Here's another thought that struck me recently, and I just haven't gotten around to pointing it out...
Wikipedians' use of the term "outing" is, in itself, self-serving and shows a marked disrespect for the LGBT community.
Think about it: WP'ers are always misusing terms in self-serving, if not self-aggrandizing, ways. They do it because most of them are dangerously narcissistic, but that's another topic...
The term "outed" in the gay community means that an identifiable person has been revealed, against their wishes, to be gay. This is considered a bad thing for people to do because the person whose sexual orientation is so revealed may afterwards be subjected to discrimination or even physical violence by "gay-bashers."
Wikipedians use the term "outed" to mean the reverse of the accepted definition. In their case, an unidentifiable person, already known to be a Wikipedian, has their identity revealed on some website or other. The effect is essentially the same, because as everyone knows Wikipedians are all subjected to near-constant discrimination or even physical violence by WP-bashers.
This is the point, though: Traditionally, if you "outed" someone, you already knew who they were before revealing something about them that they didn't want revealed. If Wikipedians were using this term in the traditional sense, it would mean that someone who already knew one of their identities published the fact that the person is/was a Wikipedian. As in, "hey, did you know George over in Accounting edits Wikipedia? Oooh, outed!" Not the other way around.
By reversing the traditional usage, Wikipedia's screwed-up culture is basically saying that to be a Wikipedian is the "normal" state of being, and everything is just peachy until someone tries to embarrass or endanger you by revealing that you're actually a real person!
In effect, these Wikipedians are saying that being a real person is, to put it bluntly, gay. And that's disrespectful to LGBT people, isn't it?
I should certainly think so.
|