Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where we stand, a summary to date 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where we stand II: arguments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Responses (2)

message: 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)
thread_title: =Plea for discussion

message: 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)
thread_title:  FYI mediation 

message: 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:
#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.
#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.
#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.)
#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)
thread_title:  Moving on 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUSLY EXISTING COMMENTS 

message: 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:
#Statement of support as the proposal stands.
#Statment of support with suggestions, but still supporting if your suggested changes are not adopted.
#Statment of support if and only if change(s) XYZ are made, othewise opposed.
#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)
thread_title:  2: BRIEF STATEMENTS FROM EDITORS WHO HAVE PREVIOUSLY COMMENTED 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  New draft 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Foundation Issue 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: " 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The second proposal

message: 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  , 1993"... :-P 1ne 16:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting the 'born in 1993' category 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  please rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title: Reversion of my [[WP:BOLD|bold]] edit

message: 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:
#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.
#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:
*#Muddied the waters in such a way that probably prevented the support majority from being even larger, and
*#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Accepted? 

message: 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:
*#Muddied the waters in such a way that probably prevented the support majority from being even larger, and
*#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Summary

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Quorum? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia does not have a role to protect children's privacy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The exact scope of this proposal 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  not for us to decide