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.

[LessHorrid vanU]

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...

Really? I can answer that one easily enough; it is an arbitrary limit imposed by post-minors so they are not embarrassed by those who fall into that category - with the understanding that some of the embarrassment would be provided by some said minors who are more composed, experienced, civil and otherwise better human beings than the adult.

Do you honestly believe that there is some entity ("the sensible fairy") that has the power to suddenly impose common sense and mature appreciation overnight when you go to bed aged X years, 11 months and 30 (plus 1/minus 3 or 2) days and wake up officially another year older?

If it is determined you are able to drink alcohol at 21 responsibly, and drive a car safely at 16, there is a an incredibly high chance you could have done those things at 20 and 15 respectively, 19 and 14 for most, and 18 (um, when Brits are considered mature enough) and 14 (though Brits are not allowed on public roads until they are 17) for a sizeable minority. Go back far enough and there will be individuals who would safely pilot an automobile on the highways from the age they can see over the steering wheel - although I admit the physical properties of adolescents mean they are unable to process alcohol. The age limits, which vary depending on the hosts cultural conceptions of some of the "duties" and pleasures that come with adulthood, are generally placed high enough that those who are incapable of attaining the level of maturity to responsibly carry out those functions are likely never to achieve them - so they may as well be allowed to fuck up and take the responsibility for their actions. It is a very lazy system, but society is generally indoctrinated sufficiently that very few even think of questioning it and, anyway, only those who have reached that age of majority are permitted to use the processes permitted to change it - and they no longer have any reason to.

By all means complain of the immaturity, childish behaviour, lack of mature consideration, absence of experience on which to base judgements on the part of a sizeable slice of the Wikipedia contributorship - but please don't make the mistake of saying, "ban the under XX year olds!" and think you will have solved the problem. You haven't, you have just disenfranchised those among that group whose contributions never previously caused any problems, and given all the idiots above that age limit permission to be as stupid, crass and juvenile as they always were.

(edit) Oh, in respect of Kato's subsequent comments - children used to work, in the fields, down the mines, in factories, etc. to the extent that they were physically and mentally capable, and doubtless some of that meagre income was taxed, whether through the family or by the duties imposed on purchases as were the adults. In some parts of the world they still do - and they are still not permitted to vote. Some two hundred years ago some adults in Europe got the idea that placing children into indentured slavery was not a great idea, and it made economic sense to educate the individuals so that their ability to produce wealth when they were older was greatly enhanced. Laws were changed, and there was this sudden belief that Citizenship only began at 15... 16... 18... er... 21? Nope, 18 (ish).

Like I said, it is an arbitrary concept of when a majority are mature enough to be responsible for themselves - based around the speed of the slowest developer.

[Kato]

Really? I can answer that one easily enough; it is an arbitrary limit imposed by post-minors so they are not embarrassed by those who fall into that category - with the understanding that some of the embarrassment would be provided by some said minors who are more composed, experienced, civil and otherwise better human beings than the adult.

Do you honestly believe that there is some entity ("the sensible fairy") that has the power to suddenly impose common sense and mature appreciation overnight when you go to bed aged X years, 11 months and 30 (plus 1/minus 3 or 2) days and wake up officially another year older?

If it is determined you are able to drink alcohol at 21 responsibly, and drive a car safely at 16, there is a an incredibly high chance you could have done those things at 20 and 15 respectively, 19 and 14 for most, and 18 (um, when Brits are considered mature enough) and 14 (though Brits are not allowed on public roads until they are 17) for a sizeable minority. Go back far enough and there will be individuals who would safely pilot an automobile on the highways from the age they can see over the steering wheel - although I admit the physical properties of adolescents mean they are unable to process alcohol. The age limits, which vary depending on the hosts cultural conceptions of some of the "duties" and pleasures that come with adulthood, are generally placed high enough that those who are incapable of attaining the level of maturity to responsibly carry out those functions are likely never to achieve them - so they may as well be allowed to fuck up and take the responsibility for their actions. It is a very lazy system, but society is generally indoctrinated sufficiently that very few even think of questioning it and, anyway, only those who have reached that age of majority are permitted to use the processes permitted to change it - and they no longer have any reason to.

