Talk:Sex Workers Union

Consistency in naming

@JADIEc21 I notice quite a few instances of "United Sex Workers" instead of "The Sex Workers Union"; I assume this is by mistake? Vegbruiser (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the name used to be United sex workers. It’s now The Sex Workers Union JADIEc21 (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't want to start correcting that in case there was a reason it was left like that on purpose. Vegbruiser (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

AfC comment

I've accepted this article at Articles for Creation. This is not a judgement that the topic is definitely notable, but that it's plausibly notable and has a fair chance of surviving an Articles for Deletion discussion. There are issues with the article as present, but it contains a Studies in Political Economy article of relevance, local coverage across multiple locations and coverage in The Times. — Bilorv (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Clips4Sale/OnlyFans still lacks a reliable source

@Bilorv I've no idea why I've twice been denied mentioning these sites (by linking to their existing articles). We are just trying to get over that there is a vast industry of online only adult content creators, with very many of its own challenges, and that supporting workers in those spaces is just as important to the SWU as is supporting full service / in person sex workers.

As such they are being mentioned simply as examples of some well known online content space in order to give some context, I don't see what "reliable source" I can give.

Perhaps I should explain that "pornographic actors" and "webcam models" doesn't quite cover it, because the individuals who are the content creators are not necessarily in front of the camera themselves.KenMic (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@KenMic: every fact in Wikipedia needs a reliable source. The statement that the SWU covers people who use Clips4Sale/OnlyFans needs a reliable source. Why those two websites? Is it only about the sexual content on OnlyFans or all creators?

An example of a source would be one that talks about some high-profile campaign the SWU was involved in relating to the websites (maybe, like with stripping, how the workers are legally classified). A non-example of a source is one about sex work that does not mention the SWU. If there isn't a source, then it can't be mentioned.

This is the principle of an encyclopedia: nothing we say is novel. It is selective presentation of existing published information. I don't choose what I think is personally important and then find sources to say it—I read sources and then summarise the information in them.

The current list in the lead is introduced with the word "including", so it is not an attempt at an exhaustive list. It could do with being explicitly sourced inline, but from my reading I think it is verifiable from the 12 sources in the article. — Bilorv (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, yes. We needed to have the page before we could justify spending time expanding it. Now that the page exists we can gradually add appropriate content/links/detail on some of the campaigns, and make good the missing citations. KenMic (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@KenMic: who is "we"? — Bilorv (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

a friend of mine works with them and asked me to help update the page. KenMic (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@KenMic: if that friend happens to edit under the username JADIEc21 then it seems that they have disclosed some connection at User talk:JADIEc21#COI check for The Sex Workers Union, but I'm still not sure exactly what the situation is.

You should both read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest carefully. At some point a connection can be indirect enough that this guideline does not strictly apply, but it is still the case that you should pre-emptively disclose when you have a personal connection to a topic and consider whether you are placed to write with the "neutral point of view" that Wikipedia mandates. Most volunteers have some personal investment in the subject areas where they edit, but they are not directly writing about themselves, groups they are a part of etc. — Bilorv (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

No I've no clue who JADIEc21 is (it's not my friend) and I've no personal interest in or connection to the SWU beyond as I said helping a friend who works with them. Happy to leave the page as it is and let the SWU directly update it if they want to if that's the best course of action; I think the rearrangement I did was useful to the future development of the page but if you just want to revert it to before I touched it then feel free. KenMic (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)