The other night, while watching an episode of Law and Order SVU, I was (as I often am) compelled to do a Wikipedia search on some of the actors. I noted that B.D. Wong (the always clever, sometimes snide psychiatrist) was listed as “openly gay” on his Wiki page, yet no mention was made of the other actors’ sexual orientations. I decided it was time to remedy this. With a simple click of the “edit” link, I noted that at least three other actors (all of whom were listed as “married” on their Wikis) were “openly straight.” I made a note next to my edit that I was changing this “to achieve parity with other actors, e.g. B.D. Wong.”
For some time, nothing happened. But one day I noticed that my edits had been deleted. No discussion, no debate, just deleted. Determined, I began to put things back the way they were, this time branching out into other actors (all still part of SVU). Apparently quantity gets you noticed on Wikipedia, because within an hour I had three messages from various admins, one of which goes by the moniker “FaithlessTheWonderBoy.”
Now, I should note here — because I don’t believe I made it clear in the discussion I append below — that I was adding “openly straight” to these pages not to make the point that B.D. Wong’s page shouldn’t say openly gay. To the contrary, I believe it should. Members of the LGBT community still experience discrimination, and it’s always great to see someone as successful (and cute!) as B.D. identify “openly” as one of us. However, I don’t think it’s fair that we should be the only ones marked by our sexuality. Straight people, I’m told, have sex too. Judging by the hordes of children I see at my local playground, they have a LOT of it. Thus, I think that the best way to remedy this situation is to mark both of us by our sexualities, rather than neither. At least until we’ve achieved equality, blah blah blah you know the drill.
(One more note: you’ll find a similar pattern of marked and unmarked with regard to race on Wiki, and I’m sure in other areas, too.)
The conversation following what I came to find out was considered my “vandalism” went a little something like this:
——————-
FAITHLESSTHEWONDERBOY: “Please stop introducing jokes into articles, such as those you created at Richard Belzer. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Continuing to add jokes and other disruptive content into articles may lead to your being blocked from editing.
ME: Thank you for getting in touch with me, and for stating your position with regard to my edits. I am sorry to hear that you feel they are a “joke.” The Wikipedia page for B.D. Wong, another actor who stars in Law and Order SVU, states that he is “openly gay.” (I quote: “Wong, who is openly gay, began a long-term relationship with talent agent Richie Jackson in 1988.”) A search for “who is openly gay” on Wiki reveals 72 hits. Before I edited several articles, a search for “who is openly straight” turned up nothing.
I am sorry, but I cannot accept your position that this discrepancy represents some kind of neutrality. In fact, I believe that my edits were aimed much more clearly at approaching neutrality than is your reversion.
If you insist that the “openly straight” edits be removed, I must insist that the 72 references to being “openly gay” be removed as well. “Openly gay,” when used in this way, implies that the individual should have something to be ashamed of, but that they overcame it. I’m sorry — that’s doesn’t feel like neutrality to me.
FAITHLESSTHEWONDERBOY: Please don’t use your edits to make a point, and for that matter please don’t insult my intelligence by playing coy. As it happens, I think you’re right. But there’s something you can do which is much more constructive than editing unrelated articles and leaving me unnecessary messages - deal with the situation! Go to the Wong article and any other that you come across, remove the “openly gay” bit, and explain why in the edit summary. One would think that this would be obvious, but maybe it isn’t. What you are doing with your absurd analogy is much more likely to annoy people and make them less likely to agree with you; you’re actually hurting your own cause. So if anyone gives you grief when you remove it, just state your case plainly, and avoid false comparisons.
Two more things: first, I never stated any “position,” because I didn’t even know there was an issue. This is another problem with the way you approached the situation - you ended up attacking an editor who agrees with you because you incorrectly assumed that they hold an opinion which they don’t. Before making such assumptions, you should at the very least make sure that the person is even aware that there is a disagreement. Second, how in the world does describing someone as gay imply that they should have something to be ashamed of!? What if you describe someone as female? black? Asian? tall? Canadian? nearsighted? Describing someone as being what they are by using neutral, commonly used descriptors in no way, shape, or form implies that they have something to be ashamed of, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
ME: I am not trying to be “coy” and I was not using my edits to make a point. To the contrary, I was doing what I thought should be done for the sake of neutrality, as I stated above. You suggest that I remove the “openly gay” sections of articles I take issue with. But how is this so different from adding “openly straight” language? They seem like two sides of the same coin to me.
I’m sorry that you felt attacked. I also felt attacked, because you referred to my edits as “jokes” and “vandalism.” I realize that was most likely a pre-formatted response, but nonetheless it stung to hear that editing for the sake of parity between gay and straight actors might be seen as “vandalism.” For that reason, I assumed you were taking a position on my edits. I apologize for that, and I take it back. I am glad to hear that you agree with me.
Finally, you misquoted me by saying I claimed that describing someone as “gay” implies shame. I said that describing someone as “openly gay” implies this, with an emphasis on “openly.” This is precisely the issue here — to say “openly” straight strikes you as vandalism, because — well, why wouldn’t someone be openly straight? Am I correct? Apologies if I am again misunderstanding you. But I would really — in all sincerity, no coy-ness at all — appreciate it if you could clarify for me how deleting “openly gay” from articles is different from (and more acceptable than) adding “openly straight.”
FAITHLESSTHEWONDERBOY: [silence].
—-
In the midst of my editing, I created a Twitter account, just in case I got the itch to get all activist-y on the web, that goes by the name “OpenlyStraight.” Initially I thought a wiki-bombing campaign might be a great first step, but clearly these wonderboys have lost not only their faith, but their senses of humor as well. So…what now? I’m taking suggestions @openlystraight. Bring ‘em on!
