Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy

Uploading personal photos

Should we have any sort of policy on the uploading of personally identifying photographs? NoSeptember 14:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Definitely photos that show more than one child should not go up. I think self-photos of under 13s should probably be banned as well in the spirit of COPPA. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Only for children. For adults it's a legal and ethical non-issue. Anonymity is a right, not an obligation, at least for those with full legal and mental competence. Captainktainer * Talk 15:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What they said. If the person in the photo is obviously a youngster, I think it should be removed.--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Substituting templates

I added a reminder that all templates unique to this situation should be substituted. Predators and other unscrupulous people could follow "what links here" from the template to find young users who are not careful with personally identifying information, and pursue unwholesome ends.Captainktainer * Talk 14:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was a concern of mine from the WP:ANI thread. It could also be a problem if people leave messages to a child with a link to this policy page. NoSeptember 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a good way to completely avoid aggregating, other than policing any template or policy pages related to children. The most sure way would be indef ban every self-identifed child account and tell them to create a new account that does not disclose their age at all and to never refer to their previous name. I don't think that's workable at all. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The Black Helicopter For outstanding services to paranoia, this black helicopter is awarded to Captainktainer!

You realise that anyone knowledgable enough to use Whatlinkshere on a template could just do a search for the text it contained, right? Sorry, carry on, don't let me disrupt your fervour of useless activity. Writing a free encyclopaedia has just gotten dull after four years, now you have to spend your time gnawing your nails trying to think up ways in paedophiles could use Wikipedia. Whatever happened to WP:BEANS?

Do you have something constructive to add to the discussion, or are you just going to continue vandalizing project pages? At the very least, it's one more hurdle that must be jumped. Captainktainer * Talk 01:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In what way would indef ban followed by new account not work? It's obviously No Fun At All and would have to be handled sensitively ("You are not being punished! We are happy to have you at Wikipedia."), but if it's implemented before we have too many child accounts it will be much easier than continually patrolling the known ones than for new info - and much more secure for the youngsters themselves. (And will avoid all the probs of dodgy folk searching for warnings.) How about a subhead in the Welcome template :"If you are under 13"? JackyR | Talk 13:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I know, I know, WP:BEANS, but what about "if you are under 13 don't do ...", then all the adults do ..., but nobody under 13 ...s, thereby revealing that they are under 13 by obeying the policy? Probably wouldn't happen but I'm just saying... --AndreniW 00:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

E-mail and IM names

I'm not sure about e-mail addresses and IM names. Clearly they would fall under COPPA if wikipedia was requiring them. Should we in this policy disallow posting of all direct contact info (e-mail, phone numbers, IM screen names)? Editors could still contact each other via talk pages, and wikipedia e-mail which is masked unless the child chooses to reply. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably a good idea for now, IMHO. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that we need to block email addresses. As stated above, email can be filtered, and if the child has any responsible parent, the parent would screen the email before allowing the child to use it. I do whole-heartedly support blocking IM screen names, that's how a lot of the predators find the children online. --AndreniW 23:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Age and Location

You know, some people could just lie about thier age. There's no policy stating you have to be truthful in telling thier age, so people could easily lie around this policy. Another concern of mine is not every editor is in the United States of America and America's guidelines, like COPPA, should not be pressed against editors in Canada, England, Australia, Singapore (a lot of editors are from there :p), etc. so what gives us the right to make people not in America obide by a United States federal laws? 216.78.95.224 14:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If they lie about their age, that's fine; that removes legal liability and helps protect them from predators. Hear no evil, see no evil. Furthermore, the English Wikipedia is headquartered in the State of Florida, and hence must abide by all applicable United States laws. This policy is as much about covering our own behinds as anything. If contributors are uncomfortable editing under the restrictions imposed by United States federal law and Florida state law, they should edit elsewhere. Captainktainer * Talk 15:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

So how does lying help protect someone from a predator? 216.78.95.224 15:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If the predator doesn't know that the editor is underage, he doesn't know to target that person. Captainktainer * Talk 15:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

An 11 year old who does not disclose his age (or claims to be an adult) will not be targeted for unsavory attentions. On the other hand, we really want nothing to do with someone who posts, "I am a cute 11 year old who likes ponies and teddy bears. If you want to be my friend call me." 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." Thatcher131 (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the law in question applies only to commercial sites, not nonprofit ones like this; also, though some of its provisions are fairly vague, it seems to be aimed at sites that actively solicit personal info from children (e.g., for marketing purposes), not at general-interest sites where a kid might happen to wander by, but is not being actively enticed to provide such information. Since Wikipedia registration does not require providing any personal info, and is not being promoted specifically to kids, we're probably OK. (But IANAL.) *Dan T.* 20:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Some people may also be adults posing as children, so what would happen in that case? 02:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.251.102 (talk • contribs)

