Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Sex work task force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NoMonaLisa (talk | contribs) at 08:42, 3 April 2008 (→‎Name change). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Original project proposal

==Sex workers==

Description
This project would be a gathering place for editors with a strong interest and knowledge in sex worker issues, including history, research and contemporary events and developments as they pertain to sex workers. We would focus on contributing to pages that directly affect or address, and/ or traditionally ignore, sex workers and their relevant perspectives, histories and experiences. A specific task force would focus on contributing to or creating entries for serial killers who focused on murdering sex workers as well as victims when appropriate. Yet another task of this project would be to monitor and counter sex worker discrimination and bias. In my opinion, just the first three entries listed below could take a team of dedicated editors an enormous amount of time and work to update and keep current. The following is a partial list (in no particular order) of potential pages as an example of some of the work that could be done. Please also feel free to contact me directly on my talk page with any suggestions or thoughts. Thanks. NoMonaLisa (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. User: mixtapebooty
  2. User: NoMonaLisa
  3. User: sarahjenny
  4. User: Frao61
  5. User: Doug
  6. John Carter (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC) - probably primarily in copyediting, reviewing, and the like, as even to date I still haven't actually written many articles, but will do what I can[reply]
  7. Iamcuriousblue (talk) - I actually thought something like this was needed awhile back after going seeing what an absolute mess articles like Prostitution and Sex worker were. Thumbs up to User:NoMonaLisa for getting this off the ground! —Preceding comment was added at 02:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

