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:

[thekohser]

It's pretty amazing to me (no, wait -- not "amazing", but rather "unsurprising for Wikipedia") that the [[twink (gay slang)]] article has been edited about 600 times; but compare the article about another slang term like [[Kludge]] has been edited only ~230 times, or [[Black sheep]] edited 203 times, or [[Pinko]] edited 112 times.

[Rootology]

It's pretty amazing to me (no, wait -- not "amazing", but rather "unsurprising for Wikipedia") that the [[twink (gay slang)]] article has been edited about 600 times; but compare the article about another slang term like [[Kludge]] has been edited only ~230 times, or [[Black sheep]] edited 203 times, or [[Pinko]] edited 112 times.

Why is that surprising? Due to the edit warring, or something else? Articles on homosexuality seem like they're more of a battlefield. Is that what you meant?

[thekohser]

It's pretty amazing to me (no, wait -- not "amazing", but rather "unsurprising for Wikipedia") that the [[twink (gay slang)]] article has been edited about 600 times; but compare the article about another slang term like [[Kludge]] has been edited only ~230 times, or [[Black sheep]] edited 203 times, or [[Pinko]] edited 112 times.

Why is that surprising? Due to the edit warring, or something else? Articles on homosexuality seem like they're more of a battlefield. Is that what you meant?

Please note the word I used, versus the word you used.

[Rootology]

It's pretty amazing to me (no, wait -- not "amazing", but rather "unsurprising for Wikipedia") that the [[twink (gay slang)]] article has been edited about 600 times; but compare the article about another slang term like [[Kludge]] has been edited only ~230 times, or [[Black sheep]] edited 203 times, or [[Pinko]] edited 112 times.

Why is that surprising? Due to the edit warring, or something else? Articles on homosexuality seem like they're more of a battlefield. Is that what you meant?

Please note the word I used, versus the word you used.

I'm shrugging here. I just don't get why the edit counts on any of these raised any particular eyebrows in any way, shape or form.

[thekohser]

I'm shrugging here. I just don't get why the edit counts on any of these raised any particular eyebrows in any way, shape or form.

I guess it's just my Midwestern, early Generation X social mores shining through. You would think that slang terms that have a long and storied tradition in usage and literature (such as black sheep or pinko) would have garnered more attention and crafting and improvement from a "normal" editorial pool than a very recent, highly-specific term like "twink". Wikipedia doesn't have a "normal" editorial pool, though.

With Wikipedia, I am completely accustomed to it now. Toward the "latest", "buzzworthy" topics, the Wiki-masses gravitate with a magnitude difference in scale than to the "old", "tired" topics that we would normally expect from an encyclopedia.

Google tells me "black sheep" has over 8 million hits; "pinko" more than 6 million. These words came into use in the mid-1700's and the mid-1930's, respectively. "Twink" has nearly 14 million Google hits, but it's only existed for, what, 20 years? So, we see that both Google and Wikipedia have a bias toward recency and probably salaciousness, too. Meh.

[Rootology]

I guess it's just my Midwestern, early Generation X social mores shining through. You would think that slang terms that have a long and storied tradition in usage and literature (such as black sheep or pinko) would have garnered more attention and crafting and improvement from a "normal" editorial pool than a very recent, highly-specific term like "twink". Wikipedia doesn't have a "normal" editorial pool, though.

A storied tradition in the mainstream literature of the time, sure. And what is a "normal" editorial pool?

Most if not half of the edits on this article are reverts any way for stupid bigotry like "REMOVED FAGGOT COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS, JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HELL DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE AN EXCUSE TO BREAK THE LAW" and other gay bashing.

With Wikipedia, I am completely accustomed to it now. Toward the "latest", "buzzworthy" topics, the Wiki-masses gravitate with a magnitude difference in scale than to the "old", "tired" topics that we would normally expect from an encyclopedia.

I wouldn't go so far as to call a 30 to 40+ year old phrase from a major minority group latest and buzzworthy. It's not like it came from some place like E! or Idol. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Google tells me "black sheep" has over 8 million hits; "pinko" more than 6 million. These words came into use in the mid-1700's and the mid-1930's, respectively. "Twink" has nearly 14 million Google hits, but it's only existed for, what, 20 years? So, we see that both Google and Wikipedia have a bias toward recency and probably salaciousness, too. Meh.

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.

As far as "recency", from asking around just now in the local gay community, it appears that this phrase has been in common usage since at a minimum the 1970s, and myself and others recall at least passing references to it in older fiction.

I guess part of this may be just culture, like you alluded to... midwestern or otherwise. I grew up outside NYC, have had gay and trans friends all my life, and now life in one of the cities with one of the largest LGBT populations in the country. I do a double take when I see a big wheel truck go by, but don't even notice a flagrantly gay man walking by me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Proabivouac]

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.

All of which should be deleted. Articles about "terms" are a plague on the project. Aren't they prohibited anyhow by WP:NOT? Ah, but "consensus"…a consensus of the people who hang around such articles to begin with.

With political topics, they are invariably platforms to make a point. "Islamofascism!" "Islamophobia!" "Israeli Apartheid!" starting with the title itself.

With these other ones, I don't know how to categorize it…exhibitionism? Let us demonstrate how queer-positive we think society should be by loading Wikipedia with this kind of thing. Then when anyone complains, pop up on AN like this Duncan Hill fellow and pretend others are "homophobic" for suggesting that there's anything disreputable about the word/concept "twink" or that average people wouldn't be offended to be called a "twink."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ck_by_User:Neil