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 :-) Scarian Call me Pat 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Some additional questions, Friday:
Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions (if you wish to; they're optional)! :-) Scarian Call me Pat 21:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
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:
So very, very true. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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, Chetblong Talk Sign 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
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 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)
(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)
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 Dissident Talk 14:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Are there actual examples of kid admins blowing up by acting like kids? Surely there should be, by now, if this criticism is legitimate. Reminder to work on this sometime. Friday (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. |
I think the following are some young editors who's immature behavior has been sufficient to be recognized by the community as problematic: Sceptre, Caulde, Philwelch, Majorly, MZMcBride, Secret, Robchurch, Jéské Couriano, Aitias, Giggy, TreasuryTag, Ironholds, iMatthew, Red Thunder, Stewie Griffith, EvilWendyMan, Naerii, TenPoundHammer, Milk's Favorite Cookie, JeanLatore, RyanLupin, Transhumanist, Wisdom89, Cool Cat, MatthewFenton, Badlydrawnjeff, Encyclopedist, Karmfist. Some links to relevant discussion would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friday ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
One of the most mature and level headed administrators I know on en.wikipedia has yet to reach his majority, or only recently obtained that lofty status. And one of the worst and most immature administrators or users I ever seen (sic) allowed to interact with others on the web is over 3 times the first one in age. What's age got to do with it other than a cheap shot at youth? -- KP Botany ( talk) 03:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
|
This certainly went nowhere good. I've been looking at RFAs lately and trying to find ways to convince the community to stop promoting people we already know act like children. I thought it would be useful to try to show that there is a large well-established history of such cases being later recognized as mistakes. Sorry to anyone I offended. I see no useful purpose in continuing with this- it's turned into useless namecalling and bickering. I guess this is the inherent paradox- whenever I try to make a case that immature editors are a problem, it's a very common response for people to say "Oh yeah? Like who?" But, the minute you go into specifics, discussion gets derailed into a debate on those particular cases, rather than staying focused on the general problem. I see no way forward from here. Friday (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Friday, just stumbled across your essay. Many elements of it that I agree with - in particular, I think we need to demand a certain amount of maturity from our admins. We do have some young and very mature admins, and we have some quite immature admins who I suspect (from their behavior) are quite young.
One point you haven't raised is that sometimes the knowledge of an admin's age would help explain and reassure after instances of immaturity. Given the minefield this becomes, I'll avoid specific names, but we've all seen numerous instances in the past little while of immature poor judgement by an admin or a prospective admin. Now, if I knew such a person was a 13-year old whiz kid, I would chalk it up to lack of life experience and part of learning. I would be prepared to support (or continue to support) this person as admin based on their trajectory. I would have faith that they have learned a lesson and will avoid the same sort of issue going forward. I am less willing to do this with a person who I know is fully adult - if they got to age 30 without noticing that something is not an appropriate reaction under mild stress, I am less ready to believe that they will change in a lasting manner immediately. The end result is that there are several admins or potential admins I feel I cannot support, because without knowing for sure they are underage I don't have sufficient faith that their instances of immature poor judgement have an innocent explanation and represent water under the bridge. Martinp ( talk) 19:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I bet i am smarter than the average 30 year old, and i am only 15. so don't be ageist, and don't assume general principalities or general behaviour of anyone based on their age. Stakingsin ( talk) 11:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC) oh and also i love the way you describe adolescants brains as 'kid brains' Aswell as huge generalisation, and being hugely offensive to a grumpy teen, you prove that the only people open to diferent opinions or angles on life are kids. Stakingsin ( talk) 11:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I think as a generalization your argument is pretty sound from what I've seen around here, but I didn't agree with your statement about exceptional kids. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? If so, I should be very incredulous when presented with the lottery numbers of the day; after all, the probability is 1 in 14 million. We are all capable of knowing that a kid is exceptional through their contributions, which are open for all to see. It's the same for any candidate who runs, minor or not. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
