SourcesChapter 1
How this wiki proves things
Every claim in this wiki has a badge that says where it comes from. This chapter explains the five levels, what each one promises, and the checks that run before a page goes out.
- Entry
- R1
- Category
- Sources
- Checked
- Reading
- 6 min
- Sections
- 6
Evidence
In 30 seconds
- Every claim carries one of five badges: Verified, Reported, Community knowledge, Vivian’s field notes or Unverified.
- Verified and Reported claims link to a source that was opened and read, with the date it was read and an archived copy.
- Field notes are experience, written as experience, and never dressed up as a study.
- A badge tells you where a claim comes from. It does not tell you what to do.
- Where the evidence is thin, the wiki says so and leaves the gap open.
You will learn
- What each of the five badges promises, and what it does not.
- What a source has to pass before it can back a claim.
- Which checks run before release, and what each one catches.
- How to use the “Check it” box at the end of every chapter.
- What this wiki cannot prove.
Do not take my word for it. Every sentence here tells you where it comes from, so you can check it yourself.
Vivian
The five levels
A badge sits right after the sentence it backs, and one badge backs one claim. Each claim has its own number on the page. At the end of every chapter, the “Check it” box lists the claims with their level, the title of the source, a link, a link to an archived copy and the date the source was read.
| Level | What it means | What it took to earn it |
|---|---|---|
| Verified | The original source says it: a study, a platform’s own terms, a law, a service’s own documentation. | The writer opened the page and read it. The box gives a link, an archived copy, the date read, and a recorded quote of at most fifteen words that was found word for word on the page. |
| Reported | A serious secondary source says it, such as recognised press or a book. The text reads “according to” or “press reports”. | The article was read in full. The box gives a link, an archived copy and the date. |
| Community knowledge | People in the scene say it, in separate accounts that were read, and no study or document proves it. | At least two independent voices, each from a source that was read. With fewer, the claim drops to Unverified. |
| Vivian’s field notes | Vivian’s account of the scene, gathered from experience and from people inside it, in general terms. | Her word, and nothing else. It is reviewed before release. |
| Unverified | Plausible, but not proven. | Nothing. It is shown with its badge, or it is left out. |
What Verified covers. The badge covers the source. A platform’s terms prove what the platform states, and a study proves what its authors found in their sample. Neither proves more than that. Reported sits below Verified because a journalist stands between you and the source.
What field notes leave out. They are written in general terms, with no names and no story anyone could recognise.
The badges at work
Here is one sentence at each level.
- The authors of a 2021 study on findomfindomFinancial domination, a fetish where a person gets pleasure from giving money to an online dom. Researchers describe a findomme being paid in cash or in wishlist gifts. It’s consensual play around money, and a promise made in a scene is part of the play and buys nothing. Anything you sign, borrow or owe is real, and this wiki gives no legal advice. state that academic literature on the subject is scarce. VerifiedChecked against the original source.Findommes, Cybermediated Sex Work, and Rinsing (McCracken and Brooks-Gordon, Sexuality Research and Social Policy 18(4), 837-854, DOI 10.1007/s13178-021-00609-3) (opens in a new tab) Accessed 3 November 2026.
- A press report says that findom is flooded with scammers who use stolen photos of attractive women. ReportedStated by a serious secondary source read in full.Financial Domination Has a Scamming Problem (opens in a new tab) Accessed 3 November 2026.
- Press accounts say that for many subs the draw is the thrill of giving up control of their finances. Community knowledgeWidely said in the scene; no document proves it.How paypigs have been funding their fetish during the pandemic (opens in a new tab) Accessed 3 November 2026.The Psychology of Financial Dominatrixes (blog post) (opens in a new tab) Accessed 3 November 2026.
- In my experience, a confident sentence with no source is the one to read twice. Vivian’s field notesFirst-hand experience, not a study.
- No count of 2DFD personas could be found as of 2026-11-03, so any figure for it is a guess. UnverifiedPlausible, not proven yet.
Read the badge before the sentence. A Verified claim and an Unverified claim can sound just as sure, and only the badge tells them apart.
