User talk:Superunsubscriber

Welcome!
Hello, Superunsubscriber, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Week 8
Hey Superunsubscriber!

I found your topic super interesting. It's well-written, concise and descriptive. It somewhat meets the tone of Wikipedia, so that would be something to work on. I would also find sources for your information, as there are a lot of facts and no sources to back them up.

Denmum (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Week 7
Hello, superunsubscriber!

I am repasting your article here with the copy edit suggestions I made to help with syntax, spelling, and grammar. Changes I made are bolded and notes are in parenthesis.

Camming Camming, or cam modeling, is the act of live video streaming through a webcam with the purpose of performing erotic acts in exchange for money. The cam model typically generates revenue through donations or gifts in exchange for performing specific acts or interacting with a patron.

Webcam models usually operate from home and thus have more freedom in managing their own job compared to in-person sex workers. In particular, they usually lack a procurer and are instead self-employed. However, some camming websites will take a cut of the profit.

The majority of camming features some degree of nudity or sexual acts, but some models prefer to remain clothed and receive payment for various non-sexual acts. The sex industry is dominated primarily by women but can include models of other genders and sexualities.

Camming is a relatively new phenomenon but has risen to prominence in recent years as technology has continued to advance. The rise of the internet has made camming a massively popular form of pornography.

Background Pornographic films have existed since the creation of film in the late 1800s, but live streaming pornography has been a recent development. The invention of the internet has allowed for easy forms of mass communication, notable among them being live streaming. In addition, the wide availability of webcams has made it easier for amateurs to gain access to the technology required for live streaming. Although camming has existed long before popular live streaming outlets such as Twitch or Youtube, the aforementioned websites have had a large impact on live streaming due to their popularity and proves that live streaming can achieve mainstream success. (Note: consider using different terms or sentence structure as the repetition of "live streaming" can be redundant)Italic text

Camming services are often attached to larger adult entertainment websites such as Pornhub and xHamster, but there are also websites specifically designed for camming such as Chaturbate. Some live streams are private and require payment to enter and others are public and generate their revenue through donations.

Industry With the advent of the internet and camming achieving a degree of mainstream popularity, cam models are able to generate a much higher amount of revenue than past decades (Note: consider adding dates or time period info as this article could age and it will be unclear what "modern-day" means). However, camming websites can and will often take a cut of the profit as a fee for using their services to broadcast to a wide audience. The amount of the profit they take will depend on the website, but some cam models report up to 40% (Source?). Even though cam models are considered independent contractors and thus reserve ownership of their brand, the lack of recognition of sex work as legitimate labor prevents cam models from demanding better treatment or deals from camming websites. '(Consider adding more details about the stigmatization of sex work or camming)'' ''' In order to make the most amount of money, some models will cater to specific fetishes since people aroused by fetishes that are considered "abnormal" tend to be willing to pay a larger sum. This is described as a "race to the bottom," where cam models will compete to outdo each other in perversity (quote source?). As a result, cam models on websites such as Chaturbate have developed a culture where surpassing a threshold in fetishes is considered demeaning. The idea is that even sex workers should have some level of self-respect despite being in the pornography industry. (consider revising this sentence as it can come across as not value-neutral and possibly derogatory towards SW's)

Feminist activists are split on the idea of sex work and thus camming. Some say that cam work is inherently misogynist because women who engage in it are objectifying themselves. Others say that it is empowering since women are taking ownership of their own bodies by ignoring social conventions. (Consider going into more depth and including some examples of feminist scholarship on both sides as this is a significant debate)

Legal Issues Due to the controversial nature of pornography, camming, like most sex work, is not considered a legitimate form of labor in most developed countries. As a result, cam models don't receive the same benefits and rights as other employees since they are technically independent contractors. This offers cam models some freedom not offered to other laborers but prevents them from demanding better treatment from the websites that host them. (There is also some scholarship regarding labor issues and the difficulties of organizing for better working conditions since sex workers cannot unionize or collectivize their struggle. Consider adding some additional info here)

In-person sex work is treated worse since it is illegal in many Western countries including the US. Camming is at least slightly different since it is considered pornography as a virtue of it being filmed.

