• Announcements

    • Kelly

      New Team members Needed--Moderator, Project Team, and Declass Team: Voting   12/10/13

      See:   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/164659-new-declass-team-member-needed-voting/   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/164657-new-moderator-member-needed-qa-co-mod-and-world-watch-mod-voting/   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/164656-new-project-team-member-needed-resources-and-education-director-voting/  
    • Kelly

      AVENues Holiday Special Edition is now live   08/17/17

      The new edition of AVENues is done!   See:        
    • Lady Girl

      Ace Community Census   11/06/17

      It’s time for the 2017 Ace Community Census!   see:   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/162675-announcing-the-2017-ace-community-census/  
    • Heart

      Help fund AVEN's servers!   11/06/17

      AVEN is doing its annual fundraiser to raise donations for server costs! See http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/163251-aven-server-fundraiser/ for more details.  
Lord Happy Toast

Updating the wiki

Recommended Posts

Lord Happy Toast

LOL. I sort of wish I could do the same, proposing some sort of social constructionist model of attraction, and putting it on the wiki. But I would feel really bad if it's just my model, and it was not discussed by anyone else.

Don't feel bad. Every model is just someone's model--and when put on the wiki, the author is given credit, so it is clear that it is that person's model. So as long as you either make a blog post about your model or start a thread on AVEN or Apositive explaining it, then you're completely free to make a page about it on the wiki.

In other news, I've made a new wiki thread that I've pinned at the top of this forum--I figured that this would be a good way to create more awareness of and traffic for the wiki. I've locked the thread because I would rather have people discussing the issue here than there, but I have also made a list of pages to be created/modified. That list was largely based on suggestions made in this thread, as well as what I personally would like to see improved. If there is anything else that needs to be added to that list, please PM me or say so here or whatever, so that I can update the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

When I was elected to the PT, one of the things I had been particularly wanting to see happen with the Wiki (besides a general update and overhaul), was the addition of new pages regarding various asexual "organizations" (i.e. various communities and/or websites.)

I think that the best way to do with is to have people from various organization write a page about their organization. I've made a category for this: Asexual Organizations, though you may notice that the list is rather sparse. The first installment in now in place: LiveJournal Asexuality[/i]. I'm very happy about this, and I am hoping that now that we have the first one in place, this will help provide inspiration/impetus to get more. In the near future, I plan on writing one for Asexual Explorations, and I was hoping that other people with asexual sites would be interested/willing to write ones about theirs.

For anyone with an asexual site, feel free to contact me if you have any questions about how to go about doing this, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siggy

I wanted to plug my blog under "Asexual sites" and I ended up getting sucked into editing other articles too.

One edit was on the article "Sexual". Now it says there are other colloquial definitions, and those definitions are different from the one used in asexual discourse. I'd like if someone could check that it looks okay. It's hard to describe the colloquial definition, because I'm pretty sure that most people just have no idea what they mean by it.

Mandrew, what sort of organizations are you looking to put in that category? So far we only have three examples: Apositive, LJ asexuality, and Asexual Explorations. Is it just meant to be notable websites, organizations, and meetup groups? Does AVEN fit in that category? Maybe you should send out e-mails to various organizations that you want articles on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
------

Mandrew, what sort of organizations are you looking to put in that category? So far we only have three examples: Apositive, LJ asexuality, and Asexual Explorations. Is it just meant to be notable websites, organizations, and meetup groups? Does AVEN fit in that category? Maybe you should send out e-mails to various organizations that you want articles on.

I posted a thread about it in Apositive so that's been done. They haven't updated it yet, obviously, meaning requesting the update has been done. Plus now they know about the updating going on. Always useful.

I did my best to update the list of foreign asexual forums. It's not very good because I don't speak those languages. >.< But it should be okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

I've made a pinned thread called AVENwiki, which is intended to advertize the wiki and also to give a list of pages that people would like to see updated. In it, I have a list of organization.

