Wiki Criticism is Apparently Needed

Hi. I’m the same dude who ran this blog before I deleted. You all know me by now, so let’s keep this brief.

Link to my original intro

Link to MOGAI-Monarchs’ “Wiki Saga” tag

Link to Genderpedia page on terms coined and redefined on the Wiki

Link to Genderheaven’s “LGBTA Wiki” tag

For anyone wondering why I deleted, an anon (I think- my memory sucks) accused me of doxxing Wiki members (even though I never did anything like that) and it kinda freaked me out. I know it was kind of reactionary, but hopefully y’all can understand, because that’s some really stressful stuff.

(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.

It happened again! Why do we even try?

Whaddo you know. Someone just admitted to changing the definition fo a term because they wanted it to be different. And it hasn’t been reverted. Any discourse about Valentine’s Day, what it’s about, etc. is entirely irrelevant here. If someone wants to coin a Valentine’s related gender that’s only related to romantic love, that is their right, there’s nothing wrong with it and you do not get to change it’s definition to fit your wants for that term or to make it fit Valentine’s Day in a way that you deem appropriate. Especially not on a term archival site. I want to say that they’re not changing, just getting more subtle, but that’s not even the case. This is almost more out in the open than it was on the old site.

Since I’ve noticed the recent issue with redefinitions on the Wiki, I’ve been doing a lot more lurking. Luckily that seems to have stopped, however, I’ve noticed a different issue. I don’t know how long it’s been going on exactly, but it’s equally, if not more, drastic than redefining.

I know I’ve made a post in the past about term erasure in regards to the Wiki, but it seems to be a lot deeper than I thought.

I should preface this post with the fact that I do not think that Wikis should be used to coin terms. That’s entirely against the point of them in the first place and it can make definition verification more difficult. I also think that Wiki pages should link to sources for term coinings, definitions, flags, etc.

However, I don’t believe that any of this should lead to a page being removed from a Wiki, especially if it leads to a term being wiped off the face of the Earth. Sure, they should not be left up as is for the most part - I feel that unsourced pages should have sources added to them where possible and that it should be noted when it isn’t and that any users who consistently coin terms on Wiki should be blocked. But that’s it. Terms should not be erased for those flaws.

To get to the main issue of the post, I’ve been going through pages tagged for deletion on the Wiki and noticed some concerning patterns.

First off, a number of pages are being deleted for their terms being similar to other terms. Some of these terms will have their pages (and, unfortunately likely, their definitions) merged with those of other pages. Others, as far as I can tell, will just be out and out deleted. As unfortunate as the latter is, for terms that were coined in other places, it could be far worse. At least they’ll exist somewhere else and somewhere that’s more trustworthy. Terms from the latter group that were coined on the Wiki or any terms in the former group, there are more issues. To hopefully make this point clear, I would like to use an example: Animegender (deletion notice here)

There are a few issues with that page, mainly the definition being from a separate term, while the flag that IMOGA-Pride made is listed as the flag, but that’s not for this post. For the purpose of simplicity, I’ll be treating the page, I’ll be treating it as though it’s for the IMOGA-Pride coined version of the term exclusively, primarily as that’s where the first listed flag is from and it’s the term that most are familiar with.

This term’s page is set to be deleted and merged with the page of Anigender. This is a problem for one specific reason. Going off of the definition for Anigender that’s currently listed on the Wiki (here), it is a fairly meaningfully different term from Animegender. Anigender is related to anime in a very broad sense; it could be related to different kinds of anime, related aesthetics, certain characters, etc. This is an issue because Animegender is explicitly related to being animekin in some way. 

While these terms could be seen as similar, especially in name and from a primarily surface level/aesthetic viewpoint, they are meaningfully different. Not only is it an issue because these terms have notable differences in the most basic sense, but because it could strip kin individuals of a term created specifically for them; taking it from a term that is inherently related to and created for kin, to one that could be related to kin if someone wants, but could also be anything else for anyone.

