Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-3026053-20130621001540/@comment-4811793-20130621193145

Utter solitude wrote:

Semanticdrifter wrote: OK. This is definitely something we will be explaining more over the next week. Keep your eyes peeled for a staff blog post explaining the background in greater detail on Monday. In the meantime, to respond to your specific question the decision of which wikis qualify for the category was definitely not arbitrary. While I can't share our exact guidelines, we followed a fairly exhaustive review process. I know that many of you have wikis dedicated to subjects that appeal to a wide age range, and we are striving to be fair but realistic in our assessments. We do believe in the ideal of open editing wherever possible, and we took care to only focus on what we have to in order to comply with federal law. I realize this is controversial, and I do apppreciate everyone's point of view. Can't share the guidelines? Why in the world not? I'm extremely interested in knowing what criteria you're using to define which wikis get this block, and which don't. While I can't share our exact criteria, I will try to be more transparent in explaining the process and show you some of the things we looked at. We considered things like medium, genre, demographic, tone, characters, story elements, intended audience, actual audeince, and other factors.

Godisme wrote:  I think before staff makes any kind of decision on where to shut off anonymous editing, they should actually sit down and discuss with the wikis what their series is about and whether it is truly aimed at an audience that includes persons under 13.

If you think your community was improperly categorized, you are free to make that argument on the wiki. I can't guarantee that we will agree, but we are certainly willing to listen.