Regulation would be beneficial to camming since it would prevent cam models from being exploited for their labor. However, regulation could also potentially take away the independence that cam models enjoy such as being able to do what they want with their own body. (This presents an opinion. Unless you are presenting the argument or quote of a source you have cited, consider omitting this to have a more neutral, encyclopedic tone)

Overall this is a really interesting topic and you do a great job of introducing it and providing a general overview of the issues and information surrounding camming. Your lead section is a good introduction to the topic, is concise, and easy to follow. In your background section, you might consider adding more research and information about the rise of camming. What technological advancements besides live streaming led to its popularity? What are some of the host sites you mention and how do they operate? Are there privacy concerns? How do these websites ensure the safety and security of cam models' information or content? How is this culturally viewed in media? (consider the rise in references to Onlyfans in media, or the problems associated with this). You could also consider including some ethnographic interviews from cam models themselves to see how they view the work. The debate you touch on about how different subsets of feminist thought either condone or condemn cam work is interesting and I would love to see you add more detail there. This is a great start to the overall direction of your article and I think adding some more depth and sources would help make it stronger. In future drafts, you will also want to include links to other articles within yours and add citations.

Casademasa (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 7 Peer Review
Hey Superunsubscriber,

I really like what you've done so far overall. There are a few things I would recommend. First, you should probably add your citations at this point in your article before you add any further details, just so you can keep track and accurately cite your information. I like the sections you've divided your work into, but I think one last section tying it into privacy specifically. It's a really good start though!

Week 9 Peer Review
Again, I like what you've done. I don't think you've updated since last week, so I'll just touch on similar things. Again, you should probably incorporate citations soon, and also work on that section tying it into privacy. I'll also recommend subsections within your broader sections to help the reader get a sense of the progression of the article. Other than that, it looks good!

Redpandafan (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 9 Peer Review
Hello Superunsubscriber!

Very interesting topic and a great start to your article. I just have a few suggestions to build off of my prior peer review. content- I think the section "Legal Issues" could be developed a bit more to include legal issues in other areas of the world other than the US. Other countries might have stricter or more liberal laws surrounding online sex work. content- Just so the article is a bit more balanced and has different perspectives, you might want to consider including more discussion of the debate over camming being empowering vs harmful to women or other types of cam workers. You might also want to expand on the information you have about cam workers having a percent of their profits extracted. copy edit- You briefly mention camming controversy but I think you could develop it a bit more. You might also want to devote this to its own section instead of having it generally under "Industry" copy edit- "This is described as a 'race to the bottom,'" you use quotes here but there is no reference to where the quote is coming from

You will also want to add citations and links to other articles in future drafts! Overall really interesting topic choice and you did a great job generally covering the topic. Casademasa (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer review (Leadership)
Lead Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Can be more concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes

Is the content added up-to-date? Yes

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, the article can have more information added since you now currently have 20 sources from your annotation bibliography doc.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, but can be added.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Currently, nothing is cited which is a problem. You can refer to any articles on wikipedia to see how to cite sources, as well as past training modules you have done. This should be added, very important!

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes

Are the sources current? Yes

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) I think your sources are pretty good, includes book, journal articles.

Check a few links. Do they work? There is no citations added yet, so I cannot check.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, can be more concise though.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A

Are images well-captioned? N/A

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes, but please add citations.

How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes

Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? No, you can add a section called “See Also” that links to other related wikipedia articles.

Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No, add a see also section.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, since there is no article existing.

What are the strengths of the content added? Fair, but more information could be added. It seems pretty short right now.

How can the content added be improved? Citations, refer to annotation bibliography doc, changes to lead, add some new sections if possible.

Week 10 Peer Review
Hello Superunsubscriber!

Here's what I thought about each section:


 * Introduction: Great intro, maintains objective tone, needs sourcing to back up some of the claims.
 * Background: Good Background section, needs a lot of sourcing, some opinionated-sounding sentences in first paragraph, would recommend working on those.
 * Industry: Needs sourcing, a lot of sentences sounding opinionated or rest on a form of "some" or "most". Requires citation to back up.
 * Legal Issues: Same problem, needs sourcing for a lot of these sentences, given how they rest on words like "some" and "most".
 * References: References seem good, you probably need links though.

Your article needs sourcing in a lot of places and some edits in regards to some sentences. The use of "some" or "most" in your writing has made it difficult to validate without proper citations. Otherwise, the information itself seems great. I made some grammatical changes. You can find those in my peer review page in your sandboxes. Good job overall! Denmum (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 10 Peer Review
The lead section gives an effective and concise overview of the definition of camming and what can be expected from the remainder of the article. I think it could be helpful to include a section on how the subject directly relates to privacy issues. I think the rest of the lead section does a good job of summarizing the job and also giving an introduction to the other sections. It could be more clear if the subsections of the article were more explicitly listed out in the lead section. The background and industry sections give good context for understanding camming. The background section gives a good overview of the history behind camming and the industry section helps the reader understand the modern context of camming. For the legal issues sections, I think it does a good job of explaining why worker treatment is an issue in the camming industry. But I think it could be helpful to add specific details on what the illegitimate treatment of cam models refers to and give specific examples of common ways that workers are mistreated. I think it could also be useful to have a specific section on privacy issues concerning cam modelling so that there is a more direct way for the readers to infer the privacy related challenges of camming. I think the organization of the sections is good because it first provides context and background before moving into the legal issues of the industry. I think it could be helpful to directly cite after each sentence and use the citations in the annotated bibliography.