Apositive

Asexuality on Livejournal

Acebook

AANZ

Asexual Awareness Australia

Asexual Lesbians

The A-sylum

Haven for the Human Amoeba

If there is anything that people think should be added to that list (and but don't feel inclined to write themselves!), feel free to contact me to add it. Of course, if anyone does feel inclined to write such a page, go right ahead!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hexaquark

In other news, I've made a new wiki thread that I've pinned at the top of this forum--I figured that this would be a good way to create more awareness of and traffic for the wiki. I've locked the thread because I would rather have people discussing the issue here than there, but I have also made a list of pages to be created/modified. That list was largely based on suggestions made in this thread, as well as what I personally would like to see improved. If there is anything else that needs to be added to that list, please PM me or say so here or whatever, so that I can update the list.

A while ago I made a stub template to mark very short articles that require expansion and as of now it will also put them into this category. You can mark an article as a stub by transcluding the template into the article by typing {{Stub}} (including the double braces) at the end. Might be a useful category to point potential editors towards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

In other news, I've made a new wiki thread that I've pinned at the top of this forum--I figured that this would be a good way to create more awareness of and traffic for the wiki. I've locked the thread because I would rather have people discussing the issue here than there, but I have also made a list of pages to be created/modified. That list was largely based on suggestions made in this thread, as well as what I personally would like to see improved. If there is anything else that needs to be added to that list, please PM me or say so here or whatever, so that I can update the list.

A while ago I made a stub template to mark very short articles that require expansion and as of now it will also put them into this category. You can mark an article as a stub by transcluding the template into the article by typing {{Stub}} (including the double braces) at the end. Might be a useful category to point potential editors towards?

Thanks! I've seen other places that do that, and it makes sense. I think I'll still keep the list pinned here though--I figure that having the list in the pinned thread could also help encourage people to become editors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

Right now, the part of the wiki I've been focusing on is the part of Asexual Organizations. So far, we've got shiny new pages for HPoA, LiveJournal Asexuality, and Asexual Explorations. I've contacted people for several of the other ones, and I've heard back from a couple, so a few more might get things soon.

Right now, there are two big questions that I'm trying to figure out.

First, on the Asexual Sites page, I would like to add links to the relevant wiki articles for sites that have them. But the thing is that this is a minority of the sites. (Some of those are blogs, facebook groups, things only tangentially related to asexuality, etc.) for which I'm not sure that an asexual organization page would be appropriate. So the question is how to add a link for certain ones in a way that would be aesthetically pleasing.

Would we put it at the end of those pages?

Do we put it at the beginning of things (for those that have it) and put the link at the end of the blurb? Or do it we put it at the beginning of things (if they have it) and put the link at the end (whether or not they have their own wiki page)?

Second, recently, a number of asexy forums have popped up. (I am aware of three.) Should we make pages for these organizations and ask their owners to write something? Should we just wait and see if the people running them take the initiative of making something? So far, I haven't made anything for them--it's not that I have anything against any of these forums (at least now that the color-scheme for Knights of the Shaded Triangle no longer makes my eyes bleed), but I admit that for any new forum or blog, by disposition I am skeptical of long-term viability, and making a new page for each one as soon as it popped up would result in pages for organization that never really make it off the ground.

Thoughts from people working on the wiki?

Thoughts from people running said new forums?

Thoughts from anyone else who has something to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hexaquark

First, on the Asexual Sites page, I would like to add links to the relevant wiki articles for sites that have them. But the thing is that this is a minority of the sites. (Some of those are blogs, facebook groups, things only tangentially related to asexuality, etc.) for which I'm not sure that an asexual organization page would be appropriate. So the question is how to add a link for certain ones in a way that would be aesthetically pleasing.

Would we put it at the end of those pages?

Do we put it at the beginning of things (for those that have it) and put the link at the end of the blurb? Or do it we put it at the beginning of things (if they have it) and put the link at the end (whether or not they have their own wiki page)?

hmm, I’ve actually been thinking about this too. At first I thought we could just change the external links to wikilinks (only for the pages that have articles obviously) on the Asexual sites page… but then that changes one click into two to get to the website. I value efficiency, so that didn't sit right… Here, I left an example of one idea in the sandbox for you.

