Talk:Abbywinters.com

VfD result

This article was nominated for deletion. The result was no consensus to delete. For details, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abby Winters. -- BD2412 ^talk July 7, 2005 21:45 (UTC)

suggest page move

This article seems to have more information on abbywinters.com than on Abby Winters herself. How about moving the article and turning Abby Winters into a redirect? --Allen 03:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. mtz206 04:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This change has already been implemented as of this post. Ame Errante 22:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Blog link

This blog [1] should not be linked to by the article. Blogs are links to avoid, and this particular example is not some kind of official Abby Winters blog, nor does it add any particular criticism or insight to the article. It is merely a fan site. --mtz206 13:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to User:24.62.234.10's edit summary: "(Why is this being removed? This is an appropriate external link. It contains an interview with Ms. Winters. If necessary I will get written authorization from Ms. Winters to have this inlcuded)". If this interview is notable, we should link to it directly, not the general site. I will change the link. I am trying to assume good faith, but it is difficult given that 2 of your 3 contributions to WP are links to this kind of blog/fansite. [2]

Glad this page wasn't deleted

I should first declare I am a member of this website.

Abbywinters.com is an exception to most porn/erotica on the internet, in that it has a deep regard for human sexuality and beauty, exhibits high standards in design and photography, is run with an unusual degree of ethics and respect to both models and members, and has fostered a message board section to both inform and promote community discussion. The site warrants a page on WP due to these very unusual qualities.

The site is also growing very successful, and hence may indicate a new trend in porn/erotica on the internet. This could be of interest to someone researching the topic. --Smitten 12:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Impartiality

I am concerned that this article is biased in the following ways:

• the article states that 'abby winters is more sensative to her models' needs', but does not state who is being used for comparison, or provide any citations to support this claim.
• This article states that abbywinters.com is distinguished by its quality but offers no evidence or citations for this claim.

Other, less obvious bias may also exist.

In addition, this article makes several claims about what Abby has indicated, or possible future directions for the site, without stating the source of these claims.

Other than that, it seems like a very well written article.

- Ame Errante 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. See also subjective statements like "Winters has a keen eye for staging shoots and posturing of models." I added a POV tag.

Quote: "This article states that abbywinters.com is distinguished by its quality but offers no evidence or citations for this claim."
This site: http://www.thebestporn.com/categories_niches/amateur_sex/ gives Abbywinters top spot of over 2000 sites in the 'amateur' category, giving quality of photography as one of the main reasons. The review itself links to several other review sites that say the same. I don't know whether putting that link in the article would offend people, though, so I'm just going to put it here for the moment.

Quote: "the article states that 'abby winters is more sensative to her models' needs', but does not state who is being used for comparison"
That's easily fixed.

Quote: "In addition, this article makes several claims about what Abby has indicated, or possible future directions for the site, without stating the source of these claims"
The source is the site itself. Should all such statements say "according to the site itself?" If so, go ahead and put that in.
An Abby fan 20:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "See also subjective statements like 'Winters has a keen eye for staging shoots and posturing of models'"
I have deleted that paragraph. It looks as though it was written when the article was about Abby the photographer, before it became an article about the website. It's probably redundant now.
Is this enough for you to remove the POV tag?
An Abby fan 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes, then. Am removing the tag. An Abby fan 18:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Advertisement?

I think this article has to be rewritten. It sounds like an advertisement, especially if I'm comparing this entry with more objective porn sites entry such as Suicide Girls or Bang Bus. Stileto 11:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, this is nothing but blatant advertising.

This article should be rewritten because it's not objective in its current format. But questioning the quality of photographs can be handled by referencing qualities one would use to compare internet porn. For example, the Abby Winters highest-quality photos are much larger in pixel resolution than most internet porn, so that could be considered one characteristic of Abby's photography being "high-quality". Other measures of quality include the fact that many of the photos are well-lit and not grainy, but perhaps those characteristics are not so rare to find on the web. However I've found that some of the photos are in need of color correction due to the natural lighting used which had resulted in tinting or a cast in said photos, which would be an indication of poor quality.

As for Abby Winters herself, I'd be more interested in her as a person and artist than as to promoting her financial undertaking as a successful pornographer. How to judge her sensitivity to working with models? Well there seems to be a genuine happiness when the subjects smile into the camera. She does not use obviously-stoned models like lower-quality porn sites. And the abbywinters website does not show models performing BDSM or sperm-drinking or other activities associated with sexual abuse. However, many might find the erotic content unsuitable because when you get right down to it, it's still pornography -- images created for the sole purpose of stimulating sexual desire. Compare to the erotic photography at [3]Met-Art which is less titillating.

Abby Winters is actually a marketing image. There is in fact no woman named Abby Winters, it is in fact the CEO of G Media, Garion Hall.

