![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ashley Madison. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ashley Madison at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
![]() | A fact from Ashley Madison appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 January 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
A couple references for new material. TransUtopian ( talk) 15:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is there no mention how people have seen evidence that they get responses from their employees and/or robots posing as candidates? People are told they're "hot" without even having a picture up. People that don't have a "site" up (page/profile on their website?), get "interested" candidates. This reeks of fraud and fakeness. Someone should take the time to investigate all this, collect the evidence, and write up a section on this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.250.252 ( talk) 15:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
That's the idea. Find info already out there, source it and post it. OR can be useful as a tool to this end, but can not appear in the article. 76.102.148.112 ( talk) 08:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Unless sites like ashleymadisonscam and ashleymadisonsucks have some sort of significance besides being a complaint site, they should not be listed in this article. (By "significance" I mean are they well-known opposition sites such that they've been mentioned in articles about Ashley Madison?) Don't add external links unless they meet the criteria of WP:EL. ... discospinster talk 16:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I Disagree. The site is HIGHLY relevant to the Controversy section, and contains original research on the subject. Information contained in a "Controversy" section of a wikipedia page should cite controversy and criticism, as well as responses by the company to that criticism. Your censorship seems prejudiced. AMS has been referenced on "Ojbective" sites like ABS-CBN News, Mumbrella.com, and Slate.com, to name a few. This is valid information, and the site has substantial value in providing both ex-customer opinions and experiences, as well as the original research the site itself provides, which is not readily available anywhere else. Daringly007 ( talk)
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.
OK, let's look at the policy in reference to AMS: it is a 3rd party (independent) published source. The claims made in the controversy section of the article are all easily verifiable.
Are there a collection of user/ex-user complaints on AMS? Yes... that is documented by the site quite clearly and can't be doubted.
Are the two articles referenced about Ashley Madison's demographics, and about the Terms and Conditions of AM versus their other claims based on verifiable fact, and free from copyright infringement? If you actually read the articles, you will see that they are.
http://www.ashleymadisonsucks.com/my-ashley-madison-story/fake-profiles-online-hosts-or-market-research.html
http://www.ashleymadisonsucks.com/my-ashley-madison-story/women-greatly-under-represented-males-greatly-over-represented.html
The articles independently written on AMS include facts based on Alexa and Compete rankings and statistics, as well as a direct analysis of what AM says versus their terms and conditions for the past 6 years. This all falls under "verifiable claims made in articles" and "fact-checking and accuracy".
The content of individual complaints are NOT being cited as reliable sources of information, any more than rip-off-report's or yelp's user complaints can individually be taken as reliable. But taken as aggregate, one can say that there are masses of complaints on the site about Ashley Madison, and that's exactly how it's being referred to on the Wikipedia page... Unlike the sites that others keep putting up here that are in fact affiliate pages for Ashley Madison, AshleyMadisonSucks.com has no links to other products, etc., further boosting the 'objective' feel of the site.
It seems that Wikipedia's primary concern is with copyright infringement and verifiability, which is easily verified that these are original articles (take any section of text and put it into google with quotes). These ARE independently written articles that include fact-checking and verifiable claims. AshleyMadisonSucks.com has been referenced by other independent sites: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/04/21/10/online-service-makes-adultery-easier http://www.slate.com/id/2248023 VerilyVeritas ( talk)
DiscoSpinster, I believe that the information presented above fulfills your request for "significance", as it cites that this site has been mentioned in numerous articles about Ashley Madison, and has provided links to several. WooRank shows AMS has over 60 backlinks to it from other sites online referring to the stories. This is a significant site relative to the topic, and while other sites make tangential mention of suspected scams or suspected fraud, this is the only site of it's kind that presents logical, researched arguments with verifiable information (on top of the "user complaints"). This really should stand. Daringly007 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC).
Do we have Ashley Madison PR people scrubbing this page clean or something? For such a highly controversial organization, this wiki page has an astonishingly short and stubby criticism section.