Treat 'em like children. (Especially as someone claiming to be under 13 and posting personal contact information may be trying to make contact with real children for unpleasant reasons.) Thatcher131 (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and the converse is true. If somebody claims to be 12 years old, they're blocked for a year. If somebody who is actually 12 never reveals this and "flies beneath the radar" nobody is any the wiser and they can go about their wiki business like the rest of us. --kingboyk 08:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

School name

I removed the section on school name, for the following reasons:

• Given that young contributors will usually edit the articles on their schools, the same information could be gleaned from their contributions history
• It would essentially forbid them from declaring an interest in their schools' articles, as that could be construed as declaring attendance at the school
• Given that many schools have a population equal to that of a village or small town, it isn't privacy-compromising enough to fall within the words or intent of COPPA

Anyone disagree? Captainktainer * Talk 15:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should discourage/forbid people from putting their school name on their page as: 1) not all schools are large - some are very very small 2) although the information may be gleamed from edits (we can't help that), it may not - not everyone edits their school article. Let's avoid as much personal information as we can. --Doc 15:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI my 8th grade graduating class had 19 students. Just so you'll know.--Ed^{talk c E} 19:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

My seventh and eighth grade classes each had only 11 students, for the record. I feel revealing school information could be privacy-compromising. --Firsfron of Ronchester 23:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

My twelfth-grade class had only one student, but good luck finding the Vernon-Dunlap School to track me down by. --Carnildo 01:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Foundations lawyers?

Has anyone actually talked to the foundation's lawyers about this proposed policy? JoshuaZ 16:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I will w-mail Brad later today. However, I think we need to confront this issue for moral and ethical reasons even if it is not a strict liability issue. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's quite shocking that they're not proactive on this issue. There also seems to be no clear definition about whether Wikipedia is a common carrier (in which case we shouldn't censor anything for fear of losing that status) or a publisher (in which case we are currently far too lax). I hope that whoever gets elected to the board shortly can get some answers to these and similar questions. --kingboyk 07:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:USER

If this proposal attracts continued interest, maybe we should implement it as a modification of WP:USER rather than a separate policy. That might be logical since it really is a policy directed at user space, and it would have the side benefit of preventing aggregation of children via links to a child-specific policy. (WP:USER has thousands of links already) Thatcher131 (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Rationale

And let me say also that the reason for tying this to COPPA is mainly to provide a reasonable basis for picking a cutoff point for this policy. (Although whether the US congress is reasonable may be open to debate). If we are going to prevent self-identified children from including certain things on their user pages, we need to have some cut-off point, and age 13 per COPPA seems as reasonable as anything else I can think of. I wouldn't care if this was entirely decoupled from COPPA and left to stand on its own, but we are clearly to the point where we need to at least think about this issue. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty standard in engineering to "see who's already done it" before reinventing the wheel. I think this applies here when attempting to create policy. Nothing wrong with basing it off of existing policy somewhere else. If the COPPA says "under 13" and you make a policy that uses "under 13" there's nothing wrong with that. People will (and should) start wondering about geo-political balance when COPPA says "under 13" and you say "refer to COPPA". BigNate37_(T) 22:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A few questions

Please feel free to insert answers or comments between the bullet points; I did not want to start a new subsection for each question:

• Shouldn't list of items in the "nutshell" include "real name"? It should probably be the first item (before "e-mail address.") "Real name" is already on the list in the text, but not in the nutshell.

I added it in. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• If we are directing editors to delete real names of people who self-identify as being under 13, doesn't there need to be a policy prohibiting self-identified under-13's from using their real names (surnames) as their (or in their) registered user names?
  • I only see one problem with that. Are we to make them sign up again, perhaps using some other form of identifible information (such as Kayla1994)? Or do we not let them on Wikipedia until they are 13? This could get hairy -- couldn't we just remove the fact that they revealed themselves from the page history? I thought there was a way to do that, I just can't remember how (but I'm pretty sure you have to be an admin). --AndreniW 23:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Shouldn't the term be "personal identifying information" rather than "personally identifying information"? (COPPA itself and the FTC compliance guide (see links from COPPA article) refer to "personal information" and in one instance to "personal identifying information.")
  • No, the government just made a typo.  :) --AndreniW 23:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• The term "self-identify" seems slightly jargon-y to me. In the nutshell and the first time it is used in the text, can we change "self-identify as" to "identify themselves as being"?

