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

I think I've hit a raw nerve here.

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

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

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

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

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

I think I've hit a raw nerve here.

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

I think I've hit a raw nerve here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Awbrey

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

Do you think it could work?

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

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

Why not all administrators?

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

Why not all administrators?

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

How about foetus admins?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holy Hell!

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



So many errors.