Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Where we stand, a summary to date

I was curious to find out if this proposal really could be fairly described as "rejected", so I tediously combed through every post and categorized (as well as I could) the editors who have made posts into one of three categories: those who, analyzing their comments overall, generally seem to support this article (obviously, with some quibbles over details); those who, analyzing their comments overall, generally seem to oppose this article; and those who's comments cannot, in my judgement, be allocated to either group -- they may have just had a question or comment, they may themselve be equivocal, or their comments may just not clearly show what their stance is, if any.

I tried to peform this task as a disinterested Fair Witness, as far as I am humanly able. Obviously this is not always easy. For one example of my methodology: if, for a hypothetical example, an editor's only comment were to be (say) "I think it should be 14", I'd consider that that editor may be inferred to have accepted the premise of the article generally. I cases of reasonable doubt I placed editors in the Unclear category. Several of these editors I think quite probably support the article generally, and some probably oppose, but if I couldn't prove it (to a reasonable degree) I put them in this third category.

The categories into which I placed the editors are shown below (sorry, they're not links, and some may be misspelled). They are listed, within each category, in chronological of their first post. Anyone who wished to repeat the process to check my results is of course most welcome to do so. Obviously if any editor feels he has been miscategorized, my apologies, and go ahead and move yourself if you want to. If anyone wants to argue the categorization of an editor other than themselves, sigh, let's do it on my talk page please, it'd not be good to get sidetracked into that here.

Supporting, as a general thing, this article as policy: 23

• Firsfron of Ronchester
• Captainktainer
• No September
• JackyR
• Thatcher131
• Zscout370
• kingboyk
• Doc
• Coredesat
• 6SJ7
• Srose
• Ed
• The Land
• Elliskev
• Herostrastus
• Jeff Q
• Dragons flight
• CameoAppearance
• Chris Griswold
• John254
• Xyzzyplugh
• CFIF
• Blue Tie

Opposing, as a general thing, this article as policy: 14

• Longhair
• JayW
• Thryduulf
• Radiant
• Christhebull
• BigNate37
• Batmanand
• Ineffable3000
• Powers
• CharonX
• Dan T.
• Kaldari
• Anchoress
• Crum375
• There were two others: 86.133.33.235. He has three edits, one to this talk page and two to the article (they were "HOLY FUCK THE PAEDOPHILES ARE COMING. RUN FOR THE FUCKING HILLS" with a summary of "copyedit", followed by a cover edit), and 216.78.95.224. He has four edits, his first to being to this talk page (and consisting an image of a black helicopter and related material) I didn't count these in the totals.

Unclear to me what the editor's position is, if he has one: 9

• AndreniW
• JoshuaZ
• Carnildo
• padawer
• Mask
• EngineerScotty
• Scott3
• PseudoSudo
• Auroranorth

Remember, this is not the result of poll or vote, but just, for the purposes of clarification, a distillation. After all, its not possible to hold everything in one's head at once, so this is just an aid for for a rough idea of numbers to date.

I was quite surprised at this result, actually. I guess I Radiant's claim that this had obviously been rejected, advanced quite forcefully, had led me to believe that the numbers would be about opposite of what they are.

Of editors opposed to this article, the great bulk of commenting, in terms of wordage, was from three editors: Radiant, Big Nate, and Jay W. Most of the comments from editors supporting the article were spread over about five or so main editors.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide for himself which group of editors was the most erudite, polite, and cogent.

Now moving on to strength of argument, it's probably not possible for me to fairly decide. I would call on any new editors coming to this page who are disinterested to help sort that out. I don't think that we need a lot of new arguments; we need to let new editors coming here, if any, to sort through the existing arguments and decide which they find most convincing.

So... where from here? I think that first of all, it's quite clear that the "Rejected" tag now on the article is not correct. I don't think anyone reading the above comments could, if being honest and fair, dispute that. So the question then is, is the proposal accepted? What does it take for a proposal to be accepted? I honestly don't know. Shall it be considered accepted if few or no new editors wish to contribute? What is a quorum for these purposes? Anyone? Herostratus 06:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Dragons flight has noted that I incorrectly placed him in the "opposed" category when he is actually in the "support" category. I hope that shows that I was not biased in my categorizations, in fact leaned over backwards to be fair to the "opposed" group. Herostratus 16:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Responses

• I think the idea is good but hard to implement, there is no way of knowing if the child is under 13 unless he/she says and then that would mean ever admin/mod going through each post looking for someone to say 'I had my 10th birthday today' Is it worth there time seeing as we are not required to do it by law... I think very obvious warnings to the WHOLE community about the dangers of posting personnel info. would be a good idea.--Rob 14:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Hero. I think it's clear from your tally that this proposal is far from being rejected. I'm certainly willing to let new folks come in and opine, and felt the reject tag was added much too soon, especially considering your careful tally of (albeit informal) supports vs opposes. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a democracy and as such we do not vote on proposals, even ignoring the actual posistions 19-10 is far from consensus. Taking into account the arguments above, it is even clearer there is no consensus. As explained several times above, the discussion on this page has degenerated into circular arguments that are going nowhere. Short of a major change in opinion by either side, which given the state of the discussion seems less likely to happen than a volcano erupting in New York. This means that there is no chance of a consensus being reached. WP:POL states:

"A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction." [my emphasis]

As I have just explained, and others have before me, there is no chance of consensus being reached on this - it has therefore been rejected by the community and I have re-added the {{rejected}} template accordingly. If you still feel strongly that Wikipedia needs a policy (i.e. distinct from the proposed guideline) about this, and believe that you can formulate one that can gain a consensus, then start again from scratch and link to it from this discussion page, otherwise just accept that your proposal failed and move on. Thryduulf 08:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is that an issue like "child privacy" quickly becomes emotionally laden. In the words of Helen Lovejoy, won't somebody pleeaase think of the children!! Of course we all mean the best for the kids, but what we should be asking ourselves is (1) what issues there are, (2) whether this proposal actually protects against them, and (3) whether the proposal has any adverse side effects.
• As such, there are several problems with the proposal that haven't really been addressed. First and foremost, the community should never make a policy on legal grounds. We aren't lawyers, and the Wikimedia board employs a lawyer who will inform us if and when legal issues are important. Second, it then follows that the age limit of 13 is arbitrary, since it was picked to conform to U.S. law. Also, a strict age limit simply encourages people to lie about it.
• Third, the way this proposal is worded, it's about blocking people to protect them from themselves. That is a very negative direction to head towards. Instead, we should write a guideline that explains why it's a bad idea, and advices people not to. Fourth and finally, it hasn't been established yet whether the problem we're talking about is real or hypothetical.
• My suggestion: draw up a guideline with the following points: (1) if you post e.g. your phone number, people can use that for nasty business -- it's your own responsibility but it may be a bad idea; (2) if you did and you want it gone, get an admin to delete it; (3) if someone else posts personal info about you, get an admin to tell them to stop.
• HTH. >Radiant< 16:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it is not a bully-ocracy either. One or two editors insisting on placing a rejected tag at this point is uncalled for and has the effect of choking off further debate. This is premature. Many editors have expressed support for this idea, considerably more than have rejected it. Further, the support arguments have made several cogent points; it's not at all as if a Fair Witness would likely conclude that that opposed to the article have scored higher in debate points - quite the opposite, in my personal opinion.

Thrydulf stated that even considering that numbers may not matter, 19-10 is far from consensus. If that is so, it is certainly even that much further from a consensus to reject. The statement that there is no chance that this article will achieve consensus? That is a personal opinion which cannot be proven and with which I respectfully disagree.

So I'll ask that in good faith, in light of this, that the the rejected tag stay removed. There is also no need for the page to protected, but whatever, if you want. However, page protection requests are not supposed to freeze a page in a particular state conforming to the POV of the person making the request, as was done in this cases.

As for the rest, I don't see a that much to be gained by editors restating their material to the content of the article unless they have new points to make or are responding to posts from newcomers to the page. Let's leave it up and see if will attract new editors who may bring fresh ideas to the page. Herostratus 18:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• It would help if you would address the points mentioned above by me and Thryduulf; calling people names is uncalled for. By the way if a page is protected against edit warring over tags, you really shouldn't be modifying the tag while protection lasts. >Radiant< 20:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• There is no such thing as a "consensus to reject". A policy is rejected once it stops evolving and it becomes clear that there will not be a consensus to accept it. Aside from the ill-fated CHILD2, this proposal has changed little since its creation. I don't expect to see people suddenly getting behind this and building a consensus for it, so in my judgment, the current version is already rejected. The question then becomes, how does one move forward? I suggested above that rewriting this as a guideline is one way. Inviting other outside opinions is another idea, though I think every pool of strong opinions on this issue has already been tapped. If people have other ideas, please share, but a sterile fight over whether or not this is rejected is not going to get us anywhere. Dragons flight 20:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• I probably should not have done, but I have reverted to the protected version - (regarding which version this is see m:The wrong version). If you (or anyone else) objects to this please do not revert it but take it to WP:RfC or other apropriate avenue (and let me know on my talk page please).
• Where there is no consensus on any issue the status quo previals, in the case of a proposed policy the status quo is that the policy is not adopted. The policy has stopped evolving and debate about it has stopped, nobody new has commented in quite a while, so it is unlikely that there will be significant numbers of people commenting in the future - i.e. it has stalled and is wasting everybody's time.
• Pedantically I suppose you could say that the policy proposal has failed rather than being rejected, but as net outcome is exactly the same (i.e. the policy is not adopted) the distinction is not made (or rather, I am not aware that it has been made anywhere previously).
• Several people on both sides of the argument, including myself, have suggested that a guideline is more apropriate and would be more likely to gain consensus. I honestly do not understand what you see as the benefit in your actions regarding this policy? I hope I am not making an 'ass' out of anybody by assuming that you must see some benefit for you to continue in acting this way? Thryduulf 21:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Where we stand II: arguments

One other aspect of consensus is strength of argument. If you had 30 editors saying "yeah whatever, go ahead" and five editors with cogent and telling arguments against, I don't think that would constitute consensus for adoption. So lets look at that.

I thought it would be useful, especially to new editors coming here, to summarize the arguments to date. I doing so, I again donned my Fair Witness robes and tried to summarize as fairly as I could, recognizing that this might not be possible. But I tried.

I'd encourage anyone to edit this to make it better reflect the actual arguments. I'd make the following requests for edits to this list: (1) "pro" editors can edit (or add to) the "pro" arguments and reubttals , to make them stronger or clearer or whatever "Anti" editors can edit (or add to) to the "anti" arguments and rebuttals to make them stronger or clearer or whatever. But puhleeze don't edit the arguments of the "other side". (2) Try reallllly hard please to not to greatly increase the amount of text in an argument or rebuttal, the whole point of this is to to be as succinct as possible and not necessarily to address every nuance. (3) if editing the list directly it probably would not be a good idea to sign your posts.

Arguments in favor:

• Protect preeteens from harmful situation. Practical reasons aside, we have a moral obligation to protect children to the extent reasonably possible
  • Rebuttal: No preteens could be harmed here, it is a myth that predators work that way, no one would ever use the Wikipedia for that.
  • Rebuttal: It is not our job to protect people.
• Protect the Wikipedia from civil harm (lawsuit or bad publicity). Let us be proactive and not wait for a lawsuit or scandal.
  • Rebuttal: As far a legal aspects go, we are not qualified to judge. The Foundation has lawyers, let them impose this policy if they deem it necessary.
  • Rebuttal: As far as publicity aspects go, it is not our job here to worry about that.
• Protect the Wikipedia from criminal penalties per COPPA.
  • Rebuttal: We allow but do not solicit personal info, therefore are not liable under COPPA.
  • Rebuttal: We are not a commercial organisation, and therefore COPPA does not apply.
• User pages are supposed to be for info that impacts editing. We are not MySpace, we don't need to know your age.
  • Rebuttal: It is useful to know if an editor is a child (we might give that person more leeway etc.).

Arguments opposing:

• Just implementing the age part in WP:USER would be sufficient.
  • Rebuttal: That is not sufficient, and WP:USER is just a guideline.
• WP:BEANS.
  • Rebuttal: arguable, implementation may vary.
• Cannot be enforced as people could just lie about their age.
  • Rebuttal: Fine. If they do, it protects them and us from most harmful repercussions.
• Children are valued contributors not to be discouraged.
  • Rebuttal: This in no way discourages children from editing.
• Not effective as kids can do workarounds, e.g. post links to on their userpage to their MySpace page which could contain identifying information.
  • Rebuttal: At least we would be doing our best, and also probably absolving ourselves from legal repurcussions at least. No reason to believe many users would do this. Anyway this also could be circumscribed if necessary.
• w:instruction creep, absent some indication that this is actually a problem.
  • Rebuttal: Per User:Cute 1 4 u incident, recent incident where an editor (an admin) was banned for sending mash notes via email to an underage editor, and (outside of Wikipedia) stuff like "Xanga to Pay $1 Million in Children's Privacy Case" indicate that it is already beginning to be a problem.
  • Rebuttal: As stated above, better to be proactive and not wait for damaging lawsuit etc.
  • Rebuttal: w:instruction creep does not apply here, this is not adding layers to existing policy but forging a new policy in a new area, w:instruction creep cannot be cited to prevent all new policies and guidlines as circumstances change.
• Any legal issues should be dealt with by the Board, not non-lawyers such as ourselves .
  • Rebuttal: We are not lawyers but not idiots either. A legal education is no benefit for broad policy decisions, intelligent layman can and do decide these things everyday.
• It is not our duty to protect people from themselves.
  • Yeah it is if they are children.
  • There is also a lot of times where parents do not watch their children's online activities, or just not able to, so it almost feels like it is our job to pick up where the parents left off.
• Just telling people that it might not be wise to post contact information is just being nice and doesn't need any rules (and blocking people for posting other people's personal details is already covered by harassment policy).
  • Need policy to make it clear up-front and to back up recalcitrant cases.