• While I realize that this policy is directed specifically at people who do "self-identify" as being under 13, is there any good reason not to specifically prohibit all editors under 13 from posting personal information? (All, as opposed to just those who say they are 13.) My suggestion is to add the following to the nutshell and in the text:

Editors under the age of 13 should not post personal identifying information (such as real name, e-mail addresses, home addresses, school names, and telephone numbers) on Wikipedia. No editor should post such information about any person under the age of 13.

If that is done, the existing first sentence of the nutshell could be shortened to just refer to "such information." 6SJ7 18:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to prohibit all users under 13 from posting identifying information, because we have no way of knowing whether or not they are under 13 unless they say they are. We don't collect that information at registration, nor should we be actively attempting to determine contributors' ages. There's a certain amount of anonymity that is vital to our free and open contribution at Wikipedia. Now, once they let the cat out of the bag, they've personally self-identified as under 13 and this policy applies to them. But not before. Captainktainer * Talk 19:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Accepting that premise for the sake of argument, it still leaves the "nutshell" (and probably the text as well) without a clear statement of what a self-identified under-13 is supposed to refrain from doing. It speaks in terms of what other editors are supposed to do, and the text does say something about reminding or telling self-identified under-13s what they are not supposed to do, but it never told them what not to do in the first place. How about beginning the nutshell with: "Editors who have identified themselves (within Wikipedia) as being under the age of 13 should not post personal identifying information (such as real name, e-mail addresses, home addresses, school names, and telephone numbers) on Wikipedia. No such information about an editor who self-identifies as being under 13 should be posted by any editor." (And then continue with how it should be removed if found.) And then in the text it could repeat these statements and also add the following: "An editor self-identified as being under 13 should not edit under a user name that contains any personal identifying information, including his or her surname." 6SJ7 21:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I recommend making the edit. Captainktainer * Talk 21:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The nutshell could say "editors under 13 should not post under their real names or post personal identifying info" and then the main body to clarify that the policy applies to editors who describe themselves as under 13; per the exception that it does not apply to editors who do not disclose. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes made; more changes needed

I have edited the "Nutshell" and the "Overview" section to reflect the changes discussed above, plus a few other ideas in other sections of this talk page that I agree with. I also decided that the Overview section really needed to be reorganized so that it clearly stated what the policy is. I hope nobody thinks I went too far, if so we can talk about it. One problem that already existed, and remains, is that the "Overview" and "Processes" section somewhat overlap. What I really think should happen is that what is now the last paragraph of "Overview" (the bulleted items) should be merged with the "Processes" section, and the resulting section should be re-titled "The Policy" or something like that. This would then be followed by the "Comments" although those could possibly also be worked into the "Policy" section. (I have not analyzed each of the "comments" to see whether that would work for all of them.) Unless there are objections, I will work on this but probably would not get to it for 36-48 hours. 6SJ7 03:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't really handle parental consent

The current text of this proposed policy says:

In the spirit of COPPA, Wikipedia should not publish personally identifying information provided by children without the consent of their parents or guardians.

I'm not sure we have any resonable means to get parental consent. We can't determine the validity of anything sent to us electronically. We don't have any process that I'm aware of to receive, let alone judge, any physical information. I'm wondering if we need to make clear that regardless of claimed parental consent, we will remove any of the agreed-upon bits of personal information from identified children. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. I started this off very narrowly tailored, and it seems like people want to expand it. Fine with me if that's how the consensus run. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is little point in including the "without the consent of their parents or guardians" portion since as JeffQ states, we have no way of getting verified parental consent. I also don't think there is a need to complicate this proposed policy: the simpler, the better, in my opinion, so it is more easily understood by all.Firsfron of Ronchester 23:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I dealt with this in the current version. Parental consent is referred to as an element of the COPPA statute, but as for Wikipedia policy it is specifically stated that due to practical difficulties in obtaining consent, personal information for self-identified under-13s may not be posted regardless of parental consent. (In fact, I put that part in bold type.) 6SJ7 00:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me. I appreciate the bolding, BTW. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Templates and categories

I'd like to propose that as part of this solution we delete all age-related templates and Wikipedia categories, whether or not they refer to under 13s. --kingboyk 08:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree with that. What possible help can that be in protecting minors? What does a category or userbox identifying elder Wikipedians have anything at all to do with Wikipedians under 13? Forgive me if I don't see the point of censoring Wikipedians' group affiliation (and organized editing) because... umm... well? Captainktainer * Talk 08:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

