Wikipedia talk:Youth protection

Creation of this proposed policy
I have created this as a new proposal for several reasons. I believe that with all of the convoluted discussions, questionable conduct and ongoing arbitration at Protecting children's privacy and its talk page, a "fresh start" was appropriate. Additionally, there are so many differences between that proposal and this one, that I believe it is a different policy. Admittedly, the ultimate consequences and enforcement mechanism are essentially the same; however, the justifications are substantially different. A number of those who had reservations about the other policy were opposed to the extensive discussion of COPPA and legal concerns to justify the policy. This proposal eliminates all of that, simply referring to COPPA as one source of the age level that has been selected. (If desired, the COPPA reference could be eliminated entirely.) I have also added another topic relevant to "youth protection," which is the need for parents and children to be aware of "content issues" on Wikipedia and the lack of any policies preventing the inclusion of offensive images and text in the encyclopedia. 6SJ7 22:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but i really can't see how this is much of an improvement over the last one. It is still addressing the same so-called "problem" and using the same methods. It's still applying to the same people against doing the same things with the same consenquences. And i can see it will still have the same problems as WP:CHILD. --`/aksha 02:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there actually a "problem?" X ['Mac Davis '] (DESK |How's my driving? ) 22:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, this one is WORSE. Emailing other users is not just some trivial thing we can block for people of certain ages. It's important. -Amarkov babble 15:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A "fresh start"? I must truely ask how this is a fresh start, if it is essentially the same proposal as WP:CHILD. Giving it a paint job, changing a few sentences and the name does not equal a fresh start in my opinion. CharonX /talk 02:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The disclosure of personal information...
"The disclosure of personal information regarding users who are (or may be) under the age of 13 is being prohibited for moral and ethical reasons, to protect children."

What is this? Wikipedia policy is meant to provide rules to build a good encyclopedia. It's not to enforce moral or ethical standards. -Amarkov babble 18:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly, i'm not here to help provde a free aferschool care for bored kids needing to be entertained. Besides, if parents decide they'll let their child (under 13) roam the internet without supervision, then it's really not our responsibility, morally, ethically or otherwise. It's not like we're targetting children or asking for information. --`/aksha 12:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Wikipedia is much of an internet predator breeding ground. Why would ten year olds give away that much personal information anyway? How many users under the age of 13 do we estimate are on the Wikipedia? X ['Mac Davis '] (DESK |How's my driving? ) 22:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine it would have more to do with COPPA. Clovermoss (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Policy tests
IMHO the key tests for any proposed policy are: (1) The problem (a) actually exists (i.e. it is not just hypothetical) and (b) is actually a problem. (2) The proposal will solve that problem. (3) Adopting the proposal as policy will not create more/bigger problems than it solves, or harm Wikipedia in any other way. I oppose this proposal because it fails these tests. Specifically: In other words, it suffers from exactly the same problems as WP:CHILD. If anything is needed, it is just a very simple guideline that discourages people from posting personally identifying information, regardless of their age. Thryduulf 23:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) It does not show that there is actually a problem that needs solving.
 * 2) Assuming the problem does actually exist, this proposal will neither solve nor prevent it.
 * 3) Far from benefiting Wikipedia, with all the policing required and its associated problems of being devisive, alienation of users, age discrimination, etc it will harm Wikipedia.
 * Seconded. ( Radiant ) 09:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge back
I think that given the reactions to this proposal on its talk page, it's probably best to merge and redirect it back to WP:CHILD and let discussion run there as in a central spot. ( Radiant ) 10:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I object and have reverted the "merge" which was not really a merge, it was a blanking of this page. It isn't hurting anyone sitting here, and provides information for readers of the Arb workshop page, which refers to it.  6SJ7 16:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a merge, but all the content on this page was already on the target page. ( Radiant ) 11:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

New merge tags
I see that merge tags have been placed on WP:YOUTH, WP:CHILD and WP:PRIV, but there is no indication in the tags of the direction that the merges would run or what information, if any, would be deleted from any of the pages, or on whether the resulting page(s) would end up being tagged as guideline, essay, policy, etc. Additionally, the "discuss" links all point back to the talk page for that page, which would potentially result in a discussion of the proposed merge (or merges) in three different places. Can we have a discussion in one location? (For now I am putting this comment on all three pages, but if a single page is designated for discussion and the links in the tags are changed, I wouldn't mind this comment being removed from the other pages.) And can we have some details of what exactly is being proposed? Once we have that settled, I will have some comments and possibly counter-proposals. I do think that, at the very least, some material should be added to WP:PRIV that is currently on one or both of the other two pages. 6SJ7 19:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy for further discussion.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Status of this page
This page is simply a fork of WP:CHILD, started as a "policy page" in its first edit. Like CHILD, and for the exact same reasons, this is a rejected policy proposal.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there are several aspects of this proposal that seem quite onerous, even more so than CHILD. If implemented, I believe this proposal would cause more disruption than it would prevent. Kaldari 20:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have requested comments at Village pump (policy). CMummert · talk 01:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This doesn't need to be either a policy or a guideline, because it has no implementation per se. It's simply advice. It's pretty good advice, in my opinion, but it ought to stand as an essay and ought to be relabeled as such. Mangoe 01:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You should centralized discussion at the village pump. Looking at the page history, this was started as a proposed policy, not as an essay. So it is appropriate to have some sort of tag saying that it did not develop consensus as a proposal. Maybe an essay tag along with a messagebox saying  "When a previous version of this essay was proposed as policy, it did not acheive broad consensus."  CMummert · talk 02:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no objection with people calling it an essay, but I do object to hiding the fact that it's a rejected proposal.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to status stuff
I really don't see any reason to change the categorization/headers of this. I can see the possibility of rewording the "rejected" box a bit, but covering up obscuring the fact that the policy version of this was rejected is just no good. Mangoe 21:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Covering up"? So much for WP:AGF, I guess.  6SJ7 21:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (Following change to Mangoe's comment) Well, if nothing else, you've put a little humor into my day.  6SJ7 22:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, SJ tries something like that every month. I'm sure we should keep assuming good faith on people who try to obscure the facts.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure of location
If publicly disclosing your own location is bad, shouldn't User coord be nominated for deletion? WT79 (Speak to me &#124; account info) 12:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)