By all means complain of the immaturity, childish behaviour, lack of mature consideration, absence of experience on which to base judgements on the part of a sizeable slice of the Wikipedia contributorship - but please don't make the mistake of saying, "ban the under XX year olds!" and think you will have solved the problem. You haven't, you have just disenfranchised those among that group whose contributions never previously caused any problems, and given all the idiots above that age limit permission to be as stupid, crass and juvenile as they always were.

(edit) Oh, in respect of Kato's subsequent comments - children used to work, in the fields, down the mines, in factories, etc. to the extent that they were physically and mentally capable, and doubtless some of that meagre income was taxed, whether through the family or by the duties imposed on purchases as were the adults. In some parts of the world they still do - and they are still not permitted to vote. Some two hundred years ago some adults in Europe got the idea that placing children into indentured slavery was not a great idea, and it made economic sense to educate the individuals so that their ability to produce wealth when they were older was greatly enhanced. Laws were changed, and there was this sudden belief that Citizenship only began at 15... 16... 18... er... 21? Nope, 18 (ish).

Like I said, it is an arbitrary concept of when a majority are mature enough to be responsible for themselves - based around the speed of the slowest developer.

Leaving aside the fact that yes, in the past in Western society, child labor was exploited by unscrupulous beneficiaries, and that was a disgrace, you are ignoring the ramshackled nature of Wikipedia. The known risks. The known problems. The irresponsible ethos that dominates the place, that appears to be handed down from above by the likes of Eric Moeller.

Wikipedia does not conform to good practice and minors should be discouraged from participation at all times, for everyone's sake. WP's lack of Duty of Care impacts on the innocent victims of content, as well as the willing contributors. Wikipedia operates under the Law of The Bully and that is no place for a minor.

Here is the UK Government's recommendations on "Social networking".

...there are concerns that young people may upload content that is inappropriate, offensive or even illegal to their online spaces, posting material that could damage their reputations or the reputations of others. Equally they may post inappropriate comments to the profiles of others, which can result in the bullying, slander or humiliation of others.

Another key area of concern is the permanency of content posted online – once published online a photo or video clip can be freely copied and circulated and will potentially exist forever.

Many young people maintain very detailed online profiles, including a large amount of personal information, photos and accounts of daily routines which could lead to them being identified or contacted in person. The contact risks of other forms of new technology are well documented, and those that seek to harm or exploit children and young people will use social networking sites as another way to contact and groom potential victims.

Most social networking sites do contain privacy settings, allowing a profile to be set to private and only viewed by approved contacts, but these are not always used. Indeed, one of the big attractions of social networking sites is the large numbers of ‘virtual’ friends that can be linked from a profile, but this can expose children and young people to the risks of unwelcome contact.

A further risk includes the amount of time that children and young people may spend on social networking sites to the detriment of relationships with family, friends and peers in the real world.

Wikipedia exploits minors and offers no reasonable protection. Whats more, Wikipedia's zeal to exploit these children, who are less equipped to make informed, balanced judgments on complicated ethical matters, impacts on innocent victims. As we saw in the Seth Finkelstein deletion debates, and the other instances of article subjects being bullied by self-identified minors.

[Moulton]

Leaving aside the fact that yes, in the past in Western society, child labor was exploited by unscrupulous beneficiaries, and that was a disgrace, you are ignoring the ramshackled nature of Wikipedia. The known risks. The known problems. The irresponsible ethos that dominates the place, that appears to be handed down from above by the likes of Eric Moeller.

Wikipedia does not conform to good practice and minors should be discouraged from participation at all times, for everyone's sake. WP's lack of Duty of Care impacts on the innocent victims of content, as well as the willing contributors. Wikipedia operates under the Law of The Bully and that is no place for a minor.

