maintenance tasks. Young editors who are extremely devoted to writing articles usually do not aspire to become administrators; this may be due to a lack of interest in administrative tasks or an unwillingness to participate in a request for adminship. Content-focused users often possess high amounts of clue and are unlikely to be "problematic" users.

The issue with children

The underlying issue, if it can be called a true "issue," is not the intention of the child; it is not likely that a twelve-year-old editor acts in a puerile manner to purposely disrupt Wikipedia. Most child editors are quite devoted to Wikipedia, even if they do not fully understand its disadvantages or if it distracts them from schoolwork and real life. The issue is the failure of the child to change his or her attitude about Wikipedia from the carefree attitude about school to the wholly serious attitude about dealing with other people, private information, and international exposure. The scope and scale of one's actions are often underestimated by children. A child could vandalize an article and cause a politician much grief. A poor response to the vandalism by a child editor could cause even more grief, as the politician would now think that Wikipedia endorsed the libelous content. Another Wikipedia biography controversy could ensue, which would draw endless hours of media attention toward Wikipedia's supposedly poor management of content.

This is not to say that a child cannot or should not be an administrator, nor that all child editors do not understand the seriousness of their actions on Wikipedia. And it is certainly not to say that fun is banned from Wikipedia. But with children being exposed to the Internet earlier, extra care must be taken to ensure that the growing collection of "MySpacers" understands the scope of their actions and why it may be appropriate for them to desist from becoming involved in certain areas if they have demonstrated an inability to handle the situations. It is also important to make sure the young users fully understand the reasoning and proper application behind Wikipedia's many policies and guidelines—instead of mindlessly reciting them.

Here is an example situation, based on a real incident:^†

Why have my corrections been removed?

I am Norman Bismarck. Earlier today I tried to correct some false information on the page about me and when I logged back on I received a message from you informing me my changes were "reverted" for a reason which I cannot discern. I think there must have been some mistake, if Wikipedia wishes to report factual information about people I think they would be better off trusting the actual person being written about and not anonymous writers. Could you please explain to me what the problem is? Regards Norm Bismarck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 127.0.0.1 (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I cannot prove you are Norman bismarck from the article, i just rolled back your edits because you removed the death section and didnt provide a WP:Reliable source or an WP:edit Summary and we call that vandalism, next time please use references and explain your edits in the summary box or someone will revert it again. Thank You, ~Random_Noob ^{spreading knowledge!} 13:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore the above user as his or her understanding of Wikipedia policies is clearly lacking. I have restored your edits, regardless of whether your identity may be confirmed at this time. If you are indeed Norman Bismark and you have any complaints with the page in question please email info-en-qwikimedia.org (preferably from an "official" address) and our experienced response team will be able to assist you privately. Thank you, and apologies for the confusion above. Other user (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about, i am not stupid, the edits were clearly vandlaism and i did the right thing because there was no references. I understand policies just as much as you do, dont insult me again. ~Random_Noob ^{spreading knowledge!} 15:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This is, frankly, ridiculous, and unfortunately, not a block-worthy violation of common sense, as well as basic courtesy. Any rational user, child or adult, should be able to provide a polite and helpful response to this sort of question, which would in such a case be asked as a result of someone else's actions. It would be best if a talk page stalker of anyone who classifies the lack of an edit summary and removal of a BLP violation as vandalism answer this question, lest someone be sued.

The correct response would be something similar to "I accidentally reverted your edit and have corrected my mistake." The user "RandomNoob" here is the poster child (no pun intended) for the unclueful, incompetent, and simply undesirable child editor. His or her major mistakes are:

Utter disregard for the IP user's feelings. This is comparable to a person hanging a photo of a relative above their fireplace, and a stranger walking in and taking it off, saying, "You didn't add proof that you two are related." Making a statement implying that the IP could be an impersonator while failing to provide a method of positive identification is neither courteous nor sensible.
Utter disregard for the BLP policy. It should be safe to assume that, if Mr. Bismarck is still alive and editing, no reliable source should still be publishing details of his death (and if this were a high-profile mix-up, another user would likely have removed the death material first).
Utter disregard for a new user's experience level. There is no explanation that "rolled back" means "reverted" or that a "reference" is a "reliable source." It would also be helpful to explain what the "summary box" is (or simply stop linking to long, complicated pages and just take an extra five seconds to explain what rollback, an edit summary, or a reliable source is).
Utter ignorance of what "vandalism" is. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." A good-faith attempt to remove incorrect information is most certainly not vandalism, nor is the lack of an edit summary.
Failure to address the issue raised by the IP user. RandomNoob neglected to provide a way for Mr. Bismarck to actually identify himself (short of posting personal information directly on the user talk page), such as through OTRS correspondence. He or she also failed to address the situation of the BLP-policy-violating content on the article.
Failure to recognize and admit error. RandomNoob continued to advocate his or her position, despite the overwhelming folly of his actions, and even accused the other user of insulting him or her. This is possibly the most egregious error committed by RandomNoob in this situation. Refusal or inability to recognize and admit a mistake indicates that a user, child or adult, has transitioned past simply unclueful into incompetent.

