Wiki has a great article on crossdressing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-dressing
Wiki_Pedia on Cross Dressing
Moderators: KimberlyS, CathyAnn
-
JoAnnDallas
- Miss Golden Goddess
- Posts: 992
- Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:59 pm
- Location: Fairfax, VA
- Contact:
-
Anne
- Miss Platinum Goddess
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:58 pm
- Location: Mid-Atlantic
-
Virginia
- Goddess of the Universe
- Posts: 5543
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:06 pm
- Location: Strange Magic Hill
I agree, Anne, but what I would really first like to see done and "there ain't no way," but that is to find a way to separate "us" out from the porno sites! Legitimate crossdressing sites seem to always get linked to porno somehow and people who are truly trying to find out about their emerging "gift" can see some of the seamier side of this than they should be sujected to.
I know the internet is helping to get us accepted into mainstream society although it will still take a long time, but more and more people are becoming aware that we are out there and are less "taken back" when or if they "run into us." On the other hand we = Americans are becoming so jaded anymore that not much shocks us and that in itself is not a good thing. I told SL the other day as we were walking through the mall and I know it has been said here in various ways, relative to "Passing" that if I can walk by someone who even pays me the slightest bit of attention, I have passed if that person, in their mind, does a double take and in their own mind is not really certain what they just saw. There is also the psychological aspect of the fact that the mind will usually accept what the eye thinks it sees! Thus the statement that within reason, those who choose to go out and will "act" the part can usually pass better than they might imagine.
Sorry I got a bit off topic, but again I agree with you that perhaps some type of "central clearing house" would be beneficial. We know there are lots of sites and untold amounts of information available on the net. What could be helpful now are links with the various sites to other legitimate sites. There are folks out there a lot smarter than this gal who could help devise some central clearing house. I have never Googled "us" but I would bet that you would get more information than could be computed in quite a while.
Keep the faith honey, and if you feel you have a way to do it -GO FOR IT!
Love you,
Virginia
I know the internet is helping to get us accepted into mainstream society although it will still take a long time, but more and more people are becoming aware that we are out there and are less "taken back" when or if they "run into us." On the other hand we = Americans are becoming so jaded anymore that not much shocks us and that in itself is not a good thing. I told SL the other day as we were walking through the mall and I know it has been said here in various ways, relative to "Passing" that if I can walk by someone who even pays me the slightest bit of attention, I have passed if that person, in their mind, does a double take and in their own mind is not really certain what they just saw. There is also the psychological aspect of the fact that the mind will usually accept what the eye thinks it sees! Thus the statement that within reason, those who choose to go out and will "act" the part can usually pass better than they might imagine.
Sorry I got a bit off topic, but again I agree with you that perhaps some type of "central clearing house" would be beneficial. We know there are lots of sites and untold amounts of information available on the net. What could be helpful now are links with the various sites to other legitimate sites. There are folks out there a lot smarter than this gal who could help devise some central clearing house. I have never Googled "us" but I would bet that you would get more information than could be computed in quite a while.
Keep the faith honey, and if you feel you have a way to do it -GO FOR IT!
Love you,
Virginia
First star to the right, then straight on 'till mornin!
-
Anne
- Miss Platinum Goddess
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:58 pm
- Location: Mid-Atlantic
-
Connie
- Miss Golden Goddess
- Posts: 590
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:10 pm
- Location: NJ, USA
-
Amanda Barber
- Miss Sapphire Goddess
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:23 am
- Location: Spokane, WA
It is.Tekla wrote:Is not the idea of a heavy handed administration of a wiki kinda going against what a wiki is supposed to be?
That said, there is a LOT of bad and false info on wikipedia, on a vast array of subjects because of its open policy. Often it is taken as a source of canon information when more scholarly sites with valid info are ignored.
This particular article looks pretty well done.
-
Elizabeth
- Miss Ruby Goddess
- Posts: 1878
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 3:02 am
Hey Ladies,
I am against the whole Wiki idea as it is also a great way to spread disinformation and pass it off as fact. All too many people beleive what they read in Wiki's, when it is really not facts at all.
Stephen Colbert has shown several times how bad it is, by just making suggestions on his show, then finding the Wikipedia containing the information he said, even though the information is false.
I say let's stick to published peer reviewed articles. That is the whole point of having peer review, to make sure research is really research. You open a Wiki and you open it up to those who wish to spread disinformation and lies. Unless you have someone who is willing to research every article to determine it's truth, the whole idea is meaningless.
Love always,
Elizabeth
I am against the whole Wiki idea as it is also a great way to spread disinformation and pass it off as fact. All too many people beleive what they read in Wiki's, when it is really not facts at all.
Stephen Colbert has shown several times how bad it is, by just making suggestions on his show, then finding the Wikipedia containing the information he said, even though the information is false.
I say let's stick to published peer reviewed articles. That is the whole point of having peer review, to make sure research is really research. You open a Wiki and you open it up to those who wish to spread disinformation and lies. Unless you have someone who is willing to research every article to determine it's truth, the whole idea is meaningless.
