User talk:Friday/Ageism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comment

Thanks for clarifying for everyone. You're right, it's a very contentious issue. I assume that you're against generalising, categorising and stereotyping though, right? And another thing, you're right, it would be better to focus on maturity rather age :-) ScarianCall me Pat 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: User:Anonymous Dissident. ScarianCall me Pat 19:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are examples of young people who are unusually mature. There are also examples of young admins who gave us exactly the kinds of issues we'd expect from young admins. (Sadly, I could also list examples of adult admins who gave us the kinds of problems we'd expect from kids, too.) I'm willing to be swayed by evidence of unusual maturity- but a bunch of other high schoolers saying "Good editor! He's mature, I swear!" is not what I consider usable evidence. Friday (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some additional questions, Friday:

  1. If you didn't know the age of an RfA candidate, would you not support/oppose until you knew?
  2. Do you think generalising young people like that is counter productive?
  3. Are people over 80 (or whatever age) too old to become administrators? (It's the same concept just reversed)
  4. Should we only judge a candidate based on their contributions to the encyclopaedia? (Specify: That's all we should use to judge whether someone is a decent cadidate for the admin bit. Age doesn't signify competence.)
  5. Hypothetically, if a user was say, 12, they'd made some spectacular contributions, were well rounded, mature, capable and articulate, would you oppose purely based on their relatively young age?

Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions (if you wish to; they're optional)! :-) ScarianCall me Pat 21:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

1) If I can't tell what their age is (i.e. they don't act conspicuously childish, and they're wise enough to not mention it) then, no, I don't care about it. 2) Counter productive? Well, it causes complaints. But, sometimes I like (what I consider to be) unreasonable complaints, as it makes it easier to identify who the unreasonable people are. 3) If someone is of an age where people are commonly senile, I may watch for signs of senility. If I see them, I'm unlikely to support. 4) Ideally, sure. But we don't have ideal information, so I consider many factors. Age is just one factor- a shortcut. Someone who is 14 is highly unlikely to have good judgement, but it's no gaurantee. This is why I'm always willing to be swayed by evidence of unusual maturity. 5) I think the last time there was a situation like that, I went neutral on the basis of "Well, you're way too young, so I have a really hard time believing you're qualified. However I can find no actual evidence of immaturity, so it's not right to oppose either." 6) (not a question, I know) One other factor to consider with kids is.. their kid buddies are likely to support them out of friendship, right? Don't we need a few opposes to offset the groundless supports? Friday (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. "Don't we need a few opposes to offset the groundless supports?" - I don't think that's such a great reason to oppose by itself. A more tactful approach would be to question the support itself rather than opposing for the sake of it. I can understand your concern about that though and it's a less well publicised issue amongst RfA candidates. Sometimes it's better to let the 'crats know that the support is dodgy rather than opposing because: "Hey, their chums are supporting purely because they're friends, so I'm gonna balance that out by Opposing." - Wouldn't you agree? Thanks for your time. ScarianCall me Pat 22:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this alone is a poor rationale for an oppose. I was mainly bringing it up as an argument for why it's not harmful to oppose based on age. Honestly, if it weren't for Wikipedia's bizarre "kids are just as mature as adults" mindset, I doubt I would ever bring this up. Mainly, I wanted to be a voice for "it's OK to oppose for being too young" to offset the great many voices saying "opposing based on age is bad." Friday (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
A correlation certainly exists between age and maturity, but I disagree with staying neutral on clearly mature (as in not "hey, he's my age, so I should support!") underage admins. If they can demonstrate good judgment and the ability to be reasonable, why not support? Of course, I might be speaking differently if I was twice as old as I actually am, but I'd ask for you to enlighten me why you do this. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Observation

Though I disagree with you in general about age, I do have to point out a line that I think should be drilled into every RfA participant's head:

Good intentions aren't enough- we need competence as well

So very, very true. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm...

