Talk:MyFreeCams

Model Income

I've removed the references to model income ranges, and studio percentages. The CNBC link was just repeating someone's speculation, the other link is 404ing. Short of the site deciding to list how much each model is making, I don't see any way this can be verifiable. I also can find no reference anywhere that "most" of the models on the site go through a studio. Since information like this applies to any cam site, this probably belongs better on an article like Amateur pornography or Camgirl in a way that doesn't appear to be promoting a specific site or coming across as an advertisement. --Toastyman (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The CNBC link is a good link, if it's speculative just teach the reason why it's speculative by explaining the source, as I've done. In this case the source quoted by CNBC is not some MFC marketer but an agent who reps models, so that would be a person in a position of authority on the question. By including ALL the info, we let the reader decide what to think of this person's claimed knowledge. DeistCosmos (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite

Somebody thinks this article needs a rewrite. I'm all ears for suggestions. But an independent industry group identifying it as one of the largest of its kind, with more than five million members, and multiple industry awards, that is notability. DeistCosmos (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've trimmed the entire center section out; it read like a brochure, and contained instructions for how-to and behavior on the site, and that is against policy. In addition, it was completely unsourced, but as the content was against policy, that it also violated one of our core policies is really a bit moot. KillerChihuahua 04:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Center section removed

Aside from the fact that the reasoning itself is pure crap - I had personally seen almost every type of woman naked before the popularization of the internet, which hardly invented new "avatars of Aphrodite" (lol) - the quote itself is just badly written self-promotional garbage from some obscure wannabe author's Ebook, so I tossed it. Please refrain from inserting massive blocks of your own zero review Amazon texts into this article in the future, Lee Huxley.HistoryFightFan (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow -- relax brother, have a beer or something. I added that text (no, I'm not "Lee Huxley") because it was a description capturing some of the poetry of MFC. You can pretty much tell by the history of the page that it was a later-on addition. One I found using this service called Google Books. Blessings! Pandeist (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"The poetry of MFC" is entirely subjective, and likely an attempt by some individuals to dress up their active participation in a sex industry as something meaningful and transcendent. Regardless, what good does it do to insert a massive block of text from an obscure zero review Amazon Ebook containing multiple objective falsehoods? Forgive my irritated tone, but that's just a waste of our collective time, Lee.HistoryFightFan (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Okey well in that case you're reverted. Try to work on that judgmentality thing, tho. Blessings! Pandeist (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That last part was a joke! Don't be so sensitive, Lee. That aside, do you honestly want to go tit-for-tat over a section quoted from a rubbish Ebook uploaded to google books by its author solely for the purpose of trying to spread it around beyond its meager initial audience? This same section implies a number of falsehoods including A)that "average men" don't get to see a range of women naked without internet cam sites, B)that such cam sites always represent a range of female appearances when in fact they often tend towards featuring certain body shapes and races which align with contemporary mainstream tastes due to their commercial nature, C)that only cam sites allow men to see different women naked, when in fact many forms of women can be seen naked across different genres of niche and mainstream pornography, and D)that only pay-for-play cam sites provide this experience when there was a long history of people getting naked on cam for free and/or wishlist items on their own terms long before larger sites were set up to facilitate and profit from them (apparently). Which of those points do you see as being debatable?

Again, that entire center section is just terribly written, factually incorrect nonsense. Do you honestly think the article is more encyclopedic post-revert with over half of its length coming from an Ebook quote? I edited this article to improve it, and instead of discussing any specific aspect of that improvement you reverted it SOLELY because you didn't like my phrasing, which is obviously not a correct use of the function in question. If you find being referred to as "Lee Huxley" infuriating enough to the point where you feel the need to troll and vandalize Wikipedia articles I apologize, but please stop wasting time with these petty retaliatory reverts. Besides, if you think his text is worthy of being quoted here in huge chunks, shouldn't you feel flattered by being "mistaken" for him? HistoryFightFan (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well as a matter of fact I do disagree with your assessment of this. There are at any time a thousand-odd models performing on MFC. So, while it is true that one might in a lifetime view quite a variety of bodies unimpeded by clothing, MFC provides an historically unique opportunity to view this number of performers live, at one time, without the interference of some outside determiner of who ought to be on. Actually all your points are off in this way. Cam sites may not all represent such a range, but MFC at least fairly continuously has models of many races, ages, body types, and though it is pay-for-play most models are public ally available most of the time, and so may be seen for no pay, for the average viewer. And though people had done this on their own before, sites like MFC (and MFC especially, being one of the largest and best known of its kind) provide a uniquely aggregative experience. The piece you keep removing conveys this, and even with its rhetorical flourishes it is useful for this conveyance of what the author expresses as a personal experience. Lots of people have worked on this page here and there. If you're the only one who's had a problem with this, I'd take that as a sign that it's your problem, not this page's. Blessings, brother!! Pandeist (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have removed the lengthy quote from the self-published book, which is neither a reliable source, nor a notable opinion (unless someone can produce some reliable secondary sources that cite Lee Huxley's opinion on the website). Abecedare (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Why does that matter, when it's not being used to source a controversial point? Pandeist (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It's undue and its editorializing. And how is "...yet the balance of power between men and women was equal, or if anything favoured the female" not a controversial point? If you want to include that POV, find a reliable source and add it with proper attribution. Abecedare (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not like that's presented as a true fact, simply this guy's feeling. Would it suffice to frame it as so-and-so visited the site and described feeling like X? Pandeist (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

