QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 5th April 2008, 8:49am)
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.
lol, class! (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)
QUOTE(bluevictim @ Sat 5th April 2008, 3:36pm)
I had never heard the verb "out", the past tense verb form "outed", or the present participle form "outing" to refer to anything other than revealing that another person is gay until I saw it on Wikipedia.
I've heard it used in the occult community , to 'out' someone as being a witch or whatever.
Or to come 'out of the broom closet.'
There are numerous sexual or identity proclivities people can come out as nowadays, such as Furries, transvestites, or fetishists of various kinds.
Maybe by calling it 'outing' , wikipedians are revealing how much of their sense of identity is invested in wikipedia, or maybe it is a genuine sexual orientation in some cases (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)