Should we be more concerned about children editors on Wikipedia?

Unfortunately, the Wikimedia Foundation is in an ethically compromised situation. They live by this tenet that "Wikipedia is not censored" and likewise that editors and even administrators have a "right to anonymity". So, what this has the net result of doing is allowing 14-year-olds to ascend to the position of administrator, who are then responsible for handling the status and disposition of image files that would be considered pornography in most local jurisdictions.

Thus, the Wikipedia infrastructure is -- quite literally -- a tax-advantaged non-profit with no legitimate child-protective standards, that routinely asks children to monitor pornographic materials.

Here is an example, where the administrator is a minor, and look at the file he's maintaining on Wikimedia Commons (note -- not safe for work):

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fil...

People who are aghast at this proposition of children taking care of porn -- sometimes even child porn, which is a federal crime in the United States -- may report the Wikimedia Foundation to the appropriate authorities at:

https://secure.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet...

Indeed, the Wikimedia Foundation's chief counsel has even taunted that he hasn't heard anything from the Department of Justice ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/... ), so why don't we as responsible citizens help change that?

Since Wikipedia really messes up some adults, imagine what it does to children. Yes, we should certainly be much more concerned.

I personally think it is great that children are Wikipedia editors/admins.

No, not at all. Wikipedia is much, much safer than letting the Teletubbies babysit your children, and they will actually learn something on Wikipedia.

All technology makes children feel like they don't owe their elders any respect. Though Wikipedia ought to be more worrisome for parents than it currently is, and all the wikiporn is just one among many things to be worried about. By exploiting children with impressionable minds and robbing them of their innocence with its viciously savage game, Wikipedia is extremely reprehensible morally.

Absolutely. Just your example of the 12-year-old admin overruling a renowned astrophysicist shows the levels of arrogance that Wikipedia instills in child editors. We should also be concerned about pedophiles seeking out child editors with which to indulge in their perversions. Maybe most children are content to use Wikipedia as a ready source from which to plagiarize, but our more intellectual children, smart in book-learning but ignorant of the world's ways, could become ensnared in serious traps on Wikipedia.

Yes

children often edit wikepedia as a joke

Worry. My friend said that Wikipedia could get inaccurate because dumb people post stuff that's not true.

Yes. Worry about children and uninformed adults.

No we should not!

Everyone harps on about the "inaccuracies" of Wikipedia, and no one really bothers to do any research about how accurate it really is. Independent sources have put Wikipedia's accuracy on the same line as the Encyclopedia Brittanica (or however you spell that blasted name), and estimate a 90% + accuracy rate.

Most of the time, vandals are very obvious (grammar or spelling mistakes, or blatantly malicious content - ie "F YOU GEORGE BUSH GO DIE") and are quickly caught.

In addition, there is a dedicated team of administrators and bots (automated scripts) that monitor the channels. Every time a major edit appears, an admin/bot is notified and takes action (ie blanked page, 500+ word edit, swear words....) and is checked.

Wikipedia is also a compilation. It is not an independent source. Go look up Wikipedia: No Original Research and you'll find that it is not an analytic source. No expert writes exclusively on Wikipedia; Wikipedia merely lists and links to preexisting analysis and sources.

So, overall, I doubt that "mommy told me george bush was a bad man" will seriously affect Wikipedia's quality. In conclusion, no, we need not be concerned about child editors on Wikipedia.