I will leave it to others to decide for themselves which are the stronger arguments. Herostratus 22:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Responses (2)

Doffing my robes now, I personally would say that protecting the Wikipedia from harm is, in my view, a very very strong argument. I would think it would be on editors opposing this policy to prove quite firmly that rejection of this policy could not expose the Wikipedia to significant harm. Herostratus 21:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• In contrast, I beleive it is for those supporting the policy to "prove quite firmly" that there is a problem that (a) exists (b) is actually solved by this proposed policy and (c) that not adopting the policy will expose Wikipedia to significant harm. Thryduulf 21:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I second that. You can make a counterargument to any argument, and vice versa (beans / not beans) but we make policy only if there's concrete evidence that this policy will improve the wiki. >Radiant< 22:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thryduulf, I believe that the cited current event (Xanga, above), demonstrates what could happen to Wikipedia if a minor posts sensitive information here and is killed or raped. I think this is a perfectly sensible guideline. I don't want to see people getting blocked for it or anything like that. I do, however, strongly believe that the admins and b-crats have an obligation to try to keep children safe. If Wikipedia is sued because a little girl posts her age and a link to her Myspace here and is raped or killed or molested by an editor and the connection is made (which it probably will be), there will be no "free information source." A nonprofit organization cannot pay the usual $100k (very low, optimistic estimate) or more in reparations during a case like that. Srose (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I Am Not A Lawyer. And neither are you. And therefore we shouldn't conjecture what legal ramifications might be. >Radiant< 22:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • We can and should conjecture on what the ethical ramifications would be. I sure as hell wouldn't want to have tossed this aside as some much instruction creep if any of that came to pass. Sure, it's a hypothetical. But, that's the whole point. We should be trying to come up with a sensible way (little as it may be) to keep it a hypothetical. Elliskev 23:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
          • No, we should not. The Wikipedia foundation employs a real life lawyer to do the conjecturing for us. If you think this is an issue, talk to him (Brad Patrick), Jimbo, or the Board. Any legal issues are for them to decide, not for us to guesstimate. >Radiant< 23:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I said ethical implications. I'm not one to leave questions of ethics to lawyers. No offense to lawyers, but... --Elliskev 23:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If we really "[made] policy only if... [there was] concrete evidence that... [the] policy... [would] improve the wiki", then we would never make any policy. We do not have the resources to conduct controlled studies on the efficacy of this or any other policy. Furthermore, in the case of this policy, such studies would be highly unethical. Necessarily, in making policy, we employ arguments, educated guesses, and common sense in determining the effects of the policy, since "firm proof" simply cannot be obtained. Furthermore, a purely reactive approach to this particular problem might be a bad idea. John254 22:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • That's rather close to the mark - we very rarely make policy. By "concrete evidence" I mean precisely what Thryduulf said: (a) that there is an actual problem, (b) that the proposal will solve that problem, and (c) that not adopting the proposal is harmful (and I'll add (d) that the proposal has little undesirable side effects). Proponents of this proposal have made no serious attempt to address A, B or C except by FUD, and D is pretty darn obvious. >Radiant< 23:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I'll address A. As I said above, I'd rather have the policy in place before there is an actual problem. There is nothing wrong with being proactive. Elliskev 23:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • To address the others...
          • B - that the proposal will solve that problem: Policy is supposed to be preventative. Enforcement of policy is where the soultion lies.
          • C - that not adopting the proposal is harmful: Not adopting the policy wouldn't be automtically harmful, but it's certainly not helpful (assuming you accept my addressing of A)
          • D - that the proposal has little undesirable side effects: I've seen nothing that would lead me to believe that there would be any harmful side effects. has anyone even offered a possibly undesirable side effect? --Elliskev 23:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• De-indent, edit conflict Radiant, you may not be a lawyer (maybe I'm not, but maybe I am: but you don't know and I haven't told anyone here so I don't see how you could), but it doesn't take a lawyer to know that if Wikipedia is found responsible for allowing a pedophile to find a child and something happens, Wikipedia will be found responsible. Additionally, just because we do not frequently create policies/guidelines does not mean that we should shoot most of them down. What, pray tell, are the "undesirable side effects"? That users under 13 cannot put their ages on their userpage? I don't understand how that's undesirable. Srose (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You're not a lawyer, because the arguments you use are indicative of an incomplete understanding of how law works. Also I used my l33t ninj4 skillz to find out. Legal issues? Talk to the board. Undesirable side effect? This policy talks about blocking good editors. Solving the problem? Nobody has explained yet how blocking people who claim to be 13 makes Wikipedia safe for children (who e.g. may be 14). >Radiant< 23:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Radiant/Srose, have you read the proposal carefully? As presently constructed there is no problem with claiming to be <=13. The only offense would be claiming to be <= 13 and posting one of a limited number of personally identifiable pieces of information. Hence, the current proposal is not about preventing children from being recognized as children, but rather about preventing other people from having the means to contact such children off-wiki. Dragons flight 23:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no proposal to block anyone who claims to be 13. The proposal is to block people who continue to claim to be 13 and post personal information after it has been removed and after they have been warned. Basically, they have to completely disregard the policy after it has been explained by an admin. Those are the people who'd be blocked. Elliskev 23:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Dragons flight, I have read the proposal very carefully, each time it's changed. I was involved in the Cute 1 4 u incident and have had this watchlisted ever since, observing. I'm not happy with what I see so I'm jumping in. Radiant: I don't know if you intend or realize it, but your comments are beginning to sound a bit incivil. Additionally, to provide an example to back my above opinions up, we have a policy on copyvios and deal with them on a daily basis even though copyright is a legal issue. Srose (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, and our policy for handling copyvios was created with the advice of a lawyer. --Carnildo 02:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Do we need to ask the lawyers about every policy? What about WP:3RR? Why does this keep getting thrown to the lawyers? I don't support this because for any fear of litigation. I support it because it's a good idea to make sure kids aren't giving out personally indentifying information. If it ends up being a good idea from a legal standpoint - all the better! --Elliskev 02:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Carnildo, if need be, we can certainly ask for a review from the Foundation's lawyer. Srose (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents, which may or may not be helpful to anyone: I don't see any way that posting personal information (whether one is a child or an adult) of the type that allows one to be tracked down in real life (phone number, address, etc) is useful to or improves Wikipedia; furthermore, there's kind of a hazard there anyways, regardless of age, if that kind of information is posted (adults can be raped too). However, as far as I know there isn't exactly an overabundance of editors who post that kind of information, let alone underage editors, so I'm not sure there's an actual problem here. CameoAppearance ^orate 03:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, my user page contains my real name, some personal information, and a contact email address. I seriously get an average of about one out-of-wiki professional request related to my image work each week. I realize that my circumstances are exceptional, but never say never. Dragons flight 03:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That certainly hampers your ability to do anti-vandal work, which maybe you're not interested in anyway. I certainly have received what I genuinely believe to be highly credible threats against myself and my family. Other editors have been severely damaged in meatspace and/or have had to leave the project. But they won't find me easily, I reveal nothing. But anyway that brings up another thing. Adult Wikipedians have had their employers called etc. but at least they're grownups. How is an 11 or 12 year old going to handle that kind of meatspace harrasment? Herostratus 05:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I deal with vandals who show up on my watchlist, but I don't RC patrol and I don't go hunting for them. Frankly I've never really understood the kind of person who likes vandal whacking; that's just not my thing. All these years with the project and I've yet to get a death threat. I know the horror stories, though (and miss Katefan0). Incidentally, you put me in the wrong category above. I'd support CHILD as policy (though not CHILD2), but I don't expect to see it be accepted. BTW, you might notice others like User:Phil Sandifer, User:Angela Beesley, User:William M. Connolley, User:Tony Sidaway, etc. who are not only public but use their real name for a username. Dragons flight 05:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they're all playing a dangerous game. Believe me, I wasn't going looking for trouble... long story. Anyway, point is, forget sexual stalking, a kid could be very traumatized by getting caught up in one of these "horror stories". Herostratus 08:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This proposal will not help with that at all, because anyone of any age might be targeted and anyone of any age could be very traumatised. Whether or not they claim to be under 13 is irrelevant. If a user puts their email address and real name on their user page, but does not put their age on the page then this proposal explicity does not apply. Thryduulf 09:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the four criteria used by Radiant! above:

• A - There is a problem that exists and needs to be solved:
  • There first "problem" identified is a legal problem that may or may not exist in future. This is not our concern, the Wikimedia Foundation employs a lawyer to advise on legal issues.
  • If there is a legal problem they will advise us, if there isn't then we don't need to make policies about it. We don't refer to the lawyers for every policy because most policies do not deal with legal issues, the 3RR used as an example above is a very good example - there are no laws anywhere about reverting edits to a wiki, so the lawyers do not need to be involved. I don't know for certain, but where policies do deal with legal issues, e.g. copyright violations, but I would be very suprised if a lawyer or lawyers have given their legal opinion about the policies we have. Our policies must be compatible with copyright laws in the United States, and given the Foundation has a lawyer (and copyright is probably the most obvious legal area to affect the Foundation) I am sure they are compatible, otherwise they would have been changed.
  • The second problem identified is a moral one - i.e. we should be protecting children from themselves and others. I agree that children need protecting, but disagree that it is our job to do so. We can reccommend what information people post about themselves, but ultimately it is their choice whether to post it. As Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors children should not be using Wikipedia without adult supervision - we have no way of knowing whether this is happening or not.
• B - The proposed policy will solve the problem:
  • This is where the proposal falls down big time. Taking the legal problem, assuming for the purpose of this argument it exists (see above for why I beleive it doesn't), blocking people who persistently post identifying information about themselves will just lead to them rejoining under another username and doing the same again. All the activity will generate much noise and attention, which would be like a red flag to any theoretical predator who was actually trawling Wikipedia for victims (see arguments futher up the page for reasoning why this is not likely).
  • It falls down even further on the moral question:
    • 13 is an arbitrary limit and does nothing to protect children (or anyone else) who are 14 or older.
    • It does nothing to protect people who are 13 or younger and who don't explicitly self-identify as being so.
    • It does nothing to protect people who previously self-identified as younger than 13, but no longer do so.
    • It does nothing to protect people who do not self-identify as younger than 13 on Wikipedia but link to somewhere else where they do, either directly or indirectly.
  • For example, User:XYZfromAlberta does not post an age on their user page, but says "I am a myspace user", without a link. It is no great leap of intution to suspect that this is the same person as Myspace user XYZfromAlberta whose user page there includes the fact they are under 13.
    • This situation is not covered under the proposed policy.
    • If this person is abused, it is just as likely that any publicity will mention Wikipedia as if the person were contacted directly from here. The type of journalists who would most likely want to mention this are exactly the sort that do not care about sticking rigidly to the facts.
    • The only way to stop this would be to prohibit all users from posting links to other sites they have user pages or other identifying information on, or which link to places where they do. This would have massive, harmful side effects for a tiny theoretical gain.
• C - not enacting the policy would harm Wikipedia:
  • Iff there is a legal issue that could harm Wikipedia if we do not enact a policy about it, the lawyers will tell us.
    • The Xanga issue cited above, a legal issue, was caused by them "allegedly collecting, using and disclosing personal information collected from children [they knew were] under age 13." Asside from the fact that we are not covered by COPPA (we are not a commerical site), it is (in my non-legal opinion) likely that a lawyer would argue that we are not collecting the information. We would be using the information is to stop them doing it, and to block them if they continue to. If we include the age in a block log, or other record then it might be arguable that this counts as disclosing it. These are questions for lawyers - but the potential exists that this policy could bring harm to Wikipedia in this regard.
  • It has been suggested that Wikipedia will come to harm if a user here is abused. While this might or might not be the case (asside from muckrackers and those out to discredit Wikipedia in any way possible, who will try do just that regardless of what we do or don't do), because this proposal would not actually solve the problem it attempts to, it would be irrelevant to this question. The media (who would be the ones harming us here) will not care whether the victim was 12, 13, 14, etc, nor will they care whether or not they disclosed their age on Wikipedia, or whether they were contacted through an email address or MSN or IRC or Myspace or wherever and gave their age that way.
• D - the proposal has little undesirable side effects:
  • It is useful to know which users are children (see further up the page).
  • Blocking people because of their age will lead to just as much negative publicity as the proposal seeks to avoid.

In summary, the proposal almost certainly fails A and C, spectacularly fails B, and although the arguments related to D are more closely balanced, it still fails.Thryduulf 09:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Although I agree with the need to protect, if you want them to prove "very very firmly" there is no need, that is treading into closedmindedness where you just keep raising the bar and then you start letting your personal feelings get in front of reason. Just thought I'd provide a useful critique of your methodology, not that I disagree with your belief that there is such a strong need. 70.101.144.160 09:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

=Plea for discussion

Herostratus, please actually respond to the points raised by people who disagree with you, rather than constantly summarising to try and present your opinion as a consensus when none exists (for my view or for yours). There will never be any consensus, and nobody will benefit, until you actually engage in dialogue over the issues, rather than bemoaning the fact that there are people who disagree with you and just continue to make this page harder to follow (hence why I am making this here). Radiant!, myself and others have explained in great detail why we believe this policy proposal is not a good idea, responding to points made by other commenters, but you have not. Please explain why you feel that the proposed policy is a good thing, why you beleive that it does meet the four tests, and why you think that our objections are not valid. Thryduulf 19:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI mediation

Just a note that what tag this article should have, Proposed or Rejected, is in mediation. This doesn't affect any other aspect of the article, just the tag. For now, it has no tag, which is probably the best compromise I guess. Herostratus 22:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• According to the admin noticeboard, RFM is not presently active. FYI. >Radiant< 23:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's at the Mediation Cabal. Herostratus 05:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving on

From WP:CON:

"In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what [consensus] does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it."

We have had by my count 43 separate editors contribute to this talk page. Of these, four may be classified as "vocal and unreconciled folk": User:BigNate37, User:Radiant!, User:Thryduulf, and User:JayW. Their stance may basically be characterized as just flat against the proposal. That of course is their privilege. These editors, or at least the first three, have sought to choke off discussion and end the consensus-building process. That is not their privilege.

There will probably never be a proposal which does not have some "vocal and unreconciled folk" opposed to it. That does not mean that no new policy, procedure, or guideline may ever be put in place. Consensus does not require unanimity.

The attempt to choke off further discussion has been at least partially successful. The "Proposed" tag has been removed, and there's no way to restore it without edit warring. There currently is 'no' tag, as a "compromise", but a compromise that favors the vocal and unreconciled folk, since this article is thus no longer listed in the list of current proposals. Therefore new editors will not find it, and those that do will probably assume it's a essay rather than a proposal. So we basically need to go with who we have. This is not what I wish, but since we unable to prevent the vocal and unreconciled folk from preventing, or at least discouraging, any further input from more people, it is what we have.

The vocal and unreconciled folk have made their point: they are dead set against the proposal, period. We understand. Noted. They are, however, in a distinct minority, less than 10% of commentors. Of the remaining 90% plus, let's see what what we need to do to finish this up. Here's what I'll do to try to move the process along to a a conclusion:

Archive the talk page sections above "Where we stand, a summary to date" and append them to the archive (Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy/Archive 1) so that the discussion up to that point may be searched more easily. I'll try to distill each editors comments, for the first section below. Then I'll contact all the editors who have already contributed (only) to ask them to contribute once again, to the second section below. Then I'll put an RfC for any new editors want to come in and comment, in the fourth section below.

Then I'll add four new sections to this talk page:

1. One for a short (about one or two sentence) distillation of that editor's previously stated concerns and so forth, from the archive, when this is possible, and made as fairly as I humanly can.
2. One for editors who have already commented to make a short (about one or two sentence) declaration of support, support if change(s) XYZ are made, or opposition.
3. One for editors who have already commented to make longer comments. (I don't see much point in this, as they mostly have made their positions clear, but if they want.)
4. One for new editors coming in from the RfC, if any, to comment. Editors who have already commented, please' don't post in this section, except to make a very brief answer to a question. This will just muddy the waters and cause confusion. Especially the vocal and unreconciled folk, please have some courtesy and restraint, thank you.

I hope and trust that this seems reasonable and fair. For clarity, please post suggestions and objections to the process I have just described to the subsection immediatly below. Finally: bullying and disruption won't be tolerated, period. Attempts to disrupt or destroy the process outlined here without discussion will be redacted out . I'm prepared to go all the way down the line on this. Herostratus 17:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

1: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUSLY EXISTING COMMENTS

I tried to pick a section of user comments that best summarizes that editors posts. Any cherry-picking is accidental. If I made a mistake you should fix it (but only for your own comments please).