They don't help build an enyclopedia and encourage the use of the site for social networking rather than enyclopedia-building. Most importantly, though, it seems to me unfair to deny young users the ability to categorise by age or publicise their birth year without making a blanket ban. That's my rationale, feel free to disagree :) --kingboyk 08:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning now, though I still strongly disagree. There are many things minors are not permitted to do, because they have diminished reasoning and planning capabilities in critical areas. It's fair to discriminate when there is a legal and moral necessity in discrimination. As for the issue of social networking, that is a separate issue altogether, but briefly, if something encourages Wikipedians with similar interests to collaborate on issues that affect or interest them, I think that's a good thing. WikiProjects don't get enough participants as is, and something that makes it harder to find Wikipedians on the basis of a common interest could choke off a valuable resource in increasing the WikiProject rolls. Captainktainer * Talk 08:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And pray tell me, which WikiProject needs to know how old a member is? :) --kingboyk 09:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A hypothetical WikiProject:Geriatrics, for instance; I haven't been through the entire list, which is fairly extensive. There's a Wikipedian association specifically for youth, not all of whom are under 13; but given the number of templates identifying users as elders, I wouldn't be surprised if there is one. And, if there isn't, there probably should be; Wikipedia's coverage of age-related subjects isn't the best in the world (you get what you pay for, right?). Captainktainer * Talk 09:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK :) Thanks for the dialogue, let's see what other folks have to say. I'm quite used to being wrong btw :) --kingboyk 09:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Why self-identify as under 13?

Can someone explain to me the value of anybody identifying themselves on WP as under 13? Given WP:NOT a social network, there is no need for anyone to do this, or to reveal their current school. It has no value in terms of building an encyclopedia. I know some kids (and adults!) like to post their ages, but WP:USER exists because there are many things users like to post that are unacceptable. This should be one.

A half-way policy of "You can state your age, but, um, is that piece of info enough to ID you? What about that piece together with that piece?" will be enormously hard work to police, will make kids feel continually niggled at, and won't actually have the desired effect of protecting them from undesirables (we can't police their MySpace or personal webpages, and once identified they could still be contacted through WP).

Is there any good reason not to block all accounts identified as under-13? (In the nicest possible way, with lots of forewarning as the policy is brought in, so people don't just log in and find they've been blocked.) JackyR | Talk 14:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

NB I'm not an expert in child protection, but as I understand it our problem could be that a paedophile identifies and makes friends with a child through WP, and then begins conversations with them on e-mail, either through Wikipedia e-mail or e-mail addresses / chat revealed elsewhere. Through these private conversations the adult establishes the child's locality and persuades them to meet somewhere, or send a pic and school name, etc. We're having to tell kids not to reveal this info on their WP pages, because many give it out far too easily. I don't think it's acceptable to rely on the child's judgement whether or not to accept e-mails from their new internet friend: that's the whole point about them being kids and not having adult judgement. And for any youngsters annoyed by reading this, think for a moment: you personally might have plenty of common sense, but this policy has to work for the daftest person you know, not just you! JackyR | Talk 14:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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. (So if a woman hides a vial of now-prohibited Vaseline in her bouffant hairstyle next week and attempts to board a Delta jet, someone will surely advocate a worldwide ban on in-flight bouffants thereafter.) As for children on Wikipedia, so long as we restrict personally identifiable information, and do so in the least restrictive ways possible (i.e., no full names, specific locations, telephone numbers, email or instant messenger addresses, etc.), we have then taken the vigilant steps required to protect children on this site. In fact, some demographic data posted to user talk pages may actually be helpful to understanding how the enyclopedia is assembled: For example it might be useful at some point for someone to understand that the initial editor of the articles on PiHex and Bellard's Formula was an 8-year-old American (who, very incidentally, happens to be my son). Right alongside the largely universal cultural imperative mandating child protection is an equally respected tradition of encouraging and championing our youth in the direction of socially proactive behaviors. For example, in the world of amateur radio of which I am a part, awards are sometimes given to "the youngest ham radio operators licensed this year," and young hams are known to proudly tap out their ages in Morse code, etc., much to their parents's pride. Frankly, a Time Magazine article sidebar on "The Five Youngest Wikipedia Authors on the Planet (So Far as We Know)" would do more to spotlight the democratic differences between this endeavor and The Encyclopedia Britannica than any stale academic piece could ever accomplish. I believe we should as a community (and as parents) not shy away from championing our youthful editors, and neither must we fully strip away their identities in order to shield them from unsavory contact. We should not trade wide swaths of expressive freedom whenever threatened, otherwise those who threaten us will come to control us. For that reason, protective guidelines should be cast as narrowly as possible while still ensuring their efficacy. padawer 15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Happily, no one with a bouffant hairstyle has yet blown up a plane (tho' I think there's a serious case for declaring them a Health & Safety hazard on the Tube :-) ). Unhappily, the problem of paedophiles using "innocent" web contacts to befriend and then meet up with youngsters is not imaginary. The headlines may be breathless: the underlying reality is not.[1][2][3][4][5]

