Talk:Aella (writer)

Concerns

1) Notability of Writing Career: The article emphasizes Aella's writing and data science work but lacks substantial evidence supporting these as her primary professions. Her public recognition mainly stems from her career in adult entertainment, such as her work as a camgirl and on OnlyFans. The article should better reflect this, with reliable sources indicating the extent of her contributions to writing and data science. Overemphasis on Writing and Data Science: The article disproportionately focuses on Aella's writing and data science, despite her main notoriety coming from the production of adult material. While her writing on topics like the economics of sex work is mentioned, the article downplays her adult entertainment career, which has been her most documented and notable occupation. 2) Primary Sources and Self-Promotion: Many parts of the article rely on primary sources, including self-published content like tweets and blog posts, which do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for independent sourcing. This could raise concerns about the neutrality of the article and the verification of claims. Verification of Claims: The article claims Aella earns over $100,000 per month on OnlyFans, a figure cited from sources like Business Insider and GQ​. However, these numbers are self-reported, and without third-party verification or independent audits, they lack concrete evidence. More reliable sources should be provided to confirm income-related claims, ensuring they adhere to Wikipedia's verifiability standards. 3) Lack of Independent Sources: The references primarily consist of interviews or tech-oriented sources, limiting the diversity of perspectives on Aella’s career. This can create a biased representation and prevent a complete overview of her impact in both the adult entertainment and writing fields. InfoWanderer (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about various Wikipedia policies and guidelines (I just left a few explanations on your user talk page regarding the use of deprecated tabloid sources, original research, and tampering with quotes).

Regarding the concerns above: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources.

In 1), it seems that your concern is that the currently cited RS do not match your personal conclusion that Her public recognition mainly stems from .... The solution is to either cite other RS that do, or accept the limitations of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

In 2), you appear to second-guess the cited sources, accusing them of being too gullible and not doing their journalistic homework. This is in contrast to the current community consensus about e.g. GQ being a generally reliable source, as documented at WP:RSP.

As for vaguely handwaving innuendo like Many parts of the article rely on primary sources, including self-published content like tweets and blog posts, you would need to be more specific about which source you consider problematic and why. I only see a single primary source in the current references list that matches the "tweets and blog posts" description (a tweet cited for the birthday, which arguably is within the acceptable uses specified by WP:SELFPUB). Likewise, in 3) you should clarify which of the currently cited references you consider to be tech-oriented and why that tech orientation should mean that they must not be considered as satisfying WP:IS.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear @HaeB

Please find my response below inline:

1) You seem to be confused about various Wikipedia policies and guidelines (I just left a few explanations on your user talk page regarding the use of deprecated tabloid sources, original research, and tampering with quotes).

Ans: I’m well aware of Wikipedia’s policies on sources and original research. My concern is about maintaining a balanced representation of the subject based on the best available information. The article places undue emphasis on writing and data science, which lacks substantial documentation.

2) Regarding the concerns above: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources.

Ans: Agreed. But in this case, many of the sources cited for her writing and data science career are either tech-related or interviews without much independent verification. Meanwhile, the adult entertainment aspect, which is far more prominent in her public life (according to even her own records), is underplayed.

3) In 1), it seems that your concern is that the currently cited RS do not match your personal conclusion that Her public recognition mainly stems from .... The solution is to either cite other RS that do, or accept the limitations of WP

and WP

Ans: The concern is not a personal conclusion. So called reliable sources like Business Insider and GQ clearly highlight her work in adult entertainment, yet this is downplayed. If her writing and data science were as prominent, I’d expect more substantial documentation from respected publications rather than interviews or niche sources.

4) In 2), you appear to second-guess the cited sources, accusing them of being too gullible and not doing their journalistic homework. This is in contrast to the current community consensus about e.g. GQ being a generally reliable source, as documented at WP

Ans: I’m not accusing sources like GQ of poor journalism. My point is that claims regarding her income and other details are self-reported and lack independent verification. Just because a source is generally reliable doesn’t mean it should be taken at face value, especially when financial figures or personal claims are involved without third-party confirmation.

5) As for vaguely handwaving innuendo like Many parts of the article rely on primary sources, including self-published content like tweets and blog posts, you would need to be more specific about which source you consider problematic and why. I only see a single primary source in the current references list that matches the "tweets and blog posts" description (a tweet cited for the birthday, which arguably is within the acceptable uses specified by WP

).

Ans: I’m referring to more than just the birthday tweet. Self-published sources, like personal blog posts and social media content, are used to support various claims throughout the article, especially about her views and self-reported data. These need to be supplemented by more independent sources to meet Wikipedia’s standard for neutrality and reliability.

6) Likewise, in 3), you should clarify which of the currently cited references you consider to be tech-oriented and why that tech orientation should mean that they must not be considered as satisfying WP standards.

Ans: For example, the article cites Reason magazine, which focuses on libertarianism and tech-related topics, to describe Aella as a "data scientist." While Reason might be a reliable source for topics within its scope, it doesn't provide independent verification or substantial evidence of Aella’s credentials in data science. This becomes problematic when Reason is used as one of the main sources for her career outside of adult entertainment. Similarly, the GQ article mentions her work on OnlyFans but does not delve into her supposed writing or research career. These tech-oriented or niche sources, while valid within their own scope, shouldn’t be the dominant references for claims about her work in writing or data science without additional verification from broader, more reputable publications.

I’m open to collaborating to improve the article and ensure it aligns with Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and neutrality.

InfoWanderer (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)