Love always,
Elizabeth
-
Elizabeth
- Miss Ruby Goddess
- Posts: 1878
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 3:02 am
Hey Again,
One more thing, if you don't beleive me, Look up Randi Moss in the Wikipedia, there is a place where it talks about him fishing with former Minnisota Quarterback Jeff George. My son made that up and put it in. No one has disputed it, so it remains in the article and people reading it beleive that Moss and George used to go fishing together.
That is why Wiki is bad. It is nonfacts and fabrications. In college one is not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source, for this reason.
Love always,
Elizabeth
One more thing, if you don't beleive me, Look up Randi Moss in the Wikipedia, there is a place where it talks about him fishing with former Minnisota Quarterback Jeff George. My son made that up and put it in. No one has disputed it, so it remains in the article and people reading it beleive that Moss and George used to go fishing together.
That is why Wiki is bad. It is nonfacts and fabrications. In college one is not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source, for this reason.
Love always,
Elizabeth
-
Tekla
- Permanently Banned
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:21 pm
- Location: San Fran Bay Area
I always thought that part of the charm of the entire wiki deal was constantly proving that common wisdom is neither common, nor wise. Besides, scholarly sites should be left to scholars who are trained in their use. (And real scholars don't use the web anyway, they still like text - which can not be changed, and can be validated as authentic.) They are hard to use, often contain elaborate taxonomies of information, that like most scholastic endeavors are a constant barrage of "one one hand, but on the other" - which, let's face it, confuses most people who want a single answer as THE answer.
Granted, some BS is there, but then again who cares about Randy Moss except Randy Moss, which goes double for Jeff George, who's picture can be found in the dictionary under 'loser.' The fact that they might fish is about the best thing you can say about them, even if its not true. What is true about the two of them is if you have either one on your team kiss your playoff hopes good bye - they don't lose games, they lose seasons. People spend the entire off-season praying that their rivals will get both of them.
Despite, or perhaps because of, the vast and sweeping errors in the wiki, it does gradually get somewhat better, which is about all that can be expected. Sort of an every-man's peer review. I don't know any real college or university that would accept a cite from wiki, still, it can settle arguments in bars. And, it does allow people to contribute things of interest to them without having to be an 'expert' .
I'm not sure the goal of the wiki was to be anything else though. The strength of any article is directly proportional to the people putting it together and how much care they put into the research and writing ------ and, and, and, the editing. Like most stuff in wiki its focus in almost exclusively on pop culture references and not on any real theory or analysis. So that South Park gets about as much space as psychoanalytic theory. In that, this article, like most of the wiki, is a lot like the Platt River - a mile wide and an inch deep, differing only in the number of citations to Warner Brothers cartoons and the Simpsons.
I find the line "This article contains a lot of good information, but it is poorly structured." in the discussion section to be valid, not just for this article but for most wiki stuff. Poorly edited also tends to hold true, but the structure is abysmal. It does have a "B" class rating, which is not good overall.
I do get tired of seeing the usual suspects cited as the be all and end all experts. It would be nice to at least see a few more TG persons cited, as well as, Vested Interests: : Cross-dressing and Cultural Anxiety, by Marjorie B. Garber, perhaps the best academic work on the subject.
Granted, some BS is there, but then again who cares about Randy Moss except Randy Moss, which goes double for Jeff George, who's picture can be found in the dictionary under 'loser.' The fact that they might fish is about the best thing you can say about them, even if its not true. What is true about the two of them is if you have either one on your team kiss your playoff hopes good bye - they don't lose games, they lose seasons. People spend the entire off-season praying that their rivals will get both of them.
Despite, or perhaps because of, the vast and sweeping errors in the wiki, it does gradually get somewhat better, which is about all that can be expected. Sort of an every-man's peer review. I don't know any real college or university that would accept a cite from wiki, still, it can settle arguments in bars. And, it does allow people to contribute things of interest to them without having to be an 'expert' .
I'm not sure the goal of the wiki was to be anything else though. The strength of any article is directly proportional to the people putting it together and how much care they put into the research and writing ------ and, and, and, the editing. Like most stuff in wiki its focus in almost exclusively on pop culture references and not on any real theory or analysis. So that South Park gets about as much space as psychoanalytic theory. In that, this article, like most of the wiki, is a lot like the Platt River - a mile wide and an inch deep, differing only in the number of citations to Warner Brothers cartoons and the Simpsons.
I find the line "This article contains a lot of good information, but it is poorly structured." in the discussion section to be valid, not just for this article but for most wiki stuff. Poorly edited also tends to hold true, but the structure is abysmal. It does have a "B" class rating, which is not good overall.
I do get tired of seeing the usual suspects cited as the be all and end all experts. It would be nice to at least see a few more TG persons cited, as well as, Vested Interests: : Cross-dressing and Cultural Anxiety, by Marjorie B. Garber, perhaps the best academic work on the subject.