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:

[Rootology]

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.

I don't see the problem with authorities on a subject defining their own terms in general. An accepted, respected nuclear scientist should have more weight in defining terms related to nuclear physics; a professional puppeteer working for Jim Henson Company should have more weight in defining puppeteering terms; a term used almost exclusively by one culture should also have more weight and authority in defining it's meaning. It's got nothing to do with sex, sexual orientation, or even empowerment. It's common sense. If all the women on earth began calling it the Vajayjay in honor of Oprah, or whoever called it that first (I just heard the term on McHale's The Soup and claim ignorance past that), then by God, its a Vajayjay eventually. Same as if us straights had a lingo subculture, the gays shouldn't be dictating to us what those phrases mean, who am I as a straight to do that to them?

Ditto for race, as alluded to with the Redskins example. I was born in a section of the Transylvanian mountains. If some Navajo started going off that all Romanians from that region were all bloodsucking facists that sided with the Nazis, and I shouldn't be offended, and I should accept that, I'd be thinking, "Who the fuck are you to tell me what I am?" The exact same as I'm not entitled to tell some Navajo that they're half-naked dancers who shouldn't be offended that the Dutch or whoever kicked their asses. Real life doesn't work that way.

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?

What weight issues are there involving a very common slang term for one of the larger minority groups? You lost me there. Are you saying if members of that group were given more weight in that article then it's unbalanced? If so, lets see how far we get inserting the Aryan Nation POV into the [[Black people]] article or the [[Fred Phelps]] POV into the [[Gay]] article.

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".

That thread is comically absurd. And 95% of it is about putting some random guy's picture in the article, which WAS a BLP violation.

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.

I'm about as straight as they come, or as one ex called me "American farm boy stock by way of Europe" for my "tastes". The one time a gay guy told ever told me outright that I was cute (his wording was a BIT more impolite) I was like, "Whoa. Cool." I took it as a compliment, but I'm probably atypical in that. I'd agree that most straight guys would either take it totally neutral if not get bugged out by it to some degree, either great or small.

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).

All that needs to happen is someone with time and the inclination needs to dig around for sourcing to just put the article in it's place, and then it's done with. How many times have we seen petty edit wars just stop when someone finally says, "Oh fine, here's a dozen sources that says I'm right"? Most times thats the end.

Now, why the spin?

Power politics, like you said.

[the fieryangel]

Same as if us straights had a lingo subculture, the gays shouldn't be dictating to us what those phrases mean, who am I as a straight to do that to them?

Yes, but isn't that kind of like "original research", as in NOR? I mean, if you're just looking into a mirror and saying "a twink is this", then that is definitely original research...or so I say.

The problem is that most studies about sexual minorities are done by....members of the sexual minorities themselves. You can run into anthropologists outside of the sexual minorities who study this type of behavior in "other cultures", but you don't usually run into this kind of thing by "neutral, third-party sources" in the first and second World.

What weight issues are there involving a very common slang term for one of the larger minority groups? You lost me there. Are you saying if members of that group were given more weight in that article then it's unbalanced? If so, lets see how far we get inserting the Aryan Nation POV into the [[Black people]] article or the [[Fred Phelps]] POV into the [[Gay]] article.

How much weigh would "neutral, third-party sources" give to a subculture in the gay world? I'm guessing that probably, at most, that this would merit a paragraph in the "homosexual" article....or simply a phrase.

The problem with NPOV is that you do indeed have to "insert the Aryan Nation POV into the [[Black people]] article or the [[Fred Phelps]] POV into the [[Gay]] article", in order to provide for "all positions". You don't have to give them their own article, but the positions should indeed be present, as distasteful as they might seem.

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.

I'm about as straight as they come, or as one ex called me "American farm boy stock by way of Europe" for my "tastes". The one time a gay guy told ever told me outright that I was cute (his wording was a BIT more impolite) I was like, "Whoa. Cool." I took it as a compliment, but I'm probably atypical in that. I'd agree that most straight guys would either take it totally neutral if not get bugged out by it to some degree, either great or small.

