User talk:Fetchcomms/Children and Wikipedia

Good!

I like the efforts made here. I remember once encountering a 14 yo admin who was actually very competent and doing a good job, but I was still rather surprised. For legal reasons 18 is probably a good age, but for ordinary editing 16 might be better. It all depends on the situation. Whatever the case, children need protection from the openness of Wikipedia and Wikipedia often needs to be protected from them. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I also like it, it's a nice essay. Speaking as a minor, it's good to see some coverage of an area of Wikipedia that I think is under-covered. The factoids at the bottom are especially interesting - a seven year old editor? Wow. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, feedback and I'm not even done :D /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, it was by sheer chance that I saw the essay, too. I randomly clicked on the recent changes list, and this essay was the very first thing on the list. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, looks so professional, very well done! -- œ^™ 03:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Lack of headings and accessibility

I know that a lot have work has been put into the design of this essay, but it is not very easy to navigate for users of modern screen readers like myself. I usually navigate between headings with a single keystroke (i.e. h to go to the next heading and shift-h" to go to the previous one, but that method can't be used here. The fact that the only heading on the whole page is entitled "Why have my corrections been removed?" initially threw me for a loop ... and lack of a header on either the tagline or the table of contents made it even more confusing for me!

BTW, I agree with many of the points of this essay, as a former child editor. I never cared much about the social side of Wikipedia (and still don't!), so I find the behaviour of some of the younger editors to be quite frustrating to say the least. Graham87 09:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I was going to make a plain text version, too, but forgot. I'll try to add a link to it soon. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be better to use templates for this purpose, somehow? If a separate text version is created, it might go out of sync with the original one. Graham87 13:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll look into that. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the headings. Graham87 02:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Clunky sentence

I think this sentence sounds clunky: Some perceive the presence of child writers as another factor toward Wikipedia's unreliability." I know what it's trying to say, but I can't think of a good way to reword it; changing "toward" to "of" makes it sound a bit better, but slightly changes the meaning of the sentence. Graham87 09:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I need to add

a section about how kids endanger themselves with their naivete. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 06:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A more neutral way to write that would be to talk about how kids' naivete can endanger them. Which is saying the same thing, of course, but with a different emphasis. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes more sense. I was really tired when I wrote the above. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Also need to add something about faking maturity (overly formal tone, excessive semicolon usage?) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That often manifests itself as unusually long and unwieldy sentences. (This often persists even when the people concerned are technically no longer minors.)

Someone recently noted that, at AN/I, most people seem to "concur" rather than "agree". I'm not sure what proportion of AN/I participants are under 25, though, and whether that has anything to do with it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Also need to add some bit about lying (puerile thing to do), lack of self control, and unwillingness to communicate or just confront the underlying issue(s). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Query

Re the sentence "The blocking policy does not specifically mention children many times:" was that meant to be "The blocking policy does not specifically mention children, other than that "actions that may compromise the safety of children" merit a block." ϢereSpielChequers 21:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that the word children is not used in the blocking policy other than that section. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

OK I would suggest that would be clearer as "as of Feb 2011, the blocking policy only specifically mentions children once, in the section saying that "actions that may compromise the safety of children" merit a block." ϢereSpielChequers 11:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

My point of view

Dear Fetchcomms,

I just wanted to say that you're doing an outstanding job with putting together the Children and Wikipedia article. I sat down and read it independently the other day. Some of the stuff you wrote, you were probably referring to me, but that's fine, at least you were making a good point. However, with the first age group, I think it needs just a small adjustment. Why not try ages (6-11)?, I mean, I don't think any five year old's know how to work Wikipedia or how to even work an internet browser (they can't really read yet), so there is no way they can possibly edit anyways. I didn't know how to use the internet very well until the age of seven. I barely knew what Wikipedia was, and I doubt that Wikipedia was very popular when I was seven. I discovered Wikipedia at the age of ten, but I never registered to become a user because I thought Wikipedia was too boring and I couldn't understand it very well. I didn't start tampering with Wikipedia until the age of eleven/twelve, I used to vandalize Wikipedia while at school but never thought to create an account. When I registered back in August 2008, I didn't know what I was getting myself into. When I look at my edits I made back when I was completely new, I'm like ... What the heck is this, and what was the point of me doing it?. As I have been growing into a mature young man, I'm getting a better understanding of Wikipedia and what were here for. And you were right about the age group (12-14), generally middle school students, When I listen to twelve/thirteen-year-olds, I think to myself What would it be like if he/she were to edit Wikipedia?. In my mind, I'm like He/she is using an immature voice of words, I think they'd mess Wikipedia up. But it's not only because of the immature voice of words, it's because of their ATTITUDE they have. For example: If you talk bad about someone at a middle school, you best believe that it's going to be a fight when it's transitioning time. Imagine Wikipedia, if an IP user insults them, they'd probably insult them back like: B***, talk sh*t one more time and im gonna f*ck you up. An act of immaturity. Instead of using comebacks, they could have probably ignored them, or at least reported them to WQA. You were also right about the age group (15-18), generally high school students, I think they would be the ones who could handle Wikipedia without issues because they are mature enough. I'm not referring to all high school students, because we tend to have some teenagers that act like complete idiots. Anyways, I just thought you would like to hear my point of view on Children & Wikipedia. Thanks, - Dwayne was here! ♫ 00:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Alt point of view

I'm uncomfortable with this essay. If the Internet had been invented much earlier and Wikipedia had been around when I was an adolescent I hope that I would have found it then. One of the things that I like about Wikipedia is many different perspectives that our diverse editors bring to discussions. In a work environment you rarely get a even a forty year gap between participants in a discussion - here we have adolescents and old age pensioners collaborating often neither knowing nor caring what the others age is.