Another term up for deletion due to “similarities” to a different term is Appleian (here). Appleian is set to be deleted due to being a “copy” of the term Applegender (here). This holds more drastic issues than the previous example when it comes to being seen as similar for one reason. While Anigender can at least be used for kin reasons under the right circumstances, Appleian can only be seen as at all similar to its “counterpart” if one has a very specific definition of aesthetic to whoever added the deletion notice to the page.

Appleian is a term listed as being related to the aesthetic of apples. That is it, that is all. On the other hand, Applegender has a far different definition outside of one small, technically similar aspect. In part, its described as being related to the taste of apples and possibly being sweet and juicy. Due to two mentions of Applegender possibly being related to the look of apples, Appleian has been written off as a clone and will likely be deleted.

This would be concerning as is, with it painting the Wiki as a place that is not friendly to terms that bear any similarities to others, regardless of the major differences, but it gets worse. Appleian was coined on the Wiki. As of me writing this post, it is the only place that has the term listed. If this page gets deleted, there will be no more Appleian. All because it bears minor similarities to an obviously different term.

The final term I’d like to mention that’s being deleted for similarities is Artemgender(here). It’s being deleted for its similarities to the term Cadensgender(here). Cadensgender is a term that changes based on the music one is listening to. That’s it. There’s no specification, just the very general conditions listed for the gender changing, and that’s essentially it.

Artemgender on the other hand does have inherent specifications as to how and when it changes. Specifically, it changes to match the gender of the artist who created the music that one is listening to and generally only changes in relation to specific music, not music in general.

Due to the very general similarity of changing due to music, Artemgender is set to be removed from the Wiki, regardless of the specifications that make it a clearly distinct term from Cadensgender.

To make it worse, This is a similar case to Appleian - the term was coined on the Wiki and is not listed anywhere else. Once this page is deleted, that’s going to be it.

Outside of this, I’ve noticed one other uniquely notable commonality among gender pages set for deletion and have two other terms that I would like to mention. First, the other trend: pages that are marked to be deleted for no listed reason.

This won’t be as long of a segment as its problems feel more obvious and are less varied. The terms that I saved for this issue are as follows: Zeronian(here)

Ichthyogender(here)

Icechocoan(here)

The main issue here is that, while two of these terms have been moved to Genderpedia and have been saved, this version of Ichthyogender hasn’t. Once it’s gone, it will likely be gone, too.

Finally, the honorable mentions - terms that don’t fit within a pattern, but that deserve special attention called to them regardless.

First - Annuagender(here)

Annuagender is marked for deletion for what is honestly the most baffling reason yet, outside of users declaring terms with minor similarities functionally identical. The only reason this term is listed for deletion is due to the fact that it’s tagged with Xenogender when, based purely on the listed definition, it may not have to be.

A term is about to be deleted from an LGBT+ Wiki due to either not being strictly a Xenogender or for being tagged incorrectly. I’m not sure which it is, primarily since they’re equally as asinine.

This term is also not archived anywhere else, so it, too, will be wiped off the internet due to either a non-issue or an easily fixable mistake.

Second - Aichmophobian(here)

While the reason for this term’s deletion makes mildly more sense than the first, it is still in no way justified and is entirely unacceptable behaviour for an archival Wiki like this one.

Aichmophobian is marked to be deleted in part due to the coiner having been a bad person. Not a troll from what I’m aware of (though there’s a case to be made for leaving some of those up with proper context as well), just someone with (at best) questionable beliefs.

Keep in mind, I’m in no way defending this individual, nor their actions. From what I’m aware of, what they’ve done is entirely inexcusable and should not be repeated or taken lightly.l However, that does not change how useful this term could be to others, especially as this user did not seem to be a run-of-the-mill troll just making fun of Xeongenders.

In addition to that, this term also exists primarily on the Wiki and will also disappear with this page.

To be completely honest, I’m not sure how to end this post, primarily because I don’t know what can be done and there’s no real “be cautious of information from this wiki” lesson to be had.

