Forum:Age policy

Forums: Index > The Realm of Sleep > 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.

I would like to add an opinion less than worthless. Maturity is such a subjective word, dependable on a majority or an individual's viewpoint. That said, I wouldn't want to enforce an age policy, but if I find a user who acts immaturely - vandalism, legal threats and/or constant disruptive behavior - there won't be any hesitation on enforcement, more so if the user is aged below 13 years old. I welcome good faith edits by users of any age, creed and whatever labels humanity would want to apply, but if you are caught undermining a wikia wiki's purpose then I assure you enforcement based on Wikia's Terms of Use will be applied. That said (again) it doesn't matter if this wiki decides to adopt an age policy or not, a user will be responsible for his/her actions regardless. End of opinion, if you should want to stick with it that is up to you. ^BLUER一番 03:01, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

DoorToNothing — I dreamed last night... I got on the boat to Heaven! And by some chance, I had brought my dice along! — 05:14, December 17, 2009 (UTC) I revoke my opinion; I now realize that I pretty much made a very screwed up opinion. However, this has to do with the fact that I actually didn't get all of Yuanchosaan's point on the IRC, so I had a misinterpretation. I had thought that we had to have a set age number, and suggested twelve years of age since the user that this issue arose because of was of this age. I apologize, and now completely agree with Yuanchosaan. @LopLady1: The ironic part is that I am a moderator here.

I've got to pretty much agree with Bluerfn and Yuan here. A lot of the people who have more inclination towards vandalism or are more annoying to deal with seem to be college-age, if anything, while I know of at least one account that is, well, not under 13 anymore, but was still very helpful on the Kingdom Hearts Mobile project. An age policy seems unenforceable, and not needed - we're going to get vandalism from 20-somethings, and we're going to get help from 10-somethings.Glorious CHAOS! 05:20, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

LevL Fear my mighty instruments! I don't think we should block any users based on their age, only based on their behaviour. Futhermore, it´s almost impossible to find out who is 13 (or 12) or younger, since some users don't tell their age.

DarkestofHearts - We may both be different, but that doesn't mean we're the same. TALK - Look at me,Roxas. Who do you see? I disagree with this age policy thing, maybe some of the younger users make reasonable edits, though maybe some of them are more trouble some and cause vandalism.

LotsoBearLover - Welcome to sunnyside! TALK - You've got a playdate with destiny!" I disagree with this policy. We should only block people based on their behaviour and if they vandalize.

Malevolence Crystalised - Okay who stole my Sketchbook? TALK - --Malevolence Crystalised 14:09, December 17, 2009 (UTC) Wow O.O Users talking bout me... in a bad way.... with this per se i think i should better leave.. also User:Firaga44 is not blocked. cause she is better than us youger ones i find this unfair... through all of you especially you DTN do not understand. Just Because a certain user would Steal your idea correct DTN?

Coroxn - The Lunar Brigade TALK - "The heart's a battleground. But it matters not the outcome of the battle, nor how you battled. Only that you battled..." - Coroxn 18:07, December 17, 2009 (UTC) (UTC) "The Second I Heard About This I Was Absalutely Terrified. I Am Under 13 (12) And I Don't Think I've Ever Done Anything To Lower The Quality Of Any Page On This Wiki. And Although I Can All Too Well Why Some May Want This, It Isn't An Age Group You Should Be Focusing On. It's A Group In Society. If People Will Vandalise At My Age They Will Vandalise In Ten Years Time Aswell. It's Just Their Nature. And, Unless You Have People Giving A Ridicolous Amount Of Personal Information, You Will Have To Just See If Some One Vandalises, Then Block And/Or Ban Them. I Would Be Very Disapointed If An Age Ban Was Placed, And Although I Am Near Powerless To Stop It, I Am Very Glad To See There Are Others That Share My Frame Of Mind On This Topic".

Nitrous X Merry Christmas! — I have identified the scent. It is...Christmas! "When did that happen? You were always terrified of Santa before-" @MC:Firaga was blocked, but when this discussion arrived, all under-age users were unblocked. I agree with Yuan on this. As long as the under-age user is acting maturely and is contributing, why does the age matter? Furthermore, why would at matter at all on the IRC? You don't edit on the IRC, you just discuss things. I believe that the age limit should be lowered or taken away completely. As for the time wasted in educating these under 13 users, I believe a solution for this was proposed by BebopKate. That we just direct them to a page that has all of the educational material on it.