The project would have to ensure that none of the content violates WP:OR or WP:POV as well. Also, perhaps a more clearly defined scope would be in order. I am thinking that perhaps defining the scope as Category:Sex workers and its subcategories might be useful. Additional subcategories can be created for the content which does not currently exist within that category. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns about violating WP:OR or WP:POV, however what I am suggesting (perhaps somewhat in an ill-worded way?) is that we abide by such Wikipedia suggestions/rules such as this one found on the WP:NPOVFAQ: 1.1.2: "....material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V." Also to contribute where most people are not aware that there is more factual information to report since they simply haven't been exposed to it. This is a problem surrounding sex worker issues in general because of continuing problems with biased and unethical journalism standards concerning this population. A small example of information that could be added: on the Robert Pickton page it mentions that those murdered were women from Vancouver's Skid Row and that they were mostly prostitutes. However, it isn't mentioned (among many other things) that two sex workers from the same area were civilian reporters during the length of the trial. To address your other suggestion, I am not sure if I completely understand how the category/ sub-category framework would work yet. Sex worker as a category for some of the pages above might be considered extraneous (and thus deleted) although mention within the article would be relevant. Does that make sense? Thanks for taking the time to write. NoMonaLisa (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, it works most easily if a porject has a clearly defined category with subcategories to place articles relevant to it in. That doesn't mean that all the articles have to be fit in that single category, though. A Category:Crimes against sex workers could be created within the Category:Sex workers, for instance. One way to phrase it might be that this group intends to deal with the articles in the Category:Sex industry, focusing the bulk of its attention on that content which isn't already covered in the clear focus of any other projects, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography. Would that be acceptable? Clearly, the Pornography project, like Doug said below, will overlap this one in several ways, but such a statement would allow your project to deal with the relevant content in that area as well, without "laying claim" to it. Other people could probably phrase it better, though. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the Category, if you drill down through it, it seems to cover most of the topics discussed (that doesn't necessarily mean that has to be the name however).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the title "Sex Worker Issues" is appropriate, it makes it sound like a forum. Seems like WikiProject Sex worker (second word after WikiProject is normally lower case) or WikiProject Prostitution. Suggest striking the reference to "(especially sex workers themselves)" in the description above to avoid suggestion of exclusivity as well as the issues User:John Carter mentioned.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did strike out the reference to sex workers themselves. However, I am still wavering on changing the title from sex worker issues to simply sex worker which considerably narrows the scope of the project. There are a lot of topics that people wouldn't normally think that sex workers have involvement in (other than as passive victims), such as HIV/AIDS and serial murderers. I would like the people who get involved with this list to realize that we are not just going to edit and monitor topics relating to types of sex work and the sex industry. Perhaps there is some middle ground?NoMonaLisa (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, though I'm not sure that necessarily limits the scope. I can now see that Prostitution is far too narrow a term. On the other hand, you will find that some people who would join wouldn't have any interest in some of the issues anyway. What about WikiProject Sex work? That term is used on the article Sex worker and the term itself redirects there. Or WikiProject Erotic labour as in Canadian Guild for Erotic Labour? Those concepts certainly include the related issues within their scopes. Or even WikiProject Sex industry (though that sounds kind of blah). I really just don't like the issues word because it makes me think the project is going to discuss the issues rather than write about them. In any case, I think you should probably create shortcuts/redirects from WikiProject Prostitution, WikiProject Sex worker, etc. Even as you have it, I'm not sure that Slut really falls under the topic though and the article as currently written would seem to agree. Also there will be some overlap with Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography - I don't see how you can avoid that. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doug, I thought about it and decided to change the title to WikiProject Sex workers. What do you think about that?
Considering the other things I've said, I think I pretty much have to agree.  :-) Yeah, I like it better.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I figured since I just created a tiny stub for ISWFACE, I ought to add my name, mostly interested in sex worker rights type articles.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the sex workers page needs to much work done that you could keep busy for a long, long, long time. Thanks so much for your interest and all the help you've given so far.NoMonaLisa (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do get the impression that this group would probably function best as a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. As such, it probably has enough support already (I could help with banners and tagging and such, making myself at least a quasi-member, even if I can't write very well or often). As such, it could still deal with most of the "issues" related anyway, considering most if not all would fall within the scope of the parent project. Also, we should remember that the average article will welcome input from any parties, regardless of project affiliation, anyway, whether the article is in their official "scope" or not. Regarding AIDS, for instance, that article is probably already as good as its likely to get, being an FA, but there wouldn't be any objections to creating separate articles about STDs in the sex industry, which would be more clearly within the scope of this group anyway. John Carter (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I suppose that I feel it's still a bit confusing and murky. For instance, clearly, WikiProject Sexuality and Society and WikiProject Pornography overlap. Yet, they are separate projects. A project centered around sex workers obviously overlaps with both of those projects yet it is also a separate subject. I am still having a hard time trying to figure out if it should be contained within the pre-existing Sexuality and Society group or if, like Pornography, it deserves its own project despite the fact that it can be included in the Sexuality umbrella. I do like your suggestion though that since the Sexuality project is already so well-established that there will be a good deal of people who will probably be exposed to the project and interested in helping. That may be a good enough reason to do it. Also thanks so much for your offer to set up banners and do tagging. Are there any structural examples of what you are describing to me as a good way to organize this project that I could look at on Wikipedia? I think seeing it tangibly on Wikipedia will help me make the final decision on this faster. Thanks so much.NoMonaLisa (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with John that it would be a subproject of Sexology and Sexuality, most projects are subprojects of something, it's just a way of thinking about topics, it doesn't really mean anything in my opinion. Yes, you could share a banner with them maybe and you'd probably link to each other's pages in any case; but even if you are a top level project (where it sometimes becomes a chicken and egg game - which is the parent Biology or Tree of Life?) you are never really "independent" we're all subprojects of "The Project". From the way I read it, John isn't suggesting a task force or work group, where you really are a subpage of the parent project, but simply a more or less formal relationship to another project. There's also a less formal parentage probably to WP:ECON or WP:BUSINESS (I don't see a WP:LABOR or WP:GUILD which might be more intuitive)--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a sense, if not in name, the Pornography project is already a "topical" subproject of the Sexology and Sexuality project. Basically, it might be possible to set up the project banner like either the Australia banner on Talk:Sydney or alternatively the Hinduism banner on Talk:hindu mythology, which actually contains both the "Hindu mythology" and "Hinduism" banners, although they appear separately. It would also provide assessments for both. I acknowledge I've had difficulties setting up copies of the Australia banner, but the Hinduism banner looks a bit more straightforward, if that's the example you'd like to follow. John Carter (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the format of the Talk:hindu mythology banner better. It seems clearer to me than the other. I think that I am about at the point where I would like to make this a sub-project of WikiProject Sexuality.
Wow, I've never seen that Hinduism banner before, that's an interesting way to do things. Doesn't really reduce "talk page clutter" (whatever that is) much, but it does show the "sub-project" in a much more prominent light than the Australia banner that treats the subproject similar to a WP:MILHIST task force.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being a sub-project of (or perhaps until you get more editors signed-on, even a task-force under) sexology and sexuality certainly makes sense to me. To the list of suggested topics, perhaps you could add something along the lines of "Dominatrix" or "Professional BDSM" (to be both gender and top/bottom inclusive) or some such? Also, personally I really love the term "Erotic laborer" and prefer it to "Sex worker" since it's both more inclusive and less likely to be confounded with "prostitute". You may also wish to add topics for "erotic bodyrub" and/or "phone sex operator". To me, the focus on serial killers seems a bit arbitrary. Perhaps instead, a focus on "crimes against sex workers" with reference to both crimes, victims, and the way various legal systems might treat the incidents. The recent Judge Deni case in Pa. for example, has nothing to do with serial killers, but is rather relevant to the topic of sex workers. And perhaps expand the HIV/AIDS topic to also include other STIs which may be more commonly transmitted? --Ajasen (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely envisioned all of the topics that you brought up as being relevant and part of this project. My list was an extremely partial one, not meant to be representative of all the topics that should be covered. The naked truth is that I started a list and then got tired-- thus the focus on prostitution which is overrepresented only because it's where I began. The Judge Deni case certainly would be covered. Please feel free to add all of the topics you suggested to the list. My suggestion about focusing on sex worker serial killers (not serial killers in general) was rather more because of a traditional basis around the way these crimes are reported and how sex worker community activism around these murders is frequently un/under-reported-- contributing to ignorance in the general public and encyclopedic world that sex workers are frequently agents of action rather than always the passive victim they are portrayed as. Having Crimes against sex workers as a category as John mentioned earlier in this conversation is a great idea. Please sign up as an editor! Thanks for your comments!NoMonaLisa (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think this is a needed project, since sex work-related articles on Wikipedia tend to be in a very messy and tendentious state. First, I think the title "WikiProject Sex Work" is probably best, since "sex work" seems to me to be more general, and hence more descriptive of the overall scope, than "sex workers". As for "sex work" versus "erotic labor" versus "prostitution", I really feel like "sex work" is both the most general and most established term. Prostitution, stripping, porn modeling, phone sex, etc, are all different phases of "sex work", so "sex work" is a good general term; also, "sex work" is in widespread use and has clear precedent in both general and social science literature; terms like "erotic labor" are not nearly so well-established. As for POV issues, yes, sex work is probably one of the most hotly controversial topics out there today, as quick search of feminist and sex worker blogs (as well as the general news media) will quickly reveal. And we should definitely be on guard biasing articles in favor of either a pro-sex industry, pro-sex workers' rights, or pro-abolitionist agenda. And I'll note that, if anything, I think I've seen the greatest degree of POV pushing coming from strong abolitionists – see Talk:Melissa Farley for a particularly notable example of this controversy, and see also Trafficking in human beings for a milder example of unbalanced coverage – having some authors on this subject who are coming from a perspective other than the "abolitionist" one would actually help inject a little balance into this subject. Not that self-described abolitionists don't belong in this project or that abolitionist perspectives shouldn't be covered in articles, its just a matter of balance. (Unfortunately, use of the term "sex work" is itself controversial, with abolitionists strongly opposing this term and demanding use of "commercial sexual exploitation", a far more POV and loaded term, IMO.) However, just because a topic is controversial should not disqualify it as a WikiProject. One need only look at the potential issues around the proposed "Feminism" project on this same page – same issues apply there too, after all. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is ready and has sufficient members, let John or me know if you need help setting up the page.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a message on the talk page of the Sexology and Sexulaity project requeting input regarding creation of a task force. If I don't get substantial negative response by the 15th, which will be a week after the message was first posted, I'll be bold and create it. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you are going to go forward with it as a Task Force rather than a stand alone project? I don't know that it makes much difference, that would actually make it easier to dual taskforcize should there eventually be a WikiProject Labor.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've wondered about that possibility, too? I've noted we have the Organized Labour project for unions, but nothing relating specifically to employment or work itself. Maybe the times come to propose one? Biography theoretically deals with a lot of job titles and the like, but it might not be bad to create a more specific group. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

