On 11 Jun 2006 at 23:17, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
We should be identifying and booting all underage editors (admin status is irrelevant, from legal pov) until their parents have been informed of the risks and give permission.
How, exactly, do you plan on enforcing this on a site that allows anonymous and pseudonymous editing?
On 6/12/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
How, exactly, do you plan on enforcing this on a site that allows anonymous and pseudonymous editing?
Currently, we apparently *allow* underage editing. We could begin by stating that it's not allowed, and asking people to certify that they are of age. If kids choose to lie, that then becomes their problem.
Just because rules can be circumvented doesn't make them useless.
Steve
What harm to us follows from a 13 year old administrator? Sometimes someone tries to claim they were unfairly censored, "And by a 13 year old". All that means is that even a 13 year old can see through their game. I suppose there are questions of legal liability and copyright. Generally I have been impressed by our teenagers (at least the ones that don't add "poop" to articles).
Fred
On Jun 12, 2006, at 8:22 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/12/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
How, exactly, do you plan on enforcing this on a site that allows anonymous and pseudonymous editing?
Currently, we apparently *allow* underage editing. We could begin by stating that it's not allowed, and asking people to certify that they are of age. If kids choose to lie, that then becomes their problem.
Just because rules can be circumvented doesn't make them useless.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
What harm to us follows from a 13 year old administrator? Sometimes someone tries to claim they were unfairly censored, "And by a 13 year old". All that means is that even a 13 year old can see through their game. I suppose there are questions of legal liability and copyright. Generally I have been impressed by our teenagers (at least the ones that don't add "poop" to articles).
It would suck if half of a featured article was not actually GFDL and thus not legally redistributable. Presumably even teenagers own the copyrights to what they produce, but I imagine that the parents would have effective control during minority, and so at least in theory they could claim copyright violation and ask for removal of all their child's edits. Could be a huge headache if it was one of our more productive teen editors...
Stan
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/12/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
How, exactly, do you plan on enforcing this on a site that allows anonymous and pseudonymous editing?
Currently, we apparently *allow* underage editing. We could begin by stating that it's not allowed, and asking people to certify that they are of age. If kids choose to lie, that then becomes their problem.
Just because rules can be circumvented doesn't make them useless.
Steve
Of course, the problem that arises is underaged people like me can't stick this on our university applications as an extra-curricular activity. Not a major disincentive, but I'd certainly be slightly less inclined to contribute if I knew putting "Wikipedia editor, administrator, mailing list moderator, IRC sysop, OTRS-user and Arbitration Committee Clerk" on my [[curriculum vitae]] would raise more negative questions about me than it answered. Maybe it would be a better idea to only allow minors to edit with parental permission. Again, though, we'd lose some editors, and we'd have to present this same screen to every anon editor. Sigh...
John
On 6/12/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
idea to only allow minors to edit with parental permission. Again, though, we'd lose some editors, and we'd have to present this same screen to every anon editor. Sigh...
Is it such an issue with anons?
Steve
On 6/12/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
idea to only allow minors to edit with parental permission. Again, though, we'd lose some editors, and we'd have to present this same screen to every anon editor. Sigh...
Is it such an issue with anons?
Steve
Why wouldn't it be? They would have to release their writings under the GFDL too, just like regular people (remember, that's a condition of the GFDL, that all derivate works, ie every edit on wikipedia that was based on an earlier edit, are under the GFDL too).
--Oskar
On 6/12/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
idea to only allow minors to edit with parental permission. Again, though, we'd lose some editors, and we'd have to present this same screen to every anon editor. Sigh...
Is it such an issue with anons?
Steve
Why wouldn't it be? They would have to release their writings under the GFDL too, just like regular people (remember, that's a condition of the GFDL, that all derivate works, ie every edit on wikipedia that was based on an earlier edit, are under the GFDL too).
--Oskar
The reality of the situation is that Wikipedia relies on trust as much as (if not more than) it relies on law. Sure, a minor could contribute to Wikipedia and then back out of the license. Depending how much they contributed, it could wreak a lot of havoc for a lot of people.