Fictional

Fictional? What evidence is there that AW is fictional?~~

'Abby Winters' is a character created by the owner of the website, Garion. Garion is often referred to on the message boards as a technician or as someone who handles the 'business side' of the site, however he is, in fact, the owner and founder. This is a widely known fact amongst models and staff. Evidence can be found on the message boards, where in 'Abby' occasionally posts, but rather than leaving her customary 'a' at the end of the post, a 'g' is mistakenly left instead. TurnOff 06:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC) — TurnOff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's more speculation and hearsay than actual evidence, IMHO; definitely not to be presented as a fact. 83.27.42.145 01:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you go to http://www.abbywinters.com/main.php?page=about look for the name 'Garion' in the yellow box in the upper right corner. Garion is actually the person that is responsible for GMBill accounts...GMBill.com owns abbywinters.com and handles accounts. In the Title 18 page 'Garion Hall' is the custondian of records. It has been also noted in the message boards that the name Abby Winters may only be a pseudonym.Dreammaker182 19:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

AW is owned by G Media / Gmbill (and all of those CEO is Garion) least from year 06.04.2003. [4] and 'ex-model' Liandra Dahl writes that Garion is Abby [5]. But there is no proof that Liandras blogentry is real and it can also be totally fake. So this really doesn't tell us if there is real AW who founded the site in 2000 --Zache 12:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Some digging more: Abby Winters as in australian theatre student Abbagail Winters wrote to usenet in year 1997-2001 [6] [7]. She also keeped nude women photo exhibition at 2002, which links to abbywinters.com. [8] [9] If Abby Winters is fictional, they have done it pretty long time. --Zache 15:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Although "absence of evidence" does not equate to "evidence of absence", it might be noteworthy that many of the crew (which are all or nearlly all female) appear from time to time in the photos and videos, mentioned by name, yet I don't recall ever seeing anyone identified as the elusive "Abby Winters". She's So Fine 15:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, i think that there were actual young woman who were porn collector / warez porn trader and she called herself as Abby Winters. She was also orginal starter of AbbyWinters.com at 2000 (like site history says). (usenet/internet archive stuff is evidence for that she existed years before than abbywinters.com and that she is propably female)

After that (Speculation): She were running the site least to 2002, but at some point G Media bought the site. Also 'Abby Winters' name doesn't need to be her real name, it can be just internet pseudonym also, and maybe is now used by Garion. --Zache 22:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

From information supplied in the discussion forums by the (now former) staff member who supposedly began the website with Abby Winters in 2000, her date of birth was computed as 13 December 1974. (This used to appear in the article before the rewrite.) The Australian National Data Centre at http://ast.natdata.net reveals that Garion Hall's date of birth is also 13 December 1974, which seems a great coincidence! Also, while there is still an Australian company Abbywinters PTY Ltd since 12 December 2003, there is no Abby or Abbagail Winters listed as a shareholder name via the National Data Centre personal name browse function. If she was involved, it would be strange indeed that the name does not crop up. Of course, if someone wants now to spend some Australian Dollars and get copies of publicly available documents, the filings by Abbywinters PTY Ltd and GMBill PTY Ltd could be scrutinised. There is never any mention of "Abby Winters" as the name of a person on any of the press releases for Abbywinters.com as owned and operated by GMBill PTY Ltd in 2007, and all statements about what is happening and what the company is doing are issued either by the VP Jo (Joanne) Mason, or by Garion Hall. Again, it is very strange, if Abby Winters was still involved in the organisation which bears her name, that the only announcements she makes are in the users' forums. Of course, for her to make public statements if she doesn't exist would not be exactly legal. Soixante 06:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

intro

The intro is not in the style of encyclopedia article and does not conform to the standard Wikipedia format. We should not have the intro read like a disclaimer. --Cab88 03:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well an anonymous revert without comment to a version commonly viewed as not what I call improvement. I would hope that our anonymous friend expands the article in a positive sense, else I will bring it back to the previous version. Roeschter 22:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive me for my revert without comment. I meant to come back and discuss it here and then found I did not have time. My problem with the new edit is simply this: the article was not intended "as an example of a publishing genre rather than for its singularity of content." The purpose of an encyclopaedia article is to inform the reader about the subject of the article, not to provide a critique of something general such as contemporary pornography. There is also something of a high moral tone about the rewrite that to my mind is out of keeping with the NPOV policy of WP. I do indeed hope to do an edit on this in the near future, though perhaps editing down more than expanding. However I would not be in favour of bringing it back to the previous version.