LOMI, Voice of Nothing Master of Fiction {{{1}}}

DoorToNothing — I dreamed last night... I got on the boat to Heaven! And by some chance, I had brought my dice along! — 23:10, December 17, 2009 (UTC) And as you can see above, Malevolence Crystalised is one of the underage users that isn't going to make the contributive edits that we would like users to. As for his word, that's something that deals with projects outside of this wiki, and the case was proven that I was being stolen from idea-wise. And that gives me no prejudice against underage users. I actually know that we have several users on this wiki who are underage, but do make contributive edits often. Firaga44 is an example, as I'm sure some of you would expect. Anyway, I'm only leaving a second message so I don't get unnecessary user hate due to another user disliking me for another user's project being shut down, since it stole ideas from mine. And just to clarify, that was the issue with ZACH. Otherwise, I have no further issue with him; he has ceased his work now that he knows what he did, and he is just another average user to me.

Azul81677 - "Ebil minds think ebily alike." - A collaboration between 2 very ebil minds TALK - 00:35, December 18, 2009 (UTC) I think that I'll pull from what everyone is saying, because most of the opinions voiced here, are similar to mine. Oks, so the "slogan", I guess you could call it, of every wiki is something along the lines of: "Welcome to the <wiki name>. The <wiki topic> database that anyone can edit!" limiting editors based on age is going against everything a wiki is about. Myself, along with other people, were 13 when we first started out, a certain someone hadn't turned 14 yet when he was made Admin of the KHWiki, so it goes to show that age doesn't cause vandalism, Vandals cause vandalism o.o There are many a user who are well over the "age limit" but still act well under it. Even if we did adopt this policy, who's to say that new users won't bump their age a few years to "get in". They could be the accepted age, but still cause problems, vandalism, etc. Then the policy wouldn't matter anymore. I've come to realize that we can't force people to edit, no matter how hard you try. This Age Policy would knock off a lot of the socialize-ers, but it could also knock off current/potential editors. The KH series age group is low due to it being a Disney licensed game (duh). So, someone who played the game, was under-aged and wanted to edit, couldn't. Whether or not their edits were "grammatically correct", they're still edits that we didn't have. Poor grammar is not limited to the younger age gropud group. All in all, like everyone else, I disagree with adopting this policy. This whole ordeal is just a bit ridiculous I just realized that my opinion matters not, for everyone already agrees against the banpolicy >> *Azul sighs*

JFHavoc Talk to Me! — I once took an IQ test and got a score of over 9000. You're all morons. — JFHavoc 00:40, December 18, 2009 (UTC) There is power in numbers, Azul. Your opinion counts. :P

For Malevolence Crystalised, he approached me on my FFW talk page yesterday. He had the guilty mind of vandalising... primarily because he just didn't see how he could be as useful as other contributors. Listen, the whole thing is blown out of proportion just because some users intimidate younger users, and not to mention the crap I sometimes find on talk pages. If it's a wiki that EVERYONE and ANYONE can edit, then the Age Policy should not be implemented. Full stop. No place for discrimination here, please. I'm 18, but that doesn't mean that we should limit the users to the teenage range. Give up on yourself and you give up on the world. • TroisNyxÉtienne — 02:52, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

really, all having an age restriction does is make people lie about their age. I've done it, and i still say I'm 18 on ebay. if they are making trouble block them, but otherwise their only crime is not haveing existed as long as someone else .

DarkestofHearts - We may both be different, but that doesn't mean we're the same. TALK - Look at me,Roxas. Who do you see? Exactly, you would be making things worse.

MelodiousNature - "It's Not what you Say, that Judges you as a Person - It's What you Do." TALK - 15:06, December 18, 2009 (UTC) I disagree completely on this. Age should only be restricted if it goes against people's rights i.e. Children under 16 are not allowed to watch Nudity etc. Kingdom Hearts is a good that can be played by people under the age of 13 so I don't see why those same children can't talk about it for the same reason. I hope people agree Thank You for reading, take care.

Dornob25 - Who knows what that one is thinking. TALK - You will know how weak you are! — 03:06, December 21, 2009 (UTC) To be quite honest, I'm under 13 (12). I'm mature for my age, however. Proper grammar, not acting like a spoiled brat, I have these. Yet, of course, I was blocked from FFW until I am 13 (it's on the 29th, fyi. ) and I thought that was unfair. I say it should only be if the user is mature enough to support this wiki. If they don't they will be blocked until they can. This is my opinion. Thank you. I'll be waiting for my blockage soon. :l

BebopKate - This one is Zazzles...because he's Zazzy! TALK - Here's your cat...and here's your $20...04:12, December 21, 2009 (UTC) It would seem then that the opinion is overwhelmingly to allow younger users to continue editing, so long as they edit in good faith and remain mature and sensible about it. I'm willing to call that an official policy if you guys are.

JFHavoc Talk to Me! — I once took an IQ test and got a score of over 9000. You're all morons. — JFHavoc 04:21, December 21, 2009 (UTC) I second that.