Have other thoughts but I really need to sleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

I like the look of it, but the version that you've made makes it a little bit difficult at times to connect the thing on the left with the thing on the right. One option would be to try to put it in an enclosed table. (But I tried to do that with code taken from wikipedia, and it didn't give me the enclosed part of the table.) Another option might be to try to put an extra line between each website. Any idea how to do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

Ooohh, pretty...

I like both and don't have a strong preference for either. You say that you're partial to the latter. So I figure we should wait and give people the chance to express a preference and then go with whatever seems to be the majority opinion. (I could make a poll, but I don't feel like it's important enough of an issue for that.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siggy

Second, recently, a number of asexy forums have popped up. (I am aware of three.) Should we make pages for these organizations and ask their owners to write something? Should we just wait and see if the people running them take the initiative of making something? So far, I haven't made anything for them--it's not that I have anything against any of these forums (at least now that the color-scheme for Knights of the Shaded Triangle no longer makes my eyes bleed), but I admit that for any new forum or blog, by disposition I am skeptical of long-term viability, and making a new page for each one as soon as it popped up would result in pages for organization that never really make it off the ground.

I think you are right to be skeptical of long-term viability. I think forums should satisfy some sort of notability criterion before they have their own article. And to be listed as an "asexual site", there should be much weaker notability criteria.

I have no idea what those notability criteria should be. Maybe if the forum is around for at least a year, and is still somewhat active. There aren't too many forums, so we can just judge on a case-by-case basis.

Blogs are more troublesome. There are plenty of blogs being left out of the wiki. And I'm not even thinking about the innumerable tumblr and LJ blogs out there.

There are also many blogs which are linked which are no longer active. And yet, if we threw out all the inactive blogs, we'd lose a lot of the best ones (such is the sorry state of the asexual blogosphere). I think we should separate out blogs that are "active" and blogs that have not updated for at six months or a year or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

I figured that it would be best not to give any of the blogs their own wikipage (it was my static content one that I gave its own page).

Separating active from inactive ones sounds like a good idea. Does posting in the last 3 months sounds like a good criteria for being active?

As for the forums, I think that at this point--practically speaking--the standard is going to be that some people from the forum a) have to ask to have a page made (or make it themselves) and b) be willing to write something about it.

One thing that has sort of surprised me about the difficulty of getting people to write pages for their own sites is that, generally, people like promoting their own sites. And yet when I say, "Hey! Come write about your site!" not many do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hexaquark

Separating them is a good idea. What about communities that are inactive? Consider:

http://community.livejournal.com/asexual_lit/profile

http://community.livejournal.com/celibatewhore/profile

http://community.livejournal.com/safespace/profile

It is odd that not many people are stepping forward to promote their sites; it would be nice to get a brief description for all the entries on the list. Maybe they can’t be bothered to sign up for an account?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

I'm thinking that it may be time for some serious pruning. Some of those were only tangentially related to asexuality in the first place or never even got off the ground.

My recommendation would be to only keep things that are no longer updated if they are of considerable historical value, or if they otherwise have lots of good content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ily

I'm not sure if this is relevant to this thread, but am I the only person that finds the "aromantic" wiki page to be kind of offensive? I bolded the parts that bothered me:

Aromantics are people who have little or no romantic attraction - where romantic people have an emotional need to be with another person in a more fulfilling way, aromantics often feel no need to advance casual relationships and are satisfied with friendship alone. The extent of this difference in emotional needs can vary, but often includes the lack of physical connection (holding hands, cuddling, etc.) and monogomous partnership found in romantic relationships; these attributes are inexistent by nature and not a personal choice, as sexual attraction is to asexuals. It is important to note that aromantics do not lack emotional/personal connection entirely, but simply have no instinctual need to further these connections.