I still think the name of this work group should be "Sex work", not "Sex workers". The scope of this project should be the larger topic of sex work in general – the title "sex workers" and the description "This group includes within its scope all articles related to sex workers, their culture, history, individual people involved, and so on" narrows the scope too much. Discuss. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely open to a name change. Can you explain to me more how you see the title and description as limiting and what topics you feel it doesn't cover that it should, etc? I have a feeling that we have the similar idea about what the scope of the project should be and I am interested to hear what your points are. Right now I feel like anywhere where there is sex work there are necessarily sex workers so that this is not inherently or necessarily limiting. Plus I think keeping this project centered on human beings rather the abstract in title has its advantages.--NoMonaLisa (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think "sex workers" strongly implies almost a biographical focus. Articles like Brothel or Girlfriend experience that are about aspects of the sex industry or sex work itself, rather than sex workers as individuals, should be covered by this project, but the title "Sex workers" doesn't really cover that well. Similarly, many of the individuals who fall into Category:Sex industry researchers and activists who are not themselves sex workers don't fit very well in a project titled "Sex workers". In renaming it "Sex work", I'm seeking a term that more properly covers the breadth of scope of this project. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel most convinced by your point about how many people involved in the sex industry whether as researchers, activists or otherwise may not be sex workers and how the name of the project can be too confining in this sense. Let's also hear how the other group members weigh in on this one before we make any moves though, ok?--NoMonaLisa (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK – I'll put a notice on Doug and John Carter's userpages asking them to weigh in on the topic. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following. I would support the proposed change, seems to be consistent with some of the things I was saying as part of the proposal.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me as well. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the recently appended scope of this project – "All of these articles should be contained within the Category:Sex workers or one of its subcategories." – I strongly feel that the scope of this project as it's being conceived right now is way too narrow. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By all means write a sample statement that you feel is most comprehensive and post it here so we can discuss it before it goes up. I started to append the shorter statement and then stopped in favor of creating and writing up some of the infrastructure stuff. I think you have a clear idea of the scope of the project as I am thinking of it also, but perhaps you have a clearer idea of how to word it. I think we all and the project would benefit from that if you are up to doing it.--NoMonaLisa (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll write something up in the next day or so and post it here. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--NoMonaLisa (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of an Open Tasks List/ Creating Guidelines and Standards

