Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy

message: Wikipedia is not censored. As much as I want to protect little children, especially little girls from pedophiliac danger, they should no better and follow the wikipedia guidelines. They should learn these kind of things from their parental units, not just looking it up. Horny jerks could show up on here pretending to be a little kid like them yes, but as I said, this is information they should receive from the parents. It will mean more to them and they'll be more careful. I'm not sure why this is a guideline if wikipedia is not censored, yet protecting little children. ALL user should protect their personal info. --Alisyntalk 01:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored applies primarily to articles.  Personal information about users (real or fictitious) does not appear in articles, but rather on user pages, user/talk pages, and sometimes article/talk pages.  So "not censored" doesn't really apply here.  Second, the "not censored" policy is not absolute.  It mentions several types of information that are typically removed.  I don't think it specifically mentions "disruption", but disruptive material is typically removed from Wikipedia as well.  And disruptive material is what this "essay" (officially it is not a guideline, though in many ways it really is, but let's not go there right now) and the arbitration decision on which it is based, are all about.  (The original versions of this page were about something more than just limiting disruption, but I am talking about the current version; if you want to see something to which you will probably really object, see WP:YOUTH, which is closer to what this page was originally about.)  You may also want to look at WP:PRIVACY, which encourages people to protect their privacy.  (Though even that is not a guideline, it is just a suggestion.)  6SJ7 (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, kids should learn this stuff from their parents, not wikipedia. If they are exerting too much personal info, that shouldn't be wikipedia's problem, but the parents. I don't even add so much personal info, and I'm 17. All there is is my name and age. So little children should first of all not be allowed to come on here if it's just for explaining themselves. --Alisyntalk 04:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOT 

message: There's a ban on people identifying as children and projecting a sexually provocative persona, but there's no finding of fact that this occurs. Isn't this instruction creep? Andjam (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Projecting a sexually provocative persona 

message: Having encountered a user who has self-identified as being nine years old, I started looking around for the community's views on such an issue because I vaguely remember seeing other children being blocked for age-related issues.   While I don't personally have any opinions on the matter, this page, even as an "essay" contains some clearly ambiguous content that I'd love to see cleaned up.  Examples follow:
All users, including children, are permitted to edit anonymously without submitting identifying information
This is unclear, as anonymous editing is commonly referred to editors who don't create accounts, and the contribution history shows just their IP address.   That is in fact, less anonymous than an editor who creates a username.  Hence I can see someone falsely sugesting that a logged-in user who identifies as being a child should edit with an IP address.   My user name "Neil916" is clearly anonymous since you would be hard-pressed to put a real identity even with the personal information I have disclosed in my user pages, contribution history, or even the user name itself.
Users who disrupt Wikipedia by posing as children, projecting a provocative persona, and disclosing personal information may be banned on a case by case basis
This seems to imply that posing as a child, or even accurately self-identifying as a child is considered "disruptive", which I don't think was the intent of this statement.   The "and" statement towards the end of the statement seems to indicate that all three conditions are necessary for a "disruption" but perhaps the wording can be clarified if this is, in fact, the case.
Just some thoughts.  Neil916 (Talk) 20:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification request / wording changes 

message: I'd like to link here from Wikipedia:Advice for parents - but find the tags currently applied thoroughly confusing! It would be great if someone could confirm the status of this page to the point where we can actually apply it usefully - I'm really not happy linking to a page which says at the very start that editors aren't obliged to take any note of it! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is not usefully applicable. It is not policy, it did not reach consensus. At best it is an essay by various users representing their own viewpoint on the issue of children editing Wikipedia as logged-in users. Copysan (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is more than that.  It really should be a guideline, but due to edit-warring by certain people, it is tagged the way it is.  In any event, Privatemusings, there is no reason why you shouldn't link to it if you wish.  The fact that it says "editors aren't obliged to take any note of it" is irrelevant.  "Advice", by its nature, is something that the reader is not obliged to take into account.  So I wouldn't worry about the status of the page.  6SJ7 (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really care a whit for the official 'status' of the page - but I do think that the two large(ish) boxes at the top of the page significantly undermine the effectiveness of this page to communicate. I agree that there's much of value in the page, and might think about a better way to 'mine' it - because I don't in good conscience believe someone looking in good faith for help or advice would be anything other than confused at the mo..... I'll think on.... best, Privatemusings (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the confusion is inevitable due to the fact that this is a contentious subject on Wikipedia and there is no consensus on how to deal with it, which leads to a confusing set of tags on this page, WP:YOUTH and perhaps others... as well as the ongoing deletion discussion regarding the page you created, Wikipedia:Advice for parents.  Take a look at the edit histories and talk pages for this page and WP:YOUTH and you may get a better understanding of why things are the way they are.  6SJ7 (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  status of this page 