I agree with you on the basic premise, that competence is paramount for admins. However, there are very competent young people who are admins, Anonymous Dissident and Ilyanep come to mind. In a perfect world, people would be judged solely on their merits, rather than their age, race, gender, or whatever, and I think you'd find that younger people would have a lower level of competence. However, this is not entirely true, and that should be kept in mind. Interesting essay, Friday, nice work. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Well not really ;)

Hehe, I would like to add myself to the list of mature admins ;). And I would also like to mention User:Master of Puppets, he (and me of course) make me think that age should not be a sole issue in an RFA, but that their edits should be. Just so you know I've seen a lot of "adult" admins that act like they're a whole lot younger than me, and other Administrators that act like it is some sort of status symbol. IMHO I myself matured in real life and on Wikipedia before I became an admin, therefore causing me to see what the purpose of this encyclopedia is really for. I now have a passion for this project that is more than some other admins out there, that motivates me to help out this wonderful project. And just so you know ("I suspect most of the objections come from editors who themselves are not yet adults. Does this tell us anything?") I see a lot of the people that responded to your comment on RFA as immature IRL and on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that all people before 21 shouldn't have sysop tools, as age is not always equal to maturity. Cheers, ChetblongTalkSign 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be getting too hung up on your personal feelings about the topic. His essay makes it clear that there are indeed exceptions to the "young is too young" concept. He says "on average" twice in the essay, and even opens using "generally"; nowhere in the essay does Friday comment that this is a black and white issue. Another key quote: "Being an adult is no assurance of maturity and good judgement, and being a juvenile is no assurance of lack of good judgement".
I completely agree with you that there are some members of the under 18 crowd that make (or can make) excellent administrators. What's better, Friday actually agrees with you as well, to a certain extent. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Just adding my thoughts ;). Friday what do you think? --ChetblongTalkSign 00:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Out of curiosity, if you did not know my age, and if I had never said anything about it, how old would you guess I am? Acalamari 22:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we have interacted at all, but I would pose the same question to you in regards to me. I also would say I agree with your basic premise for ageism but think you are carrying it out incorrectly. As you said, maturity, as indicated by a user's edits, is paramount in judging candidates for RfA. And while there is statistical evidence to back up age being an indicator of maturity, why not simply judge maturity independently of age? SorryGuy  Talk  00:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
On SorryGuy, I don't have anything to go on. Acalamari I've certainly seen around here and there, and.. I believe you're in your upper teens? I can't really say how old I would think you are, but I can say you seem to be one of those who are unusually mature for their age. While I'm sure we've disagreed on particular issues, I can't remember ever thinking "What?!? How could anyone say that? This guy must be crazy, or a kid, or something!" Whereas, I do frequently see behavior in other editors which strikes me as noticeably childish. (And sure- even the most reasonable person may behave unreasonably from time to time- we're all human. It's behavioral patterns which concern me far more than isolated incidents.) Friday (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'll pose this question too. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some of my observations

I said this on an external forum today, in direct response to someone quoting your (Friday's) opposition in MFC's RfA.

Huh? What's wrong with that one. I swear all the kids on WP scream "OMG AGEISM" and refuse to look at the meat of the opposition; "and more importantly, acts like a kid". If Friday just used that as a rationale, nobody would care.

Food for thought? I like to think it was... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue on which Wikipedia's insane side tends to dominate. So, I think it's useful to try to be a voice of reason and sanity to counter this. Children should not be admins, and more importantly, we should not be ashamed to come right out and say this. Sure, maturity is what really counts, but if someone is only 12, you can be fairly reasonably sure that they're not mature enough. We should not do things that will tend to bring the project into disrepute. Pretending children are as mature as adults makes us look like fools. Friday (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Your essay makes some very important points, and I admire you for having the courage to voice them, even if they are somewhat against our anti-discriminatory norms and standards (which you clearly recognise: "But it's terrible to judge people based on age!"). Whilst I won't comment on my thoughts either way, I support your venture into the taboo areas of our community; good show. Anthøny 01:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nicely done

Despite being, in some way, probably a subject of this particular piece of text, I'd like to congratulate Friday for clarifying their views on this much-debated topic. Taking a stab on articulating this viewpoint and rationalising it should serve to clear some things up when this point of discussion arises. An essay much needed to make clear the ideas of those on the other side of the whole "age" debate. To quote AGK - "good show". -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)