Wikipedia:Age and adminship: Difference between revisions
copyedit |
ugh |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{essay}} |
{{essay}} |
||
There has been much '''discussion about adminship and age'''<ref>See [[WT:RFA#Age and adminship]] for a recent discussion.</ref> over the past while. Some Wikipedians feel that users are being inappropriately discriminated against because of their age, while others find it acceptable to take age into consideration when !voting on an adminship discussion for an under-18 user. Candidates around the 12- to 14-year-old bracket have been especially controversial. These candidates are sometimes opposed in adminship discussions for their age, and |
There has been much '''discussion about adminship and age'''<ref>See [[WT:RFA#Age and adminship]] for a recent discussion.</ref> over the past while. Some Wikipedians feel that users are being inappropriately discriminated against because of their age, while others find it acceptable to take age into consideration when !voting on an adminship discussion for an under-18 user. Candidates around the 12- to 14-year-old bracket have been especially controversial. These candidates are sometimes opposed in adminship discussions for their age, and bureaucrat do not discount these votes.<ref>I personally do not hold an editor's age against them in RfAs, but I do respect the opinion of those who do. It is a valid argument and concern. As a bureaucrat, when evaluating an RfA result, I do not exclude such oppositions. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] ([[User talk:Kingturtle|talk]]) 15:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=221671060]</ref> To some, this constitutes ageism. Others believe it is legitimate to oppose young candidates, raising issues immaturity, trustworthiness, and accountability. |
||
Revision as of 15:07, 26 June 2008
 | This project page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this project page has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This page was last edited by AnotherSolipsist (talk | contribs) 16 years ago. (Update timer) |
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
There has been much discussion about adminship and age[1] over the past while. Some Wikipedians feel that users are being inappropriately discriminated against because of their age, while others find it acceptable to take age into consideration when !voting on an adminship discussion for an under-18 user. Candidates around the 12- to 14-year-old bracket have been especially controversial. These candidates are sometimes opposed in adminship discussions for their age, and bureaucrat do not discount these votes.[2] To some, this constitutes ageism. Others believe it is legitimate to oppose young candidates, raising issues immaturity, trustworthiness, and accountability.
History of ageism on Wikipedia and so forth Discussions
Ageism on Wikipedia is seen in many ways by different editors. The main discussion started on a RFA on July 24, 2008. A user was opposed with the comments of "how can I trust a user who has a bedtime to be an admin.". This comment opened a disccusion to wether or not, age should indeed play a part in a RFA. The older editors decided that a user who is younger is least likely to show the maturity to be an admin and cannot be trusted because of the factor of age. The younger editors then fought back saying that age should not play a part, and that if a editor showed maturity, that should be enough to promote them to adminship. Later three furious editors opened a "cabal", created to stop ageism on Wikipedia. The cabal was quickly deleted and all discussions were closed.
Arguments of trust
Notes
- ^ See WT:RFA#Age and adminship for a recent discussion.
- ^ I personally do not hold an editor's age against them in RfAs, but I do respect the opinion of those who do. It is a valid argument and concern. As a bureaucrat, when evaluating an RfA result, I do not exclude such oppositions. Kingturtle (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[1]