message: :I was just wondering if you are 13 years old, could you post it on your user page? EvilWendyMan 21:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not recommended, but there's no rule from stopping one from doing so. -- Ned Scott 23:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 13 Year Olds

message: I don't think anyone has suggested that there should be a welcome page into wikipedia so that all newly made account holders will know that it's not safe to divulge personal information, whatever that is. (This page, of course would also include information that would make it easier for new users.) Being a minor myself, I think that most of us who even bother to edit articles, etc (besides vandals) are of sufficient intellectual capacity to know what not to reveal. There are many more social networking and 'fun' sites out there for minors, and most would not use a a site like wikipedia except for homework. And yes, American law should not apply to a site like this. I don't think that's fair to the international users (myself included). Pardon me if I've misinterpreted or overlooked anything. (And of course, this pardon would be based on the fact that I'm quite a new user, not that I'm a minor and therefore have to be ignorant.) 
singlish_speaker (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion...

message: It would be useful to have a template welcome message for children that have put personal information on their user pages. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template welcome message? 

message: Since this page is now  basically a case-law piece from arbcom, can it be made an information page?--Ipatrol (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In it's new form, a new proposal. 

message: This may seem like a dumb question, but what the word "child" can have different connotations with regards to an age. Are we saying under 18? Under 16? 13 and under? 12 and under? Angryapathy (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see specifying a specific age as being all that detrimental. The page is basically meant to address behavior that exhibits immaturity characteristic of children, rather than to draw a bright line that prescribes a change in the treatment of an editor based solely on age. Equazcion (talk) 16:07, 4 Mar 2010 (UTC)

text: The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is arguably the most applicable law since the Wikipedia servers sit in the US.  COPPA sets a bright line at "under 13 years of age".  I believe Australian law also sets a bright line at 13.  I am not aware of an equivalent standard in the EU but their privacy laws are structured so differently that many of the COPPA considerations are moot.  Rossami (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Without wishing to reignite the debate about how relevant to Wikipedia the COPPA is or isn't, this is one of the big problems in this area - there is no agreement on exactly who we are trying to protect. Certainly in the UK, whether anyone between about 14 and 21 is a child or a (young) adult depends on many factors - not least what tabloid 'journalists' think will sell more papers. This is without getting into anything about how mature an individual is or the culture they come from, let alone trying to agree what it is we're trying to protect them from... Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How old is a child? 

message: What does "projecting a provocative persona" mean? Being argumentative? Picking fights? Calling for community de-sysop? Engaging in mass deletions of unreferenced BLPs? All of these are provacative. DuncanHill (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this was all taken from the arbcom wording (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children's_privacy). They seem to have meant "provocative" in its more colloquial definition of "sexually suggestive". Equazcion (talk) 16:27, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But what is it being used to mean in this essay? I doubt very much that Arbcom would be capable of knowing what it meant in a case nearly 4 years ago. DuncanHill (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to mean sexually provocative. In the arbcom wording, "provocative" is only used in conjunction with adults posing as children. I'm not sure how else an adult posing as a child would choose to be provocative, but I suppose it would still apply as disruption. Deliberate provocation is never a good thing.  Equazcion (talk) 16:53, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Projecting a provocative persona 

message: I think this shortcut may be inappropriate. It rather suggests that this is either a legal document or an interpretation of one. It's neither: it's user opinion. We should consider removing it an discouraging future use to refer here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is inappropriate - I'll nominate it at WP:RFD. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:COPPA]] link 

message: Why should anyone's privacy be violated? Why should any private information on anyone be here? Unless you're a public or historical figure, I dont see any reason for any information about you to be disclosed at all(and even that should non private information). That goes for children, adults ,seniors,parents,siblings,mothers,fathers, and every other type of person. Every person is entitled to privacy. Is this even an issue on wikipedia? Are people posting private information? I am new but that seems totally unexpected and out of place to me.(not to mention disrespectful if its someone elses information)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:8402:2D1F:85AC:9FCD:FAA:B61F (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why should protection be exclusive to children?