Stopping minors from contributing unless they first get parental permission would probably wreak even more havoc for even more people, though.
Anthony
Just a note: Just browsed through the shit-swamp that is Wikipedia Review and Daniel Brandt has just found another thing to complain about: Us equating his threats with terrorist demands. Oh yeah, and he's not even happy that you guys are considering deleting his article. He's not happy at all. He's moaning that you didn't debate the "ethics" of having an article on him and are just doing it to get rid of him. Sad.
On 6/12/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/12/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
idea to only allow minors to edit with parental permission. Again, though, we'd lose some editors, and we'd have to present this same screen to every anon editor. Sigh...
Is it such an issue with anons?
Steve
Why wouldn't it be? They would have to release their writings under the GFDL too, just like regular people (remember, that's a condition of the GFDL, that all derivate works, ie every edit on wikipedia that was based on an earlier edit, are under the GFDL too).
--Oskar
The reality of the situation is that Wikipedia relies on trust as much as (if not more than) it relies on law. Sure, a minor could contribute to Wikipedia and then back out of the license. Depending how much they contributed, it could wreak a lot of havoc for a lot of people.
Stopping minors from contributing unless they first get parental permission would probably wreak even more havoc for even more people, though.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/12/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
Just a note: Just browsed through the shit-swamp that is Wikipedia Review and Daniel Brandt has just found another thing to complain about: Us equating his threats with terrorist demands. Oh yeah, and he's not even happy that you guys are considering deleting his article. He's not happy at all. He's moaning that you didn't debate the "ethics" of having an article on him and are just doing it to get rid of him. Sad.
As if we needed any more evidence that he just wants to whine and try and make a name for himself.
-Matt
On 6/13/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
Just a note: Just browsed through the shit-swamp that is Wikipedia Review and Daniel Brandt has just found another thing to complain about: Us equating his threats with terrorist demands. Oh yeah, and he's not even happy that you guys are considering deleting his article. He's not happy at all. He's moaning that you didn't debate the "ethics" of having an article on him and are just doing it to get rid of him. Sad.
I think it's about time someone did this:
HI DANIEL!!!!
Steve
I'm afraid he is a notable figure. We should not have some kind of hatchet job on him, but someone who has engaged in all the public activity he has is certain deserving of a Wikipedia article. Of course, he is not a terrorist in the sense Timothy McVeigh was; he is just a critic. He makes a point now and then, but from the perspective of users whose privacy is at risk he is more of a destructive vandal. His point about anonymous people wielding power has some traction, but I notice that folks who edit under their own name receive more or less the same treatment as people who use pseudonyms.
Fred
On Jun 12, 2006, at 11:45 PM, mboverload wrote:
Just a note: Just browsed through the shit-swamp that is Wikipedia Review and Daniel Brandt has just found another thing to complain about: Us equating his threats with terrorist demands. Oh yeah, and he's not even happy that you guys are considering deleting his article. He's not happy at all. He's moaning that you didn't debate the "ethics" of having an article on him and are just doing it to get rid of him. Sad.
On 6/13/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I'm afraid he is a notable figure. We should not have some kind of hatchet job on him, but someone who has engaged in all the public activity he has is certain deserving of a Wikipedia article. Of course, he is not a terrorist in the sense Timothy McVeigh was; he is just a critic. He makes a point now and then, but from the perspective of users whose privacy is at risk he is more of a destructive vandal. His point about anonymous people wielding power has some traction, but I notice that folks who edit under their own name receive more or less the same treatment as people who use pseudonyms.
Er, apart from having been a bit of a prune with respect to a certain, well-known encyclopaedia site, what has he done that is notable? How is he different to any other public nuisance? Has he featured in any print newspaper articles? Surely we don't have articles on anyone who has ever stalked anyone?
Steve
On 6/13/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Er, apart from having been a bit of a prune with respect to a certain, well-known encyclopaedia site, what has he done that is notable? How is he different to any other public nuisance? Has he featured in any print newspaper articles?
[[Daniel_Brandt#References]]