• User:6SJ7 "Some policy to make it somewhat more difficult to use Wikipedia to contact children is better than no policy"

Please note: My comment quoted above was not in response to the version of the policy that now appears on the project page, but to an alternative policy that would have prohibited users from disclosing that they are under the age of 13. Therefore, it probably is not the best indicator of my opinion on this topic; see further comment in next section. 6SJ7 20:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• User:AndreniW "I'm not convinced that we need to block email addresses" "I do whole-heartedly support blocking IM screen names"
• User:Auroranorth only post was "If you take all information that you are under 13 off talk pages and any other user page or article page in Wikipedia, can you then become a person with an unidentified page again (giving the freedom to add email addresses, etc. to pages)?"
• User:Batmanand "This is a solution seeking a problem, so in my opinion should not become policy"
• User:BigNate37 "This is hurting the project."
• User:CameoAppearance "I agree with almost this entire policy proposal"
• User:Captainktainer "How in the world would the lowering of the profile of a group that has the potential of being targeted in any way be... not helpful?"
• User:Carnildo (two comments, not addressing the policy)
• User:CFIF "COPPA is not applicable to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is a not-for-profit site"
• User:CharonX only post was "Template:User Child is up for deletion at WP:TfD, the lister cites WP:CHILD as deletion reason. Your input (should children be allowed to self-identify as children, if so, with an userbox?) would be welcome, since this is closely related."
• User:ChrisGriswold only comment was "It is up to you whether Wikipedia is not for your children. For other parents, their children may be allowed to read Wikipedia or be editing Wikipedia without their parents' permission. These are the children this is aiming to protect."
• User:Christhebull "this is going nowhere, because Wikipedia is non-commercial"
• User:Coredesat only comment was "I added it {real name, to nutshell] in"
• Dan T. "Since Wikipedia registration does not require providing any personal info, and is not being promoted specifically to kids, we're probably OK"
• User:Doc_glasgow "I think we should discourage/forbid people from putting their school name on their page...Let's avoid as much personal information as we can"
• User:Dragons flight "Knowing that an editor is a child is helpful to working with them... In contrast, knowing a child's real name, address, phone number, etc... serves very little useful purpose on Wikipedia and hence can be reasonably removed" "I don't see any protection policy as likely to gain consensus. As a result, I would like to encourage people to rewrite this a guideline discouraging children from revealing personal information. I think everyone agrees that children posting personal details online is usually not a good idea, and that we can plainly say so, even in the absence of a policy for deleting all such details"
• User:Ed "I recommend that we change the age limit for complying with this policy be 17"
• User:Elliskev "I think this is a great idea"
• User:EngineerScotty (two comments, not related to the policy)
• User:Firsfron of Ronchester "It looks good to me"
• User:Herostratus "I agree with this policy"
• User:Ineffable3000 "the proposed policy would be impossible to enforce"
• User:JackyR "Is there any good reason not to block all accounts identified as under-13?" "Re choice of age limit: info [here] suggests 13-17 year olds might need consideration"
• User:JayW "A ridiculous policy which won't solve shit, cuz it's based on a myth"
• User:Jeff Q "Having a policy that keeps us within legal boundaries is not incompatible with Wikipedia's purposes"
• User:John254 "it appears to be widely accepted that personally identifying information from children under thirteen serves no legitimate purpose, and is potentially dangerous to the children providing it" "if we leave this proposal as "rejected", administrators who speedily delete pages containing personally identifying information about children under the age of 13 will be open to the criticism that they are somehow acting against the wishes of the community."
• User:JoshuaZ
• User:kingboyk "It's quite shocking that they're [the Foundation ] not proactive on this issue" "I'd like to propose that as part of this solution we delete all age-related templates and Wikipedia categories"
• User:Longhair "That's [user age, if we asked for it] easily faked
• User:Mask "But is the children themselves posting the info illegal? I aggree it's a Bad Idea, but if that is in itself legal, the title should be something other then COPPA"
• User:NoSeptember "Should we have any sort of policy on the uploading of personally identifying photographs?"
• User:padawer "As this new century unfolds it seems we increasingly respond to imagined threats in the most reactive ways possible, and this discussion is one such example"
• Powers "it is extremely helpful to know when a wiki editor is a pre-teen or early teen"
• User:PseudoSudo only post was "Anyone have objections to a straw poll..."
• User:Radiant "I object to this proposal"
• User:Scott3 only post was "How would we know if a user is under 13. When signing up should users be asked to enter in there date of birth?"
• User:Srose "The policy looks great"
• User:Thatcher131 (wrote proposal) "I think we need to confront this issue for moral and ethical reasons even if it is not a strict liability issue." "Even if the Foundation is not strictly liable per COPPA, we do not want some tearful mom going on Greta and saying "She met him on wikipedia. I thought it was an encyclopedia." "maybe we should implement it as a modification of WP:USER rather than a separate policy"
• User:The Land instinctively think there should be some sort of policy on young/very yong users but we need to be very clear why one would be introduced." "I am happier with this [change] idea than I was with the original version."
• User:Thryduulf "the single sentence "Don't say you're a preteen" added as a guideline to WP:USER would be at least as effective, if not more so... This realy is a solution in search of a problem.
• User:Xyzzyplugh only post was "The article doesn't define the term "real name". Does this just mean full name, or does it also prohibit a child's first name? I would think the policy should state this"
• User:Zscout370 "Probably a good idea [disallowing all contact info] for now, IMHO"
• User:Flameviper "I think that it should be just a guideline not to reveal personal information. After all, people would just leave out the blurb about their age. But then again, it's not a good idea to reveal personal information. Wikipedia is not MySpace."

2: BRIEF STATEMENTS FROM EDITORS WHO HAVE PREVIOUSLY COMMENTED

Please enter a brief comment next to your user ID. It would be very useful if your comment is such that it could be easily fit into one of these categories:

1. Statement of support as the proposal stands.
2. Statment of support with suggestions, but still supporting if your suggested changes are not adopted.
3. Statment of support if and only if change(s) XYZ are made, othewise opposed.
4. Statement of opposition to the proposal. At this point, if you are opposed unless major and significant changes are made, you should probably just record yourself as in oppositon.

• User:6SJ7 I guess I would be in category "2." I had rewritten a portion of this policy (see here), and most of what I wrote is still there, but upon reading it now I believe further work is needed. I think COPPA should not be in the first sentence and should be mentioned in passing, only as the source of the cutoff age. Maybe the legal discussion at the beginning of this policy is what turned some people off.
• User:AndreniW Hard to say. Between Category 3 and Category 4. I agree with Dan T.'s points. Unless there is actually a problem, we don't need all these policies. I'll post more in the following sections.
• User:Auroranorth
• User:Batmanand Category 4. The very idea seems fatally flawed; it is a solution chasing a problem; it will simply lead to under-13 year olds pretending not to be under 13; paedophilia on Wikipedia? It sounds ridiculous because it is ridiculous. Batmanand | Talk 22:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• User:BigNate37
• User:CameoAppearance Category 1 regarding the new draft, but Category 2 regarding the old one (I don't see how email addresses or IM screen names are personally identifiable, so long as they don't contain other identifying information, and I think first name and city are acceptable divulgences). I think it's been given the wrong purpose, though (having originally been proposed to prevent predators from tracking down children through Wikipedia, although the impracticality of doing so suggests that's a myth); it seems like it'd be better put to use as a solution to the problem of users in general being harrassed in real life due to activity on Wikipedia. CameoAppearance ^orate 23:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• User:Captainktainer -> Category 2. I would support the policy as it stands or the other proposed policy - simply prohibiting anyone from self-identifying as under 13. I prefer the policy as it stands, though. And I have absolutely no idea how any reasonable person can suggest that this policy can facilitate the rape of children. Captainktainer * Talk 21:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• User:Carnildo I am opposed to the policy as currently written. It's a solution to a problem that hasn't been shown to exist. --Carnildo 00:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• User:CFIF Support, children who self-identify the age of 13 should not post detailed (first name and possibly city [because some sicko is not going to find a 12 year old girl named Jane in New York City, Chicago, etc.] is OK, IMO) personal info. This is in everyone's best interests, though COPPA is still not applicable to Wikipedia and will probably never be. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 20:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• User:CharonX - I have had a difficult time putting my abivalent feelings regarding this proposal into words - at one one hand protecting children is a noble goal, on the other hand I ask myself "is there a problem that needs to be solved? is this a viable solution? what are the dangers or benifits of making (or not making) this policy?" I would not have given my support to the early versions of this proposal, which would have made deletion of contanct and age information (of underage wikipedians) compulsory, but I see no harm and much benefit in permitting the removal of personal information upon request of the user involved. As we are back to the old draft I cannot help but reject it if removal of personal information is madatory. Category 4 CharonX/talk 11:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• User:ChrisGriswold
• User:Christhebull
• User:Coredesat - Support, though with the rewording mentioned by The Land. As for JayW, this policy doesn't facilitate the rape of children. It aims to prevent it, by not allowing young children (or predators pretending to be young children) to identify themselves as such on Wikipedia, and there are some cases where such a policy would be effective. --Coredesat talk! 21:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Dan T. - Category 4, unless Wikimedia legal counsel actually says that such a policy is necessary or desirable for legal reasons, which it probably isn't. I'm not big on imposing arbitrary restrictions on people based on speculative reasons.
• Doc glasgow
• User:Dragons flight
• User:Ed Support if and only if 1) Editors under the approved age limit is prohibited from posting personal info; 2) Editors under the age limit can still freely edit among Wikipedia; 3)There is a special page in which sexually harrased editors may report to, that way these editors can receive special treatment; 4) this policy still encourages editors to use Wikipedia, regardless of the policy
• User:Elliskev I support this proposal with a few minor changes to its wording. I'd like to see references re: children self-identifying to users self-identifying. I'd like to see the list of personal identifying information as including, but not limited to. However, I'd still support without the changes.
• User:EngineerScotty
• User:Firsfron of Ronchester Support, category 1 or 2. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• User:Herostratus Support.
• User:Ineffable3000 (Comments in previous section are sufficient.)
• User:JackyR
• User:JayW - I oppose this policy on ethical grounds: Wikipedia should not facilitate the rape of children.
• User:Jeff Q
• User:John254
• User:JoshuaZ
• User:kingboyk
• User:Longhair
• User:Mask
• User:NoSeptember
• User:padawer - I have not had time to keep up with the policy proposal as it has evolved, but, speaking generally, I support any proposal which: 1) prohibits underage editors from revealing personally identifying data (i.e., name, street address, email address, instant message screen names); 2) allows them to post ages on personal user pages; 3) allows them to edit articles under the same behavioral constraints expected of all editors.
• Powers - I have no idea. The proposal as of right now appears to have nothing to do with protecting children's privacy and is merely a restatement of existing oversight policies. If someone would care to restore this to the previous version that had been discussed, then I can comment further. 00:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) The restored version -- prohibiting users who identify themselves as under 13 from revealing personal information -- is clear, consise, and highly appropriate. It has my full support. 15:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• User:PseudoSudo
• User:Radiant
• User:Scott3
• User:Srose Category 2 per The Land. I really don't see what's wrong with a preventative measure.
• User:Thatcher131
• User:The Land - Support, with recommendations that we a) de-emphasise the reference to COPPA; and B) that we reword 'self-identify' to 'identify themselves as' (self-identify implies a choice of social identity (eg sexuality), rather than simple revelation of information). The Land 20:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• User:Thryduulf - I am opposed to this policy for reasons explained in detail in the responses, responses (2) and other sections above. To summarise, the problem this tries to fix has not been shown to exist, even if the problem does/did exist this proposal would not fix it but would have harmful side effects.
• User:Xyzzyplugh - I support this proposal as it stands, some rewording might be appropriate but I support it whether reworded or not. My possibly nitpicking concern: I believe the policy should specify whether or not the "real name" which is not allowed includes the child's first name. The policy as written could be interpreted to mean that a child posting "my name is John" violates this policy, or it could be interepreted to mean that first name is acceptable. (and yeah, I know in some countries the surname comes first) --Xyzzyplugh 21:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• User:Zscout370 It looks good so far, but the main problem that pretty much brought up this discussion, COPPA, is not seen anywhere on this page. Another concern brought up to me in IRC is "does COPPA apply if the minor lives outside of the USA" after I had someone from New Zealand's information oversighted. I would support, even if my suggestions are ignored, but I just want whoever is going to create the final draft to consider these points. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

3: LONGER COMMENTS FROM EDITORS WHO HAVE PREVIOUSLY COMMENTED

Thatcher131 I am unclear on what I am meant to be expressing an opinion about. The policy seems to have undergone a drastic rewrite in the last few hours from an enforceable policy to a wishy-washy piece of gentle advice. As advice, its pointless, plus possibly harmful since it indicates Wikipedia officially recognizes the possibility of harm but takes no action to stop it. As policy, I would prefer to simply prevent editors from identifying themseles as children, rather than allow them to self-identify and then try to prevent a series of problematic actions. However, either policy is better than doing nothing; and I am thoroughly opposed to Radiant!'s version. Thatcher131 22:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the new draft should become a guideline rather than a policy, then. CameoAppearance ^orate 23:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there is some place on Wikipedia for a guideline saying. "some people on the internet aren't very nice, and you should think carefully before revealing personal information," but there's no point in putting the word "protection" in the title unless we're actually protecting someone from something. The difference between warning and protecting is that protection eventually may involve some level of compulsion or force that is absent from a mere warning. Think of the difference between a "Beware of the dog" sign and an actual guard dog, for example. Thatcher131 23:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131, "unclear on what I am meant to be expressing an opinion about" is precisely the state that User:Radiant wants you to be in, as he unprotected the page and then immediately trashed the painfully and lengthily discussed and crafted text and put up some other stuff in the middle of all this... users who are implacably hostile to the central premise of a proposal should not be editing it in this way... the purpose is presumably to "win" a Rejection by default, by sowing confusion. I beg you to not let yourself be bullied in this manner... I ask all editors regardless of their position on this matter to not allow this to stand as a matter of principle. Let the proposal stand or fall on its own merits, for pity's sake. Herostratus 03:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus, assume good faith. I'm also quite unhappy with your edit summary of "restore previous version -- another attempt to make discussion impossible -- if no consensus, so be it -- see talk for more" Just because they have a different opinion than you it does not mean they want to "make discussion impossible". Anyway, I'm out of here - I was here because you invited my to comment on this proposal on my talk page, but if different opinions are not wanted here I won't stay. CharonX/talk 11:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• JayW - Predators do not scrutinize the internet in the hopes of tracking some kid who foolishly posted their name to Wikipedia. It simply doesn't happen. It doesn't happy here, nor does it happen anywhere else; and I would be happy to concede to anyone who proves otherwise, though I very much doubt that will happen. I whole-heartedly believe the situation this policy is designed to protect against is a terrible myth which, by distracting money, time and effort from actual issues, facilitates the sexual abuse of children.

On the other hand, some predators do use the chat services to anonymously groom children. This situation, while I doubt it would happen in such an incovenient environment, might deserve a policy.

..so, does this policy solve anything, as it stands? No - it doesn't prevent children from stating their age. Instead, it focuses on irrelevant information, like their street address and real name, which the predator can acquire privately once he has located the child's online contact information. Since many people use the same username across all the interwebs, this probably wouldn't be difficult.

The only solution, so far as I can see, is to police kids who mention their age. Any other policy is, to say the least, completely useless. Out, JayW 23:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how you can make these broad, general statements (the ones in your first paragraph) with such certainty. How do you know what "simply doesn't happen", "here" "or anywhere else"? And if your response is, "prove it does happen," my reply would be: No, I don't need to prove anything. I know that there are people who stalk children. I know there are people who use "the Internet" to do it. I also know that there are people on Wikipedia who advocate sexual relations between children and adults. If you believe that all of those people make a distinction between an Internet encyclopedia and an Internet chat room as a place to locate those children they are going to try to victimize, and therefore the encyclopedia does not need to take precautions, you prove it. I do not need to disprove it. 6SJ7 18:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"I do not see how you can make these broad, general statements (the ones in your first paragraph) with such certainty." Assertions should be assumed false until proven otherwise. This claim, in particular, is both ridiculous in its basic premise and completely unevidenced. There does not appear to be any record or account of this ever actually happening, anywhere; as such, I feel my statement is _perfectly_ justifiable. Those who propound this false reality have the burden of proof. "No, I don't need to prove anything." Did you know that every year, 84.3 Wikipedians are murdered by lions as a direct result of their criticism of Jesus? That's a scientific fact. There's not actual evidence for it, but it's a scientific fact. JayW 18:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• AndreniW Okay, problems I see with this policy:
  • We don't have this problem on Wikipedia.
  • We had a situation where a mother revealed her son's identity. This was not self-identification but he was still banned. This is WRONG.
  • I think that if we have to ban them, it should be a time-limited ban; when they turn 13 years old, the ban should be lifted.
  • I'm especially unhappy with the 'regardless of parental consent'. We don't decide what's right for these kids, their parents do.