This whole thing is just really disheartening. We’re watching terms be deleted for non-issues, things that are issues but that shouldn’t get terms wiped, or because someone misunderstood a definition. It should be concerning that terms can be removed this easily with seemingly no way to stop it.

The only thing I can ask is that any archival bloggers or site runners do their best to archive terms from that category before it’s too late. Not only can this Wiki not be trusted to provide reliable information, but it also can’t really be trusted to provide information at all.

This is going to be a fun one. I know I’ve been gone for a few months and this is definitely a hell of a come back, but there’s a reason for it. 

I was really hoping that with the changing mod team and maybe the platform move, things would get better. And for a while, they did. There were still some pages that had some incorrect definitions listed and multiple pages with deleted, un-archived resources, but that was just residual from old problems. Then it seemed like something changed.

In the past month or so, there’s been an uptick in redefinitions and ones that are not getting fixed. This issue has gotten so bad that two Wiki users who, as far as I can tell, have not coined a single term both have list pages on Genderpedia for terms they’ve redefined. 

These users (Xinaphoria and Xeno Bemo) have collectively redefined over twenty terms. The redefintions range from relatively minor, though still notable things - like changing the “happy aspects of dreamcore” in the Kidreamcoric definition to read “joyful aspects of dreamcore” - to far more egregious issues, like what was done to Creepcakic and every term that Xeno Bemo has touched. These changes are actively going unchanged by both mods and other users.

This whole thing can, in part, be put down to a lack of moderation. Regardless of how much change it seems that the new mods are trying to make, I doubt that there are enough to mod a Wiki of this size. Many users of this Wiki have made it clear that they have to be watched at all times to keep the Wiki reliable and the team of five running this Wiki is not a big enough number to do that.

I really think this Wiki needs stronger moderation. It’s clear that they are, to an extent, capable of positive change, seeing as they kept it up for months, but that small of a mod team can’t moderate a Wiki that’s as big as they are and that gets as much traffic as they do.

I’m not really sure what the major point of this post is, other than that I would advise anyone who’s started being more trusting of the LGBTA Wiki should start checking sources and be wary of everything said there.

The LGBTA Wiki page for Gastrogender treats multiple different terms as though they’re exclusively different names for this term, only links to Gastrongender (likely only because of how vocal MOGAI-Monarch’s were about misrepresentation of their terms, though I guess not enough to keep this from happening), and never mentions that any of these terms were coined separately.

Why am I bringing this up now, even though it’s been like this for months? Well, because it was edited recently. What was changed? The symbol made by Pumpkigender/Mason was removed. The change made to this page both removed a symbol made for it and didn’t correct any of the glaring misinformation.

It’s really infuriating when moderators and admins comment on or edit posts with inaccuracies, without histories, that conflate terms, etc. and then don’t fix any of the things wrong with it.

Shout out to LGBTA Wiki mods defending the misapplication of a suffix to genders that:

1) Do not use that suffix 2) Do not fit the qualifications for genders that use that suffix

This is so wild. It’s not like it would jeopardize the integrity of the gender system or whatever to remove the misapplication of an already completely misused suffix.

The comment they responded to even said that -coric is a suffix. Not an umbrella terms for genders related to cores, a suffix that only applies to genders that use that suffix. Also, they just decided that it was ok because maybe those genders could be related to cores, even though that wasn’t anywhere in the definitions for them.

So redefinition and a serious lack of care for accuracy. No one like this should be a moderator for a Wiki like this. It might seem harsh, but if you imply additions to definitions to defend the misuse of a suffix, you should not moderate a Wiki that concerns this. 

Someone changed the definition on the LGBTA Wiki page for Keplerique back to almost exactly the original (this version did say Xenogender instead of gender) and Chaoticcylinder reverted it.

A moderator reverted someone making the page as accurate as possible. Another little infuriating thing about this is that it changed the listed name for the coiner (Pumpkigender/Mason) from the user name that was the most accurate at the time back to the one that it was when the page was made and never changed it.