This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pornography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Gender studies Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Domestic violence in lesbian relationships · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Internet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality: Sex work Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Sex work task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

It appeared that the deleted article was about the camgirl website, not the term "camgirl". Since multiple pages have redlinked "camgirl", I thought it was best to have the article discuss the term and not the website. -- kainaw™ 05:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just a definition of the term, would it be better suited to Wiktionary instead though? Raine (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can a redirect go directly to Wiktionary? -- kainaw™ 00:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resources to improve the article on google books > [1] Willy turner (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The following is a published article that I wrote. I'll let others decide it if is worth using as a reference: [2] -- kainaw™ 19:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing to merge camgirl and camwhore as camwhore is a derogatory term and it is difficult if not impossible to write a NPOV. article.My full reasons are:

1. It does not meet wikipedia's guidelines of a NPOV and it is hard to see how it could as it is a derogatory term.
2. The term is not widely used Google gives 192000 returns compared to 1.8 million for camgirl - about 1%
3. It would be much better having a sexual and non-sexual content section under camgirl.

Pornhistorian (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Y Merger complete. --DarkCrow^Caw 16:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

> He eventually started his own paysite, was molested for money,

He prostituted himself, knowingly, and went running to the police to secure immunity the second his cunning ruse was up. Molested implies that he was unwilling or unknowing, this kid was a pimp who sold other children and ran--what could be without exageration called--an empire of child pornography. I certainly couldn't see someone with as much forethought to manage such a corporate venture in a vile trade such as child prostitution as being an innocent victim of circumstance.

I understand that critics of my point of view would argue that this draws into question whether someone under legal age can consent, et cetera, but it's been long fought over in the courts and is now quite commonly accepted that those below legal age who 'lack the mental faculty to understand the implications of their actions' sexually most certainly seem to have the mental faculty to conduct illicit, illegal, and nefariously criminal acts. Whilst it appears for consent it errs on the side of caution, for criminality it errs on the side of guilty until proven innocent.

But I do ask that for the sake of neutrality in this instance we call a spade a spade, this kid was a child prostitute and a pimp, he wasn't a victim, if anything it could be argued the kids he operated his pedo ring with were HIS victims, so 'molested' has too weak an implication along with it.

Could we please get some discussion going on this so we can reflect the reality and gravity of his crimes--regardless of his immunity from prosecution--that he has cashed in on through the media at large? I know it's a morally and ethical mine field, and I understand that there will be a lot of hot headed folks screaming to the heavens that a child cannot prostitute themselves, or consent, et cetera, but as I said, the courts have thoroughly gone over such matters in every civilized nation, and the cold hard facts are that this kid wasn't molested, but whored himself and other children out for a buck, and we really must push on regardless of moral or ad hominem criticism saying so draws and stick with the facts.

tl;dr: creepy child pimp runs porn empire, gets absolved of criminality by nanny staters saying he was a molestation victim and not a prostitute, you decide BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The resulution used at webcam sites is no more than 640x480, sometimes even just 320x240.^[1] 2A02:A03F:1285:C600:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can the following revert be undone: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Camgirl&oldid=648483351

I don't see the issue why the text added was deleted. Having a list of websites allows people to compare the sites (similar to as "comparison of" website) and pick the best one (least controversial, ...). It isn't/can't be seen as spam as we don't promote a particular site, but mention a lot of sites instead, hence promoting objective comparison and keep competition between sites up (which is a democratic approach).

2A02:A03F:1285:C600:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments - afaik, the edit seems to be WP:SPAM (and/or WP:ADMASQ & related) imo - and, as such, not appropriate for Wikipedia - the views of other editors are welcome of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