Once again, why is this an issue in the creation of an encyclopedia which is supposed to represent a neutral point of view? I say that the entire discussion is completely outside of that subject....

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).

All that needs to happen is someone with time and the inclination needs to dig around for sourcing to just put the article in it's place, and then it's done with. How many times have we seen petty edit wars just stop when someone finally says, "Oh fine, here's a dozen sources that says I'm right"? Most times thats the end.

BINGO! That's the long and short of it. You simply have to find the sources and quote them. Wikipedia should not be about validating what anybody thinks (read "the 'consensus' of five or six people who self-identify as the subject of the article and who are manipulating their own image"): it's simply a matter of spitting out the proper sources. Instead, we get "electric carving knives are useful for buttock padding for transvestites" and this kind of thing.

When you contribute on Wikipedia, creativity and "what you think" are beside the point. It's about finding the sources, and digesting the material.

If people would just do this, then most of these kind of issues would simply disappear....

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

[Rootology]

Yes, but isn't that kind of like "original research", as in NOR? I mean, if you're just looking into a mirror and saying "a twink is this", then that is definitely original research...or so I say.

The problem is that most studies about sexual minorities are done by....members of the sexual minorities themselves. You can run into anthropologists outside of the sexual minorities who study this type of behavior in "other cultures", but you don't usually run into this kind of thing by "neutral, third-party sources" in the first and second World.

No, "original research" is your opinion or mine, who are not experts on all things gay, putting our unsourced bullshit into an article on gays. If we excluded "insider" sources or authorities--as you posit--then we couldn't have Gay Experts being used as sources on things gay in Wikipedia, we couldn't have global warming scientists used as sources on global warming, and we couldn't have musicians (hint) being used as sources about their school of music. We'd only have rock musicians writing about classic music, software scientists writing about global warming, and straight experts writing about gays. It would be absurd.

BINGO! That's the long and short of it. You simply have to find the sources and quote them. Wikipedia should not be about validating what anybody thinks: it's simply a matter of spitting out the proper sources. Instead, we get "electric carving knives are useful for buttock padding for transvestites" and this kind of thing.

When you contribute on Wikipedia, creativity and "what you think" are beside the point. It's about finding the sources, and digesting the material.

If people would just do this, then most of these kind of issues would simply disappear....

...but people are fundamentally lazy, so it won't. I'd bet someone with 5 hours to spare could easily make Twink bulletproof, accurate, and a Good Article to boot.

[the fieryangel]

Yes, but isn't that kind of like "original research", as in NOR? I mean, if you're just looking into a mirror and saying "a twink is this", then that is definitely original research...or so I say.

The problem is that most studies about sexual minorities are done by....members of the sexual minorities themselves. You can run into anthropologists outside of the sexual minorities who study this type of behavior in "other cultures", but you don't usually run into this kind of thing by "neutral, third-party sources" in the first and second World.

No, "original research" is your opinion or mine, who are not experts on all things gay, putting our unsourced bullshit into an article on gays. If we excluded "insider" sources or authorities--as you posit--then we couldn't have Gay Experts being used as sources on things gay in Wikipedia, we couldn't have global warming scientists used as sources on global warming, and we couldn't have musicians (hint) being used as sources about their school of music. We'd only have rock musicians writing about classic music, software scientists writing about global warming, and straight experts writing about gays. It would be absurd.

It is absurd, but the NPOV policy says exactly that: Contributors are not to supposed to allow their own personal points of view to enter into the discussion. A person who self-identifies as a "Twink" probably could be considered as having a COI and therefore a hidden agenda, much as the same way that musicians who have first-hand knowledge to certain subjects are not supposed to edit those articles. Your "hint" simply points out that you are essentially in agreement with me on this point.

In the same way that Rachael Marsden is not supposed to edit her own article, those who "self-identify" as "Twinks" should probably not be editing that article as well, following the same logic. COI, NOR and NPOV are all policies which would be violated by such activity.

According to the NOR policy, you can't even put the sources back together in "original ways"; you're supposed to spit them back out without any reasoning. Wikipedia is not about thinking: it's about collecting sources. You're supposed to leave your brain with the hatcheck girl at the door...

BINGO! That's the long and short of it. You simply have to find the sources and quote them. Wikipedia should not be about validating what anybody thinks: it's simply a matter of spitting out the proper sources. Instead, we get "electric carving knives are useful for buttock padding for transvestites" and this kind of thing.

When you contribute on Wikipedia, creativity and "what you think" are beside the point. It's about finding the sources, and digesting the material.

If people would just do this, then most of these kind of issues would simply disappear....

...but people are fundamentally lazy, so it won't. I'd bet someone with 5 hours to spare could easily make Twink bulletproof, accurate, and a Good Article to boot.

If they could just figure out that they need to START articles this way, instead of simply writing things which aren't sourced, then this kind of thing wouldn't happen....

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

[Kelly Martin]

It is absurd, but the NPOV policy says exactly that: Contributors are not to supposed to allow their own personal points of view to enter into the discussion. A person who self-identifies as a "Twink" probably could be considered as having a COI and therefore a hidden agenda, much as the same way that musicians who have first-hand knowledge to certain subjects are not supposed to edit those articles. Your "hint" simply points out that you are essentially in agreement with me on this point.

Indeed, one of the more idiotic things Wikipedia does is to insist that the only people who should writing about any given topic are those who are completely ignorant of it. I've raised this issue several times; the response has typically been a mix of "That's not what policy requires" and "Yes, but that's a good thing, don't you think?"

This was actually one of the reasons I stopped editing content on Wikipedia; anything that I had special knowledge would tend to lead me into accusations of bias, and so I only edited content about garden-variety stuff like cities and dams, and nothing about any of the many topics that I have studied to a level beyond that of the ordinary citizen. Unfortunately, that too is unfulfilling, because those articles tend both to get vandalized all to hell, and also to be subjected to well-meaning but clueless edits by people who appear incapable of expressing a coherent thought in English but nonetheless feel qualified to edit an encyclopedia. And should you revert one of the latter ones and it turns out that the idiot in question is friends of one of Wikipedia's innumerable powerbrokers and, bam, you have people screaming at you on your talk page just like that.

I suppose some people must enjoy that game, but I don't see much fun to it. The only thing that made Wikipedia fun for me while I was there was pushing people around, and then trolling them mercilessly, and even that grew stale after a while.

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

I suppose some people must enjoy that game, but I don't see much fun to it. The only thing that made Wikipedia fun for me while I was there was pushing people around, and then trolling them mercilessly, and even that grew stale after a while.

You seemed to genuinely enjoy editing Chicago-related articles, though. You really were only there to push people around?

[Kelly Martin]

I suppose some people must enjoy that game, but I don't see much fun to it. The only thing that made Wikipedia fun for me while I was there was pushing people around, and then trolling them mercilessly, and even that grew stale after a while.

You seemed to genuinely enjoy editing Chicago-related articles, though. You really were only there to push people around?

That was before I discovered how fun it was to bully people around. There's an addictive rush to that which I enjoyed at the time, but it grew old quickly. And I can't bring myself to go back to editing content, not when I know that some idiot will come along and turn my carefully-crafted prose into word salad. I'd rather write content on my own blog or somewhere else where everything I write doesn't turn into a rear-guard action defending it against the Huns of the Internet. Argue with me, fine; but don't slice and dice my words without at least talking to me first.

The only thing that made Wikipedia fun for me while I was there was pushing people around, and then trolling them mercilessly, and even that grew stale after a while.

Do you really mean that, or is that very straight-faced humor?

If I had to identify the most fun I had on Wikipedia, it would be a close call between when I ran for the ArbCom in December, 2006, or my "three fools" RfA last year. I am perpetually amused at how easy it is to whip Wikipedians into a froth.