Forum:Age policy

Forums: Index > The World that Never was > Age policy

Yuan Salve! — 01:09, December 17, 2009 (UTC) "Days that I have held, days that I have lost / days that outgrow, like daughters, my harbouring arms" Hello everyone. Once again, Yuan appears out of nowhere to talk about policy. This issue has been discussed on the IRC, but the participants felt that we needed a wiki discussion before calling consensus. As you may be aware, Hexedmagica recently blocked two users with the justification that they are under the age of thirteen. The users are: ZACH (talk/contribs) Malevolence Crystalised (talk/contribs) This is in accordance to Wikia's rules: that children under the age of 13 are not allowed to register their names with the wiki. However, Hexedmagica did not block any others under that age until a discussion about it took place on the IRC. Additionally, it is known that he dislikes both users, and has taken op action against them before. Therefore, blocking some users for this reason, while ignoring others, seems like an act of prejudice. He has now unblocked the users, returning the situation to the status quo until a new consensus can be reached. Hexedmagica's behaviour does call our policy on this into question. Doing a little research, I discovered that, each Wikia being separate from each other, we are free to create our own age policy (or lack thereof). We are not obligated to block users under the age of 13. I stress that this is not a discussion about Hexed's actions, but of our age policy. We have a young userbase, with several users under the age limit. We cannot choose to block only some of them for breaking the age limit - thus, if we choose to enforce the age limit, we must block all of them, helpful contributors or not. The following options were considered: Enforce the age limit of 13 years old, and block all users under that. DoorToNothing's suggestion: We lower the age limit to 12, and block everyone under that. My suggestion: We remove the age limit, and block people based on their behaviour. Hexedmagica supports the first option. This is the policy held by Wikia and Freenode. "While you may use this Service without registering for membership, membership in the Service is void where prohibited by law, and is intended solely for users who are thirteen (13) years of age or older. Any registration by anyone under 13 is unauthorized, unlicensed and in violation of these Terms of Use. By registering the Service or the Site, you represent and warrant that you are 13 or older and that you agree to and to abide by all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement." . However, quoting Sannse: "...COPPA applies to Wikia and not to you, our users (including admins). That means that you are not responsible for enforcing any restrictions on those under 13, and don't need to block people who claim to be younger than this.". Now on to DoorToNothing's position on this. Like most of us, he has no wish to see helpful users under the age of thirteen blocked. However he has noted the following concerns: Users under the age of thirteen are likely to be more immature. They would do nothing but edit forums or vandalise. If we let them in, we would have to spend time educating and disciplining them. They have bad grammar and spelling, and are near incomprehensible. Hence, he suggests that we block anyone under the age of 12 from editing the wiki (and presumably the IRC as well). He feels that this is a fair solution, and anyone below that age is unfit for editing this wiki. I, however, believe the following: Restricting one's ability to edit on the basis of age is contrary to the spirit of a wiki: that anyone can edit one. Amongst our young users, there are also those who contribute constructively. (DoorToNothing's reply to this is that there are few of them.) Blocking young users would discourage them from joining the wiki at a later age. Any age limit would be arbitrary and solve little. We are well aware of users who can act maturely despite their youth, and users who display immature behaviour belying their relative seniority. Therefore, my position is that a user's age should not affect their editing rights: instead, we should judge them on the behaviour that they display. I see nothing wrong with allowing a mature, helpful twelve year old user edit the wiki. In contrast, if a fifteen year old user displayed immature behaviour, it would be swiftly recognised and they would be banned due to that. This would apply to all users, regardless of age. I feel that this would be the fairest option, but I also recognise DoorToNothing's misgivings about it. A few other users voiced concerns, including: Users may lie about their age, escaping detection and blocking. It would take effort to block all users under the age of 13. Vandals will take advantage of our lax policy. (My rebuttle to this is that vandals wouldn't care about our age policy either). We shouldn't be posting personal information anyway. We should follow Wikia's suggested policy. I apologise if I have mischaracterised anyone's views on this, and stand corrected if I have done so. Please add your opinion on the discussion, taking care to remain civil and on-topic. I also have the logs of the discussion, and will post them if requested. References