Moi aussi ! ^_^ Give up on yourself and you give up on the world. • TroisNyxÉtienne — 04:23, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Since it's unanimous, same here. =]--Xion4ever 04:51, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Dornob25 - Who knows what that one is thinking. TALK - You will know how weak you are! — 05:49, December 21, 2009 (UTC) I'm good with it. *erases above post with liquid paper.*

Agreed.--[[User:RedemptionUltima]] 06:07, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

LotsoBearLover - Welcome to sunnyside! TALK - You've got a playdate with destiny!" Je suis d'accord avec cette politique (look who speaks good french now :P)

Now THAT's a literal translation. It should be Je suis d'accord avec cette implementation (pardon the lack of accents but you get my point). Give up on yourself and you give up on the world. • TroisNyxÉtienne — 14:26, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Coroxn - The Lunar Brigade TALK - "The heart's a battleground. But it matters not the outcome of the battle, nor how you battled. Only that you battled..." - 86.46.231.236 16:07, December 21, 2009 (UTC) (UTC) "It Seems That The Only Person For This Decision Was Hexedmagica....."

For all you know, he might've changed his mind, don't you think ? After all, I think we should push this forward : E-rated games call for younger editors, and not all of them are immature. Think Ienzo. ^_^ Give up on yourself and you give up on the world. • TroisNyxÉtienne — 16:14, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Veroso - The shadows are coming! TALK - Are you prepared for the worst? I personally see no reason for an age restriction.

Xeyj - Sora....you're lucky. Looks like my summer vacation is...over. TALK - We're friends right? I don't see why there should be an age limit. thats like saying that just because someone is old that they can't play video games. My Dad is 39 and he is a founder of the diablo II online channel op yipyaw and my uncle, who sadly is in jail for almost 2 more years, was ranked 16 out of almost 200000 players until his account got banned. it was still on the leader board for 6 months without him playing his char at all. He was also the founder and clan chief of the D2 clan CKD.

Bluer says at 13:48, December 26, 2009 (UTC) Well I've been wanting to pitch in so here goes, kupo. The age policy isn't concerned about stopping under-13s from editing, nope, kupo. What it aims is to protect the age group from abuse and malpractice by others who would solicit personal information, infringe privacy and expose the minors in a variety of dangers, kupo. I'm no legal expert so I won't go further into definitions of any kind, kupo. Although now its consensus that the wiki generously allows under-13s to edit, I might want to remind users of all ages that you edit this Wikia Wiki at your own risk, and there are wikiconducts and wikietiquette to be followed at all times, kupo. Abuse your privilege to edit, kupo, and the administration won't hesitate to enforce protective measures upon you, kupo. I say we archive this,

Yep, we've just gotta. Give up on yourself and you give up on the world. • TroisNyxÉtienne — 14:33, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if this was settled yet or not, but I'm putting my opinion in anyway. I think the age limit thing is kinda stupid, because the games are E and E+10. If they were E+13 then I see where an age restriction might come in. But they are E+10. I am 13, but for some odd reason people think I'm 12, and I am quite mature. Sure, I only make small edits, such as spelling, grammer, and common sense, but every little bit helps. Not all vandals are younger than 13. Anyone can vandalize. And having a age restriction might cause more vandalism, because younger editors who got banned might want revenge for being banned. --User:PrincessAndie8thprincessofheart/sig 17:15, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

BebopKate - This one is Zazzles...because he's Zazzy! TALK - Here's your cat...and here's your $20...04:22, December 27, 2009 (UTC) Bluer, that last paragraph of yours (or something in the same spirit) needs to be somewhere "official" and upfront, methinks. Any suggestions, anyone? And admittedly, you also did voice my one concern about younger editors due to the safety issues; most everyone here has been pretty sensible so far, though, and I know we do have some parents helping out their stalwart editors. But we also might want to add some advisories along the lines of personal info to our User Page tutorial just in case.

*sigh* Do I really care about how young or old someone is on this wiki? I care not. Do I care about how well-mannered someone is on this wiki? I think so.

The kingdom hearts series is a video game ment to be enjoyed by all ages, whether you be 3 or 81. I know a lot of young and old people like this game. Personally, just do what every wiki does; block those who's intentions are bad. While the stereotype of those who are young behave badly may or may not seem to be true, anyone has the ability to do both good or bad. Age should not matter; behavior should. Heck, the under 13/whatever age policy does not make sense in the slightest because of how lax it is; its easy to lie about your age on the internet and when I registered on the wikia, I did not remember seeing a 'please list your age' option(It was a while though since I registered so this may have changed.)

Overall, age should not matter here on this wikia; behavior definitely should. There should be no age policy on this wikia; stereotypes may have truth, but theres always somebody willing to dispel the truths about those stereotypes. An age policy on this wikia would just create more heated debate on this wikia. Got it memorized?--Pkthis 17:35, December 27, 2009 (UTC)