Twink Options

[Neil]

Can someone here, perhaps, explain to me why when a user adds an image of a person taken without permission from Flickr to Twink (gay slang) and I revert and block, I'M the bad guy?

This post has been edited by Neil:

[Kelly Martin]

Fundamentally, the problem is that Wikipedians tend to view blocks as punitive, and as permanent stains on whoever is blocked (even if it's an IP). This is probably because vandalism patrollers use prior blocks as basis for future blocks, without reviewing the reason for the prior block. As a result, the use of blocks as a mechanism to protect the encyclopedia has been undermined, which is why instead of blocking there's a whole panoply of stupid and moronic talk page templates to use in lieu of blocking. Of course, vandalism patrollers use a history of getting moronic talk page templates plastered on your talk page as evidence for future blocks, too.

Fundamentally, the problem is that Wikipedia maintains too much history and is too intolerant of the possibility that someone's actions are well-founded but merely misguided. In my opinion, all history of blocks should be purged a relatively short time after they expire. Other options include changing the block message so that it's far less intimidating and accusatory, altering the behavior of the software so that edits from blocked users are deferred instead of discarded, and allowing more fine-grained control of blocking (e.g. an editor who abuses image uploads gets put in a status where their uploads have to be approved by a reviewer before being allowed, but can otherwise edit unsupervised).

Of course, these changes will never occur; in part because they offend the purity of the "wiki", and in part because the community will never have "consensus" to make the necessary changes.

[the fieryangel]

Of course, these changes will never occur; in part because they offend the purity of the "wiki", and in part because the community will never have "consensus" to make the necessary changes.

I love how "consensus" on Wikipedia means that five or six people (out of....thousands???) have said the same thing.

This block is a means of trying to create a black mark (and why am I suddenly thinking of myself as a child in the confessional waiting for the priest's door to slide open?), but it's not purely as a "maintenance" or "patrol" issue.

The issue is control over the article and hence control over the term. How does one define the terms "twink"? Is the term negative or positive? To whom? And how does this reflect NPOV?

My short answer is that it doesn't: it is, once again, the desire of a certain minority group (and here we are, once again, with sexual minorities dictating their own definitions to terms used within their subcultures) to control the name by which they identify.

Perfectly understandable, yes...but encyclopaedic? NPOV? And couldn't this fall into the category of "unwarranted weight" or whatever it is that you call it?

It's more power-politics. It's got nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, unfortunately...

There's nothing in any way salacious about a topic like "Twink". It's simply what it is, a term used to describe young, skinny gay men without a ton of body hair. It's no different than any number of terms used to describe straight people based on their physical assets. It's no different than something like...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(sexuality)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar_(slang)#Slang_terms
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MILF

Or anything similar.

The problem with the article is that....their definition of the term is not clear. It could be, according to the discussion of this block on ANI, that "twink" refers to "anyone who gay men find attractive, regardless of their sexual orientation" and that this should be seen as a "compliment".

Now, even the straightest man in World who is completely comfortable with his own sexuality is not going to see being framed as "attractive to homosexual men" in terms as a compliment. I would guess that the range of reactions would vary from "neutral" to "annoyed", with probably more "annoyed" responses than "neutral" ones.

The problem is that this is not the generally accepted definition of the term, which refers specifically to the definition to which you are referring (a skinny, young, hairless gay man).

Now, why the spin?

That's my main question.

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: