#coinig post | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mp721 · 1 year

Text

The New LGBTA Wiki Still Has Issues

(Alternate title: Two-Thousand Words of Writing On the Current State of the LGBTA Wiki That I Wrote At 2am and Edited the Next Day)

Intro:

As of a few months ago, the LGBTA Wiki is being hosted on a new platform (link). While the Miraheze site is still up and will be for the foreseeable future, users are being encouraged to use the new site. The reason for the change was the massive amount of resource-less pages, misinformation, incorrectly formatted pages, etc. on the old wiki.

Though this seems like a good thing, the new wiki still has some massive issues as of writing. Since the site has only been up for a few months, there is a chance that they will be fixed, but I sincerely doubt they will be.

My primary issues with the new wiki are as follows: Lack of resources, lack of credit, redefinitions of terms, renaming terms, excluding names for terms, lack of histories, conflation of terms, only acknowledging one version of terms that have been coined multiple times.

Since I’ll be expanding on all of these points (and with examples), this is going to be a very long post. So sit back, relax, and enjoy.

Before I can get into the details of many of these issues, I have to explain something about the formatting of the new wiki. The majority of pages on it are massive umbrella terms for a given term that then list every term that the moderator of the wiki has deemed to go under it listed in an information table under a subheading. While I personally do not like this choice, I have a hard time finding anything inherently wrong with it on it’s face, so it isn’t a part of my big complaints. It does, however, contribute to a number of the serious issues I do have with this wiki.

As another quick addition, I will not be discussing every single instance where a certain issue shows up. It’s easier and quicker for everyone if I just use a few examples, often the most egregious, to illustrate a larger point. I’m sure if anyone were to go look, there are far more examples of what I’m talking about than I list here, and I encourage anyone interested for whatever reason to go check that our for themselves. With that out of the way, on to the issues.

Issue 1: Lack of resources

A number of the information tables listing subterms do not link to the post or any images showing where a term and flag were made. This can be seen on the Bigender page (link), the Xenogender page (link), and the prefixes and suffixes page (link). This is a problem for a few reasons. The primary one is that it makes it incredibly difficult to verify any information. While this should not be a problem, the majority of term archival wikis have had information in some form, so easy fact-checking is one hundred percent necessary. It, along with one of the other issues I’ll discuss in a minute, makes it hard to find where information comes from, meaning it’s harder to find whether it’s reliable in the first place, which source they’re drawing from for terms that have been coined multiple times, who is responsible for coinig what, and when and where terms originated.

Issue 2: Lack of credit.

In addition to not providing links for information, a concerningly large amount of terms also do not credit who coined them or where they were coined. This can be seen on the same pages linked in the last point. In fact, only three terms listed on any one of those pages provide links and, only by extension, credit. Those are the -corian, -comfic, and -coric boxes on the prefixes and suffixes page. While a number of terms listed in that page specifically were not explicitly coined and, arguably, don’t require credit, some do. As do all of the terms on the other linked pages:

-cenic is listed with no credit, link, or definition, despite very clearly having a coining, coining post, and definition. Several terms, including Abigender, Libragender, Xenosoft, and Xenogenderfluid are also completely creditless and sourceless.

This, alongside the lack of provided links, also makes it harder for individuals to find who coined a term in order to figure out whether or not they’re comfortable using a term or flag created vy any given coiner or flagmaker. Even putting aside the issue of whether or not pages should have banners discussing possible problematic views and actions by coiners, it should not be difficult for anyone to find that information for themselves. Especially not when it’s so easy to include information that makes that easy to find and research different individuals.

Issue 3: Redefinitions

This doesn’t require as much explanation. Though, I will give a few examples just to substantiate my point:

-corian(link) is listed as being related to core aesthetics. Not core suffixed aesthetics, as it’s defined, rather it seems to mean central, primary, embodying, etc.

The listed definition for Xenosoft(link) excludes the part of the definition that mentions soft xeninity, rather than just exclusively a soft Xenogender. While this seems minor, it is possible to identify as xenine but not Xenogender and vice versa, just as male with masculine and female with feminine, and excluding that part of the definition excludes a wide range of Xenosoft experiences.

Libragender(link) while also being conflated with Abigender and Bxgender, more on this later, is defined as identifying with two genders, as well as a connection to genderlessness. While some may experience being Libragender in this way, that is not the original definition. It is, instead, defined as being primarily Agender with a connection to something else.

The listed definition for Werewolfcorian(link) excludes the connection to escapism, the vibe and aesthetic of werewolves, the specific phases of the moon this gender is especially connected to, and attributes the connection to the sinister atmosphere of werewolves specifically to just a connection to general sinister atmospheres. There are also other changes to the definition.

Issue 4: Renaming Terms

I’ve only immediately recognized one instance of this in my limited searching through the wiki, but it’s still an issue and I genuinely doubt that it won’t happen in the future.

The first coining of the term Xenofluid was renamed to Xenogenderfluid in its information box(link), despite the fact that it was not coined as or ever referred to as that in its coining post. There isn’t a chance that it’s actually a different term being refered to here, unless it’s another conflation issue, since the Xenofluid flag is shown as the flag for this term.

Issue 5: Excluding Names For Terms

This is a fairly limited issue, as far as I’m aware, but it’s also completely avoidable and, in my opinion, inexcusable for a wiki. The first coining of the term Panxenic/Panxenogender(link) is listed exclusively as Panxenogender(link), despite that being the secondary name. While there could be the excuse made of the new formatting only using singular names for subterms, that falls apart for two reasons.

