User talk:Friday/Ageism

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 :-) Scarian Call me Pat  19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and one more thing: User:Anonymous Dissident. Scarian Call 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)! :-) Scarian Call 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. Scarian Call 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. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 02:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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 // &#9775;  // 21:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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, Chetblong TalkSign 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 // &#9775;  // 05:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just adding my thoughts ;). Friday what do you think? -- Chetblong TalkSign 00:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * As any chef knows, the proof is in the pudding. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 15:22, 8 April 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)

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 Dissident  Talk 14:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually think you're quite right about your position. I don't oppose per age, and I am underage, but I think that people should start realizing that people generally act their age. Users like Anonymous Dissident are not the norm, they're the exception to the rule.  bibliomaniac 1  5  16:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Examples
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 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)


 * I know this is archived, but I just saw this and I want to say that Friday has always been a model of reason and thoughfulness in my experience. One of the good guys for sure, and if this went wrong, I'm sure the intent was good. RxS (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto, and I'd like to point out I became an administrator two months after I became an adult. I may be relatively young, but I'm no minor. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Cardmaker ) 20:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to have found very different in my experience, but maybe that's just me. I'm not sure how creating a little blacklist of so-called "immature" editors &mdash; most of whom are adults, and some of whom haven't edited the site for months &mdash; was anything but a poor idea. Nothing good would have come from it. A perfect way to stir drama and unnecessary mudslinging, something which I've found Friday is very good at. Perhaps he ought to write articles more - it would certainly be a break from obsessing over perfectly decent editors who happen to be a hell of a lot more productive than he is?  Majorly  talk  14:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Friday, clearly not all of those mentioned are 'children' even if 'problematic' (they just all have different approaches) so it may well mean that adults can act immaturely as well, and saying that it's all because someone is young is wrong generalization. -- Menti  fisto  17:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not another commie witch hunt! Not another Joseph McCarthy!  Not another Un-Wikipedian Activities Committee!  Not another Hollywood blacklist!


 * Just write a damn encyclopedia. :)


 * I propose this discussion page be merged with Editor review.


 * And I motion that we run Friday out of town on a rail! Do I hear a second?


 * The Transhumanist 19:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What the heck? 22 is young for a Wikipedia editor? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Growth trajectory of young admins
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 think this is problematic. I do agree that if someone gets to be 30 and still acts 15, it's unlikely they'll ever grow up.  But, let's say it is a 15-year-old acting like a 15-year-old.  The last thing anyone should do is support their adminship because the kidlike behavior is excusable from a kid.  That kid is still 10 years away from adulthood.  Should the project have to endure 10 years of dramatics and poor judgement?  I'll tend to believe that kidlike behavior from a kid is the rule rather than the exception, unless there is very compelling evidence to the contrary.  I see no good outcome from supporting someone now based on an expectation of future competence.  There is nothing to lose and everything to gain by waiting until they grow up. Friday (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, I don't know where you're from, but I've never heard of 25 as the age of majority. Perhaps, like with the definition of current (your definition is apparently "six months ago", as opposed to the dictionary definition of "now"), your definition of "adult" differs from other people.  Majorly  talk  01:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care about any particular government's notion of an age of majority. I care about who can behave like an adult.  25 years is a reasonable rule of thumb for when people tend to have an adult brain rather than a kid brain.  Individuals vary, of course.  Friday (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree with you here, Friday. Let me oversimplify for the sake of discussion. Admin A has a typical maturity level of an average 25 year old. Both of us are comfortable with him being an admin - I'll postulate that even though for me it's enough that he acts 25 while I think you'd prefer to make sure he is actually chronologically of the age of majority. Admin B has the typical maturity level of an average 15 year old. Neither of us feels comfortable in this case, regardless of his actual chronological age. Where we may differ is Admin C, who is 15 chronologically, has the maturity of 25 most of the time, but has just had an episode of "acting 15". I'm fairly comfortable with Admin C, since based on his track record, he is quite mature for his age, and has doubtless in the past learned very rapidly from experience, and so I feel confident he will not repeat the "mistake". When I worry is when Admin C is actually Admin C', who acts the same but is actually chronologically 25. If he has gotten to 25 and still has episodes of 15-year old immaturity, I am concerned that those episodes are likely to repeat, and I trust his judgement less. I think where we don't fully agree is that you would not support Admins C or C', while I would support C but not C'. Martinp (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we're almost on the same page. I agree there is a useful and important distinction between an isolated event and a pattern of behavior.  Isolated events don't tend to bother me- everyone makes mistakes.  I'd hesitate on admin C because I would assume that some little kid who comes to wikipedia is trying to act mature- putting on a show for the benefit of others.  I'm far more interested in a candidate's true nature than I am in what kind of show they can temporarily put on.  When push comes to shove, people are more likely to act according to their true nature than they are to be able to continue play-acting.  If we could magically only have people perform admin actions when they're at their best, I wouldn't worry about this.  But in real wiki-life, particularly in a blocking situation, people are often emotionally involved and thus prone to acting rashly.  This is what makes me think that kids are usually poor candidates- even including kids who act mature most of the time.  Friday (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just adding a brief comment here - I have often wondered what I would have been like as a Wikipedia editor if I had started editing in my teenage years, and not my late 20s. If I had started editing right at the start (in 2001), I would have been in my early to mid-20s, so there was no chance of me blowing up in a teenage tantrum (according to reports, I was very boring as a teenager anyway...). But it is an interesting thought experiment. I do believe that people who edit (or even vandalise) Wikipedia in their formative years, may return later and be much improved editors due to the life experience accrued over the intervening years (most, of course, will move on and never look back). There are some Wikipedia editors and admins who will (in a few years time) have edited from their early teenage years right through to adulthood (the project has been going for 8 years now). Lots can change in that time, including emotional stability and maturity and personal views and outlook. We should recognise that, while also recognising that adults change as well (though not as much). The trouble, as always, is not being able to verify age (or even believe what people say about their age). So we are left judging by someone's edits how mature and emotionally stable they are (this applies to mental health as well as ordinary teenage stuff), and trying to avoid getting too involved in the extreme cases, or being overly judgmental. Hopefully it helps if periodic discussions to make sure the balance struck is right, though if the discussions are skewed by Wikipedia's demographic (lots of young editors?) that might not help. Was there some sort of survey a while back that tried to find out what the demographic of Wikipedia editors (and admin?) is, and did that show anything useful? We could even go on and discuss the social consequences of a generation growing up editing Wikipedia... Carcharoth (talk) 07:19, 18 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)

Just one thing
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)