Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advice for parents


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep. There were problems at the start of this MfD about the "pedophile" comment, and many of the people wishing to delete this were concerned about this statement. Given it's been removed, there is now an overwhelming consensus to keep the page in it's current form.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  02:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Advice for parents
Absolutely not. We're a haven for pedophiles, but it's okay because the pedophiles are hush-hush about it? Really? This page is an embarrassment to the project and shouldn't be read by anyone, much less by the general public. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As a solution seeking a problem, and as some parts of it violate policies, like the idea that we don't attempt to protect children's privacy when possible.  MBisanz  talk 06:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please quote the bit that violates policies? Andjam (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia does not engage in a "Working with children" check on editors, and being a pedophile has not yet been grounds for expulsion from the Wikipedia community.", see Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children%27s_privacy and Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children%27s_privacy.  MBisanz  talk 14:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I took that bit out, MB - and wouldn't that be a content issue? - see what you think of the current version... Privatemusings (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I still strongly disagree with a page that will confuse/narrow an individuals reading of Legal disclaimer.  MBisanz  talk 06:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * well that's fair enough - but is there really no way to offer straight forward advice to parents without conflicting with that important page? I'd hope there was! Doesn't this conversation have a bit of a flavour of a content discussion too - rather than a deletion one? Hopefully if the page gets kept you'll be up for keeping an eye, and offering further thoughts... Privatemusings (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (though the more people take a look at this the better, even if through this rather unorthodox channel!) - I created this page having had very similar conversations with 7 or 8 friends recently, and I think it's necessary, and a good idea. I don't think there needs to be any mention of 'pedophiles' necessarily however, but that's a content issue, best chatted about at the talk page. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This sort of page has the potential to cause quite a bit of harm to the project.  krimpet ✽  06:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, Krimpet - but I think that's a call for lots of eyes on the page, and good monitoring - because I think the benefits are significant too. There are other 'advice' pages out there, for various reasons, and I'd have to say that the abscence of open, transparent, good advice can also cause harm. Does that change your mind at all? I hope so - but it not, could you also explain the policy basis for your 'delete' rationale? - I'm not understanding it from anyone yet.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I think it's kind of dumb (it's a page for stupid parents), but I certainly don't see any harm in it. The pedo comment was easily taken out, and I'm not sure if that was the main aim of the page (to warn about pedophiles). Here's an idea, turn this into some kind of "proposal", throw it up on WP:RFC, and see where it goes. -- Ned Scott 07:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My thought for the purpose of the page was as an introduction to our existing policies, guidelines, and essays that would be relevant to parents whose children have started editing Wikipedia. The idea being that this page can discuss the relevant pages or sections in the parent's context, giving a single location we can point people to if they ask.  There are a few suggestions for such pages at the talk page already.  Probably it should be moved to the Help: namespace after it's gotten to this state.  If it's just consolidating existing pages then it should be OK. -- tiny plastic Grey Knight   &#x2296;  08:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename and substantially improve I would rename it "advice for children and parents", and make another called Advice for educators or maybe Childrens' orientation, Parents' orientation and How to use Wikipedia in school, but I think it is a worthwhile initiative under some title. Its current content is poor, but pages orienting children, their parents, and their teachers have value. There is a constant drumbeat coming from the schools regarding, "Don't use Wikipedia" even this from the Scottish Parent Teacher Council which fail to understand how to use Wikipedia as an educational tool and resource. Fred Talk 11:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete When have we made children's privacy a priority? And I don't like the 'pedo comment even in the history. Delete!  M w w 1 1 3    (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it's actually a very good idea to give parents some guidance and to set appropriate expectations.  The Internet has become a major research tool for kids and will only become more so.  Our role in this will increase as well.  Wikipedia is a bit of a unique thing in terms of research tools:  It isn't "finished", it isn't censored, it isn't static, and is intended to compile information from other sources, rather than being a source itself.  We all know this, but our readers might not.   