• Wikipedia is NOT a tool for social networking or an exercise in democracy. Actually it has aspects of both, which can make working here more pleasant. But where democracy or free expression hamper the creation of the encyclopedia - Wikipedia's actual purpose - or have a very negative impact on fellow editors, there are guidelines and policies against them. These range from Meta:Polls are evil and WP:USER to WP:CIVIL.

• As WP was not built with children socialising in mind, the structure facilitates free communication and does not include features such as restricting who can read a user page, which are common in sites built for the purpose of young people socialising. (It's possible some could be added.)

• It would be great to have good demographic data for WP. There have been many discussions of this, for varying purposes. However, sufficient users value anonymity that we haven't been able to do more than guess at our demographics. It would be perverse as well as valueless to encourage young users to declare their ages for demographic monitoring when we have no way of getting adult users to do the same.

• Your son made his edits without revealing his age: apparently he did not feel this was a necessary part of participating in WP. The person who revealed his age was actually yourself. It's wonderful that you champion your son's Wikipedia contibutions at home, and he should feel free to boast of them to his friends at school, who already know who he is. He could even feature on the front page of Time magazine as one of WP's youngest editors (perhaps from a WikiMania meet-up), as long as there is nothing to connect him to his WP user id, directly or indirectly.

• Most important of all, the proposal to allow youngsters to declare their ages on their WP user pages as long as other information is omitted will not actually have the intended effect. It can be trivially undermined by youngsters linking to multiple other sites where their info is posted (and which we do not have the resources to patrol), and by the simple use of e-mail (again, possibly through other sites). See Composite case history two.

In this case I believe that the restrictions currently suggested for young users are ineffective, irksome to the youngsters and hard work to police. A clear cut "don't let on you're under X by any method" is effective, easy to understand and simpler to police.

It's very ironic for several reasons that I'm being cast here as a child-protection extremist. One reason is that I'm a "They've gotta learn by experience" sort of person. It's just there are some actions where I think the risk outweighs the benefits, and identifying yourself as very young on an essentially unmoderated website with associated private email - a site which parents might not recognise as having social networking potential - is one such risk. Let youngsters practice assessing whether contacts are inappropriate on websites that are more geared up for social networking, and have big "report abuse here" buttons on every page.

Meanwhile, go young Wikipedians. And when you turn X, you can have a big Coming Out party. All best wishes, JackyR | Talk 19:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

External links on under-13 userpages

The policy looks great; I'm glad someone was WP:BOLD enough to do this. Following the User:Cute 1 4 u incident, it became very clear that this had to be done.

However, should there be a statement in the policy that explicitly pertains to the use of external links to MySpace and personal sites? While the general idea appears to be present in the policy's current form, users may disagree with the removal of such links and state (rightly) that as there is no specific mention of this in the policy, it should not be done. There's no point in removing information from the child's user page if the same information (and even more) is available by following an external link on the user's page. I propose we add the following text to the policy:

Users who self-identify as 13 or younger must not link to external websites containing information such as their real name, phone number, home address, e-mail address or photographs. Any editor who sees a link that falls into this category should delete it immediately and place a cautionary warning on the user's talk page.

Feel free to disagree, tweak, and criticize! :) I won't add it unless there is significant approval. Srose (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Collection vs posting

