This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Police abuse of sex workers in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 September 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DiaEdie.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
In regard to the notice about using too many primary sources and quotations, it was my goal to present the primary sources, with quotations. On the other hand, Wikipedia has been successful by doing things a particular way, and I don't want to mess that up. So I'm looking for another place to host the current content while I try to dig up secondary sources to use as the basis for a new version of this article. I am trying to change this to comply with Wikipedia's standards, but I don't know how long it will take. BurroLoco ( talk) 20:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Added a bit of history of what demographic engages in street level prostitution. ( DiaEdie ( talk) 00:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)) Added another paragraph.
Adding citations and a sentence I hope I am following guidelines. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiaEdie ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I put in a sentence on decriminalizing sex work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiaEdie ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Added some information on Police officers who used their badge to rape sex workers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiaEdie ( talk • contribs) 00:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the studies sections. They're seen as primary sources per Wikipedia's guidelines and would need to be covered in independent and reliable secondary sources like a literature review in order to be mentioned here.
The basic issue is this: studies like this tend to be hard to replicate, they're limited in scope, and the journal/publisher doesn't actually provide any commentary or context to the study. There's also no guarantee that the study findings are correct - the publishers only look to ensure that the study has no glaring errors that would immediately invalidate it. These secondary, independent sources would provide this by putting them into context and providing commentary, as well as providing a more in-depth look into the findings and whether or not they would be legit.
The scope is incredibly important when it comes to claims from individual people, as what may be true for one person may not be for all. Even if there are some general similarities, we can't guarantee that one person's experience is general enough to where the next person would mirror their statements. There's also a question of cherry picking, as someone could ask why one study was featured and another wasn't. Finally, just listing the study findings isn't really giving a general overview of what they say and with studies there's going to be a question of original research since they're not really looking at a wide variety of studies and research, they're going to be looking at their own findings. Some studies may have a literature review or a section that goes over general information about prior research and those may be usable, but only if they aren't being used to back up a theory posed by the study (or similar).
In any case here is a link to the history with the studies. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 05:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Police abuse of sex workers in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 September 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DiaEdie.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
In regard to the notice about using too many primary sources and quotations, it was my goal to present the primary sources, with quotations. On the other hand, Wikipedia has been successful by doing things a particular way, and I don't want to mess that up. So I'm looking for another place to host the current content while I try to dig up secondary sources to use as the basis for a new version of this article. I am trying to change this to comply with Wikipedia's standards, but I don't know how long it will take. BurroLoco ( talk) 20:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Added a bit of history of what demographic engages in street level prostitution. ( DiaEdie ( talk) 00:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)) Added another paragraph.
Adding citations and a sentence I hope I am following guidelines. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiaEdie ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I put in a sentence on decriminalizing sex work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiaEdie ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Added some information on Police officers who used their badge to rape sex workers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiaEdie ( talk • contribs) 00:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the studies sections. They're seen as primary sources per Wikipedia's guidelines and would need to be covered in independent and reliable secondary sources like a literature review in order to be mentioned here.
The basic issue is this: studies like this tend to be hard to replicate, they're limited in scope, and the journal/publisher doesn't actually provide any commentary or context to the study. There's also no guarantee that the study findings are correct - the publishers only look to ensure that the study has no glaring errors that would immediately invalidate it. These secondary, independent sources would provide this by putting them into context and providing commentary, as well as providing a more in-depth look into the findings and whether or not they would be legit.
The scope is incredibly important when it comes to claims from individual people, as what may be true for one person may not be for all. Even if there are some general similarities, we can't guarantee that one person's experience is general enough to where the next person would mirror their statements. There's also a question of cherry picking, as someone could ask why one study was featured and another wasn't. Finally, just listing the study findings isn't really giving a general overview of what they say and with studies there's going to be a question of original research since they're not really looking at a wide variety of studies and research, they're going to be looking at their own findings. Some studies may have a literature review or a section that goes over general information about prior research and those may be usable, but only if they aren't being used to back up a theory posed by the study (or similar).
In any case here is a link to the history with the studies. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 05:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)