--AndreniW 23:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

4: --> *NEW* EDITORS COMING FROM THE RFC, PLEASE COMMENT HERE

• I support the aims of this proposal. The opposition seems to mainly that good editors could be blocked. I would suggest removing all of the blocking language here. The aims are still met if the information is simply removed and email disabled. This proposal should simply authourize editors to repeatedly remove personal information. Authourize admins to delete indentifying photos. And authourize b'crats to make forced name changes if a surmname is used. There is no need to ban anyone. There is no need to require these actions are taken. The information can be repeatly removed with gentle reminders that do not WP:BITE. Those that are concerned about this issue can take the neccessary steps to protect young children. Those that are concerned young children will be blocked from contributing can be assured it will not come to that. This is a real ethical issue, regardless of the fact we do not know of anyone being harmed by the lack of such a policy to date.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This seems simple enough. Yes, they can get around it if they really try, but it's better than nothing. "You can't make it foolproof, because fools are so ingenious." AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• I also support this policy. It is a beneficial policy, and it is well written, simple to understand and to follow. Johntex\^talk 03:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• I must oppose this proposal. You must never make a policy against a group of people. This proposal have the effect to be in violation of WP:NPOV, as it's disscouraging a usergroup to participate in the work. On a personal level I feel that if a person is able to participate to write articles, then that person is capable to know what he/she writes on it's userpage. Creating a policy just for the sake of easing your guilt I feel is plain wrong, that kind of hypocrisy dont belong to Wikipedia. _→AzaToth 22:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not from RFC, but I oppose this proposal for a number of reasons, including pretty much all the reasons stated thus far, but also because I disagree with a lot of the wording, particularly the emphasis on COPPA and the use of phrases like 'Wikipedia has adopted the policy' (this may be a paraphrase, I'm quoting from memory). I also feel that having a strict policy of removal/blocking could leave us more open to criticism/blame if/when the policy is not enforced, even if it is due to ignorance. I am in favour of either nothing, or a policy/guideline that a) does NOT fetishise COPPA, b) reminds all editors of the hazards of revealing personal info, c) specifically discourages underage editors from revealing personal info, and d) states that such info may be removed at an admin's discretion. I am against blocking for usernames that use full names, I am against blocking for persistent revelation of personal details, and I do not think there is any good reason (v/v the project, building an encyclopedia) where it is actually useful to know that an editor is underage. Therefore, I would weakly support a proposal that mandated under-13s not revealing their ages. Anchoress 04:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• My child, who edits Wikipedia more often than I do, chooses not to reveal his name or age, but is in the approximate range of ages this proposal is intended to assist. As such, I support this proposal (except for the mention of COPPA, which makes little sense from an ethical standpoint, and makes no sense from a legal standpoint as far as my non-lawyer self can figure). The negative side effects mentioned seem very minimal compared to the potential benefits. Of course it is the obligation of the parents to monitor our children, but the proposal seems basic civil mindfulness; if a child pulled a knife on another in one's presence, one would not wait for parental contact to intervene. JonathanPenton 04:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose to this policy as age discrimination. Persons of different age/IQ/philosophy/religion should not be put under different sets of rules based on anyone's moral ideas, which are completely POV. This is a ridiculous and dangerous policy suggestion that may have nasty side effects and harm Wikipedia. Prolog 11:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• oppose. This is out of the bounds of Wikipedia. I don't see this site as a great facilitator of harm towards children. Furthermore, in almost all cases, the only people who get hurt are those who ask for it. This is their stupidity and problem. I have given away my age on the internet forever - I even have a website, http://www.ntung.com (although I am no longer near 13 but still legally a minor). I have given away my address, hosted a server with my own ip, posted my email in public all the time, and numerous other identifying non-crimes, some by mistake. The people who are abused on sites as bad as myspace are people who actively chat with obviously perverted adults.

These are the comments I despise the most

"Yeah it is [our duty to protect people from themselves] if they are children."

"it almost feels like it is our job to pick up where the parents left off"

I simply cannot disagree more. Even those who support the proposal don't think this is a valid rebuttal.

"if a child pulled a knife on another in one's presence, one would not wait for parental contact to intervene"

This isn't the same thing, see my comments above. A better supporting argument would be that some children don't know what "perverted" is. Another responsibility that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. A scene matching this would be - "if a child handed someone a knife, one would not wait for parental contact to intervene". --gatoatigrado 06:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose in principle. Solution in search of a problem. We can discourage people from posting something we think is inappropriate, but this is instruction creep. Until the Foundation lawyers tell us we need to do something like this, let's leave it to a combination of gentle guidance from the community and oversight by parents to make younger contributors' presence on Wikipedia be educational and risk-free. Martinp 17:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - but don't think its a big deal if we don't have this policy in place --T-rex 20:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose this version, but support 3rd version (advise against revealing personal information). Seems to be unneccessarily discriminatory, and possibly offensive, to a set of editors. Also, "stranger danger" is considered by many to be a myth, and statistics on sexual crimes seems to back this up. According to the "2005 National Crime Victimization Survey" of the US, which included both minor and non-minor victims, 28% of perpetrators had an "intimate" relationship with the victim, 6% or 7% were otherwise related, and 38% were a friend or aquaintance. (So a total of 73% were non-strangers.) Only 26% were strangers. (The remaining 2% were classified as "unknown".)[1] According to a Canadian survey focusing on sexual abuse and exploitation of minors, "About half (51%) of sexual assaults against children and youth reported to a sub-set of police departments in 2002 involved friends or acquaintances, while a quarter of these assaults (25%) involved family members. About 18% involved assaults by strangers. [...] According to the CIS, most alleged perpetrators of sexual abuse were either "other" (non-parental) relatives (44% of cases) or non-relatives (29%), and only very few (2%) of substantiated cases of sexual abuse involved a stranger." (empashis added) [2] Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 03:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle as well as various legal and practical reasons already covered. Kaldari 19:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Quite frankly, if a user doesn't want to be hassled by the policy, they don't have to opt-in (by revealing their age). If child user reveals their age in ignorance of this policy, they need to be protected. If they reveal their age with full knowledge of this policy, they're agreeing (or at least consenting) to it, which is better still. Like it says, we don't track user ages. --horsedreamer 03:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

New draft

It is kind of difficult to create consensus through debating the same issues over and over again; at a certain point, it becomes useful to amend the proposal to address perceived problems. I have just done that; in particular, I've removed all references to the law (since we're building a guideline on moral grounds, not legal ones) and most references to blocking (since we should be educating people who expose themselves, not blocking them in their innocence).

Please comment and/or edit. Please do not revert this for a day or two so that other people can take a look at it. >Radiant< 21:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't endorse it, though it would make a good essay. There's only one thing that is remotely policy-ish, and that's the bit at the bottom allowing editors to request that their information be removed from the database, which could be and should be added to another policy document. I am firmly convinced that we need something stronger to prevent a public relations or legal disaster. Captainktainer * Talk 22:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't like it. It's a policy entitled "Protecting children's privacy" that is targeted at all editors and has no special provisions for children? And it has no teeth - it leaves the burden of privacy on the user, including a child user. The entire point of separating children in such a policy is that they are assumed to be less capable of protecting themselves. There certainly are some who can protect themselves fine, but the way it was before allowed that, by having more competent children simply not post their age. Put back the teeth - the ability and the encouragement of other editors to remove private info of underage editors.AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• The previous one was better, this one is watered and dumbed down. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 22:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Guys, this is not a vote. >Radiant< 22:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right, it isn't. However, registering our displeasure and reasons for that displeasure is not only acceptable but should be expected. Captainktainer * Talk 22:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Certainly. Are you of the opinion that we must block children for their own protection if they (repeatedly) reveal information about themselves? >Radiant< 22:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, I am. I don't think a 9-year-old can be expected to have full comprehension of the possible ramifications of posting their personal information on a public page on a top-25 Web site. FCYTravis 23:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Absolutely and unequivocally, with no reservations whatsoever. Let us assume that I were to be fortunate enough to be blessed with children. If I were to find that, against my wishes, a child of mine were to be editing Wikipedia, and if I were to then find that administrators had allowed my (hypothetical and much wished-for) child to post personally identifying information and allowed him/her to continue to do so repeatedly, I would raise all hell. I certainly do not take the position that the administrators of Wikipedia are or should be responsible for parenting. I do take the position that there are several easily-implemented measures - the old draft - that improve the safety of Wikipedians and demonstrate a good-faith effort to recognize the unique position children are in. Captainktainer * Talk 01:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Absolutely. If they repeatedly break this policy (assuming it does become policy) then they should be blocked. Johntex\^talk 03:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the new version is good, but very different; its writing sounds like it'd be better as a guideline, and (as mentioned above) it seems like it'd be better implemented to prevent offline harrassment (including rape, although the chance of that seems negligible) of users of all ages. Unlike predators using Wikipedia, of all places, to track down their victims, meatspace harrassment is a problem that already exists. CameoAppearance ^orate 23:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Yes, of course. Herostratus 04:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have given the old draft my support, but I'll gladly endorse this new draft. Changing the removal of personal information from compulsory to voluntary we overcome the biggest obstacle for me - allowing Wikipedians to decide what to post and what not to post about themselves. Allowing the permanent deletion of the information allows them to change their mind even after they have posted information. Addendum: As Radiant said if there is a legal need to have some COPA like policy on Wikipedia (our lawyers should be able to tell us if so) then there is no way around it, if not I don't see why we should cry "think of the children" and place a gag-order on our younger users. CharonX/talk 23:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is much better than the previous version, but as it (correctly, imho) does not focus on children it is wrongly titled. I suggest merging it with the existing policy on harrasment as a "guidelines to help prevent harrasment" (or something similar) section. Thryduulf 23:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• This new version is completely devoid of any merit. It it no way resembles the original proposal. I'm gonna hold my tongue due to WP:AGF, but if these are the kinds of games that are going to be played, I'm done with this. I will get back to editing articles. Elliskev 00:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I've reverted back to the previous version. The new draft is too radically different. If there need to be changes, they should be incremental and made with consensus, not the wholesale scrapping and rewriting by one editor opposed to the old version. --Elliskev 01:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I've reverted back to the new draft - the old draft had definite consensus difficulties and just going back to it won't improve the situation. Still, as I said in my summary, this will be my only revert - I won't war over it if it is reverted again. (though I'll of course have to update my stance towards it from support to oppose) CharonX/talk 01:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • May I suggest, instead, creating a subpage with the new draft? The wholesale rewrite-and-replace in the middle of a straw poll is the most objectionable bit - moving the new draft to a subpage would have been the appropriate action in the first place. The reason I say this is that I would very much like to revert to the version that is being discussed above at the straw poll. Captainktainer * Talk 01:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• I support this proposed policy as it is currently written. Johntex\^talk 03:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Two pages

I have temporarily created a subpage dedicated to Radiant's proposal. I do think it is very confusing to switch back and forth between the two quite different suggestions while there are apparently people interested in discussing both. For the moment, I think it is better to let them coexist while the dust settles a little more. Dragons flight 03:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful. An excellent example of the virtue of subpages. Now, I think, we can have a more complete and more accessible debate as to the merits of both proposals. A hybrid of both may even be a good idea, depending on how the discussion here turns out. Captainktainer * Talk 03:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Am I right that the main opposition to the current one (the one advocated by Hero) comes from people who believe that under-13s should not be restricted from posting personal info? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. Captainktainer * Talk 16:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should not censor or discriminate against any contributors, including because of their age. The only exception is if we are required to by law, if that is the case we will be advised by the foundation's lawyers.

In more detail my objections to the proprosal advocated by Herostratus are:

• (1) the problem that it attempts to fix has not been shown to exist
• (2) Even if the problem it attempts to fix does exist, it won't actually fix it
• (3) No proponent of this policy has shown to my satisfaction that it would harm Wikipedia not to enact it. Several objectors have raised concerns that it would harm Wikipedia to enact it.
• (4) Enacting this proposed policy would have harmful side effects for Wikipedia.

I have given detailed arguments to back up these opinions in the responses (2) section above, I have also given other detailed opinions and reasoning in other sections. Not one proponent of the policy has responded to any of these. Herostratus appears to have gone out of his way to obfuscate this talk page and make it difficult for others to gain an balanced view of the discussions. Thryduulf 16:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

1) The problem does exist. There are self-admitted pedophiles editing Wikipedia; any number of others probably edit without admitting to their proclivities. So long as pedophiles are permitted to edit Wikipedia and interact with other users (which will happen as long as detailed background checks are not performed on editors, which would be silly and beyond the Foundation's resources), children who are editors are at risk. Has there been a case that a child has been molested or harassed as a result of editing Wikipedia? Not that we know of, yet. However, it is important that we not allow a public relations and legal disaster to develop because we have been fortunate so far. For that matter, it helps forestall even the possibility of a COPPA challenge to Wikipedia, if somebody in the Justice Department gets the boneheaded idea that Wikipedia is a for-profit institution.

2) Will it serve as a 100% cureall? No. Despite child labor laws, children are still forced to work in some instances. Despite Megan's law, released child molesters still molest. Nevertheless, both of those laws have helped mitigate the problem, as this policy would mitigate the risk to children. Nobody, so far as I know, has claimed that any policy is a cure-all.

3) To your satisfaction, perhaps. Your personal threshold for satisfaction is, by definition, personal.

4) Highly doubtful. At worst it means slightly more work for admins, which is a side-effect of all proposed policy. At best it cuts the legs out from under the "Wikipedophile" critics who claim that we're not protecting children. Captainktainer * Talk 16:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've only got time for a very quick response atm, but re (1) - just because somebody is a paedophile does not mean they are a risk to children. Just because someone is attracted to redheaded women, does not mean that they are a risk to redheaded women. Some child abusers/kidnappers/murders/ are paedophiles, most are not. Some paedophiles will abuse/kidnap/murder children, most will not. Replace "paedophile" with "men" and exactly the same is true. Thryduulf 17:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet pedophiles are, with regard to abuse of children, the only major class that engages in stalking behavior, which is what this policy is meant to defend against. Furthermore, pedophilia is one of the only paraphilias where real-world satisfaction is only achievable by means of illegal and abusive activity. Equating it with a preference for red-headed women is a false analogy in many respects. Captainktainer * Talk 18:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I agree with every single word of Captainktainer's four-part post above. I couldn't have stated my own position any better. There is a saying, "Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good", and I think it applies here. There is no perfect solution to this issue, but there are things that can be done to make the situation better, and I think this policy would accomplish that. Second of all, I think that in Captainktainer's most recent post above, the "Furthermore..." is the real issue. An adult may have a consensual relationship with another adult, but an adult may not have a consensual relationship with a child below a certain age. The age may vary from state to state, but there is such an age designated by every state, to my knowledge. Comparing non-consensual adult-adult relationships to consensual adult-child relationships is completely irrelevant. 6SJ7 19:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

STOP we are not here to discuss paedophiles, age of consent or starting what age it is right or wrong for a person to have (possibly sexual) relationships with other people. What we discuss here is whether we 1) have a problem that needs to be adressed 2) if this proposal adresses this problem 3) would enacting/not enacting this policy negatively affekt Wikipedia, and if so, how. CharonX/talk 19:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you deny that pedophiles pose a threat to children, and if you deny that they engage in stalking behavior, then you will say that there is no problem. If you believe that they do pose a threat to children and that they do engage in stalking behavior, then you will agree that there is a problem. It's fairly relevant, though I doubt that any minds will be changed. Captainktainer * Talk 19:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we all agree that merely due to the fact that the Wikipedia has thousands of anonymous editors, and millions of anonymous readers, at least some of them, by sheer volume, may well pose a threat to children? This is whether they are more likely to call themselves pedophiles or not. If we can agree to that, we can get off the side topic argument, which, I suspect is CharonX's goal. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, then. Captainktainer * Talk 20:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I only mentioned these issues because some of the people who oppose the policy were raising these issues as objections to the policy. 6SJ7 20:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Version 3. We shouldn't prevent children from posting personal information, but we should strongly advise against it. --Gray Porpoise 01:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Foundation Issue