Warren -talk- 12:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It looks like some of the objectionable content has been removed (which is normal), and otherwise I'm not sure of the basis on which this should be deleted. Its unclear if its an essay or a proposed policy/guideline - but neither are typically deleted this way. If you don't approve of the content, edit the page. If it doesn't get consensus over time mark it as rejected or a user essay (and userfy it). Avruch 12:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Very relevant, and it has been properly cleaned up during the course of the MfD. I don't see what policy this violates in its current iteration. A significant number of our editors are young enough that parents may be looking for this sort of information, which is commonplace on many sites with open access. Our encyclopedia exists primarily for education, and children and youth are a big part of our target audience. Risker (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is a very useful page, the kind of information that parents will look for (and certainly not just the "stupid parents"). But if it's not acceptable for Wikipedia namespace, please keep it as a personal essay.  Deli nk (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Parents are not one unanimous block. Each parent sets different boundaries for their child and it should be up to them to patrol their kids. Furthermore, each society has strongly differing ideas about whether or not children should be educated about certain subjects (such as sex), and the extent to which they are taught. There is no template for what is right for a child and what is not; and it is none of Wikipedia's business to draw up a general template or give any advice to parents. We already have pages that describe our policy regarding 'censorship and children'. I fear that if we give ourselves this role, we will be responsible for any parents' upset. We are not here to play nannies or to police Wikipedia for the sake of children; and we have no role to play in advising parents. Some people like to tell their kids that sex doesn't exist, others think this is an unhealthy way of bringing up a child... --Oldak Quill 14:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your comment is close to what is written on the page. It is not supposed to tell the parent how to raise their child, or what they should let the child do on Wikipedia; it's just discussing Wikipedia's existing rules, features, and operation in the context of the question "My child wants to edit Wikipedia.  What's Wikipedia?".  Sort of like a specific application of About, a potted essay for a common situation.  Definitely should not be a policy, I think User:Privatemusings' earlier suggestion about that was based on a misunderstanding of what our policies are for, which seems to be sorted out now.  Agree with User:OldakQuill that a neutral global tone is required, and we can't take over the parents' responsibility (as discussed on the current version of the page). -- tiny plastic Grey Knight   &#x2296;  15:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the above reasons, especially the liability incurred by the ill-advised privacy and pedophilia statements ➥the Epopt (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve - We should help people with using us properly. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - It is a proposal, or at least an essay. While I understand that some people may find some of the details objectionable, there remains a big difference between accepting proposals as policy and suppressing discussion of those proposals. Eclecticology (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per liability concerns and the fact that it's not Wikipedia's job to give advice to parents on how to supervise their children. Kaldari (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy. I don't think it is a good idea for Wikipedia to express some sort of official stance on this, as it being in the Wikipedia-space implies.  As per above, many parents have different values and it is not Wikipedia's place to be giving "advice" to parents. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Warren, Avruch and others. Advice on using the project is good.  6SJ7 (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I have some sympathy for Fred's proposal, I think all that is needed is to improve this. If there is anything offensive in the history, it is no big deal to delete that. This can be useful information and advice to parents. I am rather glad my kids are now old enough to make up their own mind (over 25)! --Bduke (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Current version is ok if a bit po-faced. Spartaz Humbug! 22:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I have never been a big fan of the project giving out advice such as this. This has the potential of bringing harm to the project.  Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment NonvocalScream, could you expand a bit on what sort of harm you're concerned about?  Warren -talk- 13:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to put words in his mouth, but I believe he's referring to what would happen if the page gave instructional advice ("This is how to raise your child..."). In some situations, inappropriate instructional advice could make us liable (maybe not in this case, but anyway we still want to avoid that).  The advice should be informational, pointing to existing policies/guidelines and summarising them for a busy parent to read.  Probably this should be clarified somewhere... -- tiny plastic Grey Knight   &#x2296;  13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I might have said institutional advice, but instructional conveys me just as well. I don't want to see our project open up exposure for this sort of advice, or any real consequences type advice.  Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I may be being thick, but I fail to see what harm this article can do. I needs to be agreed and then perhaps protected, but what is the problem with that?--Bduke (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep we have FAQ/Schools and FAQ/Business, why not FAQ/Parents? Jon513 (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.