The law says collecting the information is illegal, ie they cant fill out the email form in the sign-up. 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 -M^ask 00:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The title is not COPPA, that's the first redirect I made since it was mentioned that way on ANI. I actually like WP:CHILD much better and wouldn't care if the COPPA redirect was eliminated. The point is to keep children from posting personal information, which most commenters here seem to agree is a bad idea even if it is not against the law. COPPA simply provided a rationale for picking an age limit. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Re choice of age limit: info here suggests 13-17 year olds might need consideration. JackyR | Talk 20:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We shouldn't base our age limit on COPPA, but we should base our age limits on other internet chatrooms. Although Wikipedia is not a chatroom, people can still communicate. Besides, kids under 13 wouldn't edit Wikipedia as much as 13-17 yr. olds, and they're as much as vulnerable to pedophiles. --Ed^{talk c E} 00:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that we change the age limit for complying with this policy be 17.--Ed^{talk c E} 01:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the justification for changing the age to 17 or any other age. There is a reference above to "other Internet chatrooms" but this is not a chat room, and besides, I am not sure what it is about chat rooms that you are referring to. Do they ban users under 17? Do they prohibit users under 17 from exchanging personal information? Personally I think the "age limit" for disclosing personal information that the U.S. Congress has chosen is as good as any -- not because they always make good laws (far from it) but because it is the closest thing to a "standard" that I am aware of. If someone else were to demonstrate that most other English-speaking countries have chosen a different standard, that might be something to consider, but I don't think anyone has even suggested that that is the case. 6SJ7 00:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Another problem I see with that -- we had/have a userbox saying "I'm a teen", thereby all users with those userboxes would have to be blocked. Also, even for me, I am self-identifying as being 15. So, uh, would I be grandfathered in? Would all teens be given a one-week or whatever leeway period? Or would all of us (including me) be indefinitely blocked? You see, changing it to 17 or 18 would cause a lot more headaches. Referencing WP:CABAL and WP:ANOT, I understand that it is the community that decides consensus on these things. So maybe we should start something here like they do on AfD? Just my $.02. --AndreniW 00:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

WR taking notice of this page

Perhaps this isn't the place to mention this; and this shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not this policy is adapted; but our friends at Wikipedia Review (http://www.wikipediareview.com), the link is in plaintext for a reason) seem to think that this might be a useful attack vector. So be warned... --EngineerScotty 19:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought I saw a comment there a while back about how irresponsible we were to not have something like this. Just goes to show they'll attack anything, I guess. Thatcher131 (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing to read that site. On one hand, we've far too many obnoxious admins engaging in rampant censorship; on the other hand, we've no encyclopedic authority because anyone can edit the site. On one hand, many of 'em rant that we need to end anonymous editing of the site, presumably so that users will be more responsible if their real name is attached to their posts; OTOH, many of 'em proudly claim to have armies of (undiscovered) sockpuppets with which to cause mischief. The good news, is nobody other than themselves takes their rants seriously. The bad news is, that doesn't dissuade many of them from attempting to damage Wikipedia. Oh well.... --EngineerScotty 19:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of those guys are clearly dedicated to attacking Wikipedia on any grounds and by any means they can, even if it means making contradictory criticisms of everything this site either does or fails to do. *Dan T.* 01:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

How would we know their age?

How would we know if a user is under 13. When signing up should users be asked to enter in there date of birth?---Scott3 _{Talk Contributions Count: 950+} 01:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's easily faked. -- Longhair 01:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically, we don't care if users are under 13; we care that someone who claims to be under 13 might either be a real child or an adult troublemaker, who in both cases should be prevented from revealing personal information. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll?

Anyone have objections to a straw poll as a method of gauging community consensus on the idea behind this policy? ~ PseudoSudo 14:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I totally and unmovably object. Bad idea. That's not how we do things. We discuss, we do, we try, we reach consensus through action - we don't vote. --Doc 14:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why 13?

There are several issues people might be trying to consider to protect children here.

1. COPPA and similar laws restricting access to childrens' personal information for data protection reasons
2. Responsibility of editors for their own edits: a minor making defamatory comments probably can't be sued
3. Not wanting, for legal, moral and practical reasons, pedophiles to use Wikipedia to find targets.

All of these imply different minimum ages (and, worse, differing in different jurisdicitons).

1. In the case of COPPA (which we aren't legally bound by), 13 in the USA: I do not know of any international comparisons.
2. Responsibility for edits: in English law it is much more difficult to sue someone in tort (e.g. for defamation) if they are under 18.
3. Regarding the 'child protection' point the relevant age is the sexual age of consent (16 in the UK, varies widely).

I would be grateful if people could say which of these issues matters the most. I 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. The Land 15:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For me, I think it's worthwhile to target for #1 first, especially considering that Wikipedia's legal status with regard to COPPA is not as firmly fixed as we might like. For the second matter, a minor may not be easily sued, but his/her legal guardians may be. That isn't our concern, anyway; what matters is whether the Wikimedia Foundation may be sued. As for the third, at age 13 a minor may, on occasion, be tried as an adult in the United States, which is where the Wikimedia servers are hosted. At that point there's a certain expectation that a minor attains greater responsibility. For that matter, #2 and #3 will never, ever be adopted. We have teenaged administrators. The community will not endorse a policy of that sort.

