Meetups, Kids, and Videotape, Was "Interesting Meetup"; merged with "Underaged Editor Options

[Alex]

The New York City meetup yesterday has a video available of the second part of the meetup. It's quite an interesting discussion about requests for adminship, with participants including Newyorkbrad, MBisanz, DGG and various others. Up to about 25 mins in they discuss RFAs, then it's onto the chapter.

Quite an interesting thing to watch; not only the discussion, but also how meetups work out in other places. I've been to a few meetups, but they've all taken place in a pub/restaurant, and are a lot less formal - no presentations, no meeting room etc, just casual conversation. What are other people's experiences of meetups, or thoughts on the video?

[Kato]

The New York City meetup yesterday has a video available of the second part of the meetup. It's quite an interesting discussion about requests for adminship, with participants including Newyorkbrad, MBisanz, DGG and various others. Up to about 25 mins in they discuss RFAs, then it's onto the chapter.

Quite an interesting thing to watch; not only the discussion, but also how meetups work out in other places. I've been to a few meetups, but they've all taken place in a pub/restaurant, and are a lot less formal - no presentations, no meeting room etc, just casual conversation. What are other people's experiences of meetups, or thoughts on the video?

Shouldn't everyone be wearing hoods?

Anyway, at about 10 minutes, they start criticizing you Alex. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I didn't get any further. The whole debate regarding minors being administrators - in fact, the video itself starting with that kid distorting the term "ageism" to mean the opposite of what it was designed to mean and the people it was supposed to protect - was so damn naive I gave up.

Daniel Brandt had it right in this post:

I always thought "ageism" referred to discrimination against the elderly, not the too-young. Every culture has entire systems of discrimination against the young. It all depends on the specific task to which they are entrusted. It wasn't until I came to Wikipedia that I heard the term "ageism" used to refer to those who discriminate against the too-young instead of the too-old.

There are also old people who lose competence in certain areas. For example, in California where you live, if you tell the physician that your elderly father is no longer competent to drive, and you don't know how to get him to stop driving, he will fill out a form if he agrees with you, and the DMV will send your father a letter telling him that he no longer has a license. Perfectly reasonable -- I wouldn't call that ageism.

Do you enjoy driving down a busy street in a little Volkswagen, surrounded by teenagers in SUVs and hulking pickup trucks, yakking on their cellphones? I don't. Would you want 15-year-olds to get the vote? How about sex? Is 13 okay, or 14? What about letting them drop out of school because they find it boring?

It's not a question of age, it's a question of competence for a given task. I submit that no publisher would hire a teenager to edit biographies of living persons. No, they would ask for a resume to determine whether the person applying for this sort of job is qualified. And their work would be checked by a senior editor of proven discretion, you can be sure.

If I ask for similar standards from Wikipedia, why do you throw around words like "ageism"? I think you are completely wrong on this one.

(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/Kato90125/banner3.jpg)

[Obesity]

Daniel Brandt had it right in this post:

I revere Brandt's sharp mind, sleuthing skillz and his spunk*, and do wish he would come back here and post now and then.

However, his frequently vindictive behavior (to say nothing of the sophomoric cartoons on his website) resembles that of a pouting, tantruming toddler, which undercuts his credibility, at least when critiquing the relative maturity of Internet users.

*not slang for semen, in this case

[Piperdown]

to say nothing of the sophomoric cartoons on his [Brandt's] website

i'm looking at obesity's avatar and lol'ing. good one!

So what line would you draw before you stormed out of the meeting? Age 16? 18? 21?

What's the legal age to vote in elections in the country the meeting was held? That one.

And nice use of exagerrating an opponents supposed over-reaction with "stormed out" terminology. Are you a republican by any chance?

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Alex]

So what line would you draw before you stormed out of the meeting? Age 16? 18? 21?

What's the legal age to vote in elections in the country the meeting was held? That one.

And nice use of exagerrating an opponents supposed over-reaction with "stormed out" terminology. Are you a republican by any chance?

I wasn't aware Wikipedia had an age limit applied to it. I don't see any relevance in whether one can vote has anything to do with anything. Besides, the USA is pretty strange with age limits, in my opinion. 16 to drive, 18 to vote, 21 to drink. And the age of consent is as low as 14 in some states (according to Wikipedia).

And no, I'm not a republican, not from the USA, and despite being an adult who can drink, drive, get married, vote etc, it doesn't magically mean I'm suited to be doing any of those things. But I still can because of the magic number.

[Kato]

I wasn't aware Wikipedia had an age limit applied to it. I don't see any relevance in whether one can vote has anything to do with anything.

Then, out of interest, why aren't minors allowed to vote?

If you can answer that question, you may be on the road home to common sense, and you may begin to free yourself of this radical cultish mindset that has sprung up out of WP.

The last "Cultural Revolution" made many of the same mistakes. And those old enough have seen it all before.

[Alex]

I wasn't aware Wikipedia had an age limit applied to it. I don't see any relevance in whether one can vote has anything to do with anything.

Then why aren't minors allowed to vote?

If you can answer that question, you may be on the road home to common sense, and you may begin to free yourself of this radical cultish mindset that has sprung up out WP, and warped so many others.

The last "Cultural Revolution" made many of the same mistakes. And those old enough have seen it all before.

Perhaps they will be able to one day. Afterall, at one time, no one had a right to vote. Then it was landowners, then men over 30, then women of a certain age, etc etc. Only by 1928 did women have the same rights as men (at least in the UK - in some places, women still can't vote). Maybe by 2100 younger teenagers will have the right to vote. Who knows.

[Kato]

Why are they not allowed to vote now?

[Alex]

Why are they not allowed to vote now?

I'm sure British women were asking the same question in 1903. I don't know. It's wrong.

[Kato]

Why are they not allowed to vote now?

I'm sure British women were asking the same question in 1903. I don't know. It's wrong.

You don't know?

I'll ask again.

Q. What is the reason for minors not being allowed to vote in any nation on this planet?

and here is another question

Q. Why don't minors (under 16s) pay tax?

[Newyorkbrad]

Q. Why don't minors (under 16s) pay tax?

Generally because they don't have taxable income. In the United States, at least, if a minor has taxable earnings, he or she is taxed at the same rates as an adult (which can effectively mean a greater rate, because minors tend to have few deductions).

This has nothing in particular to do with the issue of youthful administrators, but you did ask....

[Kato]

Q. Why don't minors (under 16s) pay tax?

Generally because they don't have taxable income.

Why don't under-16s have taxable incomes?