One problem with the essay is that people vary enormously. The proportion of people who edit Wikipedia is tiny compared to the general population, and kids who edit Wikipedia are rare kids, many of whom are exceptionally intelligent and/or mature. Treating them as a "net negative" or bundling them in with the other kids who do the juvenile vandalism is as unfair as it is impractical. Another big problem with any attempt to restrict a particular age group from editing is that we can't actually do so even if we wanted to. Or rather the only fairly effective way to exclude younger editors would be to require a joining fee paid by credit card, and that would lose us way too much of our ethos and editorship. Better in my view to take cognisance of the research that says 24% of us are under 18, and concentrate on things that address real specific problems, age related or otherwise and that give guidance about them. ϢereSpielChequers 10:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no, I'm not supporting a ban on all children from editing; I'm totally in favor of child editors. I was simply hoping this essay would highlight some common issues with the group of non-clueful children that also tries to act like their more mature counterparts but only causes issues. I just noticed that a child editor was recently blocked for such ridiculous behavior, something I tried to help him/her with but could not. In this case, I hoped a block could have come sooner as it was obvious he/she was not emotionally ready/mature enough to be a full-time editor, and that concentrating on real life would have been much more beneficial. So, to return to your original concern, I am definitely not opposed to child editors, but we need to recognize which children are going down the wrong path, try to lead them to the right path, and apply blocks/mentoring/etc. when it would help both the project and the user him-/herself. We simply are, I fear, too lenient at times, and I hoped this essay would point out some common symptoms of behavior that we should watch out for, and take early action to avoid wasting others' time in the future. I have found it extremely simple to look at a child editor's edits and decide whether a) user is competent and a good editor; or b) user just doesn't understand that he/she is being a distraction and not really contributing anything, and a block will probably occur sometime in the near future. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A comment

Hey fetchcomms. We aren't all that bad. I think I made a few IP edits from school, reversing vandalism in articles, when I was 13-15 and didn't make my account till I was 16. I would be finishing an article (straight edge) and working with my mentees right now if it wasn't for this 12 page paper, 6 pages singe spaced, I am writing for my college class. I am on my other account because I can avoid my watchlist and the urge to burn up any more time then I do naturally.

I have disclosed by birth date for a bit now because I believe that It allows for transparency. I feel that at times Its best that people know that I am a minor then run the chance of them thinking otherwise. I should cheers --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 21:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're one of the more "successful", sensible, clueful, etc. Wikipedians who is still a minor. I don't have any problem with you or users like you. I do, however, take issue with child editors who don't make an attempt to act like a reasonably mature person, and only end up wasting others' time trying to deal with his/her antics. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Target group

I was very impressed with this essay when I first cam across it several months ago, and I'm still impressed. I think it's a very important essay that says all the things that ought to be said, and should become a Wikipedia essay as soon as possible. I'm also remarkably impressed with the feedback from the young people here. My good friend WSC, who I believe to be quite a bit older, also makes some valid points. I'm quite old too by the standards of the 24% of editors, but I don't mind admitting that I'm well into my sixties. The one advantage I may have over many editors of my age group is that I have worked very closely with children all my professional life as a counselor, teacher, teacher trainer, and author of books for people of school age. My main concern with this essay, is that those who have reviewed it may be ignoring what Fetchcomm's target group is. There is no harm in it being read by minors who have a level of maturity beyond their years, especially those who expect to become admins. However, its style is beyond the grasp of the cognitive level of the average 7 to 16 year old. It aims well at parents, and at adults who are admins or who are preparing themselves for an adminship role. It's layout is brilliant, and if the screen reader problems could be overcome, I feel that a great many of our essays and advice pages would be more attractive, and be more read and better understood if the pages had more visual appeal.

By contrast, after talks with User talk:Newyorkbrad (also somewhat older), I have recently recast his Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors in an attempt to broadly address a 10 - 14 age group. I would welcome some feedback on it from our younger editors, and I would love to drop it into a style sheet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I know this wasn't the thrust of your message, but the screen reader problems have mostly been overcome by the addition of headings, so I wouldn't object to the layout being more widely used. I would slightly prefer it if the TOC behaved more like a normal one (with the use of HTML lists and a heading for the table of contents), but that's not such a big deal. Graham87 02:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The essay is a most refereshing break from our traditional walls of text for advice, guidelines; and policies. I think if layout ideas like these were to be implemented more often, we would be seeing the rules respected more often - particularly by that 24% ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

For anyone else interested in using alternative essay designs, please do not use the one that was on this essay; see this. I will probably do something to this essay later to make it a little less like walls of text, but I won't have the time to do a big fancy design (nor do I really want to, as it would be very messy and not as accessible as I'd like). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

TOC wibbles

Could another character besides "»" be used as a substitute for the bullets in the TOC? Screen readers will say the character "»" as "right double angle bracket", which is quite a mouthful. My personal preference would be to use a semantic HTML list; if this is not possible, I would prefer the characters "•" (which is spoken as "bullet") or "·" (which is spoken as "dot".

Also, the topics mentioned in the TOC do not line up with the headings, and this will be a bit weird for a screen reader user. For example, the TOC doesn't mention the headings about discussing the page or the related reading heading, and the "notes" section doesn't contain a heading at all. Graham87 03:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: the notes section, I've now noticed that it's an invisible level 2 heading. Modern screen readers won't display these invisible headings. Graham87 03:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the TOC, thanks for pointing that out. I changed the notes header a little, can you see if that helped? If not, I'll fix it again. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, both the TOC and the notes section are fine now. Graham87 03:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)