Hey everyone, I am trying to create some infra and extra-structure to our task force and I started by using the Sexuality's project's Open Task List as a template for our own. Please feel free to go in there and add and edit.

Also I think that we should try and create internal guidelines for when we think an article is up to par according, i.e what are our task forces standards? I don't know tons about creating organizational navigation between the pages and I am learning as I go. For instance I think we need to look at the categories that fall under our radar and start fleshing out how we are going to sort them/ have them relate to each other. That's an important project. We can also have a more detailed system on the Open Task List instead of just "major and minor edits needed." we could have a section for "major discrimination," "minor mentions/ edit issues," "major content needed," "absence of sex worker presence/ history," "research needed on sex worker involvement here," "current developments edits..." well anyway, I am making this up as I go along. The main gist of my thinking is that people may prefer (and may be encouraged) to jump in if they can clearly choose just what type of snarl they are getting into quite easily. Too tired to link everything I mentioned right this second as well as provide clear examples, but I will come back to do it-- I promise. Can't wait to hear lots of thoughts and suggestions from you all.--NoMonaLisa (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you said, actually, particularly the matter of categorization. Right now I'm tied up elsewhere for a day or so, but will try to do what I can when that's done. The template at the top of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics looks like what you're talking about regarding the to-do list, although you could easily add other sections as well. But I do think everything you said makes perfect sense. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthrosexual

I would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on the article Anthrosexual, which is currently up for deletion.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Farley

I noticed that Melissa Farley is up on the notice board. Sigh. Would it be terrible if we got a little bit of work done on our internal organization and the first three or four articles in the "major work" section well on their way (if not more) *before* we work on one of the most vicious debates on Wikipedia? I am afraid Farley will put us in the middle of an ongoing and time consuming strife that may be a little too early in our relatively small and young group's career. But please, give me other thoughts. --NoMonaLisa (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/Sex_work_task_force&oldid=203003195"