What a source must pass
A source does not back a claim just because it exists. It backs one after these steps.
From page to badge
A writer opens the source and reads it. A page found by search and never opened is recorded as found, not read, and it backs nothing.
The writer records the claim and a quote of at most fifteen words, copied from the page.
A tool downloads the page itself, turns it into plain text and looks for each recorded quote, ignoring case, punctuation and spacing. This step exists because the research tools writers use can return a summary of a page, and a summary can change the words. Each quote is marked verbatim, not found or fetch failed. Pages that only display in a browser are opened in a headless browser.
The evidence check lets a Verified or Reported marker cite a source only when its status is read and at least one of its quotes was found word for word.
Every outside link gets an archived copy. If a page disappears, the chapter points to the archive.
Sources that were found but never read are listed separately on the Sources page. A quote that matches a page proves that the page says it. It does not prove that the page is right, which is why the badge also says what kind of source it is.
The checks before release
Six checks run before release, and the code run applies only to chapters that contain code. They were written for this wiki and live in its tools folder.
Six checks
Evidence check
It reads every page and stops on a marker that is unknown or badly formed. It stops on a Verified or Reported marker with no source behind it, a source that was not read, a Community marker with fewer than two sources, and a quote that was not found word for word. It also stops on a link to a chapter that does not exist, a dictionary word with no entry, a long dash, an exclamation mark and a contraction.
Warnings
The same check warns about a number, an amount or a percentage in a paragraph with no marker, a paragraph of the body with no marker, and a sentence of more than forty words. It also warns about first-person plural pronouns, because the wiki speaks as Vivian or as plain reference. A warning does not stop a chapter, and a person reads each one.
Code run
Every code example is run for real, in a throwaway copy, with a time limit. The output on the page is the output the code produced. A chapter fails if an example has no real output, or if its files changed after the run. An example that reaches the network or starts other programs is refused.
Link check
Every outside link and every source address is requested, and an archived copy is looked up for each one. The check only reads public pages, and it never asks the archive to save anything. A dead link with no archive copy blocks release.
Metadata check
Every PDF and every image is searched for personal information, such as author fields, hidden metadata packets, camera data, folder paths, drive paths and e-mail addresses. A second detector runs after it. Nothing ships with a name inside.
Field-note review
Every field note is listed on a sheet with three boxes: true, safe to publish, and without risk. A note is cleared only when all three are ticked, and a release is blocked while any note is not cleared.
The other rules
- A figure from a source never appears without a link, a date and the sentence it came from. “Thousands” counts as an Unverified claim.
- An estimate from experience is written as an estimate, with the words “in my experience”, and never as a statistic.
- A contested claim shows both sides, each with its source.
- Anything that changes, such as prices, platform rules, laws and help lines, carries the words “as of” and a date.
- A phone number for help is published only after the official site of the service was opened, and it carries the date.
- Health, money and law chapters point to the official service of the reader’s country. They give general landmarks and cannot judge your case.
- Nothing is copied from another author. Studies stay as links because their licences do not allow hosting them, and the only PDFs offered are those written here.
Myth
A badge means the claim is true.
Fact
A badge shows where a claim comes from and how far it was checked. Even a Verified claim is only as good as its source.
Myth
A claim with no source is worthless.
Fact
A field note is worth what experience is worth: a useful place to start, and not a measurement. Its badge says so.
Myth
If the checks pass, the chapter is right.
Fact
The checks catch missing sources, broken links, code output that was never really produced and leaked metadata. They cannot catch a source that is wrong, which is why claims carry dates and why you should read the source yourself.
What this wiki cannot prove
Research on findom is scarce, and its own authors say so. VerifiedChecked against the original source.Findommes, Cybermediated Sex Work, and Rinsing (McCracken and Brooks-Gordon, Sexuality Research and Social Policy 18(4), 837-854, DOI 10.1007/s13178-021-00609-3) (opens in a new tab) Accessed 3 November 2026. No study or glossary of 2DFD could be found as of 2026-11-03. UnverifiedPlausible, not proven yet. That is why a large part of this wiki is field notes, and the badges show it chapter by chapter. A field note does not tell you how often something happens.
