Language between bias and understanding: The case of LGBTQ+ terminology in Albanian language

A while ago, I was scrolling through Instagram, as we often do without any particular purpose. Among many posts, I came across one from the Wikimedia Foundation about how scientific research can be turned into public knowledge. It was a simple sentence, but it stayed with me.

I immediately thought about my own experience with the Albanian-language Wikipedia project and my role as a project manager with a User Group of wikimedians in Albania. For more than five years, I organized activities, trainings, and campaigns related to topics concerning the LGBTQ+ community. During this time, I have seen how an article, a translation, a term, or even a single sentence can open difficult but necessary discussions.

At first, topics related to the LGBTQ+ community in Albanian seemed to me mainly like a matter of translation: How do we accurately translate a term from English? Should we use “gej” (gay) or “homoseksual” (homosexual)? Should the word “queer” remain in English, or should it be explained in Albanian? How do we explain “bisexuality” without narrowing its meaning? And many other similar questions. Over time, I understood that this was not only a linguistic issue, but also a social one.

Language does not live separately from society. It carries society’s bias, fear, shame, silence, and denial, but also its possibility for change. If a society looks at the LGBTQ+ community with suspicion, this is often reflected in language as well. Words can be used as labels, as mockery, or as a way to exclude. But the same words, when explained carefully, with sources and neutrality, can become bridges of understanding.

Here, a concept from Paul Grice is useful: conventional implicature. Words do not only say what appears on the surface. They also carry meanings that come from the way they are chosen. A derogatory word, for example, does not only give information. It also communicates an attitude, a judgment, or a distance.

This is very important when we speak about LGBTQ+ terminology in Albanian. A definition is not just a term. It can carry histories of shame, violence, misunderstanding, or silence. But it can also carry the possibility of clarification, understanding, and acceptance.

In this sense, the struggle is not only between language and society. The struggle also happens inside language itself: will we use language to repeat the prejudices we have inherited, or will we use it to open a fairer space for knowledge?

One simple example is the article Biseksualiteti on Albanian Wikipedia and its comparison with the article Bisexuality on English Wikipedia. Both articles explain the same concept, but the way they build that explanation says a lot about the state of knowledge in each language. In Albanian, the article creates a starting point for readers who are looking for information in their own language. However, it still has room for expansion, clarification, and stronger sourcing.

In English, the article is longer, more developed, and includes more layers: different definitions, the history of the term, debates around identity, visibility, misunderstandings, and the erasure of bisexuality from public discourse. This does not mean that the article is “better” simply because it is written in English. It means that, in that linguistic space, there have been more sources, more public discussions, more editors, and more efforts to document the topic.

In Albanian, the challenge is twofold. On the one hand, we need to find the right words. On the other hand, we need to build the context that makes those words understandable.

For a reader who has had little or no contact with LGBTQ+ terminology, the word bisexuality may seem distant, foreign, or loaded with stereotypes. That is why an encyclopedic article should not only translate. It should explain. It should show that “bisexuality”, in this case, relates to romantic, emotional, or sexual attraction to more than one gender; that it is not necessarily “confusion”; that it is not a temporary phase for everyone; and that identity, behavior, and attraction are not always the same thing.

This is where Wikipedia has a specific role. In the article The 3 building blocks of trustworthy information: Lessons from Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation highlights three core principles of trustworthy knowledge on Wikipedia: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. For LGBTQ+ topics, these principles are not just technical rules. They are protections against prejudice.

Neutrality does not mean placing scientific knowledge and discriminatory language on the same level. Verifiability means that information about the LGBTQ+ community should not be based on personal opinions or social prejudice, but on reliable sources. No original research reminds us that Wikipedia is not a place to invent definitions, but to summarize knowledge that has already been published and can be checked.

For me, working with articles about the LGBTQ+ community on Albanian Wikipedia has always been more than editing. It has been a process of listening. I have learned from activists, colleagues, new contributors, people who were afraid to speak openly, and people who insisted that words should be accurate.

I have seen how a carefully written term can give someone the feeling that they exist in their own language. This matters deeply. Because when a word is missing, the space to speak is often missing too. When a term is clearly explained and supported by sources, it can change the way a reader understands a human reality.

This is why I say that language can open the mind. Not immediately. Not alone. Not without resistance. But it can do so step by step, through an accurate definition, a careful translation, a good source, and many small editorial decisions.

In this sense, Wikipedia as a platform is not only an encyclopedic archive. It is also a space where terms are first introduced and presented to a wider community, before they gradually become more stable in use and in public discourse.

Change begins when language stops functioning as a boundary for imposed identities and becomes open to revisiting meanings of terms and words. A word is not closed inside fixed meanings. It remains open to revision, allowing us to move beyond the labels we have inherited.