It is possible for an aromantic individual to be involved in, and enjoy, a higher-level relation with another person, but these relations are often simply closer friendships, naturally reflecting the closeness of the two individuals and not a purposely initiated monogamous separation as found in romantic couples.

Although it says that aromantic people don't lack emotional connection "entirely", based on much of the wording, that is what the article seems to be implying. It also heavily implies that romantic relationships are better than other kinds of relationships. Also, there are two definitions of "aromantic", the other being that someone lacks an interest in romantic relationships. I don't know if people are doing rewrites within the wiki yet, but if so, I'd be willing to rewrite this article in a more neutral tone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siggy

No, go ahead and rewrite it! I've rewritten the nonlibidoist article, I guess we have indeed started rewriting articles.

BTW, on the front page, why is "Dive In" underneath "Get Involved"? It makes it sound like a page for wannabe editors to dive in, when it's really for a more general audience. I feel that "Dive in" would be more appropriate at the top of the page.

Also, perhaps we could make it more obvious on the front page that we want more editors.

And we need to publicize the wiki more too! Maybe I should start dropping links to it in the Q&A and musirant forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siggy

Another thought:

We should add an article on DJ's model of intimacy (though I would downplay the fact that it's advocated by the founder of AVEN). If you haven't ever heard of it, he goes on about three sources of intimacy: partners, communities, and oneself. Does anyone know where we can find a good explanation of this? I might have to go through DJ's blog archives or something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

Ily and Siggy, I think those all sound like good ideas editing.

And Ily, the wiki...wants...you...to...edit...it.

Siggy has already felt the lure of the wikiside and succumbed. Join us...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hexaquark

So I read through some of the oldest posts at Haven for the Human Amoeba and the added some content to the wiki page. I’m wondering if a less AVEN centric timeline/history of asexuality would be useful to have on the wiki? I know mandrewliter and Siggy have both written on asexual history…

Also, I’m a bit stuck on reformatting the Asexual Sites page (see sandbox) because I can’t decide if it looks good this way. Ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siggy

Perhaps we should take this thread as a hint to remove archaic terms from the Gray-A article. I'll probably do this myself when I have the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

I'm not sure that we actually know which words are archaic or not. I'm not a lexicographer (though I'm thinking about reading up on the subject to start the field of asexy lexicography--I am a linguist, after all.) So I don't know how to go about doing such things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siggy

I think demisexuality should be marked for rewriting. In reading the comments on this blog, I realized AVENwiki is pretty much the only source of information on demisexuality out there, and it fails to effectively prevent the many ways people misunderstand it.

However, I'd very much like it if it were not me to rewrite it. I am too opinionated on demisexuality; I fear that anything I write on it would be biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yellow Fish

Hej,

I'd be happy to take a shot at rewriting the aromantic section; or rather facilitating a discussion on a rewriting effort. I don't just want to barge in and edit (yes, I know, it's a wiki), mainly, because, even though I've been aware and lurked around asexuality sites for years I haven't really followed many of the discussions that went on in very much detail. I wouldn't feel comfortable with putting something up that's largely based on my own experience without discussing it in depth :].

I do agree that the description as is, is not really good. There's I guess, two problems - as with asexuality itself it is about a "negative" a "lack of something", which is probably why the definition as is now tends to read rather dismissive. So one thing I'd like to achieve is have a definition that is worded in a positive manner. The other problem is that what romantic attraction is, at all, is really hard to define. With bi/hetero/homo/pan there's that clear attribute of attraction toward a group of people that is definable. I would guess, as with asexuality itself, that aromantics are much harder to "group" together in their perspective on relationships.

Otherwise - short, precise, clear is important. "Labels" from my perspective have to be descriptive rather than prescriptive - i.e. general enough to be useful.

I'd probably start with a simple "A person who is not romantically attracted to others." (in line with other romantic orientations) and get more detailed in the rest of the article.

Thoughts?

[i'd take that to a different thread (and cross post on LJ / Apositive), of course.]