As someone who has not opined before on this issue, here is my take. I think this policy, if it is to be enacted, is very fundamental. It is not equivalent to WP:CIVIL, WP:VANDAL, or WP:3RR. It is closer to WP:NPOV and WP:RS, which are Foundation level policies as they pertain to the core founding principles as well as liabilities of WP. As such, I think that as a minimum the Foundation should review it and voice an opinion. Ideally, they should produce a position statement or core policy on this issue, which the editors can further dress up as a standard WP policy. I don't think that this type of policy should be created and agreed to without the Foundation's input. Thanks, Crum375 21:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So far, the Foundation has ignored every attempt to get input; there have been several such attempts. Given that absolute (and somewhat annoying) lack of input, we should continue forging on until told otherwise. Captainktainer * Talk 21:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I choose to assume (regardless of whether it is actually correct or not) that the Wikimedia board has become aware of this discussion and that if they choose to exercise their ultimate authority for the Foundation, they (or their appointee(s)) will do so. (As they may do on any subject.) As I said some days (or weeks) ago, I wish the board would indeed simply adopt a policy on this subject, after consulting with their counsel. Until then, however, as Captainktainer says, there is no reason for the "community" not to proceed with trying to establish a reasonable policy. 6SJ7 21:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Crum is basically correct; legal policy should only be created by the Board or Foundation. Personally I would interpret their lack of response as a good indication that they do not think this has any particular legal urgency, so they put their priority to other tasks. Might I ask, whom did you contact, and how? (talkpage, e-mail, mailing list, IRC, all of the above?) >Radiant< 21:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't contacted, but in the archive several people mention emailing Brad Patrick et al. Captainktainer * Talk 22:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume the Foundation will adopt policy on legal grounds if they feel it is necessary. However, we can still argue whether it is morally appropriate to take steps such as these to shield young people. Though it is couched (somewhat awkwardly) is COPPA terms, I do not consider this to be a legal question. Dragons flight 22:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is clearly a legal issue, as it pertains to first amendment, age discrimination, and I am sure many others (IANAL). The mandate we have here is to write good articles and generally improve WP. I think it is up to the Foundation to provide us with the foundation of core policies within which we need to operate. And I personally would prohibit all editors from posting any personal data, but that's my own opinion and doesn't count at all. Crum375 22:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

First amendment doesn't apply at all, unless Wikipedia became an organ of the United States or a local government overnight (in which case I won't contribute to the project). Even the 14th Amendment only extended Bill of Rights protections to those facing the power of the state, not private individuals. Age discrimination is an issue that can be addressed once the policy has reached consensus, at which point Jimbo et al. will provide a final yes/no. Captainktainer * Talk 22:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps their concern is that by producing any official legal stance on this issue they will be held liable to it in some way. Whatever their concern, since this issue is specifically liability related and goes to the core of the project (and not just the one specific project we are discussing here but all Foundation related and supported projects), I think that the effort requires their guidance. I am sure there are people reading this with access to the Foundation members; the recent elections come to mind. I think it is incumbent on them to provide us this guidance. Crum375 21:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Captaintainer. If the Foundation chooses to act on any subject, they may do so. Until or unless they do, then there is no reason to halt a user-led initiative to address a perceived problem. Johntex\^talk 22:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wait a second - it's said that "several people mention[ed] emailing Brad Patrick et al", but did anyone actually do that? If so, who? If not, then it's not really surprising that we didn't get an answer. I found no mention of this debate on Brad's, Jimbo's or the OFFICE's talk page. >Radiant< 22:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • From the archives, like I said. Captainktainer * Talk 22:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, exactly. Thatcher said he would mail Brad; he never said that he actually did that, or got an answer. And nobody else seems to have said or tried anything about the subject. I'd say you should try a little harder in actually contacting the Board. >Radiant< 23:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I do not think anyone is obligated to contact the board. As I said, if they want to step in, they will. It should not affect what anyone else is doing before that happens, if it happens. 6SJ7 23:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I did e-mail Brad, on Aug 30 as a matter of fact, to the e-mail address indicated on his talk page for Foundation business. I haven't heard back. I don't know what that is supposed to signify. Thatcher131 23:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
          • In that case I'd say it means that there is no pressing legal need to implement anything COPPA like on Wikipedia. That leaves us only at the basic questions Radiant formulated - is there a problem to be solved, if so would this be a good solution? What are the possible negative impacts of implementing/not implementing it? CharonX/talk 23:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
            • In that case, this section should probably not be edited further unless something is heard from the foundation, and further discussion should go in sections above or below, to avoid confusion. Captainktainer * Talk 23:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Crum375 is entirely correct, by the way. This is a catch-22 for the Foundation. The Foundation cannot prescribe this policy unless they can effectively enforce it. Since the Foundation doesn't really have the resources to officially police every user page, they cannot enforce it. In a liability situation their failure to enforce would put them in a considerably worse position than if they had prescribed no policy. For one thing, they will be unable to claim that they didn't consider themselves bound to have such a policy. They will be unable to claim that they believed that existing structures in place would, to a reasonable person, have seemed sufficient. And so forth. Even taking note of the existance of this debate could place them in a difficult position. Therefore I would urge that the foundation not be contacted. If contacted, they must take a stand (even ignoring an email is a "stand"). If, however, the policy is enacted and enforced by the community, the Foundation can take the position that (1) the policy is just one of the various community policies of which they are only vaguely aware, or (2) they were aware of it, and considered it sufficent fo provide protection, but that as a community policy enforcement falls to the community and any failure may be ascribed to the community over which the Foundation has limited oversight and little control. All this and many other nuances can come into play, and of course much depends on the judge's reading of case law, the glibness of your lawyer, the atmospheric pressure, and whatnot. It's always a crapshoot. True we not lawyers but that doesn't mean we can't consider aspect like this as intelligent laymen. Herostratus 03:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• All of these arguments simply point to one thing: this proposal should drop every legal angle and reference to COPPA and such, and work strictly from a moral and practical angle. >Radiant< 09:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming and tracking kids

If you see a young child posting their address and phone number on their user page, it would be prudent to remove it and leave a message for them asking if they really want to do that and whether or not they have asked their parents if it is OK. Wikipedia doesn't actually ask anyone for personally identifying information. Very few people actually post such information, though there are some links to offsite home pages which might. Many people do say what their hometown is. I'm not sure that common practice would really set a precedent for posting enough information to allow a stalker to track one down. Has any child in fact, ever posted such detailed information? I think this is likely to be a rather rare event.

It's useful for encyclopedic purposes to know that a particular user is very young. Such account bear extra watching for factually or grammatically incorrect (if well-meaning) edits.

As such, I think it would be useful to allow editors to self-identify as children of whatever age. I think the best solution would be to have a babysitting task force. I'm sure there are plenty of people that would get a kick out of helping kids use and improve the encyclopedia, and clean up their messes and keep an eye out in case they start doing something stupid (which, as I mentioned, seems unlikely). This idea about personal information can be part of the advice given by that project to its members.

Reading and editing Wikipedia is a great educational exercise, and I think kids should be given the same freedom to do so as anyone else. If parents want to keep their kids from reading chemistry articles and poisoning their family with household chemicals, or monitor the private e-mails that come in through the site, or keep them from being confused by vandalism or factual errors, or prevent them from knowing where babies really come from until they're already old enough to get pregnant, that is really morally and logistically the parents' responsibility.

Interested parties may want to leave special welcome messages encouraging younger children to let their parents know that they are using Wikipedia, for their own protection, and for help using and understanding it. Or they may want to leave lists of articles marked "everything you should know your parents wouldn't want you to see" such as statistics on the national debt. -- Beland 01:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

As a parent of children under 13 living outside of the United States, and therefore not covered by COPPA, I would be perfectly happy for this to be policy. What legitimate reason would a child have for posting personally identifying detaisl on Wikipedia, what with us not being Myspace and all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JzG (talk • contribs) .}

All of this sounds very wise and sensible until the final paragraph, when you talk about "interested parties." At that point, we start to come close to that very counterproductive zone of "let's protect children from predators by putting them in the hands of volunteers who want to protect children from predators!" Um, no. JonathanPenton 21:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, look at Mark Foley. Co-chairperson of the United States Missing and Exploited Children caucus, and he ends up sending explicit messages to minors. And what's this about the national debt? Why wouldn't parents want their kids to see the national debt? Just turn on CNN and you'll see that. I'm not getting it. --AndreniW 23:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing the "national debt" comment was tongue-in-cheek, but the point may have been that the national debt is a frightening threat of future harm done to children. Pedophiles will cause problems for a tiny percentage of children, while the debt will cause a problem for every child who lives long enough to pay federal taxes. Barno 13:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The second proposal

Even if the stalking-nonsense this policy allegedly combats existed, I'm sure we can all still agree that PeeJ-style grooming is much more common and much more of a threat. Since this policy blocks neither the email function nor "Googling someone's username," it would be completely ineffective against the only (or, if you prefer, most prevelant) predator tactic. The only way to counteract that is to forbid the mention of age.

kk? JayW 19:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that if it has to be something, then the second proposal is miles ahead of the first. But IMO a lot more damage could be done by slavishly adhering to the sweeping rule(s) of either proposal than can be done by trusting administrators to use their common sense and discretion. Anchoress 19:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

So, can I change this to the second proposal? Speak now or forever hold your peace, objectors. JayW 18:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not even sure what the second proposal is and who you mean by "objectors." There have been at least three different major proposals. I do not think you should change anything. Herostratus started a process and I think it should continue. This whole subject has been disrupted and confused enough as it is. 6SJ7 18:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"I am not even sure what the second proposal is" See this. As you might guess from my post, it forbids mention of age. JayW 23:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I said I would go along with that one, but then it was changed back to the original one, which I would also go along with. Then someone introduced a version that was really just a request, not a policy. Maybe the best versions of the three of them should be placed side by side and see if any of them can achieve a consensus. This process of lurching back and forth between the three of them, leaving people unsure of what they are commenting on, almost guarantees that none of them will achieve sufficient support. 6SJ7 00:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't. I'd be happy to read statistics (perhaps on my talk page) on the "threat" that PeeJ represents, but I consider it irrelevant to this policy. I don't know much about how these things work, but I don't understand why you'd think that the discussion on the policy's current draft is closed. JonathanPenton 21:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

" I'd be happy to read statistics (perhaps on my talk page) on the "threat" that PeeJ represents..." That's not what I said. This policy allegedly protects against offline stalking. A useful policy would combat against grooming - such as that exhibited at PeeJ. Understand? " but I don't understand why you'd think that the discussion on the policy's current draft is closed." Funny, I don't recall saying it was. I was proposing a reasonable policy edit. Since no one objected, I asked if I could make the change. I'm fishing for some actual criticism, by the by - not "don't do that just because I said so." JayW 23:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

To make such a radical change to a proposal still under discussion would have the result of confusing the discussion. If this draft of the policy really is rejected due to lack of consensus, it would make sense to suggest the new one at that time. I'm not sure how much time is normally given for these things, but I hardly think people have had the opportunity just yet. Thank you. JonathanPenton 23:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference between Wikipedia and a chatroom is very vast, and the only thing they really share is their host medium. I can't imagine any child molestor (or would-be molestor) with a spark of sanity coming here - a well-policed online encyclopedia - so they could comb through thousands if not millions of users just to find a child, any child. (If all they wanted was a victim under 12, I'm sure it'd take a lot less time and effort to just grab some poor kid off the street.) And furthermore, knowing that a user is a child can be useful (e.g. being more forgiving of ungrammatical edits, perhaps watching one's language if one has a tendency to swear), but the posting of users' personal information (even if they're adults, although adults are at least expected to know better and thus not need protection) does not in any way improve the wiki. CameoAppearance ^orate 07:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oversight

Regardless of anything else on this page, if a user (of any age) posts private personal information about someone else (e.g. phone numbers, real-world identity, home address), then we have a procedure to remove and hide the information called Wikipedia:Oversight. Where we know a user is a child it might be apropriate for private personal information they post relating to themselves to be handled this way as well.

I am not an Oversight-enabled admin, indeed I only discovered it existed about 5 minutes ago. Read the policy page at Wikipedia:Oversight, any questions about it might be better (and even answered) on that talk page rather than here. Thryduulf 00:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this policy would fit right in with the "oversight" procedure. This policy would provide one of the standards that determine which information would be removed, and "oversight" provides one of the mechanisms for removing it. 6SJ7 02:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the #1 criterion for when Oversight may be used, so it shouldn't be problematic. The only question is whether we can oversight without the user's permission in that case. There are tricky issues with the GFDL, and if someone decided to raise a stink it could be problematic. Deleting revisions normally shouldn't be a problem, but expanding the use of Oversight to unrequested removal of personal information is something we'd need to hear from Brad/the Foundation about. Wikipedia already is skating on thin ice with some GFDL issues; Mindspillage had her Oversight powers revoked very quickly for stepping outside the narrowly-prescribed bounds. Captainktainer * Talk 03:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oversight is currently in the proposed policy. Are you saying it shouldn't be there, or needs rephrasing? Crum375 19:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should be there; however, in terms of our obligations under the GFDL it may be legally questionable, especially if the diff is not recent. It may even be technologically infeasible, depending on how many subsequent diffs there have been. The more I think about it, the more I think we need input from both the Foundation and developers. Captainktainer * Talk 16:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

While you are at it, please re-read the WP:5P (as I have carefully done after seeing this suggested policy), and see where and how a policy such as this proposed one would, in your opinion, fit into WP's general policy 'structural tree'. (Note especially: "Be open, welcoming, and inclusive. Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here") Crum375 16:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It fits in very well with "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and is not any number of things, and "Wikipedia has a code of conduct." The code of conduct is there to preserve the integrity of the community, and preserving Wikipedia from accusations that it puts minors at risk, as well as preserving said minors from said risk, preserves the integrity of the encyclopedia. For that matter, the Five Pillars are an oversimplification of how things work on Wikipedia; WP:OFFICE, for example, fits imperfectly into that scheme. Captainktainer * Talk 21:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a slippery slope, as I am sure you can appreciate. The 'code of conduct', if it is overriding, could be extended in some countries (where WP is accessible and English is spoken) to 'protect' females from hearing about liberation, to 'protect' the devout from heresy, to 'protect' the masses from hearing about democracy, etc. I am as concerned about safety as you, and care about our children no less than you, but I think you are climbing up the wrong tree. You have to start with showing how this proposed policy fits within WP's general liberal legal framework, i.e. the WP:5P, then hash out the language, not the other way around. WP:OFFICE is designed for exceptional cases, not routine, and I am convinced that Jimbo et al cringe each time they need to use it. Crum375 22:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a real legal and moral difference between restricting a user's ability to access information to suppress their knowledge and restricting a user's ability to give detailed personal information that could put them and the good name (and, potentially, legal status, though that hasn't been confirmed by the Foundation) of the project at risk. We censor speech all the time on Wikipedia in user and talk space to preserve the integrity of the community, which general policy #4 is all about. Captainktainer * Talk 05:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If it were a legal issue, we wouldn't be discussing it here, as it would be a no-brainer. So it boils down to moral. And morality, and its priorities, vary across the globe. Some would consider letting oppressed people learn about an important massacre in their history, or corruption of their venerable leaders, or openly describing some of their 'forbidden' literature or history, just as important as restricting freedom of users' personal information. And if we start policing users for safety, why not forbid a 16 year old girl from publishing her picture, address and other personal info? Or any innocent person for that matter? Where do we stop? (I mentioned earlier my own preference for a no personal info whatsoever by anyone rule).