An Abby Fan 09:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that my previous edit was not moving into the right direction. For citing examples of the genre I should have created a meta page on the subject. Now for future suggestions. Pages like this are interesting because they cover aspects of society that are highly subjective in their reception. If an expansion towards a critical discussion is not compatible with Wiki style (I agree on this eventually), it indeeds needs to be reduce to the bare essentials. In more general terms, how do we deal with "subjectivism" on topics that are objectively (their is obviously no wide agreement on the topic) subjective (many different conflicting views ). Other language versions of the Wiki are far more liberal in providing "views" in separate sections of an article rather fighting over facts. Avoiding "views" even when clearly marked out as such and trying to stick to "facts" even when the facts are highly debated, seems to an approach typical for the anglo american world. What do you think. Roeschter 20:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As Exploitational As Most Porn Sites

I grieves me to see that porn sites such as AW (and entires about other exploitative porn sites) as worthy of an entry in WP, with all due respect for WP as a free webcyclopedia whose aim is cover any topic in the world non-objectively. AW's claims to be a more 'respectful' porn site seem absolutely ridiculous in the face the language they use to describe their 'models', which is eerily similar to descriptions of GMO free organic meat - i.e. fresh, natural untraumatized, etc. This my main accusation of exploitation. Their main strength seems to come from their choice of models - 'normal' looking girls. This trait attracts the (primarily) male audience of porn who are not taken in any more by the promises of other porn sites to provide them with 'virgins' and 'inexperienced' girls, since there they are apparently treated to more innocent and 'unsullied' looking girls. To be honest AW sounds just like any other meat-trade site in this respect - it simply providing what that particular brand of consumer is looking for to whet their appetite.

To summerise, it seems to be that AW is even more insidious and unscroupelous than most porn sites by virtue of it's incredibly pretensions claims. One is initially taken in by the idea of some kind of new and respectful pornography, whereas in reality they turn out to be even worse than the disrespectful, misogonist and humiliating porn on other sites. It's either an extremely misguided project or else a very clevel con, which people will eventually catch on to. Either way, it pains me to see that it 'advertised' (as one person here put it) on wikipedia. -- Comment left 86.135.206.255 at 16:41, 14 June 2007 (sign added by --Zache 10:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

How AW:s porn even worse than disrespectful, misogonist and humiliating porn? Because porn is bad and it is porn? I can see your GMO point and brand thing and that it's paying target audience is male (though it's free ad blogs are with 50/50 gender ratio [10], but not really your argument for that the AW is bad or that it damages/exploits it's models --Zache 10:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I answer to myself, Here is personal blogentry from Abby Winters, Beautiful Agony, i Shot myself model. Intresting stuff and should be in article --Zache 06:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely a two-faced aspect to the site. The material itself is of very high technical quality, the indexing and cross-referencing of the articles is of near-obsessive minuteness (not that that's a bad thing), and the youngish women have the air of naturalness about them. But there is also an exploitive quality, for example the user-created cross reference lists that focus on any bizarre topic the various authors can think of. Also, the women occasionally referencing drug-taking (such as Ecstasy) in a very casual way is something I find disturbing. She's So Fine 15:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I assume the parent poster has never actually been a member on the site and talked with the models themselves on their forum? They generally appreciate your comments and would probably welcome a thread on your opinions. To gain further insight in whether this site misrepresent them or not, don't start a topic on Wikipedia, start it over there. The models there seem intelligent enough to take the discussion. — Northgrove 20:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ownership?

Abby Winters is owned by G Media, which is owned by GM Bill(?). Least Abby Winters CEO and G Media's CEO is Garion Hall [11] [12]. Garion is related to GM Bill, but is he it's CEO aswell?[13] And what is relation to other GM Bill sites like Beautiful Agony, I Shot Myself/I Feel Myself, Sonicerotica.com which are founded by Richard Lawrence (operated aswell under GM Bill's flag). So my question is what is relation of firms? --Zache 15:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that G Media/GMBill owns all of these sites, but that different photographers and creative staff run each site. So Garion Hall runs AbbyWinters.com (and according to some sources, is "Abby Winters"), IFM (and also ISM and Beautiful Agony) is run by Richard Lawrence, and Girls Out West is run by "Annie". Garion Hall is CEO over the whole company. Unfortunately, I don't know if the blog that I saw this on meets the criteria of WP:VERIFY, so I don't think I can add this info to the article. Iamcuriousblue 04:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Skepiticism on identity

Just because someone wrote a blog post expressing skepticism if there is a real "Abby Winters" doesn't make that a reliable source. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the person in question was connected to the site at one point, so if we can make that clearer in the article, that'd be great. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

blog of an unconfirmed identity is not a reliable source: It depends, i think that if there is blog who says that Abby is Garion, then there is definetly least one who thinks that Abby Winters is pseudonym, same is for different forum writings which can be found or from articles talk page. (which none are reliable sources) For the any facts like Abby is Garion or such, i don't think that they are good enough as source, but for the proof that there is people who think that abby is pseudonym they are pretty solid fact. --Zache 18:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It is true, Abby Winters is the CEO of G Media, Garion Hall.