Fortunately, only a small number of child editors will respond to an inquiry in such an unprofessional fashion.

Uncluefulness and incompetence

The difference between uncluefulness and incompetence may become difficult to distinguish at times. However, it is an important difference to recognize so an appropriate course of action may be initiated. Clue may be defined as "understanding of the established policies of Wikipedia and of knowing what works and what doesn't" (from Wikipedia:Cluocracy) or simply the proper application of common sense. Incompetence is the lack of adequate skill to perform a task or a set of tasks. Not all forms of incompetence affect child editors of Wikipedia, so the proceeding is a summary of common types of incompetence from which young Wikipedia users may suffer:

Factual incompetence, in which a (usually very young) user is unable to understand and interpret information.
Social incompetence, in which a user is simply unable to cooperate with a community, sometimes due to behavioral disorders.
Immaturity, in which a user is unable to perform tasks in a professional setting. This is a pervasive form of incompetence often associated with, and connected with, MySpaceyness; it may also occur as a result of behavioral disorders.
Lack of intelligence, in which a (usually very young) user is unable to understand Wikipedia's administration or the expectations of other users. This is somewhat similar to factual incompetence and may also be attributed to psychological disorders or other age-independent instances.
Newbie incompetence, in which new users do not understand the complexity of Wikipedia and its internal politics. This affects almost all users and is often a short-term issue that is easily addressed. For a small number of users, however, this may transition into another type of incompetence, making it more difficult to handle.

A dangerous situation is the Dunning–Kruger effect, "a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes." One must remember that Wikipedia is not therapy and users of any age editing Wikipedia should not do so in an attempt solely to overcome a disability. If a child has oppositional defiant disorder and has not yet mastered the ability to control outbursts, or if a child (or indeed a user of any age) who has antisocial personality disorder is psychologically incapable of collaborating with others, he or she will ultimately be blocked. Both regular and irregular patterns of disruption stemming from incompetence, whether the result of a disability or not, must be dealt with swiftly.

Competence and experience

Competence differs significantly from experience, but the two are related in that experience augments competence." This does not mean a high level of experience leads directly to a high level of competence; it means that without experience, the level of competence would be lower than it would be with experience.

Wikipedia:Levels of competence outlines three basic levels of competence: playing within the boundaries, exploring the boundaries, and creating the boundaries (or simply ignoring them). A user must learn the rules and understand the spirit of the rules before ignoring them. Unfortunately, many users become stuck after learning the rules, unable to fully understand the spirit in which they were written and how to properly ignore or create rules. Part, though not all, of reaching the third level is a result of experience."

Experience is defined by Merriam-Webster as "the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation" and "practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity," among other meanings.³ In certain cases, child editors are, regardless of maturity, clue, competence, or intelligence, simply unable to recognize the "real-world" consequences of an action. Wikipedia:Leave it to the experienced states this in a concise manner:

Although some young editors are unusually empathetic and able to understand nuanced issues with wide-ranging real-world repercussions, and undoubtedly age and maturity do not necessarily go hand in hand, sometimes it's best to "leave it to the grownups."

...

And the more life experience you have, and the more you have to lose (house, job, children), the more likely you are to recognise how actions online can impact on these things for other people. Publishing the name of a student may cause them some discomfort and distress. Publishing the name of an adult and thus giving resourceful attackers crucial information may contribute to causing them bankruptcy and completely destroy the lives of an entire family.

...

So sometimes the "grown-ups" will tell you that they are dealing with it, and it's none of your business. Arguing the toss is not going to help.

The point of that essay (and one point of this essay) is not to belittle children but rather to focus on the importance of recognizing limits. A competent user understands what he or she is able to manage and unable to manage.

The ideal child?

