Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 87:
I think we are filling out a job aplication, or at least a volunteer form. Age is a normal question to ask. Weirdo's who won't supply basic info are naturally disregarded. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 00:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
:Why? I do supply my age, as I don't see it as an issue, but equally, I - nor anyone else - should be under any obligation to reveal any personal information whatsoever on this site, as it has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to perform the tasks. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 06:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
::You have no obligation to provide it, but likewise noone else has an obligation to avoid considering that in whatever voting process Jimbo works up for the coming election. There are a few reasons some people might consider age to be relevant, e.g. countering systemic bias or if someone is about to go to university for the first time and may have a hard time judging their workload. There are plenty of reasons to think other information might concievably lead to good reasons for judging candicates, and so I think it's very fair to ask for the info and judge based on the response or lack thereof. The SSN is obviously a red herring -- it's obvious that that information is dangerous to the giver and useless on Wikipedia. Age/Sex/etc should not be considered naturally sensitive -- they are things one gets a rough impression of immediately when meeting someone on the street. If they're sensitive to specific people, I understand, but consider it a minus if not disclosed. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 13:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
| |||