So, if I can find a blog post somewhere that says "I think Abby Winters is a Martian" then we'd be ok to note and cite that? C'mon - this is an encyclopedia, and random musings over who she isn't isn't appropriate. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, but it is also pretty reasonable to think that porn site's about page is just fictional. (which is articles main source that AW exist). I personally would leave to article just sentence that there is also people who doesn't think that AW is real and leave it without source. I don't believe that anybody can find any "wikipedia" credible info (like BBC) for that if porn site's talepage is real or not. --Zache 18:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced weasely-worded assertions have no place in an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, I can't believe that was reverted. I don't think there has been anybody claiming that the blogger in question is anybody other than Liandra Dahl, and Dahl is clearly somebody who knows who the AW "insiders" are first hand. I think her claims are as credible as the identity of AW claimed by the AW site itself. Also, you've now reverted from a claim that's sourced, however "dubious" a source a blog is, to a statement that's weasel-worded and unsourced. Iamcuriousblue 23:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that source is reliable, then re-insert it. I won't revert it back. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I now agree with Game Collector - this is self published, and as such, isn't sufficient as citation for contentious claims about third parties. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The blog is not a reliable source and it is up to the editor(s) who wish to keep the information in the article to provide proof that the blog is reliable. We don't have to prove that it's not. It is by default assumed that a blog is not a reliable source.Game Collector 01:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Proof for sentence "with former Abby Winters model and G Media staffer Liandra Dahl alleging that "Abby Winters" is simply G Media owner Garion Hall".

Is there former IFM/ISM/AW model named Liandra? Yes ( [IFM], [ISM], [Abby Winters]) , 2.) Is there ex-worker named Liandra who left IFM ? yes: 1, 2, 3.) Is Liandra saying in her own blog that Abby is Garion? Yes. So, sentence is basically true -it is true.

Going by your own example, if I previously worked for a company who credited me on their web site, and then fired me, and then I start my own blog saying the CEO had an affair with his wifes sister. Does that automatically make the statement true? No, it doesn't. However, if I was a journalist and noted to be a reputable person by a newspaper, it might. So show me where a reputable source has noted Liandra to be a reputable blogger.Game Collector 01:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

So question is if Liandra's blog credible? Surely it is biased, but so is AW:s about page also, but for our luck we can use questionable sources in some cases. WP:SELFPUB --Zache 06:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not in this particular case, since the blog involves claims about third parties and is obviously contentious.Game Collector 11:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What I'm wondering, is how does one "prove" the blog is a reliable source. This just strikes me as so much rhetoric. The blog is authored by Liandra Dahl, its on-record that Liandra Dahl was a model and staffer for Abby Winters and G Media, and nobody has challenged the fact that Liandra Dahl is the author of the blog in question. How does one "prove" beyond that the blog posts in question were written by Liandra Dahl? However, WP:SELFPUB lays down some very strict policies on such sources (overly strict, IMO), so I guess I can't really challenge that. Iamcuriousblue 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is self-published means there is no third-party verification that the author actually is Liandra Dahl. Anyone can start a blog claiming to be a person. (Compare to an article written by Tom Friedman in the New York Times, where the presence of editorial control, a large, esablished company, etc, provides more trust that Tom Friedman was the actual author). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with you that the policies on using blogs as reliable source are strict, but for good reasons. The question isn't necessarily about whether or not Liandra Dahl is indeed the author of the blog, or that the posts were written by her or even that she ever worked for abbywinters.com. The question is about whether or not what she is saying about someone else is true. And unless she is noted to be reputable by some other reputable source, it cannot be assumed that she is correct. A case where a blogger might be considered reputable is let's say a game manufacturer acknowledging a blogger on their web site. That would make the blogger reputable.Game Collector 01:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

We are in agreement - we cannot presume her assertions are factual, and cannot use her blog as a reliable source. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But it still doesn't solve our problem how to put to article the info that we doesn't know (as wikipedia editors) if Abby Winters is real or not. Now article pretty much says that she is, which is false and more truthfull wording is that we can't say. --Zache 08:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Zache an employee of Garion Hall?

For the IP 220.244.245.153. I am not emplyee of Garion Hall, nor customer of Abby Winters. Except editing this article and digging things with google i am not involved with abby winters. --Zache (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Second half of first paragraph

To 220.245.120.120, who is probably the same person as various earlier IPs..

Your edit wasn't sourced. I don't care if it was correct. The revision you reverted was sourced. It made no claims about Abby Winters' existence. It only stated what claims the AW about page made. It referenced the about page, which did feature those claims; so it was correct. The grammar is poor though. Someone fix it...

Also, get an account (or log in). Bitwiseb (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)