Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Evidence presented by Radiant

First, let me thank Radiant for writing briefly, concisely, and succinctly. I can only hope to emulate that. About the Moral Angle point, note that the proposal isn't for us to go out, find out who is a child, and protect them. It is only for the Wikipedia not to be the way that children expose their personal information. So if they lie about or merely don't write their age, that's equally good enough as not writing their personal info. We're not here to solve all the problems of the world, we're just here not to add to them. About the Existing Practice point, all guidelines or policies on behaviour have "... or you will be blocked" either explicitly stated or implied, otherwise there is no point to them. Neither support nor objections to the Legal Angle point - I don't claim to understand the fine points of what the law says, but that doesn't give me the right to claim that someone else doesn't either, maybe they do. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two more cases (Identifying information and 'adult' Reference Desk discussion)

I have come across two more cases involving children, but I don't quite know where to put them, or whether they are strictly relevant to this case, but I thought it would be helpful to raise them here anyway:

• 10-year-old with detailed information on user page (WP:AN thread)
  • • This particular user seems quite mature. I'm not sure there is any particular problem presented. Fred Bauder 14:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry. I wasn't clear. I was referring to the way the case was handled, with someone taking on themselves to remove 'identifying information' (from what I remember, it was the name of a school, so not completely identifying, but still not something that should be advertised). However, they still left the information in the page history, and drew attention to the matter by announcing this on a noticeboard that anyone can read (not just admins). Think of it as an example of how a volunteer workforce won't always implement things the correct way, so any policy would fall flat on its face with people getting things wrong, and probably quite often. The problem was eventually corrected, but only several days later. From the time stamp, I'm hoping you are looking at the case below as well, as that in some ways concerns me more. A child wandered into the middle of an 'adult' conversation (which probably should have been stomped on hard, anyway), but the adults probably weren't even aware the child was there. Carcharoth 14:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Which is why we need a policy, not just a catch as catch can response. Fred Bauder 14:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Also discussed here (also at WP:AN)
• 'Adult' Reference Desk discussion (now archived). Note that the original question could be from a troll, and that one of the respondants giving advice is a self-identified child (12 years old).
  • • Again, the "child" makes one of the more mature comments. Fred Bauder 14:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Possibly. Though the part of the comment where the child said they thought this was "disgusting" did betray a lack of objectivity mixed in with what looked like sex-education-type advice (typified by the "Sex is not recommended unless it is safe" part of the comment). The comment also failed to tell the full story, which is typical of sex education. The real point is that Wikipedia Reference Desk editors (adults or children) should not be dispensing sex advice based either on personal experience or sex education lessons. Carcharoth 14:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Discussed at WP:AN here.
• Further thought on all this, and some cogent thoughts by User:John Reid are here (linked with permission).

Could those discussing this case consider what should have been done in these cases, or what should be done in the future in such cases? Carcharoth 20:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)