Discussion

BebopKate - This one is Zazzles...because he's Zazzy! TALK - Here's your cat...and here's your $20...01:47, December 17, 2009 (UTC) A complex issue involves a complex answer. I would like add a few points of my own. I know a lot of people (here and elsewhere) have been complaining about the maturity level of this wiki compared with others. I think we do have a lower average user age, and with good reason: all of the Kingdom Hearts games are rated E, and are primarily marketed to younger folks. By default then, it seems, we would attract younger users, although we do have a fair share of older teens and adults who enjoy the game. In addition, while a fair number of younger users have done nothing but cause issues, we do have a few in that age-group who are valuable wiki contributors; I don't think it's fair to drum them out just because they happened to fall short of something as arbitrary as age, because as we've also seen on many occasions, age and maturity don't always go hand-in-hand. And as others (via Yuan) has pointed out, there's not a lot we can do if someone chooses to lie about their age. I've already had one of our younger but dependable editors tell me he/she would rather wait until they came of age and rejoin the wiki than lie about it, and that's our loss in the end. Vandals are just going to be vandals; age is irrelevant. So, I guess my view is an age limit, however well-intentioned, is pretty useless. I think it's only an easy target for other wiki issues that are going on, many of which I think are due to just plain ignorance of how a wiki works. I've also got a topic of my own going that is (partially) related to all this; you guys might want to check out my rough draft and see what you think.

I have read the posts so far and have decided to share my opinion, however humble it might be. None of you at this point know who I am, but I have been monitoring this site and IRC very closely. The reason that I have done this is because my son is part of your group. He is part of the "under 13 group". I allow him to be a part of and participate in things online because I do monitor things closely. He has never lied about his age. It would have been really easy to do so. I don't know the true ages of everyone on here, but I have noticed that not everyone acts like they are in the "over 13" group. Sometimes, depending on what kind of day they are having, some barely make the "over 2 years old" group. You are right, age and maturity don't always go hand in hand and those who truly want to be on here are not going to be the ones that are causing trouble. Sometimes, being imperfect humans, everyone will have a bad day now and then and it might show on their postings. I know, by reading everything, that Door To Nothing has had some issues with the user Zach. I don't think that anything that took place was done with malicious intent. I think that anyone, regardless of age, that needs to be asked to straiten up and fly right should be. If they do not listen, then necessary measures should be taken. You are also correct in saying that not everyone is going to be truthful about their age and other things. Those that are honest in that, should be given credit for that honesty. For those of you who are the administrators and moderators of this group, you are doing an awesome job. Thanks. LopLady1

Neumannz — Come on, sweetheart. It doesn't have to be like this. We can be a couple again... TALK — ...Me and you... and the Ruby... and maybe not you... — 02:24, December 17, 2009 (UTC)   I don't suppose there'd be a way to place the younger new users on a probationary status until we can see the quality of their involvement on the wiki...? It seems to me the most important thing is user participation, the fact that younger users tend to be less responsible is unfortunate, but it happens. The fact is there is no great behavioral review system around here. The question is really whether we can monitor the quality of user editing better, or we have to be more selective about user registration. As LopLady1 remarks above, the former would be better, if possible.

JFHavoc Talk to Me! — I once took an IQ test and got a score of over 9000. You're all morons. — JFHavoc 02:54, December 17, 2009 (UTC) I don't think we should have an age restriction. I think if a 7 year-old kid can contribute with proper grammar and legit information then we should let him. Now, if he cannot and will not that would give us a legitimate reason to block him. I know a few people who would surpass the age restriction and still not be able to contribute appropriately and vice versa. SUMMARY: We shouldn't have an age restriction so much as a maturity restriction.