Basically, 13 is a handy breakpoint that coincides with a law that may or may not apply. Captainktainer * Talk 16:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

How is "real name" defined?

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, as there's clearly a big difference between a userpage stating the name "Jennifer Corrington", and one which says, "My name is Jenny". Not specifying this in the policy will lead to confusion, as some people will assume first names are allowed, some will assume they're not. --Xyzzyplugh 21:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Age removal

I think this is a great idea. I have a question as to what would constitute compliance? If a user identifies as being 13 or under 13 and lists some other identifying info, the info is removed, would the user be out of compliance by reinserting the other info if the age info was not reinserted? - Elliskev 19:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's say the user never identified as a child, then we don't know. Once we know the user is a child, there are two ways to go about it. If we oversight all the versions that have age info, then one could argue there is no longer a problem, since only a small subset of admins who dealt with it would know. Or one could argue that since we know this user identifies as a child, we have a moral obligation to prevent them from ever revealing personal info. It's a tricky problem. I would tend to favor choice alpha, but others may differ. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose trusting in the judgement of the admin will ultimately prove to take care of it. --Elliskev 23:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh

I guess this is off-topic, but I just wanna say: thanks for this page. Thanks for remarks like "...there are many things minors are not permitted to do, because they have diminished reasoning and planning capabilities in critical areas" etc. Working in WP:PAW, which means constantly haggling over articles like Age of consent reform, Child sexuality, Child sexual abuse, and all the rest, I sometimes get the impression that Wikepedia is composed primarily of editors who would find that statement horribly objectionable.... I agree with this policy. I think it should be 15 and under rather than 12 and under, though. Herostratus 19:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It should clearly be 21. JayW 23:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

1) That would disqualify about half of Wikipedia's most prolific contributors, and 2) your edit to the page was not helpful. Furthermore, your most recent edit to your userpage is... really disturbing, and I would ask that you remove it. Captainktainer * Talk 23:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That would disqualify about half of Wikipedia's most prolific contributors. Wikipedia is only MySpace for grown-ups, amirite? your edit to the page was not helpful. Your hysteria is not helpful. Ephebophilic predators mostly use local chatrooms to search for young teens who they can groom anonymously; it's not like children are elusive creatures only to be found on the net. Honostly, why the hell would someone comb through photographs in the hopes of catching a school name? It's a myth. Predators obtain their information by asking. Yeesh. Your policy would only be useful if it banned all mention of being under thirteen. JayW 00:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not right. Disqualifying adults from editing Wikipedia is far beyond any reasonable standard for participation. For that matter, we're not discussing a policy that applies mostly to possible targets of ephebophiles. We're discussing a policy that applies to possible targets of pedophiles. So far the policy bans editors under 13 from posting personally identifying information. However, you bring up a useful point - we should caution editors against attempting to elicit such information. Captainktainer * Talk 01:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not right. I disagree. ;) Disqualifying adults from editing Wikipedia is far beyond any reasonable standard for participation. This policy doesn't disqualify anyone from editing. For that matter, we're not discussing a policy that applies mostly to possible targets of ephebophiles. k - remove the word "ephebophilic." Tada! Brand new argument. We're discussing a policy that applies to possible targets of..predators, kthx. So far the policy bans editors under 13 from posting personally identifying information. A ridiculous policy which won't solve shit, cuz it's based on a myth. Remove private communication and you remove predators. Simple enough? However, you bring up a useful point - we should caution editors against attempting to elicit such information. Yup... child molesters are definitely known to be sticklers for the rules. :p JayW 01:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So what do you suggest? Thatcher131 (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt anyone would actually use Wikipedia to find children, so this is needless PR... But as for much more reality-conscious policy? "Don't say you're a preteen." Simple and actually effective. JayW 02:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with JayW - 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 (it is clear, simple and to the point), than all the complicated policy proposals elsewhere. This realy is a solution in search of a problem. Thryduulf 00:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

With the news about Xanga you don't think it'd be a smart idea for Wikipedia to have a specific policy? I realize that COPPA doesn't apply, but tell that to the investigative reporter that comes knocking to expose all the "Websites without child protection policies." --Elliskev 00:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just had a long reponse swallowed by my browser crashing, but to summarise:

• I can see nothing relevant to us in the Xanga article (I know nothing else about the site, I'd not even heard of it before reading your comment).