Thisismyusername31 (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Week 8
Hi!

This is definitely a really unique article topic. I didn't know that there was no preexisting Wikipedia page for camming, as I would've thought that there would be as it is a pretty significant industry. I think it's definitely helpful to have the background section to explain the history of how camming became popularized. The lead section gave a clear description of what camming entails and a good summary of the industry. I think it could be helpful in the lead section to lay out the rest of the article. The connection between camming and legal issues was really interesting to learn about and I can see how the two topics are closely related. However, I wasn't able to make as clear of a connection with privacy. It might already be drafted or still in the process, but I think it could be helpful to have a section that draws a clear connection between camming and privacy concerns to really help tie back the topic to privacy. I think that would be a pretty interesting connection to see as well. Other than that, I think it would also be helpful to have more citations throughout the article so that sources are linked. Overall a really interesting read and I'm curious to see what else is to be added!

Thisismyusername31 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisismyusername31 (talk • contribs)

Leadership Review (Week 11)
You article looks great but it might be a little too short as I mentioned from my previous leadership review. Also, it is super important to use the “cite” tool in wikipedia so you can cite your sources and not be flagged for plagarism. You can easily search up any article on Wikipedia on how to do this and the formatting. I like how you have “Background”, “Industy”, and “Legal Issues” as sections in your article. I particularly like your “Legal issue” section, and it may be a good idea to add some examples.

Some suggestions to make your article better is to add a section called “See Also”, where it links to other wikipedia pages related to Camming. You can also link some keywords in your article to other pages. Again, you can see any other wikipedia pages for examples. Maybe add images if you have time to make your page more interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobalily (talk • contribs) 20:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 11 Peer Edit
Hey! I really like what you have in your article so far. However, there are a few things I think you should address. First, I think that you should try to incorporate hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles in your article, especially on more specialized terminology. Not everyone reading is going to have the same familiarity with this subject as you, so I think helpful hyperlinks would be convenient to your reader and increase the readability of your article. Next, you need to fix your references section. Wikipedia has a built in "cite" function that makes it really easy to create citations and it formats for you automatically, creating a reference at the end of each sentence you decide to cite. In terms of content, I think what you have is a good start, but you could add a little more substances to each of your sections. Specifically, I feel like a lot more elaboration on the industry section is necessary, as my understanding of camming feels rudimentary even after reading your article. Otherwise, I think you're onto a good article!

Redpandafan (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 11 Peer Review
Hi Superunsubscriber,

Copy Edit and content suggestions:

"A cam model typically generates revenue through donations or gifts usually in exchange for performing specific acts or just acknowledgement of the audience member" -- interaction with audience members?

"Some livestreams are private and require payment to enter and others are public and generate their revenue through donations." -- consider using more precise language, if some are private and others are public, which ones are which? It would be helpful if you shared more information about the specific platforms that you mention in the article.

"The amount of the profit they take will depend on the website, but some cam models report up to 40%." -- Again I think the more specific you are with the information the better. You could list some popular platforms and how they vary in the percentages taken from models, instead of mentioning this more generally. Also, you should cite where you are getting this figure.

"As a result, cam models on websites such as Chaturbate have developed a culture where going below a threshold in fetishes is considered demeaning. The idea is that even sex workers should have some level of self-respect despite being in the pornography industry." -- I think the language here of "even sex workers should have some level of self-respect" can be read as derogatory toward sex workers and the tone is not appropriate for a value-neutral encyclopedic article. Also, you should cite where you are getting information about the culture of sites like chaturbate. I think it would be helpful to add more information about the culture of sex work and online sex workers' experiences.

"Due to the controversial nature of pornography, camming, like most sex work, is not considered a legitimate form of labor in most developed countries" -- how does this vary by country? Which developed countries view sex work as illegitimate?

I think it's a great start to the article but I would like to see more depth of information and more specificity. You will also want to add hyperlinks, citations, and explanation of concepts. Casademasa (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Your draft
I returned your draft to your sandbox. I think you should merge your additions to the existing Webcam model article instead. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Page moves
Hello, Superunsubscriber,

Please stop moving pages around, this is disruptive. If you don't know what you are doing or you have made a bad page move, ask for help. Do not move articles from User space or Draft space into the main space of the project until they have been approved by Articles for Creation. If you have questions, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 18:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)