even after reading the WP: pages I still don't see why it's spam; I'm not affiliated with any of these sites nor do I want to "promote" them. My main motivation was to list the sites as webcam sex is a good alternative for actual prostitutes (more secure payment/less risk of violence, no transmission of sexually transmittable diseases, ...) and also benefit the population as a whole (no transmission of sexually transmittable diseases). So, listing them and informing prostitutes of them this way is only the right thing to do.2A02:A03F:1285:C600:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for other Editors to comment - in order to reach a WP:CONSENSUS - to me atm, you seem to be WP:Promoting / WP:Spamming the view - which is also not appropriate on Wikipedia - per - WP:NOTSOAPBOX and/or WP:NOTAFORUM - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely spam. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not soapbox for someone wanting to "benefit the population as a whole" by promoting certain websites. In addition, our IP hopping-spammer thinks several other Wikipedia rules don't apply to him; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Forged signature, editing other people's comments for details. (Note to IP user: you are invited to go to WP:ANI and explain your behavior before you get blocked). --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is very odd, and extremely conspicuous, behavior. Regardless, the sources for the list of websites are not reliable. It looks like at least afew of the listed sites have articles of their own (MyFreeCams.com, LiveJasmin, and probably others). How many of these articles would survive WP:AFD? Probably not all of them, but having an article seems like a legitimate starting point for listing sites. The value to this article is debatable, though, and it's a major hassle to maintaining such a spam-attracting section. Ideally that wouldn't be a factor, but this article already gets enough spam as it is. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have added the name of the Oregon State student who filmed herself in the library. I had removed this in the past per WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:BLPNAME, but it looks like there has been additional coverage making this moot. I've expanded with some of the higher-quality sources to contextualize why her name is mentioned. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant

How about this image for the article? What does everyone think? 2601:46:C801:5300:75FB:2FB9:E850:3B65 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the benefit is. Does it's informational value justify adding promotion for Ophelia Marcus? The award statuette seems confusing, as well, and the bit about being "Queen" is totally excessive. A caption like "Ophelia Marcus, known as LittleRedBunny, is a notable camgirl" would be more than sufficient here. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for the award, she's winning an award for her camgirl work. How about this lower image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.200.237 (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2016‎

I guess nobody else wants to comment. I don't really think it's added a whole lot of information, but it's not really detracting. I wouldn't object. Grayfell (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article could really use a photo, but I'm not sure about this one. While this photo does present a webcam model, the article is about much more than just the models -- it's also about a new phenomenon of web broadcasting from home studios. I would like this photo better if it at least had her performing in front of a camera with a computer to additionally depict the nature of a web broadcast. Something that is more representative of the camming process -- maybe within a camming studio, whether at home or elsewhere. James Carroll (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image is more neutral and perhaps ok here or as an illustration to some related article? But the other one is also possible I guess. --Mats33 (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's very artistic, but it's not a good illustration of the topic of "webcam model". For encyclopedia articles, clarity is more important than decoration. Grayfell (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This photo seems like a good fit for the article because it contains all the essential elements of camming: a video camera, a computer, a model, broadband connection, and a hosting website (MyFreeCams.com). The photo was taken at the 2010 Exxxotica Expo in NJ, which only admits people who are over 18 years. The model appears to be a member of the MyFreeCams team for a number of reasons: She is wearing a company tee-shirt, she has a plastic wrist band which likely identifies her as part of MyFreeCam's presenters, and beneath her bra it seems like she is wearing two red pasties. If you carefully look at the enlarged image, you'll notice upon her left breast is a piece of red plastic which is protruding from underneath the bra. And if you look closely at her right breast, you'll see patches of red that are showing through the open parts of the see-through bra. On the same Flickr photo album as this shot is another photo of a MyFreeCams booth girl who is topless except for green plastic pasties. The photo is from Flickr and it seems to pass all of Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Please weigh with your comments so that we can get the necessary consensus to enable its inclusion, and make this article more engaging for first time readers. James Carroll (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I originally set up an RFC but personally I think all 3 images are crap and with the first and last image you'd be favouring with one model over another .... so done away with it, Anyway back on topic I'd say this image looks more fitting, Personally I think it'd be better to screencap a model off LiveJasmin or something ..... –Davey2010^Talk 02:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to screencaps, I notice that the Wikimedia Commons page for Webcams warns on a couple of occasions that screenshots are not allowed there. I suspect there may be copyright and privacy issues. If we add any image of a webcam model to this article we will need to be prepared to remove whatever spam images of other such models that might result. Personally I'd prefer an image taken in a camming studio rather than an expo (in the way that you'd want a photo of a boxer in a boxing ring rather than at a press conference) but I suspect that no such image is available to us. And although I have no doubt that the woman depicted in this photo is a webcam model, it would be useful to have something that explicitly says so, such as her professional name. Otherwise the photo is fine and I'd support its inclusion for the sake of moving forward. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have some minor concerns with this (the expo) image:

• Is it appropriate to highlight this one easily identifiable person, who plausible might not even be a webcam model, as the prime example of webcam models?
• Highlighting the 'MyFreeCams.com' website so prominently seems gratuitous. This image would make more sense at MyFreeCams.com, but this article isn't about one particular website, and Exxxotica is even less relevant. Since this is about webcam models as a group, this is a bit of a tangent, and seems just a little bit spammy.
• What information does this image impart? It's a photo of a woman sitting behind a table at an event, so what does that really tell readers about webcam models?
• The photo itself is not fantastic, with its flat flash-lighting and simple dead-on framing. It's also from 2010, which is pretty old for an Internet-based industry.

My inclination would be to not use the expo image. I'm not going to block consensus, however. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about webcam models not webcamming in general. Looking at Comedian (rather than Comedy), the photographs in the article are of well known comedians. Perhaps we should be following this lead? Whilst some camming takes place from dedicated studios, a lot takes place from home as well. The inclusion of studio equipment in the photographs would only be partially representative. My choice would be for the photograph of LittleRedBunny. Although not ideal, choice is limited. John B123 (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell you oppose this image for what you say are "minor concerns", and yet you make no major objections. Do we really need to debate issues so trivial such as the lighting quality, when all objects can be distinguished within this photo? Or what age would be too old for a photo? However, let me address some of your minor concerns:

• "What information does this image impart?" It shows the basic equipment and elements and of a webcam model doing a performance and broadcast: a computer, a video camera, and an animated model who poses front of the camera. Many successful webcam models work with only a computer and a video camera from home, and those 3 necessities (computer, camera, model) are depicted in this photo.

• "It's a photo of a woman sitting behind a table at an event, so what does it tell?" It's much more than that, it's a model who strikes a provocative pose in front of a video camera which is attached to a computer. That is all that is necessary for a webcam model to do a broadcast, and it is very possible that this model is being broadcast live from the expo. During the past month MyFreeCams did an industry show, and a few of their models had their video streams broadcast live from the booth via the MFC website to the Internet, in place of their home studios' video-streams.

The Wikipedia guidelines for images states: "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic." Because of the objects this photo contains and the animation of the model, this photo does indeed illustrate the nature and process of a camgirl's video performance and broadcast. James Carroll (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool it with the adversarial approach. You specifically invited my feedback on my talk page, so I gave it. I appreciate that, but this is a discussion, not a debate. This photo isn't fantastic for reasons I've explained and more, and as I said, I'm not going to block consensus. If you really feel this is the best choice, so be it.