Now as to WP 'pillar' number 4 that you cite, I just re-read it carefully; its core message seems to me to be civility, good faith and in general how to interact constructively with others to build an encylopedia. Nothing there that I can see about enforced censorship to protect users' safety. Crum375 11:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the 'born in 1993' category

I'm over 12, yet I can't have a category for the year I was born in. If you're going to enforce this on people who are 13, you might as well change it from "under 13" to "13 and younger". If you want me to, I can say "born before November 24, 1993"... :-P 1ne 16:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

please rewrite

please rewrite this page soon. Providing instructions for newcomers would also be nice. I do not have time to read all of this repetitive talk, no offense to anyone. There are a lot of valid points but they are repeated, and subject to repeating even more if they cannot be concisely summed up. If you don't archive discussion, place the already discussed tags around that section so newcomers can know whether it has been covered in the summary above or not. Thank you very much. --gatoatigrado 06:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to not read everyone else's and put in my own opinion - giving people a warning on their talk page should be the only way. This would approach children as if they were people, not anything lesser and thus not encourage WP:BEANS. It is so easy (3 seconds +/- internet lag) to get a new account, or even to edit without an account. --gatoatigrado 06:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Three cheers for people that realize children are real people too! And Gatoatigrado has a good point, they could just get a new account. --23:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of my bold edit

I have no problem with the reversion of my tagging this as a guideline. The reversion is as validly bold as my edit. However, I want to move this discussion along. I chose WP:BOLD as a reason on purpose. WP:BOLD itself is a guideline. Guidelines are actionable. We need to move this proposal on to an actionable state. Just read some of the edits in this discussion. 11 year-olds are testifying for action (though they don't realize it). Moving this to guideline status will give those of us that ant this some cover to do what we think is right. Elliskev 00:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit

I'm logged out right now, but I'm 11 and have posted:

1. My real name
2. My birth date
3. My email address
4. Location (well, only to town level)

I know the risks, I feel I am mature enough to decide which information to be released. I believe in freedom of speech, and I believe age means nothing, and maturity is the real indicator. Since we cannot measure maturity, this policy is worthless. 80.41.202.89 08:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am one that agrees that this should probably not be made into a policy. OTOH, if you are so mature as you say, you'd realize the risks involved. There are a lot of predators out there, a new one is discovered every day (look at the news from Florida). Some may be relatively harmless, some can kill or rape or both. There is no reason to expose yourself to such risks just to make a point. If you are just an old editor trying to make the same point, then this is not intended for you, but for the real kids out there who need to maturely weigh the benefits of exposure and compare them to the risks. You can be a very successful contributor here without revealing any of your personal details. If someone needs to contact you, they can do it through the email address you provide in your preferences. Make sure it is a dedicated one for WP, not your normal one, that only has your WP name (gmail is good as it seems to block your origin's IP). Do weigh carefully before you respond to any email (if your parents or other people you trust can help you decide, that would be great). Be safe and enjoy helping WP! Thanks, Crum375 12:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

See, this is why the proposal should be implemented (whether it ends up as policy or a guideline) to combat offline harrassment of editors of all ages rather than being used to protect children from themselves. Those under 12, or 13 or 15 or whatever age gets chosen, aren't the only ones who can be targeted for stalking - and anyone, regardless of age, who posts extensive personal information without the slightest prompt for it is rather dangerously naïve. As I've said before, it seems grossly inefficient for actual predators to comb through Wikipedia just to find their next victim (and it seems they'd have to be pretty stupid to expect children who spend their spare time improving an online encyclopedia to let themselves be groomed, if the predator used it as a point of contact rather than a way to find new victims), but (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it has happened at least once) there have been editors who released enough information to be located in real life and ended up getting harassed. CameoAppearance ^orate 14:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment, I agree with your comment about children letting themselves be groomed. It's true, us Wikipedia editors are a touch above the rest :D ~ Flameviper 16:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the concept of a guideline is actually pretty good. It could explain that we highly recommend to not include any personal info, in user pages or elsewhere, and emphasize that this is even more important for our younger contributors. We could highlight some of the risks involved (while staying away from WP:BEANS of course), and that a predator or other malicious person could easily track someone down after getting just a few bits of personal data. A guideline like that would not need to get Foundation blessing - only simple community consensus, and could easily be added or linked to the existing WP:USER guideline. Any thoughts? Crum375 15:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The proposed policy wouldn't need to get "Foundation blessing" either. It would be subject to veto or revision by the Foundation -- but the same is true of all policies and guidelines. 6SJ7 03:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Except as discussed above, I personally feel that a policy to prohibit some users, based on proclaimed age, from posting certain information, vs. others, would not be easy to fit into the current WP:5P scheme and may run into various legal obstacles. OTOH, a guideline that will strongly discourage everyone from posting personal details, with emphasis (but not exclusive focus) on our younger editors, could be much easier to phrase and get approved by both the community and the Foundation. Once approved, such a guideline may actually make a difference, for all age groups, by encouraging and explaining, vs. a hard policy that may be easy to circumvent. Crum375 03:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

But such a policy would tie our hands when it came to removing the personal information of youngsters. Powers ^T 16:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I distinguish between policy and guideline. I propose a guideline here to strongly encourage everyone not to post any personal details. If we see a child (by posted age or other details) who posts what we would consider improper content on his/her page or elsewhere, we could then link to this policy and make a strong argument for its removal. We would let the user do it from his/her own user or talk page, after strong encouragement. We would do it ourselves from other spaces, using the rationale that we are protecting someone's personal safety and linking to the guideline as support. This would apply to everyone, but especially the younger contributors. Crum375 16:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, posting your real name, 11 year old birthdate, and town location demonstrates immaturity.

1. First, as so many have written above, there are real predators out there,
2. second, real name plus age plus town gives full address to anyone who has access to a school enrollment listing and a phonebook,
3. and finally, (most importantly, if you really don't care about yourself) you would be exposing Wikipedia to the risk of extremely bad publicity just to demonstrate your feelings towards freedom of speech, which amounts to disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your argument as a whole, but who outside of that town would have access to a phonebook and a school enrollment listing for it? CameoAppearance ^orate 23:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of ways to do it, from any town. But IMO describing them would be WP:BEANS. This is why I gently steered away from it in my original response to him. Crum375 23:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not Just Children

The privacy of all non-notable people should be protected, not just children. People Powered 13:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that WP:USER includes the following about what you can, or should, put on your user page:

Some people add a little information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth. If you are concerned with privacy, you may not want to emulate this.

So, the applicable WP guideline says you can put identification/location information on your user page, but that some people choose not to for privacy reasons. There have been suggestions that we do not need a whole new policy, just some changes to WP:USER. I think that changing it to discourage posting personal information, especially by adults, would be too big a change for a lot of people. 6SJ7 17:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is ok as it is. If you are worried about privacy, there is no obligation to put private information on your userpage, not even your real name if you don't want. I think changing the policy would be too troublesome but maybe changing the wording discouraging identifiable information on the user page, as 6SJ7 suggested, would be ok.

I think it isn't OK as it is, as it uses very vague language and also some words you can't expect a 10 year old to necessarily understand, "emulate" anyone? I would have thought that a simple paragraph saying:

Adding contact information or any other information that makes you easy to identify or locate, may allow complete strangers to do so online or in real life, and so may not be a good idea."

My grammar may be off, but I think it's a suitable warning without being too condescending, and at least we can say the warning is there. TerriG 149.155.96.6 18:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you'd have to block/ban users who want to use their real names, etc. potentially harming people's reps and/or denying their ability to contribute usefully to this project. Don't accept it. 70.101.144.160 09:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

a modest proposal

I've suggested this before on other Wikipedia venues, and was usually shouted down, but I thought I'd give it a shot here nonetheless. I am very strongly of the opinion that children shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia at all. I realize this is unenforceable, but that's not really the point. Since Wikipedia is not censored, I don't know how much longer we can expect to allow minors - not just in actual practice but as a matter of open policy - to communicate with adults on adult discussion forums like Talk:Anal sex, Talk:Ass to pussy, Talk:Coprophilia, Talk:Urolagnia, Talk:Blood fetish, Talk:Zoosadism, Talk:Paraphilic infantilism, Talk:Necrophilia, etc., etc. It goes without saying that any other chat room or message board on the internet devoted to those subjects would have, at least for appearance of propriety's sake, a warning that underage persons were not welcome. It's only a matter of time until some anti-Wikipedia zealot uses this against Wikipedia, and we really really really don't need some big media exposé about middle schoolers chatting with grownups on Wikipedia talk pages like Talk:BDSM. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when". It is a ticking time bomb. wikipediatrix 20:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal is so modest I can't figure out what it is? Anchoress 21:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That children be forbidden from editing Wikipedia, as a matter of official policy, even if it's not enforceable. wikipediatrix 21:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok, thanks. Anchoress 21:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please could you define, in an international, NPOV and objective way, what you mean by the terms

• "children",
• "minors",
• "propriety's sake",
• "underage",
• "middleschoolers"
• "grownups"

Please could you explain what is wrong with chlidren conversing with adults about encyclopaedic topics (if they are not encyclopaedic, they would not be on Wikipedia).

Where do you draw the line between articles that can and cannot be discussed - Homosexuality? AIDS? Bill Clinton? Lewinsky scandal? Sexual intercourse? Virginity? Contraception? Sexism? Fuck? Corset? Chastity? Playboy? Vagina? Harem? Rape?

Making unenforceable policy is worse than useless - it leaves us open to acusations and possible action on claims that we failed to uphold our policies. It is infinately better to have a guideline to complement Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, encouraging parents/guardians to take the responsibility they should be taking and supervising their child's use of the internet. Life is not censored for the protection of anybody. There is a reason that you've not had success with this elsewhere. Thryduulf 21:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking from a legal standpoint, you couldn't be more wrong. There's a very good reason that virtually every sexually-oriented interactive forum on the internet asks that users be 18. It doesn't matter that there's no real way of verifying their ages online. The warning is there to make it clear that if kids do surf the sites, they do so against the terms and conditions of said site, so the site has a basis for claiming no liability if it goes to court. As for the above definitions, most English-speaking porn sites use an American-centric standard, and I would recommend the same for various reasons that shouldn't be too hard to figure out. As for articles that can and can't be discussed, I made it clear already that I'm talking about all of Wikipedia, not just certain articles. wikipediatrix 13:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know we were a sexually-oriented interactive forum! What have I been writing all these encyclopedia articles for? Kaldari 22:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you a lawyer, are you giving legal advice, do you have jurisdiction? In my case the answers are no, no and not relevant by reason of the first two answers. Depending on where you are in the world, it is arguable whether website Ts&Cs are enforceable. If they are meant to be a contractual arrangement between the website provider (<--note hazy definition) and the end-user, there's also a problem in some cases that minors cannot enter into contracts. As I understand it, those who run Wikipedia do have access to paid for legal advice, and so far seem happy to run it the way we see it now. WLD 13:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I have to be a lawyer to note that it's only a matter of time until Wikipedia's "not censored for minors" policy collides with the fact that minors are welcomed here. Wikipedia is going to have to enact some sort of something to at least not make it look so blatantly like it doesn't care if toddlers might be chatting with old men on Talk:BDSM. wikipediatrix 13:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation does have the services of a lawyer, whose name I beleive is Brad Patrick. His job is to advise the Wikimedia Foundation regarding legal matters, and has been for at least a year and probably longer.

Given what a hot topic children are, if he hadn't considered the issues regarding children contributing to Wikipedia then imho he would be guilty of not doing his job.

Nowhere have I seen evidence of, nor do I recall seeing any accusations of, him not doing his job. I must therefore assume that he is doing his job.

The fact is that children currently are allowed to (and do) contribute, it follows therefore that in the qualified legal opinion of the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers this is not a legal problem.

Assuming this is true, and as I have explained I have no evidence to show otherwise, then the only argument left for your proposition is a moral one.

Please read the extensive discussions above regarding moral arguments and how they can never be compatible with the core policy of WP:NPOV.

I also note that you have chosen not to answer the questions I asked in my previous response. Thryduulf 13:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't answer them because they're irrelevant to me. I'm only saying what I came here to say: Kids don't belong on uncensored sites. Period. Anything else is someone's else's problem. The argument "Wikipedia has a lawyer and I assume he knows his job" may be good enough for you, but it isn't for me. wikipediatrix 15:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course children shouldn't be using let alone editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is specifically and publicly (and proudly, actually) proclaimed as being WP:NOT censored for minors. You can't have it both ways - develop a site that is not appropriate for minors, and then invite minors. I'd say that's about as close to being incontrivertable as you can get. And also of course you won't get anywhere with this. The problem is that many Wikipedia editors are in early-stage adult development (if not actually children) so they: (1) see things in black-and-white terms (2) don't have children, and don't hang around with people who do, (3) are close enough to their own childhood that they identify more with children than with adults, and (4) simply lack real-world experience. So don't let it get you down; most of them, when and if they have children, will probably be be reasonably not-terrible parents. Herostratus 04:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your (depressingly low) opinion of a significant portion, if not the majority, of Wikipedia editors. It could not be more relevant to this discussion. CameoAppearance ^orate 15:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no of course about it. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia does not specifically welcome minors. It welcomes neutral point of view contributors of any type. If something looks like a plain and obvious truth to you, but others disagree, it is good practice to give clear arguments supporting your position, most usefully developing those arguments from agreed principles and common ground with those who disagree. It is sometimes useful to note that not everyone who reads or contributes agrees with a Judeo-Christian point of view, so arguments based on morality tend to produce flame-wars rather than enlightenment. WLD 15:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure who you're referring to there, but I am certainly NOT expressing a "morality-based argument" nor a "Judeo-Christian point of view". I'm speaking strictly from concern that Wikipedia will get bad publicity and/or legal trouble arising from kids and adults comingling improperly here, just as has happened to MySpace.com recently. This whole "protecting children's privacy" discussion, by its very nature, acknowledges that children do edit Wikipedia. I'm not interesting in converting you to my way of thinking. You think however you want. I only made this post here in hopes that some sensible soul who is in a position to DO something about it might agree. (I'm not holding my breath, mind you) wikipediatrix 19:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the title of this comment "A Modest Proposal", are we sure it's not a wind-up/troll? WLD 09:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. Literary references are a sure sign of trolling. Right. So much for subtlety and irony. wikipediatrix 13:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm ill-becomes you, madam. WLD 13:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't react well to suggestions that my opinion might be trolling. Kids don't belong on uncensored sites. Period. I won't speculate on why anyone could conceivably disagree with that. wikipediatrix 15:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read wheat WLD wrote you will see that he is not saying this is a "sure sign of trolling". You will see that he is giving his opinion that it might be trolling, and asking if ofther contributors are sure that this is not a troll. At this moment in time I am not certain whether this is or is not trolling, so I will assume good faith and treat it as if it is not. Thryduulf 13:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you're trolling or not either. So what? I said what I came here to say, you can take it or leave it:Kids don't belong on uncensored sites. Period. Given all the loonies out there accusing Wikipedia of being a haven for pedophiles, what I have warned about here is real, and it will give me no pleasure to say "I told you so" when some irate parent or nutcase-with-an-agenda eventually uses it to damage Wikipedia's reputation. wikipediatrix 15:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. You are quite right Thryduulf. I should assume good faith more. WLD 15:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As will I; I am of the impression that children who both can and want to competently edit an encyclopedia will probably be quite different than the majority of children, and if they wish to edit Wikipedia they should be free to do so. Furthermore, keep in mind that just because Wikipedia has articles on things like zoosadism doesn't mean child editors will be drawn to them; although I can't speak for every kid, I know that if I was a child and I somehow managed to stumble across something like that I'd immediately get disgusted and leave.