Wikipedia exploits minors and offers no reasonable protection. What's more, Wikipedia's zeal to exploit these children, who are less equipped to make informed, balanced judgments on complicated ethical matters, impacts on innocent victims. As we saw in the Seth Finkelstein deletion debates, and the other instances of article subjects being bullied by self-identified minors.

Kato has not only put his finger on the crux of the problem, he has done so in plain language.

Wikipedia's exploitative practices are not limited to children, however. Children who do not get their curiosity beaten out of them by Middle School might well grow up to become scientists, academics, researchers, or journalists.

To the extent that the immature characters who dominate Wikipedia have accumulated a storehouse of unsolved problems, who are they going to turn to for help in solving them? On the one hand, Wikipedians are notably hostile to scientists, academics, researchers and journalists who might take up the challenge of studying and chronicling WikiCulture and diagnosing its endemic maladies. But notwithstanding such hostile reception, there remain a scant few of us scientistis, academics, researchers, and journalists who persist in studying and diagnosing the systemic problems of WikiCulture, even as we are blocked, banned, gagged, and unceremoniously stuffed in the janitorial closet, per the prevailing cultural practices of Wikipedia's anachronistic tribal ochlocracy.

What Wikipedia is saying is that, in spite of the experience around the world that 18 represents a reasonable age to let people take adult responsibility, with all its burdens as well as benefits, Wikipedia, in its magic mirror world, sets aside that experience and seems to think that young children should be granted not just a voice, but power over people. I don't see any empirical evidence that Wikipedia has proven that young children are competent, it just claims they are, pointing to a handful of old before their time oddballs as evidence, while ignoring the large number of youngsters who clearly cannot behave themselves.

There is good empirical evidence that young people are competent at mastering technical systems such as WikiGnoming. There is also good empirical evidence that neither children nor adults have the slightest concept of how to exercise political power over others in an appropriate, functional, and mutually acceptable manner. Indeed, oppression is such a ubiquitous unsolved problem in the annals of human history that one could spend a lifetime studying it. The sum of all human knowledge does have something to say about solving the problem of political oppression, but the wooly bullies of Wikipedia do not seem to be familiar with that hallowed branch of human wisdom.

I'd love to know what Sam's parents thought about what he was doing (did they know, do they approve, do they understand and aren't they worried that he'll lose his dress sense?).

His father was there.

I believe that I would leave any social gathering that a 12 year old showed up to as a "principal" rather than a child in the care of someone who couldn't make other arrangements. Of course, I would be gracious and considerate of both the child and adult in the latter situation. I'm not sure about my feeling about the parent here. He probably felt some misguided pride in his child's"precociousness" and simply failed to understand the environment his child had fallen into.

Your paragraph above hardly displays graciousness nor consideration, neither of which can be found in making assumptions as to what a father feels in his child.

Except for the fact that Sam used the term ageism in a manner opposite of its normal usage, I was glad to see him present his point of view. I also noticed in viewing the video that NewYorkBrad exemplified a practice which I respect: He invariably looked at whoever was speaking, demonstrating that he was conscientiously paying respectful attention to their remarks. On the other hand, he is so poker faced that one has to wait for his subsequent comments to learn how he feels and thinks about the remarks of the speaker who has the floor.

I think Sam's remarks suggest a broader problem with Wikipedia. The community has participants of many ages and diverse talents. In a community, it is important that people are able to use their talents effectively and efficiently. Alas, too many immature characters want to exercise political power over rival editors — a function which should not be put into the hands of anyone who wants power for that purpose. In the last two notable ArbCom cases, we saw how much damage is caused by the likes of immature and power-hungry admins who have no compunction about using their power in a self-serving and abusive manner. Paul Mitchell may have been one of the more abusive admins to come before ArbCom, but he is hardly unique in that regard, and he has plenty of accolytes and second lieutenants in IDCab who demonstrate the same tendency to wield power in an abusive manner that brings disgrace to the project.