Geni, you (and others) seem to place a lot of stock in "parent responsibility":
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056095.html
Work with me for a moment here... if a parent takes her 9-year-old boy to the toy boutique, and the boy asks to stay outside on the sidewalk with the pantomime clown the store has hired to promote their business, and the mom says "okay", goes inside, then the boy wanders down the sidewalk a bit to look at the window display of toy trains, but is then abducted by a stranger, raped, mutilated, and dumped in the woods, that is the responsibility of the parent? The consequences are entirely her fault for leaving the kid alone with the clown? Nobody else holds any responsibility whatsoever in that event?
Are you saying that it's more important that the mime stay in character and not use either his own common sense or courtesy, or perhaps follow instructions or guidelines that have been conferred on him by either the store or his entertainment company employer to say, "Please don't leave your child unattended with me, ma'am. Liability, you know?"
What you seem to be saying is that the Wikimedia Foundation should expressly not apply any effort whatsoever to these sorts of liability and "worst case" assessments, because in the end, it's the parent's responsibility. I'm curious to know -- do you have any children of your own? If the above happened to your child, how would you feel if you later discovered that the mime's employer had actually had a conversation about whether mime's should offer verbal safety advice to parents who seem a bit lax in tending to their children, but the management expressly decided that "WP:MIMESWILLSTAYSILENT", and that it's the parent's responsibility if they leave their kid unattended with a clown? Do you think you or your lawyer might want to have a few words with the management of Clowns Incorporated, or is the higher principal of "free mime culture" more important than any considerations of safety, law, and common courtesy?
I wonder about the addled nature of thought here, if people think that the Foundation cannot and should not find within its means to even formulate some recommendations and guidelines to help steer the activities of children on Wikimedia projects, because that is something that parents alone should be doing on a case-by-case basis. Your response to Privatemusings could have been just as easily delivered with a big "F* you, get the f* off our mailing list".
Geni said that appropriate and adequate measures are in place on Foundation projects, but he/she provided no links. Does anyone have a link or two to provide us, the concerned parents whose kids are starting to use the Internet on their own?
Gregory Kohs
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 19:09, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, you (and others) seem to place a lot of stock in "parent responsibility":
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056095.html
Work with me for a moment here... if a parent takes her 9-year-old boy to the toy boutique, and the boy asks to stay outside on the sidewalk with the pantomime clown the store has hired to promote their business, and the mom says "okay", goes inside, then the boy wanders down the sidewalk a bit to look at the window display of toy trains, but is then abducted by a stranger, raped, mutilated, and dumped in the woods, that is the responsibility of the parent? The consequences are entirely her fault for leaving the kid alone with the clown? Nobody else holds any responsibility whatsoever in that event?
Are you saying that it's more important that the mime stay in character and not use either his own common sense or courtesy, or perhaps follow instructions or guidelines that have been conferred on him by either the store or his entertainment company employer to say, "Please don't leave your child unattended with me, ma'am. Liability, you know?"
A mime in this situation is there to attract children Wikipedia isn't. A better comparison would be the Disney website.
henna
Yeah, what Finne said. Thanks for the straw man, though.
FMF
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Finne Boonen hennar@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 19:09, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, you (and others) seem to place a lot of stock in "parent responsibility":
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056095.html
Work with me for a moment here... if a parent takes her 9-year-old boy to the toy boutique, and the boy asks to stay outside on the sidewalk with
the
pantomime clown the store has hired to promote their business, and the
mom
says "okay", goes inside, then the boy wanders down the sidewalk a bit to look at the window display of toy trains, but is then abducted by a stranger, raped, mutilated, and dumped in the woods, that is the responsibility of the parent? The consequences are entirely her fault
for
leaving the kid alone with the clown? Nobody else holds any
responsibility
whatsoever in that event?
Are you saying that it's more important that the mime stay in character
and
not use either his own common sense or courtesy, or perhaps follow instructions or guidelines that have been conferred on him by either the store or his entertainment company employer to say, "Please don't leave
your
child unattended with me, ma'am. Liability, you know?"
A mime in this situation is there to attract children Wikipedia isn't. A better comparison would be the Disney website.
henna
-- "Maybe you knew early on that your track went from point A to B, but unlike you I wasn't given a map at birth!" Alyssa, "Chasing Amy"
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
To Boonen & Moran:
Thank you for confirming your opinion that the Foundation cannot and should not find within its means to even formulate some recommendations and guidelines to help steer the activities of children on Wikimedia projects, because that is something that parents alone should be doing on a case-by-case basis.
I also thank you for not providing any links to anything that the Foundation has already outlined regarding appropriate and adequate measures that are supposedly "in place" on Foundation projects.
Thank you also for saying that Wikipedia is not there to attract children, so we can take what Jimmy Wales said in October 2005 ("Frankly, and let me be blunt, Wikipedia as a readable product is not for us. It's for them. It's for that girl in Africa...") and tell the little girl to go cry to her mommy.
Oh, and your consideration of the audience of the Disney website is not supported in fact:
http://www.quantcast.com/disney.com
Some 82% of the visitors to Disney.com are over the age of 18. And 56% do not have kids. But, don't let data get in the way of your opinion, if it's just easier to shoot down painfully clear arguments as "strawmen". (Is "strawman" the new "troll"?)
Gregory Kohs
Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for confirming your opinion that the Foundation cannot and should not find within its means to even formulate some recommendations and guidelines to help steer the activities of children on Wikimedia projects, because that is something that parents alone should be doing on a case-by-case basis.
Well, let's keep in mind what's really going on here is that a lot of Wikipedians are in fact rather young people - teenagers or recent teenagers - all of whom have to some degree a latent uncomfortable grievance against the coddling and growth-stunting mentalities often associated with "good parenting." But to be fair, some also seem to have some good ideas about how exactly to use the web - both as a means to help themselves and to help others.
So your point about this vague concept called "social responsibility," and how Wikipedia might need some of it, may be falling on some deaf ears - even if it is quite valid. Your straw man argument may not have helped much though, and probably violates some general rule (or "law"). Anyhow both sides seem here to be under some illusion that Wikipedia and its "freedoms" allow the manifestation of expressions that exceed common sense.
We still do employ common sense, though attempts to document those sensibilities as a principle have thus far been thwarted: There is always the fear that any new "principle" will be written in some unprincipled way - such as to either undermine the aberrations that people like, or to promote the principles that people don't.
And actually that self-fellatio image looks also like an OR violation.
-Stevertigo
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org