But, getting back to the point, I'll try to avoid assuming that people who express a differing opinion are trolling. CameoAppearance ^orate 15:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple points that seem to be getting missed. First, just how do we tell who the children really are? As you all surely know, it's very easy to deceive people about who you really are on the Internet, especially on a site with as open a registration as here on Wikipedia. Are we going to start using some adult check verification, like some porn site? You'll lose a heck of a lot more than just the children with a move like that. Then, after that's done, we'd need to eliminate unregistered logins - children can click that 'edit this page' link just as easily without an account as with one. All that is merely academic; the main fact of the matter is that it's not Wikipedia's job to parent children. That is rightfully the job of the child's parents. If a parent doesn't want his/her child to visit such a den of iniquity as the Wikipedia, then s/he should take measures to prohibit his/her child from visiting the Wikipedia, to protect against that young person's morals being irretrievably corrupted. Abdicating parental responsibility doesn't automatically transfer it to the rest of the world, the Wikipedia included. — Wwagner 16:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you've read my posts, you'll see I've already said such a rule would be unenforceable. So, obviously, we DON'T figure out who the children really are. That's not the point. All I'm really suggesting is that one little sentence be added somewhere prominently to page headers, that says words to the effect of "Because Wikipedia is not censored and contains adult text and images, you must be of legal age in your country of origin to view such material." This simple disclaimer just MIGHT come in handy when someone like this or this or this make their tinfoil-hatted complaints, so we'll at least have a modicum of defense. wikipediatrix 19:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but let's say I had a swimming pool with no gate on it, just a sign saying: "kids prohibited", and the law said that I should have it gated and locked, and some kid got in and drowned. I would think the jury would pay little attention to the fact the sign was there - probably of little value in their deliberations. I think that pretending to lock out kids to make a point with someone would be of negligible, if any, value. It may just make the site appear more titillating to kids, who will then search out the kinkiest or ugliest items, instead of looking for articles related to their school work, essentially having the reverse effect that we want. Crum375 19:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. Maybe. Maybe not. But it seems to me that legal disclaimers (seen on most adult-oriented forums) exist on this Earth for a reason, and probably a good reason. Wikipedia already has one [3], but it doesn't specifically address the matter of children opening accounts, and it's so hard to find that it might as well be "publicly displayed in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard". wikipediatrix 19:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that a policy that is completely unenforced may be of negative value in the event of a lawsuit. If Wikipedia has a policy of "no children permitted" but it isn't enforced, then if someone sues Wikipedia because little Johnny was scarred for life after seeing sex, then Wikipedia's liability would be increased: Wikipedia has announced they are taking up the burden of keeping kids from seeing inappropriate material, but has neglected to actually do so. On the other hand, not having a policy at all, but only a warning that "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors", places the burden on the parents of those minors. --Carnildo 20:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, no. I haven't suggested any language to the effect of having "announced they are taking up the burden of keeping kids from seeing inappropriate material", quite the opposite! Tens of thousands of websites have language that states "our Terms of Service prohibit minors from viewing materials prohibited in their country, and we cannot be held responsible for users who violate our TOS". The absence of any appearance of caring about the issue at all does NOT confer lessened liability. wikipediatrix 20:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Banning minors from Wikipedia will do more than just keep little kids from reading about BDSM or coprophilia or handballing or whatever other nastiness lurks within the bowels of an uncensored, nearly-all-inclusive encyclopedia. Wikipedia is presently seen, for the most part, as being respectable, legitimate, and informative, and if we start proclaiming that minors aren't allowed to use it, the public will jump to the conclusion that all of Wikipedia is unsuitable for minors even though the majority of articles are perfectly innocuous. "Not for those under 18" is near-synonymous, in many if not most people's minds, with "focused on sex and/or distasteful practices of some sort", the equivalent of a NC-17 rating on a movie. We'll lose far more editors and potential editors than the small number of children (and large number of teenagers, if it extends to everyone under 18) we presently have.

And, furthermore, as has been said already, we make it known that Wikipedia is not censored for minors; after they have been made aware of this, it is the parents' responsibility to decide whether or not they want to let their children use our encyclopedia. CameoAppearance ^orate 02:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, have no desire to see Wikipedia enact an admittedly unenforceable policy. The outside world is already too full of stupid, unenforceable rules, policies, and laws passed so that somebody can cover their own butt, or flex their power, or pander to a moral panic of some sort, rather than because they actually do more good than harm in any way. I'd just as soon not see this site emulate that. *Dan T.* 02:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

it is the parents responsibility to decide whether or not they want to let their children use our encyclopedia. Cool! Thanks! JonathanPenton 04:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• (to the OP) You are RIGHT, it would be unenforceable. It would also deprive people of legitimate editing ability, since any enforcement would demand an account to be created (you can't see the age of anonymous contributors like myself), therefore denying the possiblity of totally anonymous contribution and thus the "free editing" would no longer exist. Furthermore account information can be falsified and thus it would be a useless and ultimately harmful measure in the end. The parents should ultimately be the arbiters of whether or not they want to let their children use Wikipedia, and in what way. As has been said, the majority of articles here are innocuous. The parent should supervise their child to keep them from the "hot stuff". WP:NOT censored, (although I do think at least some sort of semi-censoring should be implemented, but that is a personal opinion), and this means that the parent, not Wikipedia, is responsible for their child. Wikipedia is NOT a mommy. Perhaps this should be included in WP:NOT? :-) That said, we can only go so far. Some protection should be provided, but your idea would actually hurt the Wikipedia project. 70.101.144.160 09:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Snowball clause

Seeing as how this proposal doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell (at least not without a nod from Brad or Jimbo), I would like to propose that we wrap up the discussion and move on. Otherwise I believe we're all just wasting hard drive space. It's pretty obvious we're not moving towards any kind of concensus. Kaldari 23:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that, the {{rejected}} tag was actually added some while ago but that led to an edit war when one used refused to accept the debate was going nowhere. Thryduulf 23:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, per lots of discussion above on this point exactly. Crum375 23:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Anchoress 00:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As do I. It's pretty clear that there's no way we can get the various factions to agree on even the fundamental issues here. CameoAppearance ^orate 02:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. WLD 15:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Concur. >Radiant< 16:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no reason not to leave this here. 6SJ7 18:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: what this proposal proposes is not to delete this page, but to mark the proposed policy as {{rejected}}. Thryduulf 20:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I understood that. My point is, what's the big hurry? 6SJ7 20:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as any big hurry at all, quite the opposite in fact. The first edit to the policy was on 26 August, on the same day the first comments were made. The first major objections were raised on about the 29 August, and the discussion has barely progressed anywhere since then, with one group of people saying "we absolutely must have a policy now for these reasons", another group saying "No we don't - the status quo is fine, for these other reasons" and a third group saying "Why can't we just add a guidline to somewhere like WP:USER". We're not going to get any further with this if we debate it for a day, a week or a year.

The only new thing thats happened in the past month is the "modest proposal", which is self-admitedly completely unenforcable and has apparently been shot down in flames everywhere its been proposed. Given this, and that the only debate that is happening about it is rehashing what has been said above already, I honestly don't see that it has a snowball in hells chance of going any further. This is exactly the situation {{rejected}} was created for (well, one of two anyway) - to stop wasting everybody's time on it. Thryduulf 21:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. JonathanPenton 01:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

See above comment. The only things that will be accomplished are more hand-waving about protecting children, more hand-waving about how Wikipedia isn't censored, more hand-waving about not enforcing it not being censorship, and more hand-waving about how everyone else involved in the debate is acting stupid. -Amarkov ^babble 02:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah; I thought by un-indenting I was saying that I agree that we will not achieve consensus. That was my intent; to agree that consensus cannot be achieved. Sorry if I did that wrong. JonathanPenton 03:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I agree that we won't ever reach consensus, too. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. -Amarkov ^babble 03:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree this proposal has been rejected. I believe the Rejected tag was added far too early originally, but it seems clear now the various editors involved will not see eye to eye on this discussion, and further debate at this point will probably not help. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have flagged it as rejected. One of the main proponents of the proposal has reverted with the comment "What the heck???? See talk." but hasn't made further comments on it on this talk page. >Radiant< 08:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Accepted?

I'm trying to figure out... how to put this... what reality the editors who think this was rejected are living in. Let's take a look at the facts on the ground. and see if we can sort this out.

Numbers

Granting that of course numbers aren't everything, they're not nothing either. So for raw totals, I counted numbers three times.

Analyzing the discussion through about the earlier part (which the most active and fruitful discussions), I find the numbers to be:

• 22 in favor, 12 opposed (65% support), 9 unclear.

By the way the only editor who argued with my analysis noted that I had incorrectly placed him as opposed when he was actually in favor. Anyone who wants to expose their character by claiming that my analysis is biased is free to do so.

Next, looking at the quotes I pulled out and trying to summarize them -- which is really difficult, and probably as a summary of an excerpt likely not too accurate. My attempt at analysis, which probably contains errors, came in at

• 19 supporting, 12 opposed (61% support), 9 impossible to categorize. There's a discrepency of 3 from the previous count, which I can't explain.

This is hard because after all many editors were discussing details and ramifications of the article rather than weighing in with a straight-up opinion. How do you categorize an editor whose listed comment is "Should we have any sort of policy on the uploading of personally identifying photographs?" (In this case and a couple of other similar cases I marked that as impossible to categorize - even though, really... does a comment like that sound like someone who is opposed to the overall thrust of the policy? Not to me - but I want to bend over backwards to be fair.) On the other hand, I did count as opposed one editor whose listed comment is "That's [user age, if we asked for it] easily faked" and one whose listed comment is "How would we know if a user is under 13". I think that editors who have studied the proposal would agree, regardless of their position, that these are altogether missing the point of the proposal are basically non sequiturs. Were I to discount these the numbers would be 19-9, 68% support.

Finally, I personally asked each previous editor to once again give a brief summary comment, and also put up an RfC, the result being

• 19 supporting, 11 opposed (63% support). This breaks down to 15-7 of editors who had previously commented (with 20 not returning to comment), and 4-4 of new editors coming from the RfC. I could have gotten a couple of these wrong, but I don't think so. There's a discrepency of 1 from the first group counted. People coming in from the RfC (as well as those returning to comment) arrived during the page-blanking follies, so this muddies things quite a bit, but let's go with what we have.

The numbers arrived in in these three cases - 65%, 61% (or 68%), 63% - are remarkably consistant, and this tends to support their likely validity, albeit not proving it.

Tactics

A meta-issue here is the tactics employed by the anti faction. Now, not everyone will agree with me, but I think that when one side in a discussion employs bully-boy tactics such as trying to cut off discussion by fiat, page blanking, accusing good-faith editors of trollery, and so forth, that that is relevant to an analysis of the discussion as a whole. It doesn't prove that that faction is in the wrong, but it means something. I think that it shows that the faction employing such tactics believes on some level that it has the weaker hand in terms of logic and persuasiveness. I think that a statistical analysis of discussions where one side employed such tactics, analyzed by a fair witness, would find that the faction employing such tactics does indeed have the weaker position in the great majority of cases. (I mean this is just common sense - why employ such tactics if you have the stronger hand anyway?)

I don't think I need to state the obvious by pointing out which faction I am referring to. Diffs can be provided if necessary.

So that's another piece of information that's germane.

Arguments

Not for me to say who has the stronger hand here, but a few points. Just dealing with raw numbers again, several editors based their oppostion mainly or entirely on one of these two points:

1. That it's impossible to verify the age of a person. However, this is not germane to the discussion, as I think everyone sufficiently involved in the discussion, regardless of their stance, would agree. This opposition is based on a simple misunderstanding of what we're about here.
2. That as a non-commercial site and one which doesn't collect user information itself, COPPA is not applicable. I just... this is a very weak argument, and not really germane to the proposal. I think for any proposal the argument that we are not necessarily required by law to have the policy is not particularly strong. I mean, we don't say "Well, NPOV is not a legal requirement, if we don't have NPOV as a policy we're not going to be incarcerated or shut down, so we don't really need NPOV."

Of the remaining opposition, a lot is based on what is really objectively a misunderstanding of human development. I do understand that given the way the Wikipedia demographic is skewed this is not surprising. I don't want to pull the expert card here, but it is just simply is so that children really are different in truly significant ways from adults, and in many areas a lot weaker, even if they don't like to think so and find if very annoying to have this pointed out.

However, this is not to say that editors opposed to the proposal haven't made other arguments that are cogent and telling. They have. The problem is, those arguments just weren't accepted by very many people. Much of the opposition comes from editors who cited the much weaker points shown above.

Those supporting the proposal also have the moral high ground, obviously, for whatever that's worth.

Finally, "better safe than sorry" is a stronger point, in my view, than any amount of quibbling over details over what is or is not instruction creep and so forth and than any single point made by the opposition.

Summary

So let's see.

• We've a consistent majority in favor of the proposal.
  • Which is a a larger majority if we discount people who didn't really understand what we're discussing here.
  • And which is an even larger majority if we discount people who (understandably, given the demographic) don't really know what they're talking about.
• We've got tactics from those opposed to the proposal which:
  1. Muddied the waters in such a way that probably prevented the support majority from being even larger, and
  2. Indicated that some of those opposed did not really feel secure in their position.
• We've got the logic of arguments about even (to be charitable), but really no opposition argument stronger than the argument that protecting the 'pedia from possible harm is a paramount concern, even if the harm seems very unlikely.

So help me out here. In what way is this proposal rejected?

There were really two discussion here. One among the majority who are sympathetic to the basic core of the proposal, working out changes to the text and implementing them. This went fairly smoothly and was functional, fruitful, and successful.

The second discussion was not among but between two groups of editors: the minority altogether opposed to the proposal and determined to kill it by fair means or foul, whose opposition was for a hodepodge of reasons but including as an important component ideological reasons, e.g. the Great Crusade To End The Moral Panic About Online Predators etc., and the majority. Policy is supposed implemented to aid and protect the encyclopedia and not use it to score points in the wider world, though.

Do we say "Well, we don't have unanimity or even close to it, therefore we must surrender to the vocal minority"? I don't think so. So we have to turn to Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority. Here are some excerpts: "...it is often difficult for all members in a discussion to come to a single conclusion... consensus-building becomes unwieldy due to the sheer number of contributors/discussions involved. While consensus-building is still the preferred method, some contributors have also come to use a supermajority as one of the determinations... Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish... simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. However, when supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus... Nevertheless, some mediators of often-used Wikipedia-space processes have placed importance on the proportion of concurring editors reaching a particular level... the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds.

The bolded passage above is the one single thing that keeps me from marking this proposal as Accepted. If this was an AfD or RfA, I would close this as a clear Accept and I think most people would, if they were being fair. Only because it's a policy proposal should we set the threshold higher - maybe, although its not necessarily a given that this is more critical than an RfA. Anyway, that's my opinion, and others may argue that the proposal should be closed as Accepted given all the facts stated above. But the idea that it's been rejected... that's just nuts. It's just not supported by the facts on the ground.

