Wikipedia talk:Advice for parents
|This page was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.|
- 1 Should be included:
- 2 it's a start
- 3 Name
- 4 Removal of 'pedophile' for now
- 5 Wikipedia:Schools'_FAQ
- 6 Mention of terrorism
- 7 Internet child safety.
- 8 reword to offer more explicit advice?
- 9 the laws regarding life insurance policies in Pennsylvania...HELP!
- 10 nutshell and picture
- 11 "which are generally considered unsuitable for children"
- 12 re weasel wording of "You may consider..."
Should be included:
I think one of the big things most uninformed (not meant as a term of abuse) parents would want is whether or not it's true Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. I think that information should be made explicitly clear at the beginning of the article, as such, I've added such a section (second paragraph of the introduction). Gaiacarra (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
it's a start
I think we would need to add info on internet filters etc. - unfortunately not something I know anything about - but I hope this is the start of something useful! all thoughts and feedback most welcome - Privatemusings (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- A few other thoughts might be a summary of "general-purpose" parental advice — the usual stuff, know what your child is doing and who they're talking to, keep the computer in a public room of the house, and so on.
- I also get the impression that most of the editors that post their personally-identifying information tend to be the younger editors who don't know better (and obviously it's worse for them in a way too). A note about that would be good.
I think there's a policy on personal information, actually, although I can't remember which one; a hatnote link in this section would be fine too. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy ? Also see WP:PRIVACY, WP:YOUTH. I think we should list some answers to "What benefits are there to my child editing Wikipedia?" (learning to work with others, picking up/applying knowledge, technical learning). --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 13:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Somebody mentioned on the Village Pump that the name is confusable with something like WP:NOTCENSORED. How about a rename to Wikipedia:Advice for parents/Wikipedia:Advice for parents of editors? Fits in with existing names like Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall, Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators, Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users (historical), and Wikipedia:Advice for editors (redirect to WP:KEEPCOOL) if you consider that relevant. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- done per your suggestion... I think it's much better - I can forget about those silly stickers now! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I commented on the MfD (I think somebody else suggested it first) that it might be a document for the Help namespace. It should probably stay in projectspace for now though, to be worked on (in my opinion). The rest of the name seems OK, there are a few more suggestions at the MfD. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 14:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Removal of 'pedophile' for now
'Pedophile' acts as rather a wordbomb (actually, so does wordbomb, but that's another story!) - so I've re-phrased the language. Feelings are immediately running high, it seems, with this page nominated for deletion - I'd like to calm everything down, if poss, and treat this as an opportunity to discuss what the content of such a page should look like.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and created a 'see also' section in the page - do add further appropriate pages - it seems there have been quite a few related discussions (though more aimed at creating policy rather than advice thus far) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Mention of terrorism
- well I confess that I find it a bit hard to fully understand the rationale for that particular sentence.... I'd be happy to remove it entirely - but may be missing something? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Internet child safety.
If you don't want children to see such things you then need to erase internet from the computer entirely. Or don't let children use the computer. And maybe when they do watch them the entire time.--Seru Mun (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
reword to offer more explicit advice?
I've noted this on the village pump too - but should we be looking to offer slightly more explicit advice (the irony of this adjective is not lost on me!) - specifically something like 'Wikipedia contains images reasonably defined as pornography' or some such - essentially I'd like to discuss the appropriateness or otherwise of 'pornography' as a descriptor here... Privatemusings (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
the laws regarding life insurance policies in Pennsylvania...HELP!