No child editor will fulfill the role of the "ideal" young user, and few even come close. However, it is not unreasonable to establish some characteristics one would expect to see in an ideal young editor:^‡

Ability to respond to emergency situations in a calm and mature manner.
Clear understanding of a professional setting, internal "corporate" politics, and external critics. (Remember, Wikipedia is closely managed by a ~~business~~ non-profit organization in the end.)
Recognition of tasks that would be better performed by an adult.
Maintenance of a professional profile, including abstinence from "MySpacey" practices.
Familiarity with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, processes, and administration; ability to interpret the aforementioned in a rational manner.
Knowledge of the "real-world" consequences of one's actions; ability to admit error.
Possession and effective application of communication skills; ability to communicate, when appropriate, with disagreeable users.

Of course, there is no user who exemplifies the ideal adult editor, either; one should strive for his or her best but never expect utter perfection.

Conclusion

Minors have undoubtedly contributed to a large portion of Wikipedia's success, but they have also added to a lot of Wikipedia's problems. Some perceive the presence of child writers as another factor toward Wikipedia's unreliability. Despite the existence of many skilled Wikipedians who have not yet reached the age of majority, the many unskilled children who should not be regularly editing Wikipedia (and occasionally making fools of themselves) have brought some degree of disrepute to all child editors.

Perhaps the best advice for children is: be aware of the risk that you will be stalked and/or harassed; be aware that many users do not have patience with young editors; be aware that, on Wikipedia, you are expected to act more like an adult and less like a child; be aware that Wikipedia operates as both an encyclopedia and a corporation;^§ and if you have to question whether Wikipedia is appropriate for you, wait until you are at least sixteen years of age before diving into it.^¶

As one goal of this essay is to clarify trends and recommendations for dealing with problematic child editors, these three guidelines outline a course of action:

If the user is very young (it may be best to abstain from stating a specific range of ages here), he or she should be asked to stay away from Wikipedia if unable to collaborate in a mature manner.
If the user is not very young, he or she should be warned at the start of the offending behavior and swiftly reminded of Wikipedia's purpose and principles until this behavior ceases.
Placing restrictions upon a user or blocking a user should be used when necessary, even if a child appears to be acting out of good faith." Competence issues must be addressed immediately lest any user suffer from illusory superiority.

In the end, however, it is always a good thing to "talk it out." Taking action against a child editor (or any editor) should not be seen as an act of discipline, but an act of guidance. If a child views another user as an authoritative annoyance, he or she will be much more likely to ignore warnings and continue a pattern of rebellious actions.

Notes

^* This user essay should not be considered a definitive analysis of children on Wikipedia; also note that it does not rely heavily on statistical data or interpretation of existing Wikipedia policy. This is simply a written collection of thoughts based largely on the personal opinion of the author. As a result, please refrain from citing this essay in any discussion, although casual references are certainly welcome.

^† The poor spelling and grammar of "RandomNoob" used in this example is not necessarily representative of all such "Randys in Boise," nor does the "MySpacey" signature necessarily signify uncluefulness or incompetency in all MySpacey editors. However, these details, and several others, were present in the incident after which this example was modeled.

^‡ This is by no means a comprehensive listing of traits belonging to a "Renaissance editor;" it is an informal summary list of topics already discussed, at various levels of detail, in this essay.

^§ Wikipedia operates as a corporation even though the Wikimedia Foundation is legally a non-profit 501(c)(3) charitable organization; it would be nigh impossible to run one of the most-accessed Internet sites without turning it into a company of sorts.

^¶ The U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act states that one must be at least sixteen years of age in order to work in most establishments without parental consent or other restrictions, although some U.S. jurisdictions have passed stricter child labor laws. (For example, the California-based Wikimedia Foundation is unable to hire anyone under eighteen years of age.) As sixteen is the minimum age to volunteer with the Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer response team, it appears to be an acceptable recommendation to make in this essay.

¹ Gardner, Sue (November 26, 2010). "Wikipedia Pattern: the very young editor". Sue Gardner's Blog. http://suegardner.org/2010/11/26/wikipedia-pattern-the-very-young-editor/. Retrieved January 13, 2011.

² Glott, Ruediger; Ghosh, Rishab (March 30, 2010). "Analysis of Wikipedia survey data". UNU-MERIT. http://wikipediasurvey.org/docs/Wikipedia_Age_Gender_30March%202010-FINAL-3.pdf. Retrieved January 13, 2011.

³ "experience". Merriam-Webster Online. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. 2011. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experience. Retrieved January 12, 2011.