And why are that person's feelings worth noting in the wikipedia article? Please do read WP:UNDUE, WP:RS and WP:BURDEN. And if you still disagree, feel free to invite a third opinion. Abecedare (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the whole point of this endeavor to inform people about things? A person's feelings are worth noting if somebody reading about them can get a sense of how somebody might feel about the something they're reading about. Pandeist (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the non-notable commentary that clearly violated WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

The whole point of Wikipedia is to provide encyclopedic context that can be supported by reliable sources. A self-published book presenting the personal opinions of an author who appears to have no established notability is little different than using chat forum posts in articles. They are simply non-encyclopedic commentary. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well thank you, at least, for being civil about so asserting. Blessings! Pandeist (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Concept section

The section should go. While the one non-primary source at the end might be used, it doesn't justify such a section on its own. --Ronz (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you contending this to be a contentious claim? I would err on the side of informativeness if nobody doubts the description as offered. Pandeist (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying the section isn't justified as sourced. We're not here to regurgitate a corporation's own press. --Ronz (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If a company wins awards, so then it has won awards, in these cases in competition with other websites of its kind-- the same kinds of awards from the same award-givers routinely are reflected on articles about porn actors and actresses, so why not of a business? The sources are not the company itself but the award-givers, who would still be reporting this if they'd awarded somebody else. And as to other things, is it promotional to explain nuts-and-bolts workings of a thing? For example: people who want to tip models for whatever kind of show must buy tokens. Explaining that is not advertising, that's simply the fact of how it works. Pandeist (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We're discussing the Concept section. If you want to discuss awards, start a new discussion.

As for the rest: Why does it deserve mention in this article? The section is written in reverse of how it should be. It should be mostly independent and secondary sources with the primary sources elaborating on topics already demonstrated as worth mention by the better sources. --Ronz (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I just figure, if people want to know something about the website, then they want to know something about it. Actually I think the New York Times piece, which gives a "day in the life" snapshot of an MFC camgirl's routine covers some of the operational detail as well. Tokens for performances and such. I'll have to look back through it. Pandeist (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing what you find in the NYTimes piece. --Ronz (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

ok, here are some useful bits from the New York Times:

"Lacey is a cam model. She performs one-woman sex shows, often from her house, though she has performed in a car, on a hiking trail, and once at an airport. The action is captured by a small, inexpensive camera clipped to the top of her laptop, and made available to anyone who visits a Web site called MyFreeCams."

.....

"The sites make money through sales of tips. The users of the site (most, but not all, are men) buy the tips in bunches; on MyFreeCams, the cost is $19.99 for 200 tokens. The men “tip” the models by giving them tokens during a show. (They can also buy “private shows” for much higher rates.) "

Pandeist (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I changed the NYTimes link to a ref for the relevant info. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Not that my initial reason for removing it was incorrect, but I'm unable to verify "When tips are given, a casino jackpot sound effect sounds in the room, encouraging further tips" at all. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The part of the NYT piece which mentions this is:

"Back in her chat room, the tips were flowing. When they arrive, there’s a pinging noise — like a slot machine — that all participants online can hear. The tips also show up as lines of text highlighted in yellow on Lacey’s screen, typed by the viewers. Their responses can be seen by others watching, creating a strip-club dynamic, with the guys cajoling each other to tip, egging each other on."

If the NYT thinks the sound effect is worth mentioning, why not? I think it's notable as a technique used to drive revenue. And, hey, sound effect surely can be notable, look at Tarzan yell. Pandeist (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. That's not what the article says, so more a WP:OR problem. --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it controversial to describe a slot machine sound as a casino sound? I didn't want to drop a quote, necessarily. Pandeist (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand why you keep bringing up "controversial" in your questions. Could you explain? --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there some policy along the lines of, the more controversial the claim, the more reputable the source must be to uphold it? So, if you want to claim that a water slide will get you wet or dogs like their ears scratched, you don't need as formal a source as if you want to claim that something is a tax code violation or somebody is a convicted batterer. I guess what I mean here is, the NYT references tips causing a slot machine sound, which I would consider to be the same as a casino sound (casinos routinely having slot machines) which in turn eggs on tippers. Pandeist (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a good rule of thumb when there's agreement on how controversial a claim might be.

Controversy simply isn't applicable here. As I've repeatedly noted, my concerns are simply whether or not the content is encyclopedic (WP:NOT, especially WP:SOAP) and worth mention (WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE). It has nothing to do with anything being controversial or not. --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

ok, I get it. But what is unworthy of mention? Pandeist (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I wish our policies were clearer for situations like this. (For other situations, WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS are examples.)

WP:ORGNOT is a very good essay that addressees what should and should not be included in articles like this one. --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

ok, thanks for providing guidance. I suppose those who wish to learn more of the workings of the website will find ways to figure out these details. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

We're making good progress. I've removed the bit about their incentives program. Everything has secondary sources, unless I'm overlooking something.

Anyone else think the section title seems a bit strange?

The example at the end could be tightened. Does the month and the person's name belong? --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The person's name was as reported in the news. It can stay or go all the same. The second person isn't named, it's no less informative thereby. Pandeist (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it then. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

For later....

Another CBC news report which gives some more useful information about the workings. Pandeist (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)