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 :-) Scarian Call me Pat 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Some additional questions, Friday:
Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions (if you wish to; they're optional)! :-) Scarian Call me Pat 21:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
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:
So very, very true. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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, Chetblong Talk Sign 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
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 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)
(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)
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 Dissident Talk 14:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Are there actual examples of kid admins blowing up by acting like kids? Surely there should be, by now, if this criticism is legitimate. Reminder to work on this sometime. Friday (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. |
I think the following are some young editors who's immature behavior has been sufficient to be recognized by the community as problematic: Sceptre, Caulde, Philwelch, Majorly, MZMcBride, Secret, Robchurch, Jéské Couriano, Aitias, Giggy, TreasuryTag, Ironholds, iMatthew, Red Thunder, Stewie Griffith, EvilWendyMan, Naerii, TenPoundHammer, Milk's Favorite Cookie, JeanLatore, RyanLupin, Transhumanist, Wisdom89, Cool Cat, MatthewFenton, Badlydrawnjeff, Encyclopedist, Karmfist. Some links to relevant discussion would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friday ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
One of the most mature and level headed administrators I know on en.wikipedia has yet to reach his majority, or only recently obtained that lofty status. And one of the worst and most immature administrators or users I ever seen (sic) allowed to interact with others on the web is over 3 times the first one in age. What's age got to do with it other than a cheap shot at youth? -- KP Botany ( talk) 03:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
|
This certainly went nowhere good. I've been looking at RFAs lately and trying to find ways to convince the community to stop promoting people we already know act like children. I thought it would be useful to try to show that there is a large well-established history of such cases being later recognized as mistakes. Sorry to anyone I offended. I see no useful purpose in continuing with this- it's turned into useless namecalling and bickering. I guess this is the inherent paradox- whenever I try to make a case that immature editors are a problem, it's a very common response for people to say "Oh yeah? Like who?" But, the minute you go into specifics, discussion gets derailed into a debate on those particular cases, rather than staying focused on the general problem. I see no way forward from here. Friday (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Friday, just stumbled across your essay. Many elements of it that I agree with - in particular, I think we need to demand a certain amount of maturity from our admins. We do have some young and very mature admins, and we have some quite immature admins who I suspect (from their behavior) are quite young.
One point you haven't raised is that sometimes the knowledge of an admin's age would help explain and reassure after instances of immaturity. Given the minefield this becomes, I'll avoid specific names, but we've all seen numerous instances in the past little while of immature poor judgement by an admin or a prospective admin. Now, if I knew such a person was a 13-year old whiz kid, I would chalk it up to lack of life experience and part of learning. I would be prepared to support (or continue to support) this person as admin based on their trajectory. I would have faith that they have learned a lesson and will avoid the same sort of issue going forward. I am less willing to do this with a person who I know is fully adult - if they got to age 30 without noticing that something is not an appropriate reaction under mild stress, I am less ready to believe that they will change in a lasting manner immediately. The end result is that there are several admins or potential admins I feel I cannot support, because without knowing for sure they are underage I don't have sufficient faith that their instances of immature poor judgement have an innocent explanation and represent water under the bridge. Martinp ( talk) 19:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I bet i am smarter than the average 30 year old, and i am only 15. so don't be ageist, and don't assume general principalities or general behaviour of anyone based on their age. Stakingsin ( talk) 11:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC) oh and also i love the way you describe adolescants brains as 'kid brains' Aswell as huge generalisation, and being hugely offensive to a grumpy teen, you prove that the only people open to diferent opinions or angles on life are kids. Stakingsin ( talk) 11:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I think as a generalization your argument is pretty sound from what I've seen around here, but I didn't agree with your statement about exceptional kids. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? If so, I should be very incredulous when presented with the lottery numbers of the day; after all, the probability is 1 in 14 million. We are all capable of knowing that a kid is exceptional through their contributions, which are open for all to see. It's the same for any candidate who runs, minor or not. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)