I think that the only real argument is between those who would tag the proposal as Accepted and those would like to keep it open. "Rejected" just seems out of the question. Herostratus 16:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with Herostratus. Well counted. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• What we have here is a clear misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. WP:NOT a democracy, and proposals are not decided upon by majority rule. I'm not going to argue whether 65% is majority or supermajority, but neither equates to consensensus. There are substantial objections to the proposal that have never been addressed, just repeatedly ignored. Consensus is in many cases reached by compromising; this page is not consensual because there is no such compromise, as pointed out in the previous section. And 'rejected' does not mean 'consensus is opposed', it means 'consensus is not in support' (as plainly stated on the template).
• I think by this point we can repeat the debate once more but we're not going to resolve it. Since I'm quite sure RFM and RFC wouldn't help, Jimbo is usually too busy to comment, and Brad has so far declined to respond, I am asking the Arbitration Committee to determine whether or not this proposal has consensus. I request that everybody leave personal issues OUT of there. There have been various personal attacks from both sides, but those are pretty much irrelevant to the larger issue. Since the community cannot seem to agree as to whether there is consensus, the ArbCom is asked to determine whether consensus exists - nothing more, nothing less.
• >Radiant< 18:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• I think that the idea of this proposal is sound, but there's far too much debate regarding what form it should take (not to mention arguing about whether children should be allowed to edit or even read Wikipedia in the first place, which, although related, isn't directly relevant to the proposal) for it to achieve consensus, and I'm pretty sure a policy needs to have things like its scope and how it should be implemented (not to mention fundamental issues, such as whether it should be a policy or a guideline) agreed upon before it can be considered to be accepted. CameoAppearance ^orate 18:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• The reason I am personally convinced this will never gain consensus is that there are people, including me although I am not the only one, who are not convinced of such fundamentals as that the problems this tries to fix exist. I am also not convinced that if they do exist, that this policy would actually be able to solve them. While I support the idea that protecting children's privay is good, I strongly believe that the way to do this is not by censoring them or by wikipedia trying to take parental responsability. On principle I strongly oppose any policy that will not improve Wikipedia, and I believe the policy as it stands will actually harm Wikipedia. I will not go into detail here, because I have done so several times above and I have been ingnored on all such occasions. Thryduulf 19:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I can't easily add more to Radiant and Thryduulf's positions, other than to say I agree with them. WLD 20:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Herostratus. I think part of the problem with this whole sequence of events has been that several different policies, or versions of policies, or essays that are completely at odds with the original idea of the proposed policy, have been on the project page or sub-pages at different times, and sometimes it has been difficult to tell who is talking about what. The biggest problem occurred shortly after Herostratus opened up the discussion to clarify who thought what about the policy, and suddenly one of the editors substituted a whole different thing -- not even a policy -- for what Herostratus was asking people for opinions on. I think that this interfered with the process, and now that arbitration has been requested, I think the arbitrators will have to be presented with the circumstances that have interfered with the development of a consensus. At worst (for this policy), I think a whole new process of determining opinions will have be started. One answer may be to put the "best" versions of all of the different ideas side by side and do an "approval vote" so people can support as many different ideas as they agree with. However, to call this "rejected" is simply wrong. There certainly is no consensus to do nothing. 6SJ7 20:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If you read the rejected tag it doesn't say there is consensus to do nothing, it says there is no consensus to do what has been proposed, and it is very unlikely there will be any. Although the difference is subtle it is important.
  • Approval voting is also a bad way to go, because first Wikipedia is not a democracy, we don't vote, we discuss and attempt to arrive at consensus (if we can't then the status quo prevails). Secondly, approval voting (AIUI) is designed to ensure that at least one thing is approved, I not don't don't approve of any versions of this policy I've seen I oppose them.
  • For anything to happen, I think what needs to happen is for a completely new proposal to be written elsewhere than this page. It then needs to be discussed, and the points of view from all sides taken into account, with questions answered and objections addressed not ignored. The policy will need to be modified in an attempt to reach consensus. None of this happened here. Thryduulf 21:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I said earlier, now that someone has thrown this into arbitration, maybe the ArbComm will have to be asked to decide what really "happened here," and why. 6SJ7 21:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• It is not true that there were "several different policies, or versions of policies, or essays", and this diff indicates there has been no substantial change here since the last month. The single alternative version was my rewrite, which was reverted after four hours, has been moved to a different page. Everybody has been talking about the same ideas here. >Radiant< 21:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree - this is an issue that either needs mediation or arbitration. Despite the correctness Herostratus numbers I read another thing from that numbers - that there is no real consensus here. Any attempt to mark it either rejected or accepted would only draw strong oppostion. CharonX/talk 23:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been out of the country and otherwise limited in editing in the last month, but I would like to add a vote of support to the policy as written. I haven't posted to this page before this. I have scanned or read most of the talk page material and see nothing in the countervailing arguments I find convincing. Even with the low numbers I understand that my opinion only raises the support by a percent or so, but I wanted to register support. Mike Christie (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Quorum?

According to Herostratus' numbers as I interpret them (which could be incorrectly), 34 editors have entered into the debate. In the context of the English Wikipedia having getting on for 2.5 million registered accounts, that is a vanishingly small number of accounts (or people, assuming no sockpuppets). I don't know how many of the 2.5 million are currently 'active' (whatever that means), so it's possibly not so dire, but I am extremely uncomfortable with Wikipedia policy apparently being decided by such a small self-selected sample from the userbase. It's also pretty small compared to the number of admins (just over 1,000). Some aspects of policy do have to be decided by a small number of people - for example by lawyers advising the administration on non-negotiable legal aspects, but I think that even though Wikipedia is not a democracy, there perhaps should be a quorum of contributors to a debate, or some evidence of widespread interest. I'm very reluctant to propose a hard and fast rule for a quorum, as such a requirement would be gamed almost immediately. I don't think the current debaters (including me) are representative of the userbase as a whole or qualified to speak sensibly on this topic. Even if 50 editors agreed on a policy, I'd argue whether such a policy could be valid in the context of such numbers. Jimbo and the Arbcomm probably have a view, and under their benevolent dictatorship things aren't too bad. I think Radiant has bounced this up to Arbcomm. We'll see what happens, but if they agree with this proposed policy, I'll be very suprised, as, in my opinion, no suffcient consensus has been reached. WLD 22:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A quorum really isn't needed. Even if a policy is passed by a small number of people, consensus can change, so if it's truly bad, there will be enough of a consensus to remove it, bolstered by people who will be disgusted that a policy was passed with only 50 people discussing it. It doesn't really matter here, because there's no chance of this passing for a long time, if ever. -Amarkov ^babble 02:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

How can Wikipedia prosper without everyone's viewpoint?

I think that it is ridiculous banning children 12 or under - firstly, because it would be so hard to enforce and secondly because we need the viewpoint of everybody regardless of race, creed, gender and age.

Wikipedia will never become the most reliable information source in the world if we reject young people from our ranks.

Please post comments! Cheers,

--Anthonycfc (Talk to Me) ^{(sandbox) (E-Count)} 16:46 24 Nov 2024 (UTC)

Well, some editors are of the opinion that, since Wikipedia includes articles on sexual subjects and profanity (and possibly other 'unsuitable for children' things that I missed), children should not be allowed to use it, either because the articles in question will somehow affect them negatively or because a scandal regarding the presence of such articles on an encyclopedia children are allowed to use is likely and/or inevitable. CameoAppearance ^orate 02:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. That "some editors" includes me. Maybe I'm just an old-fashioned fuddy-dud, but somehow the convergence of explicit sexual material and preteens doesn't sit well with me. I realize, however, that it's completelty unreasonable to expect the greater "Wikipedia" to prevent preteens from viewing articles describing sexually explicit reality. That's why this proposal does not address anything along those lines. This proposal has absolutely nothing to do with the use of Wikipedia by anyone, regardless of age. This proposal is very simple. It prohibits a declaration of preteenhood. That's it. The question of the propriety of the uncensored articles is left unchanged. Elliskev 02:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

But what exactly does prohibiting declaration of preteenhood accomplish? I'm not passing judgement at this point, I honestly want to know what you think it will do, since I haven't been able to understand. -Amarkov ^babble 04:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be more worried about the convergence of explicit sexual material and teenagers -- they're more likely to go out and try it, not that lack of such material has ever stopped them. Preteens are just going to ask embarassing questions, probably at inappropriate times. --Carnildo 04:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anthony and Elliskev, I'm afraid you misunderstand the proposal. It doesn't prevent children from editing, or self-identifying as children. It prevents self-identified children from disclosing personal information. If you'll read the proposal, you'll find it quite specific and quite tame. JonathanPenton 04:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I KNOW what this proposal proposes. In practice it prohibits a self-declaration of pre-teenhood.

Prohibition of preteenhood declaration would eliminate a sales-tag. This proposal is about the protection of preteens from a class of people. Everything else (the realities of fun) are within the realm and jurisdiction of parenthood (let's just assume we can rely on that).

There are predatory monsters. I think we can all agree on that. There are stinkin' preverts that will not stop at anything to victimize the innocent.

My understandding of this prooposal, from the beginning, was that a prohibition of age declaration by preteens would eliminate a distinct categorization of a potential victim class of Wikipedians.

The question seems to be: Does Wikipedia provide a categorization of potential victims to a predatory class? If so, what is our obligation?

My instinct is that a smashing of categories is in order. I realize that this is probably more emotional than logical. Venn diagrams probably prove that there is a small subset of Wikipedians in any danger. However, it's that snmall subset that matters to me. Elliskev 05:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please rest assured that I am as concerned for that small subset as you. This proposal does not prohibit anonymous editors from declaring their age, and since I want it to pass, I want those interested to understand it. JonathanPenton 05:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, plenty of great things get done without any direct help from people under 12. The US Constitution did not have any authors under the age of 12. I don't know of any modern novelests who are younger than 12 (though there may be a few). Virtually all modern scientific discoveries are made by people over 12. Quite simply, having persons under the age of 12 is not a requirement for the success of most projects. We are not a neighborhood lemonade stand. But its a moot point since the policy proposal does not prevent childred from editting. It just prevents them from disclosing personal identification. Johntex\^talk 04:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll ask the question to you. What is it that you expect this to accomplish? -Amarkov ^babble 04:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Two things, Amarkov. First, while there are many parents who allow their children to edit Wikipedia, and doubtless some who allow their children to self-identify as children, I would think there would be very, very few parents who would want their children giving out personally identifying information on any Internet forum. (The parents of child celebrities and child royalty would be obvious exceptions, but constitute a pretty small percentage of the populace.) This policy would encourage Wikipedia editors to inform children that such behavior is inappropriate. Second, law enforcement officials often identify themselves as children, and give out personal information, in order to entrap potential pederasts over the Internet. Since that's not the sort of press Wikipedia wants (I assume), this policy might discourage such behavior here. JonathanPenton 05:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan, Wikipedia does not have a moral function. We're a project aiming to build an encyclopedia, not a project that seeks to teach children about how they should use the internet. You claim that "this policy would encourage Wikipedia editors to inform children that such behavior is inappropriate". Well, it is not the point of Wikipedia to decide what behaviour is appropriate or inappropriate. Wikipedia has prospered so far because it has offered a neutral and uncensored source of information. As soon as we start making decisions about what is "appropriate" or not, we compromise one of the core values of the project. Remember that Wikipedia does not have any social obligation - its only "obligation", if you want to call it that, is to provide a high-quality, comprehensive, neutral encyclopedia. Ronline ✉ 06:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Morality is tied to methodology. If Wikipedia's sole and exclusive goal was to provide a high-quality, neutral, comprehensive encyclopedia, it would not have this issue because it would not be edited by children. But as Cameo says, it doesn't have a snowball's chance; I only hoped to clarify. JonathanPenton 08:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how providing a high-quality, neutral, comprehensive encyclopedia precludes having child editors involved in the project. As a general rule, yes, children as an age group can be assumed to be less competent in this area, but it's really something that should be judged on a case-by-case basis (as I've said before, children who seriously want to edit Wikipedia in the first place are probably going to be rather different from the average child to begin with); not all children are on the same level of maturity. CameoAppearance ^orate 09:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. The beauty of Wikipedia is the fact that nothing else counts except your ability to contribute, and perhaps your ability to get along with other contributors. Ronline ✉ 10:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a role to protect children's privacy

In the same way that Wikipedia is not censored, I don't believe that Wikipedia has a mandate to protect children's privacy, and hence that this policy will affect the freedom to edit within Wikipedia, and will potentially rid the encyclopedia of a number of valuable contributors (even if they are under 13 years of age). One of the beautiful things about Wikipedia is its meritocratic, non-discriminatory nature - anyone regardless of age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, occupation or credentials has the same right to edit and contribute, and people are judged on the merit of their contributions rather than any other factors. Considering that Wikipedia's primary aim is to produce an encyclopedia, I don't see how implementing this policy will lead to that aim being met better. Additionally, the current course of action regarding children's privacy is not against the law, so I don't see why Wikipedia would implement a policy that goes against the freedom of the user to disclose their information regardless of age, in the interests of "child privacy". This proposed policy is against Wikipedian values in the same way that the abolition of the censorship policy would be. Ronline ✉ 06:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as has been pointed out, there's no way we can get everyone involved in discussing it to agree what (if anything) should be done in this area, so it has a snowball's chance in hell of being passed now and it's unlikely to be passed at a later date. You can rest easy. CameoAppearance ^orate 08:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The exact scope of this proposal

This proposal stands to prevent children from revealing certain pieces of information that could allow them to be tracked down in real life and have no real value to the project: things like street address and phone number. If it was made policy, children (or at least those who claim to be children) would not be prohibited from identifying themselves as being under 13, they would not be barred from editing Wikipedia, and they would certainly still be able to read it. This is really not the place to argue the pros and cons of children having access to Wikipedia. CameoAppearance ^orate 08:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What you say is true. However, it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to enforce internet safety. This proposal by itself isn't all that terrible, as nobody needs to be giving out personal information. But it establishes the policies as a way to protect children. When someone then complains that offensive material has no disclaimer at the top, or that children can see it at all, what can you do? You can't honestly say that Wikipedia policy is not there to enforce protection of children, because this one is. And a bunch of Wikipedia editors saying that children should not have protection from offensive material will get loads of the bad press everyone seems to be so scared of. -Amarkov ^babble 13:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a consequence of using conflationary language. Consider this alternative formulation: this policy is designed to prohibit Wikipedia from publishing children's identifying information, and Wikipedia is not censored. Put that way, there's no conflict at all. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

not for us to decide

A great deal of guidelines and policy are done by us users, but this just seems like something the Wikimedia Foundation would have to be involved with. We're talking about a legal matter that would exclude or include certain users based on a law that doesn't actually apply to us. They would have to adopt it, it's not something we can decide on our own. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Just like to point out that wikipedia is a terrible place to meet children because everything you say to them is public record, and there are not alot of them here. It seems like a solution looking for a problem. HighInBC 13:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Aye, like WP:BEANS ;) -- Ned Scott 20:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. IMO it's tantamount to 50 editors trying to agree on changes to the GDFL license. I also agree that it's a solution in search of a problem. Anchoress 21:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not know that this is appropriate for us to decide but if it is left to us to decide I would vote that this is a reasonable policy. (After reviewing the discussion, I have added myself to the votes at the top of the discussion page, but I do not think this is a very critical issue as NedScott and HighinBC described, so I will not participate in the discussion.)--Blue Tie 21:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason why the "community" cannot decide this. If the Foundation wishes to adopt a policy or override a policy adopted by the community, they can do so. But unless and until they do, there is no reason to refrain from adopting a policy. It is not a "legal matter," although the first paragraph of the proposal makes it sound like it is. And it is not a solution in terms of a problem. It is a potential problem in search of... well, it's not a complete solution, it is something to make the problem not be as bad. And that's good. 6SJ7 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The stated basis for this policy proposal is COPPA. That is a legal concern and thus I agree entirely with Ned... it isn't our business. If the foundation's lawyer says that we need to do something like this to comply with COPPA then it should be policy. Otherwise, I don't see the need for it. Protecting children on our own initiative is a noble goal, but there is no evidence that such a practice would accomplish it. If anything I would think it would lead to children hiding their age, but not more sensitive information... such as where they live. As it isn't usually difficult to spot a young person by their writing style that could then leave them more vulnerable. --CBD 12:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well then maybe I should just substitute my rewritten version (see section below this one, or here) for the current one. My version removes COPPA as the basis for the policy and makes clear that this is not being done for legal reasons. I was hoping for some comments before making the substitution, and I really do not want to confuse things, especially with the arbitration going on. That has already happened at least once with this policy, where versions were switched in the middle of a straw poll and it became very confusing. 6SJ7 14:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I responded to 'non-COPPA based' arguments for this in my comments above as well. Basically, I don't think blocking kids for posting personal info would really 'protect' them at all. They'll just sign up again and not specify their age. Which leaves them every bit as vulnerable to a determined predator. At least if we know they are kids we can keep an eye out. --CBD 13:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)