If the sources support that this is part of the process, the image would have to be captioned to explain those connections, and it's a relatively weak example of those specific aspects. The camera and laptop are poorly depicted here (was this a professional set-up in 2010?) and the image is also taking place in a setting that strongly appears to be an open event (because it is). The vinyl banner in the background is not part of the common process, so this is introducing some conflicting or potentially confusing elements. These are not, by themselves, deal-breakers, but do count against the image. Her pose is fairly described as provocative, but it's provocative for the photographer, not for the webcam, which is again, confusing, since posing for another, different photographer is also not part of the common process. This, combined with the other quality issues I've raised, are why I don't think this is a great choice, even it it's a valid one. I side with less-not-more for images, but there is an inherent amount of subjectivity in these discussions, so that's why I'm sharing my perspective. Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that you don't intend to block consensus. And John B123 later expresses "all the above pictures could be included", further down in the discussion. Though preferring a screen-capture which was later shown to likely be forbidden, Davey expressed a preference for this image over the Bunny image. Though creating some controversy on minor issues it seems like no one really wants to block inclusion of this image in the article, and its inclusion has drawn support from multiple members of the discussion. James Carroll (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though I have added many photos to other articles, this is the first time that I have seen so much controversy about the initial addition of a single harmless photo. In all other instances I have merely added a photo that I deemed appropriate. The bizarre template of censorship that appears at the top of the Edit Page for the article seems to be the source of the problem. I cannot find that template on any other articles, including related articles like stripper or even pornography. I think we should challenge the words of that template -- by removal, alteration, or non-consideration -- so that we can return to the usual way of photo submission. And it may well be that we can still add photos the usual way, and not have any repercussions from admins or bots. James Carroll (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be unable to come to a consensus over an image of a performer, either LittleRedBunny or the anonymous woman at the Expo above. I'm not sure how easy it would be to follow the lead of the Comedian article and use multiple images of performers. How many well-known webcam models are there for whom we can get freely-usable images? I expect that we would end up with an arbitrary handful at best, and those who object to the promotion of individuals (or their hosting companies) would probably oppose the inclusion of any of them. This article has developed significantly over the past few weeks, and much of its content is now about the industry rather than individual performers. I think this is a good thing, and a consequence of there being more reliable sources covering the industry than there are about well-known webcam models. I don't think it's necessary to rename or split this article. The Model (person) article has no companion article called Modelling. And I'm unsure as to what the best name for an industry article would be. But an image of a studio would represent at least one aspect of the industry. And if we can find such an image that we are allowed to use, it might be easier for us to come to a consensus about it. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the model (person) article, it's probably more about modelling than individual models, but the images are mostly of named models rather than a studio set-up or a catwalk.However, as Polly Tunnel mentions, there are very few well know webcammers. There are articles for Striptease as well as as Stripper, but the content is more like 'History of Striptease' and 'Striptease', so no real presidents there.

As there's no limit of photographs in an article, perhaps all the above pictures could by included? John B123 (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Polly Tunnel that this particular article, despite its deceptive title, is as much or more about the Camming Industry and Phenomena, than it is about individual Webcam Models. It's almost as if Actor, Film Industry, and Movie Theater were combined into one article. And I also agree with Polly Tunnel that it would be a mistake to split up the article because it is not nearly large enough, and the topic is so esoteric. Additionally I also agree with John B123 that we should be prepared to add multiple photos -- most likely in the usual process as individuals see fit. It's almost like that bizarre Template at the top of the Edit Page has convinced us that we must stay in a cage, despite the fact that the door is probably not even locked. James Carroll (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the template is a good thing. Articles related to sex, especially for a topic like this with a performance aspect, are spam and cruft magnets. Links are relatively easy to catch and have a low cost, but photos are much more disruptive, and much more likely to trip-up copyright issues. Nobody should revert every edit, but for these reasons, editors should feel comfortable in reverting any questionable additions. The template insures this won't be a surprise to anyone, and that seems like information that should be clearly presented. In this case, WP:CONSENSUS and MOS:IMAGE are the cages, to over-extend the metaphor. If folks are really keen on an image, I would strongly favor the LittleRedBunny one over the anonymous one, for multiple reasons I could get in to, if necessary. Grayfell (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this particular template is such good thing, why don't you propose it be included to the stripper and pornography articles upon their Talk Pages? Such a proposal would not likely be approved or well-received, because this template is too confining and heavy-handed. Perhaps this template should be replaced by the one on the pornography page, since that article has already withstood the risks of "spam and cruft" that you list. And the stripper page has no such template at all, and is without problems. Further, why should there be just one image? Why not allow both the Bunny and the Expo images, since each image has drawn support from multiple people upon this talk page? Additionally the Wikipedia guidelines for images, MOS:IMAGE , states: "When possible, find better images and improve captions rather than simply remove poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals." James Carroll (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The competencies section of the infobox seems unverifiable and subjective. As a reference, other pages of sex workers that contain occupation infobox (e.g. stripper, prostitution, porn actor) either doesn't include competencies or list specific skills (e.g. pole dancing). Especially since webcam models are not limited to sex worker, I recommend the current competencies section to be removed.

Akira YL (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – the list is unsourced and arbitrary. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Not sure it's particularly accurate either. --John B123 (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Support. This is demeaning. No sources. I removed.--KasiaNL (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC) (banned sock puppet- [3]) GizzyCatBella🍁 19:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]