• set_secret@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Weird the US slang version comes before the actual definition. Someone needs to edit that Wikipedia article.

        Every other dictionary (Including US ones)

        gangbang /găng′băng″/

        noun

        1. Sexual intercourse forced upon one person by several others in rapid succession.
        2. Sexual intercourse involving several people who select and change partners.
        3. Sexual intercourse involving more than two persons, especially with a high proportion of men.
        4. A street gang attacking random people on the streets and/or committing gang crimes.

        intransitive verb

        1. To participate in a gangbang, either consensually or as an aggressor.
        2. To participate in violent gang-related activities.
        3. To subject (someone) to a gangbang.
        • force@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Whether a term is characteristic of a certain dialect or region isn’t generally considered all that much when it comes to order on Wiktionary, unless it’s an “obscure” dialect. I contribute a lot to Wiktionary (mainly for languages other than Modern English though) and there are few rules on the specific the order of definitions, it’s mostly just common definitions above uncommon definitions (but this isn’t even a hard rule).

          Editing it to change the order for your reason specifically might be considered vandalism, as it’s typical and allowed for entries to be like this and it’s common for little disputes like that to cause editing wars (although that’s admittedly far more common on Wikipedia, since many Wiktionary contributors are actually linguists and are less controversial).

          That being said, someone actually did intentionally move the “gang member” definition above the other one, so there’s clearly some sort of difference in opinion.

          If you want it changed, the course of action you should take is starting a discussion about it. It’s a good way to get a community consensus.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            So let’s be clear here. You’re implying very heavily. Are you actually claiming that this person did this nefarious thing? What are you saying?

            • force@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              No, not at all. You can easily view the edit history of all Wiktionary pages – 2 years ago, someone put the definitions in the order they are now for a specific reason. This person thinks it should be the other way around, so if they want to change it it’d be best to make a discussion about it. That’s the best way to get a community consensus on it. Wiktionary is a collaborative effort, people have different opinions on the specifics of a page, that’s why discussions exist and are the go-to for settling differences in views.

              • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Your entire comment reads like a subtle lecture to set_secret about the pitfalls of editing Wiktionary to support his argument in this thread. I think you did that on purpose, because you figured people would interpret it as what it seems to imply.

                • force@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  What are you talking about, I didn’t imply anything I outright said what I meant

    • john89@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      It’s really sad watching you people make light of a serious topic.

      I guess it’s because you can’t tolerate any criticism of cities, even if they house most of the people who own guns illegally and use them on other humans.

      But it’s not front-page news on these websites whenever someone dies due to gang violence, because it happens every day.

      • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yeah same thing comes up whenever high density housing is mentioned, you’re not allowed to mention how horrible it is because everyone is locked into an ideology where poor people belong in very small compressed areas because then we’ll be forced to ride bikes which is going to magically solve everything