A page read on one day can change the next, so every chapter shows the date it was last checked. Where a topic has no source at all, the wiki says so, or leaves the claim out.
A badge tells you where a claim comes from, and it guarantees nothing. What you do with a claim is your decision, and nothing here replaces advice for your own situation. See About and terms. For a tool you are about to install, see Check a tool before you install it.
Check yourself
- Verified covers the source, and nothing beyond it.
Answer. The original source was read and says it, with a quote found word for word. Verified covers the source, and nothing beyond it.
- Community knowledge needs at least two independent voices from sources that were read. With fewer, the claim stays Unverified.
Answer. Unverified. Community knowledge needs at least two independent voices from sources that were read. With fewer, the claim stays Unverified.
- Field notes are written as experience. A quantity from experience is an estimate, never a measurement.
Answer. As Vivian’s estimate from experience, not a measurement. Field notes are written as experience. A quantity from experience is an estimate, never a measurement.
0 of 3 right
Nothing you answer here is saved or sent.
Remember it
- Five badges: Verified, Reported, Community knowledge, Vivian’s field notes, Unverified.
- Verified and Reported claims come from sources that were opened and read, with a link, an archive and a date.
- Field notes are experience, labelled as experience.
- The checks catch missing sources, broken links, code output that is not real and personal metadata.
- A badge tells you where a claim comes from. Your decision stays yours.
What you did.
Check it
Every claim with its evidence level and its sources.
That is why my own account has its own badge and does not pass itself off as a study.
Vivian’s field notesFirst-hand experience, not a study.
The authors of a 2021 study on findom state that academic literature on the subject is scarce.
VerifiedChecked against the original source.Findommes, Cybermediated Sex Work, and Rinsing (McCracken and Brooks-Gordon, Sexuality Research and Social Policy 18(4), 837-854, DOI 10.1007/s13178-021-00609-3) (opens in a new tab) Accessed 3 November 2026.Findommes, Cybermediated Sex Work, and Rinsing (McCracken and Brooks-Gordon, Sexuality Research and Social Policy 18(4), 837-854, DOI 10.1007/s13178-021-00609-3) (opens in a new tab)Archive (opens in a new tab)Accessed 3 November 2026
A press report says that findom is flooded with scammers who use stolen photos of attractive women.
ReportedStated by a serious secondary source read in full.Financial Domination Has a Scamming Problem (opens in a new tab) Accessed 3 November 2026.Financial Domination Has a Scamming Problem (opens in a new tab)Archive (opens in a new tab)Accessed 3 November 2026
Press accounts say that for many subs the draw is the thrill of giving up control of their finances.
Community knowledgeWidely said in the scene; no document proves it.How paypigs have been funding their fetish during the pandemic (opens in a new tab) Accessed 3 November 2026.The Psychology of Financial Dominatrixes (blog post) (opens in a new tab) Accessed 3 November 2026.How paypigs have been funding their fetish during the pandemic (opens in a new tab)Archive (opens in a new tab)Accessed 3 November 2026The Psychology of Financial Dominatrixes (blog post) (opens in a new tab)Accessed 3 November 2026
In my experience, a confident sentence with no source is the one to read twice.
Vivian’s field notesFirst-hand experience, not a study.
No count of 2DFD personas could be found as of 2026-11-03, so any figure for it is a guess.
UnverifiedPlausible, not proven yet.
Research on findom is scarce, and its own authors say so.
VerifiedChecked against the original source.Findommes, Cybermediated Sex Work, and Rinsing (McCracken and Brooks-Gordon, Sexuality Research and Social Policy 18(4), 837-854, DOI 10.1007/s13178-021-00609-3) (opens in a new tab) Accessed 3 November 2026.Findommes, Cybermediated Sex Work, and Rinsing (McCracken and Brooks-Gordon, Sexuality Research and Social Policy 18(4), 837-854, DOI 10.1007/s13178-021-00609-3) (opens in a new tab)Archive (opens in a new tab)Accessed 3 November 2026
No study or glossary of 2DFD could be found as of 2026-11-03.
UnverifiedPlausible, not proven yet.