I am the 3rd wife of a man who remarried for the 4th time last year, right after our divorce was decreed (but also without the QDRO being fulfilled) and in order for he and his new wife to get primary custody of our son, and her 4 children. She received primary custody of her four children, since her husband lived out of state, but our case was put on hold, even though both cases were to go to court on the same month--our court date was delayed pending more information that the Judge needed to find out more about this "4th" wife, as to who would receive primary custody of our son--since my ex husband moved out of the school district...in the 6 months after their marriage--by the way, she refused to sign a prenupt, and the 1.3 mill. dollar house that he had purchased (she had pined for it for years) was in my ex's name only...and this was without selling the home that we had shared...putting him deep in debt for his income...turned out with a tragic end--he committed suicide, without a note, and with only my son, and or I listed on three life insurance policies--the bigger policy was left to my son, which infuriated his 4th wife, and my name on another policy (he only had one child, never adopting her children, thier father is in their life financially, and physically...and now she wants to claim my policy, and have her children included on a 1.3 policy that he had changed from just our sons name, to our son's name/children... I cannot replace my son's father, for any amount of money...but feel that --since they had been fighting within 6 months of thier marriage, and his other home had still not sold--that he committed suicide because of her, and intentionally left her nothing. He even killed himself just prior to our son's spring break, and knowing that our son was in my custody when he shot himself while driving...I do not feel that a wife of 6 months deserves a few hundred thousand dollars--especially since she is the cause of his emotional dispare resulting in the taking of his own life---my attornies for my son, and myself seem somewhat at a loss in Pa., since this is more of a case for Hollywood-can anyone give me any helpful court case documentation, or advice? Thank you for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mom protecting her son (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
You might want to look somewhere else for court case documentation. This is the Talk Page for a Wikipedia page (I want to say "article", but it's not in the article namespace), and these are generally used for discussion related to improving Wikipedia.--Unscented (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
nutshell and picture
"which are generally considered unsuitable for children"
I've killed this phrase. It is not the place of the authors to insinuate, if it is so generally considered, that there are some better special people out in the world who are above that nonsense and know better. If it is generally considered, the reader already knows. --VKokielov (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
re weasel wording of "You may consider..."
I propose to replace this sentence:
- You may consider such material, present in a small percentage of articles, to be pornography.
- Such material, present in a small percentage of articles, includes hardcore pornography.
I could see two objections to this. Is it accurate, and it useful and necessary?
Is it accurate?
The term "hardcore pornography" is a real term and actually fairly well-defined. It it beyond question that several of our images fall under this term. After all, some of them are in articles which are devoted solely to hardcore pornography, so what else would they be?
It is true that, like many if not most English terms, the precise meaning may be debatable at the limits. In many particular cases one could say "Is this hardcore pornography or not? Some might consider it so, some not, so let's use the wording 'You may consider such material to be...;"
However. This does not apply to the images in Bukkake. This does not apply to the images in Cum shot. This does not apply to several other articles. They depict hardcore pornography, period, if the word has any meaning at all. See our article Hardcore pornography (contrast with Softcore pornography) or look it up in wiktionary or any other dictionary.
(It is true that, in informal conversation, non-standard definitions of words are sometimes used, for instance for polemic purposes (e.g. "America is not a 'democracy'!") or as idiosyncratic personal definitions (e.g. "It's not a 'party' if the police weren't called!"). And a person’s definition of "hardcore pornography" may differ from the dictionary definition for either or both of these reasons, e.g. "I don’t consider anything to be 'hardcore pornography' unless the victim is actively screaming for mercy" or whatever. However, this is not informal conversation, and we need to stick with the accepted dictionary definitions here.)
So, we shouldn't say "You may consider such material...to be pornography", unless we are also going to use constructs such as "The articles are written in what may appear to you to be English" or "You may have the impression that the articles are appearing on your computer screen" or whatever.
I think the "You may consider..." wording certainly implies a subtext that some reasonable people might not consider the material to be hardcore pornography. But this is not true. And if its not true we shouldn't imply it.
OK? I don't often say this, but I think this is just irrefutable. The Wikipedia shows hardcore pornography. This is an objective fact.
Is it useful or necessary?
OK. Second objection. Should we say this, here?
Well why the heck not. It is a service to the article reader to be clear and accurate.
Now, a case could be made for removing the sentence altogether. If it's not there, it can't convey a false meaning. A political case could be made for this on these grounds:
- Let's not mention it, they probably won't come across it, and everybody's happy.
- It might drive away readership.
But we are not a fly-by-night used car lot. We do not want to increase our readership by deceit. Right? Maybe some people should be driven away. It's not like we're on commission here.
Finally, perhaps a legal case could be made against the proposed new wording. But though IANAL I would think that just the opposite would apply, as the current wording could be construed as being deceptive.
So what is Herostratus on about now?
Full disclosure: do I think that the Wikipedia should include hardcore images? No, I don't. Do I hope that by pressing the issue I can get some movement on this? Yes, I do.
However, I also do actually think that if if we do include hardcore images, we should say so as a matter of fair play, and my personal motivations don't negate the cogency of the points made in this post.
- I did this because I largely agree with much of the above. Privatemusings (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)