I have references for the origin of children's rights on the Internet

   Hi. I'm Kenneth Udut, the guy that started the children's rights
   stuff on the Internet, provided a meeting place that allowed the
   people who founded a number of the children's rights groups like
   NYRA to meet together and branch off and form their own groups,
   etc. Anyway, I stink at doing academic referencing; I know it's
   easy but my brain goes Bzzzt! anytime I try.
   [1]http://icopiedyou.com/october-17-1991-y-rights-and-childhamp-appeared-in-directory-of-electronic-journals-newsletters-and-academic-discussion-lists/
   Here's proof including references to verifiable, authentic
   sources that verify 1991 as the start of children's rights on
   the Internet with Y-RIGHTS. The child@hamp.hampshire.edu was a
   small experiment - it only gained about 400-500 members and was
   getting unwieldy to maintain by hand. So I asked around online
   and Bob Z. stepped up to the plate and gave 19 year old me (I'm
   43 now) a LISTSERV and I called it Y-RIGHTS. Ended up getting a
   few thousand members, lasted a bunch of years. Anyway this isn't
   a history lesson about Y-RIGHTS. But that 'citation needed' has
   been bothering me. You can find the reference on the "Directory
   of Electronic Journals, Newsletters, and Academic Discussion
   Lists" - one of Google Books has the date wrong as 1992; but the
   CANADIAN Google books, oddly enough, has the date correct. It's
   even handwritten in the scan in the margin of one of the first
   pages.
   [2]http://books.google.ca/books?id=KmrgAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP9&lpg=PP7&focus=viewport
   I don't have the _exact_ start date of either child@hampvms
   which was first, or Y-RIGHTS, which followed, but I think both
   are 1991, which _should_ be a good enough verification for the
   beginnings as 1991. Maybe somebody can fix it. I never liked
   editing Wikis and even in school, hated the standard referencing
   format. Standards are helpful sure, but annoying. Stifles
   creativity. Anyhow, this is called "Talk", so I'm talking. Would
   someone mind doing a proper set of referencing? I've gone beyond
   "original research", I provided verifiable references... I
   _really_ don't like the whole style of proof used in academic
   [to me, it's just formalized gossip.. 'well, THIS authoritative
   source said so, so THEREFORE is _must_ be true!' but whatever.
   I'm just an middle aged social anarchist who started off as a
   young social anarchist and will probably get gray and wizardly
   as one too. So, someone mind adding the references in whatever
   format is typically desired in such situations as these? Thanks.
   -Ken Kenneth Udut, the guy that REALLY THOUGHT something would
   change by 2015 in children's rights but... mostly hasn't...
   except for one thing: GenZ is taking it over. The 'net. It's
   about time. And they'll fix the future. I'll be gray but so
   what. Changes are happening now to society and hopefully I live
   to see the day when today's trolling youtube commentators and
   minecraft and CoD players become hackers and programmers and
   politicians and teachers and THEY REMEMBER the freedoms they
   took for granted online, look around at the society that was
   handed to them by jerks like my generation and the one after me
   and say, "F this S, it's OUT" and starts fixing the old system
   that WE were handed and THEY were handed. _sigh_ enough Talk.
   Someone more acadmically-minded than me - please fix the
   references. Thanks. The future should get the facts right,
   whatever the facts are, no matter how miniscule they may be.
   Errors in history multiply badly, quickly.

References

   Visible links
   1. http://icopiedyou.com/october-17-1991-y-rights-and-childhamp-appeared-in-directory-of-electronic-journals-newsletters-and-academic-discussion-lists/
   2. http://books.google.ca/books?id=KmrgAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP9&lpg=PP7&focus=viewport