--------------------------------

I really, really like the idea behind ASEX (mentioned earlier) and feel it IS something that's lacking on AVEN. I'd love to participate and help out with visibility projects, but my life often keeps me far too busy to check forums regularly and dig around / keep myself informed on what happens (but I would / could make spare time for helping with actual projects if needed). Plus - I feel much more at home on LiveJournal.

So having a quick overview of projects that are happening somewhere on the page(whether wiki or not) would be great. For the more - technically difficult solution - allow a tickbox on ones profile to allow people that organise something to find people willing to assist easier, maybe even with a short section to indicate what type of skills one could offer? I don't know this simply off the top of my head.

Best,

-C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siggy

I very much like the idea cross posting to LJ and Apositive, because that would get more people involved in editing the wiki.

Yellow Fish, that seems like a good way to start the article. It's pretty similar to how it currently starts.

Aromantics are people who have little or no romantic attraction

The wording I would favor is "An aromantic is a person who experiences little or no romantic attraction to others".

The start of the article isn't so problematic. The biggest problems are later in the article, where it sends mixed messages and uses normative wording. There are also varied definitions of "aromantic", "romantic attraction", and "romantic relationship".

-----------------

In unrelated news, I went on a bit of an editing spree. I corrected several articles so that they now frame transgender as a mismatch of gender and gender assigned at birth (instead of a mismatch of gender and physical sex). The Gender article still needs some fixing (I elaborate in the discussion page).

I also found out that there is a spammer category, and it has like 1200 users. Could an administrator delete all of these, as well as all the articles marked as spam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yellow Fish

The wording I would favor is "An aromantic is a person who experiences little or no romantic attraction to others".

Mhm. That's part of the debate really, how much of an editorial "focus" do we have in the wiki of following a template setup. See also: "An asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction." and as mentioned the other romantic attractions. As is there seems a standard way of how these start. I left out the "little or no" to keep it similar - but it would definitely need to be mentioned further on in the entrance [edit: what the? ENTRY! Gah @ 2nd language word confusion.], if that's what we end up with. I'll mention your alternative version in the separate post [coming up ... in a few days, likely (I have a project for uni to complete and need to really formulate my own thoughts on this proper still :) ) before I delve into this. ]

The start of the article isn't so problematic. The biggest problems are later in the article, where it sends mixed messages and uses normative wording. There are also varied definitions of "aromantic", "romantic attraction", and "romantic relationship".

Agree. By the way - I don't think aromanticism needs / should be liked with asexuality too closely. I think there are sexual aromantics (see no-strings attached / one-night stand) like arrangements out in society and am perfectly happy with sexuals using the team if they feel it fits their experience. That's back to the definitions shouldn't be too narrow argument; personal perception will always differ too much with social issues like these to come to a very close and final statement. [Of course, this IS an asexual focused wiki so perception of asexual aromantics do play a role. But I don't think the definition of "aromantic" on it's own must be exclusive.]

Hm. What forum would a discussion like this belong in?

Best,

-C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

I once recall seeing polls done on LiveJournals Asexuality about asexuality and romantic orientation. Sexual aromantic was an option, and some people chose that option. My impression is that it does exist, but we don't know much about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yellow Fish

Found it: http://www.livejournal.com/poll/?id=1317630&mode=results

Edit: Oooooh. Someone actually answered and said they chose aromantic sexual. Which makes me want to poke them and ask for details, but uh ... it'd probably not be welcome given that poll is years old. :unsure:

I discussed asexuality with one of my sexual friends who hadn't come across it, before, lately. I usually describe myself as an aromantic asexual right away rather then going in smaller steps. One of her first questions was that she'd often experienced "romantic" feelings that aren't sexual, that she "falls in love" in that way with "new friends" fairly instantly, and asked if that would be akin to an "romantic asexual" relationship. I mentioned that notion of "squishes" that floats around to her - which seemed to hit quite well on what she tried to express. So - just on that end - I really feel that if someone that's sexual can use terms the ase community comes up with, all the more power to them :). It makes us look a lot more "normal" as a side-effect, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now