Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ageism toward Adolescents, United States

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mmales (talk | contribs) at 04:52, 27 October 2011 (→Wikipedia:Ageism toward Adolescents, United States). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Ageism toward Adolescents, United States

Wikipedia:Ageism toward Adolescents, United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Essay is largely redundant to WP:Ageism. The essay is written more like an article than anything else. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Repeat: this essay, unlike the emotional, second-hand-sourced WP:Ageism that should be deleted, fits well within the standards of wiki essays, and is unusually carefully documented. Those asking for its deletion provide no scholarly reasons for doing so other than their own personal biases. I would be happy to respond to any specific challenge to this essay whem someone decides to provide one. Mmales (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First let me say that I am not an adolescent, for from it as I am over 70. I do however think the question of how adolescents are treated is very important for us on wikipedia. There is the issue of whether they can fully assume the responsibilities of being an admin and there are legal issues. For example, my wikimedia chapter has had to say in its rules that people under 18 can not be an officer of the association or be on the committee, since the committee has certain legal responsibilities and adolescents can not by law assume those responsibilities. Since we do not ask people how old they on wikipedia, it is an issue that affects us more than almost any other activity. It is very much an issue of direct relevance to us. I am therefore prepared to allow more latitude than the guidelines you quote offer to encourage thinking among wikipedia editors on this issue. I welcome a wide choice of comments. Of course it would be better if they were improved to reflect more the wikipedia context, but that is not a reason to delete. So I am with ignore all rules on this one. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an essay on ageism on Wikipedia: it is an essay on ageism in contemporary Unites States culture, which so happens to contain a single sentence which mentions Wikipedia as an example. A lot of people seem to forget that IAR is about ignoring rules which prevent one from improving the encyclopedia: allowing child rights activists to use Wikipedia as a free Web host does not improve our encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did largely read the essay, and also its references, and I noted with the edit counter tool that the user account was created years ago and had several mainspace edits. Only recently did I review the mainspace and WP:Ageism edits, which made me think that he needs to be referred to WP:5P. He should find the link in the welcome I've left him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, largely based on the highly respected sentiments of Bduke. Where there is good faith and some relevance, we should not be so quick to delete. While there are problems (poor focus on relevance to the project), it is an essay, and it has some relevance to the project. Its relevance is as an informative background to Wikipedia:Ageism, which is an important project-related subject. Mmales (talk · contribs) should be advised to redirect its focus to project relevance. It should speak in large part directly to the subject of Ageism at Wikipedia, or to criticism of the essay Wikipedia:Ageism. Userfication should be considered, though not a side-step to issues to relevance, but out of concern that this essay is not yet considered to be recommended reading. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bduke and SmokeyJoe make a good case, but it's based on the idea that Wikipedia is all about social networking. We have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. 'Ignore all rules' doesn't imply 'Ignore the encyclopedia'. Keeping this particular page would establish a poor precedent. --Kleinzach 23:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not based in any way on the idea that Wikipedia is all about social networking. It is based on the idea that attitudes to adolescents is important to wikipedia and should be discussed here. That is very far from social networking. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kleinzach, I do not see the social networking aspect. I cannot see how the Mmales might be gain social advantage from this essay. If anything, I'd say "delete" due to being essentially unrelated to the project. I don't, because it is not entirely unrelated to the project. With regard to setting precedent, can I be clear that I don't support keeping it as is. It needs to be focused on relevance to the project, preferably quickly. I don't see this as an IAR case; I see it as a fixable problematic page with respect to certain rules. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I don't think either or you are addressing my encyclopedia point. Surely ageism should be covered by mainspace article(s) not Wikipedia essays. --Kleinzach 01:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On my part, I don't think your WP:ENC point makes sense. But then I think WP:ENC is a particularly unhelpful essay in all cases except for the most obstinate problem users. Some of WP:ENC's referred "nots" do have merit. Your point that some of the content might have a place at ageism also may have merit. I'd like to hear again from Bduke, and more so am hoping that Mmales will respond. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "based on the highly respected sentiments of Bduke", are you suggesting that Bduke's argument in this discussion is "highly respected"? Because "completely specious" would be my take on it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was awkwardly put. Bduke's sentiments were a unexpected, but over the years I have only been impressed by his opinions. I can't say exactly why, but I think respect for senior intelligent people is part of it. The position is a bit out on a limb, but it feels like a bit of wisdom that is not entirely explained by knowledge. I certainly can't agree with "specious". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It’s hard to respond to criticism that my essay is too much like an article on one hand and too soapboxy on the other. None of those arguing for deletion criticized the scholarship or accuracy of the piece. Other than emotional insults, I’m still not sure why they want it deleted.

My essay was prompted by the posting of Wikipedia:Ageism (here called the “first essay”), which began by arguing that when it comes to the age of a younger candidate to be an administrator at Wikipedia, “debates about ageism are a straw man tactic that distract [sic] us from this real question,” which is “are they [sic] mature enough to be an admin?” If that was the first author’s real point, he should have stopped there. Yes, individual qualities are more important than demographic categories. No responsible person argues that, say, men or certain races should not be administrators or authors because they belong to a demographic group with high rates of crime, traffic crashes, or other ills.

Unfortunately, the first author then goes on to spend 90% of his essay attacking adolescents for crime rates, traffic crashes, and other issues that have nothing to with whether a particular individual adolescent could serve as a responsible Wikipedia editor. The first article is poorly sourced, with Fox News and Washington Post cited for two key points, and sources for crime trends (which show dramatic declines among adolescents and peaks in young adulthood, not adolescent years). In the lengthy first article, there are at most two scholarly sources cited; the rest were either unreliable popular sources or did not support the first author’s assertions.

My response essay cited 43 sources, the large majority of which were scholarly, original source data, original research, and legal citations. Those who claim it’s redundant of the first essay, or that it’s just ranting or a polemic, clearly didn’t read either essay even superficially.

It is clear that the first author was using a trivial, easily resolvable Wikipedia issue as a launching pad for an unrelated, generalized attack on adolescents which had no relevance to Wikipedia. If the first essay’s generalized attack on adolescents is relevant to the project, then my generalized defense of adolescents would also be relevant. I don’t understand those who argue for deleting my essay but retaining the first essay, other than that they just don’t like what I said.

My response essay treated the only real Wikipedia issue raised in the first essay (whether the fear that editors would suffer more criticism for employing a young administrator than an older one). The only action I could further take, if adding it would help, would be: My conclusions from this analysis suggest the first author was right: Wikipedia administrators should judge a candidate or author on his/her merits, not be distracted by debating his/her race, sex, ethnicity, age, etc. What other issues relating to Wikipedia are there cited in the first essay to address?

The second action would be to remove references to Wikipedia issues and turn this into an article focused specifically on Ageism in America. That would also be fine with me. I don’t think my essay would be at all controversial if I had been refuting arguments for racism or sexism, whether in Wikipedia administration or larger society. But I continue to argue that this essay raises points that are not found elsewhere, documents them carefully, and does not merit deletion. Mmales (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Ageism_toward_Adolescents,_United_States&oldid=457607041"