Relevant in that it's topical. Elliskev 13:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• We do not need a child protection policy for many reasons, inlcuding that everything everybody submits to the site is voluntary - including a username; and everything that we can do to protect users of any age (including children) we already do through existing policies.

Need as in "inability to survive without"? No. Need as is "silly not to"? Yes. It's the way the world works. As an analogy, every company needs a diversity policy. Sure, they could survive without it, but they'd be crazy not to have one on the books. Re: voluntary. That doesn't apply to preteens. That's why there is thing called age of consent.Elliskev 13:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Blocking a user for self identifying as under 13 costs us in time and effort to block, explain, delete, restore selected revisions, deal with autoblocks, handle alegations of sockpuppetry, etc. and we gain nothing.

Sorry, but I call Baloney! (or Bologna ... whichever). I don't foresee wholesale hordes of kids attacking Wikipedia with age self-identification. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's the future of vandalism. I doubt it. Elliskev 13:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Identifying the reincarnation of a user blocked for the crime of being too young is trivial. Just search the block log for mentions of this policy, look at the user page and contributions (articles, time, writing style, etc) and use the techniques we've proven work in detecting sockpuppets to find who the reincarnation is and bingo you have a target. They've lost all of a couple of days at most.

There is no crime of being to young. Preteens are welcome. Let them create a new account. Just as long as they don't say "I'm 11 and live in ..." Elliskev 13:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Trying to contact someone through wikipedia is pretty pointelss given the lack of information available and very low population of children under 13 (compare Category:Wikipedians born in the 1990s with Category:Wikipedians born in the 1970s), particularly compared to other less secure sites.

What is the point in adding instruction creep and paranoia for zero benefit.

The point is to have a policy in place to protect the privacy of preteens. It's a pretty small thing to ask, think. I don't see any paranoia anywhere. I see measured and appropriate concern. Elliskev 13:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thryduulf 02:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Child is up for deletion at WP:TfD

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. CharonX/talk 19:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have also nominated several categories for deletion. Wikipedians_born_after_1992 categories and Category:Child Wikipedians. Elliskev 20:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

People are using this proposed policy as a grounds for their contribution to the deletion debates. While this might advance discussion of this proposal somewhat it is also a recipe for confusion for users unfamiliar with this proposal. The Land 21:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if my noms came across that way. I would hope that people would check the link... I've added comments clarifying (maybe?) that I chose the word incompatible over per to keep my reason in line with the fact that this is a proposal. Anyway, discussion is good. Elliskev 21:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, discussion is good. The Land 09:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Objection

I object to this proposal on the following grounds...

1. Unless there is indication that this is actually problematic, it is m:instruction creep as we should not build rules upon hypotheses or speculation.
2. Any legal issues should be dealt with by the Board, not non-lawyers such as ourselves (the proposal claims the legal arguments aren't essential but uses them anyway).
3. It is not our duty to protect people from themselves; blocking people if they want to post their personal details sounds like a bad idea.
4. The proposed policy is too easily gameable since anybody affected can just claim to be 14 instead (hey look, yesterday was my birthday!)
5. 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.

• >Radiant< 00:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's is your duty to protect children. Even if you don't have kids, hate kids, avoid kids -- you still have to protect them. That's one of things that just is. You don't cease to be a moral player in the world when you put your hands on a keyboard. Herostratus 07:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • While that may be true, this policy does not actualy protect anybody from anyone else any more than our existing policies do, so your comment is irrelevant. Thryduulf 08:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Copyright violation is a legal problem, but we don't wait for people to sue the Wikimedia Foundation to form a clear policy to avoid it, note it when it appears, and get rid of it if necessary. Having a policy that keeps us within legal boundaries is not incompatible with Wikipedia's purposes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Unidentifying yourself

Hello!

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)?

Auroranorth 08:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Please reply on my respective talk page.

Suggested addition to proposal

Based on some of the discussions above, I suggest that the proposed policy be ammended to prohibit self-identifying as under 13. I'd also add language to discourage (not prohibit) any identification of age by anyone. Elliskev 14:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why discourage users from declaring their age? I've got a couple pictures of myself on my userpage, I don't see what difference disclosing my age would make. Perhaps you mean to exclude the possibility of looking for people who don't delcare their age as a sign of pre-teens. If this is the case, I think it's a little unreasonable to go to these lengths. In any event, I recommend against discouraging adult users from disclosing their age for two reasons: it is outside the scope of WP:CHILD and it will lead to a bloated and thus less-effective policy, and it is bad for the project in general to add guidelines which have no benefit to it. BigNate37_(T) 15:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)