The first is that wiki formatting should be designed around the best way to archive and display information. The information that is displayed should not be edited to fit wiki formatting.

Secondly, that isn’t even true. There are examples of multiple names being listed for terms, including Xenby/Xenbie, which is on the same page, and the Abigender/Libragender/Bxgender box on the Bigender page(link). I’ll be getting back to that whole thing in a minute.

Issue 6: Lack of Histories

In addition to the other issues that seem to be brought about by the new formatting, none of the terms listed in information tables that I have seen give coining dates or dates for the creation of flags. Not a single one. If nothing else, this is an issue because there is literally no reason not to list coining dates, or the closest that can be found for terms where the original sources are deleted. There is no excuse for it not to be there. It is impossible to find the information necessary to give the name, flag, and definition of a term and not have easy access to the date it was coined on. This is a massive, completely unnecessary oversight and I cannot conceive of why this information has been left out.

Issue 7: Conflation of Terms

For anyone not in the know, the conflation of terms is a term that seems to have been coined by the mods of Gender-Archival/Genderpedia that typically refers to taking one or more parts of a term including its name, part or all of its definition, and/or its flag, and attributing that to another term. This often also involves not giving any credit to the originator of said name, definition, etc. This, alongside many of my other issues, was all over older versions of the wiki and shows up in full force here, too. It also goes hand in hand with completely ignoring other versions of certain terms, something I’ll get to later.

A prime example of this also appears on the previously mentioned Bigender page. The page completely folds Libragender, Abigender, and Bxgender into the same term, with the same basic definition. While Bxgender is an alternate name for the specific version of Abigender(link) that is referenced there, based on the flag featured anyway, it is also its own term, coined separately from any version of Abigender(link).

For full transparency, this is the only example of this issue that I found in my limited search. However, it, on its own, is still a problem. If nothing else, because this exact same misinformation, in conflating Abigender and Bxgender, was on the old Wiki. So there is absolutely no reason to trust that a lot of the old misinformation will be fixed in the move. Which, given that fixing misinformation alongside other things was the primary reason for the move, is painfully disheartening.

Issue 8: Lack of Acknowledgement of Certain Terms

To establish how this can even be an issue in the first place, I do have to establish something else, first. While I’m sure the majority of those aware of this wiki are also aware of recoining, I’d like to give foundation, just in case. Recoining is the name for when multiple terms have been coined under the same name. The most prolific one I’m aware of is Zombiegender(link) though there are several other examples(link). I’ve seen a few different opinions on how archives should handle recoined terms, but I’ve always been of the opinion that they should all be listed in some form or another, for the sake of transparency and avoiding confusion, if nothing else. I’m a fan of the way Genderpedia does it, suffixing each page with the ‘place’ in which it was coined in which it was coined, for example, Zombiegender(1), Zombiegender(2), and so on and so on. But there are other ways that it could be done. Something I’d like to hope that most can agree on is that you can’t just not acknowledging recoins for a variety of reasons, including clarity, transparency, and having an accurate account of coining history.

The new LGBTA Wikis does not use any of the options for acknowledging multiple coinings of terms. It seems that the current strategy is to just choose one version of a term to list as the real one, I guess, and then never acknowledge that any others exist. Some examples of this are Seasonalgender, Summergender, Autumngender, Wintergender, and Springgender(link); Abigender; and Monstergender(link).

Outro:

While I do have some other, more minor, issues with the wiki, I don’t feel the need to list or expand on them here.

A number of members of this community have given this wiki chance after chance after chance to get their stuff together and actually be something resembling a good resource. But, as much as it really sucks to say this, I do not believe that it’s possible at this point. This wiki has changed hands and platform multiple times and it continues to have issues. While a number of these issues have gotten better, new ones have popped up and others have gotten worse. Callout posts, coiner boycotts, new leadership. None of it seems to be enough to fix this wiki.

I obviously can’t tell anyone who or what to support or what to think, but I would seriously caution everyone to at the very least check everything you see on any any version of this wiki, if not outright avoiding it. It has shown us time and time again that misinformation will be proudly, often sourcelessly, displayed with no disclaimers or corrections made by anyone.

I gave up on expecting anything better from this wiki back when I realized that edits and pages spreading misinformation were being aloud to go public by moderation despite lack of sources, incorrect definitions, and some other issues. But this completely destroyed any hope I had that maybe it could be good at any point in the future.

This new version might, so far, have less misinformation than any other version of the wiki, but that almost makes the existing misinformation even more insidious. Readers are less likely to register misinformation as such if its surrounded by correct information. This wiki is a goldmine for that kind of stuff. If I didn’t have the knowledge I did on a lot of these terms and my existing skepticism of the wiki, I would’ve been fooled by a lot of what I listed here. I can’t imagine how much worse it would be for someone who is new to the community. Who doesn’t just know all the names for Panxenic or what the actual, full definition of Werewolfcorian is.

I’m not sure how to end this post, because there isn’t much else to say that I haven’t already, here and all over my blog. This whole situation is just incredibly frustrating and disheartening and kind of bewildering to me. Chance after chance, platform after platform, it feels like none of it mattered. There’s still misinformation, there’s still term conflation, there’s still a complete lack of sourcing in some cases. The LGBTA Wiki still cannot be trusted. And I cannot conceive of that changing any time soon.

#long post #i cannot overstate how long this thing is #lgbta wiki critical #lgbtawiki #lgbta wiki #anti lgbta wiki #mogai #liom #liom community #mogai community #xenogender #xenogender community #mogai account #mogai blog #liom blog

11 notes · View notes