-- 69.125.144.110 ( talk) 17:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, there has been a request to protect this page against edits based on a personal website. Instead of protecting, I've reverted the material for now. Could anyone wishing to restore it please make sure you have a reliable source? You can read our policy on sourcing, and what we mean by a "reliable source," at WP:SOURCES. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Should the link to Sex.com be deleted? It seems unrelated to the article and might be link spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8101:61BF:110:36F3:DA77:7FCA ( talk) 17:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} 'FIXED' Cannot FIX this because of the page protection on the page. Sorry but this should be changed "who, 2 years after founding Ashley Madison was pursued by the FCC for deceptive business practices in an online "scheme that dupes consumers"." to for deceptive business practices in an UNRELEATED online "scheme that dupes consumers"." this scheme had NOTHING to do with the company and because of the page protection it cannot be modified. and in fact it should be REMOVED altogther since it had NOTHING to do with Ashley Madison but with Darren Morganstern and was COMPLETELY UNRELATED and should go on a page about Darren Morganstern and NOT ashley madison. 38.113.163.225 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) Moved from WP:RFPP by Tbhotch Talk C. 22:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The term "online dating service" doesn't completely/accurately describe Ashley Madison -- we are also a Social Network. Is it possible to add this to the description? Yes, I'm from Ashley Madison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.113.163.225 ( talk) 15:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I wish to open my account in this site Please help me AKKY BATAR ( talk) 13:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks like someone is changing the link over and over for SEO purposes. -- 108.8.13.224 ( talk) 02:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Is it me, or does this Wikipedia article appear to be little else but a list of advertisements? Isn't this kind of thing banned on Wikipedia? Why the hell does around 85% of this article display advertisement/failed advertisement bids for this company?
I feel this content should be removed. What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.26.242 ( talk) 01:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on an article and screenplay and have been researching Ashley Madison, here are my questions about their Wikipedia page:
How come there are no references to the scores of web complaints that Ashley Madison posts fake profiles (along with fake pictures from other sites and some consumer product packaging), and that instead of a site for real affairs, the purpose of the site is to take money from gullible users? And, because users do not want to give their real name, they are hesitant to file formal complaints against the site, e.g., with the Better Business Bureau, state attorney generals. In fact, Ashley Madison has the perfect scam model - it's like when you get screwed over by a partner during a criminal act - who you gonna tell?
Or that it owns websites that post fake glowing reviews? According to a 2/11/11 Forbes magazine, "A WhoIs search will reveal that at least one of these sites, www.AshleyMadisonScams.com, perhaps unsurprisingly, is registered to Avid Dating Life (which is affiliated with the site)."
Or that they own ashleymadisonsucks.com, and on that site there are no complaints from angry customers, instead there are postings for services that Ashley Madison offers, that they want users to click on?
Or that Ashley Madison has a team of people that specifically manage its web image/reputation (including its Wikipedia page) to ensure that no negative information is posted.
C'mon Wikepedia users, defeat Ashley Madison in its tactics to ensure that Wikipedia includes only unbiased information. And lastly, based on some of the comments on this edit page, it appears some were posted by people associated with Ashley Madison. Which brings me to my last point, I'm now thinking of writing an article about how web sources (like Wikipedia, Amazon reviews, etc.) have over the years become more and more subject to companies posting false information, and that there is nothing truly one can trust on the web anymore.
The demise of Wikipedia, the canary in the coalmine for lack of truth in online content... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.69.191 ( talk) 20:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Should the phrase "marketed to people with absolutely no morals" be in here??? Wulfysanjose ( talk) 22:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
There are a lot of different levels of "veracity" here - beginning with the reported fake email addresses in the AM database itself - but from the Wikipedia point of view, it's important for us to have some way to validate what is contained in the published leak, to support future research. The problem is, Wikipedia policy is against linking copyright violations, which this probably is, and until the reportedly active credit card numbers are all cancelled by the banks, it may even be illegal to link it in the U.S. Therefore, we need some strong and reliable proxies in order to preserve for our history what was actually the real archive.
One method is the PGP key. For example, this reddit post, which reddit says was posted three days ago, claimed to give a PGP key whose signature should be checked. The problem though is that the deadline was already known, so anybody could have posted that just to mess with our heads. What we need, therefore, is some good attestations of the Impact Team PGP key from as soon after the initial announcement of the hack as possible, to which any circulation files might now or later be compared. These sources are not themselves prohibited by EL policy, so can someone recommend some? Wnt ( talk) 14:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
There needs to be a section on Ashley Madison's potential or real liability to its customers. True Observer ( talk) 18:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC) True Observer ( talk) 18:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
There isn't any sourcing and why would we report on something that might happen?
Jonathan biderman (
talk)
19:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The site allows anyone to register any name with zero verification (not even the usual conformation email) then charges money to delete accounts. [4] This makes the alleged list of users completely unreliable. I propose that we mention this prominently in the lead paragraph. Comments? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Is Kaboose's CEO Jason DeZwirek the same Jason DeZwirek who, according to the Ashley Madison data breach of August 2015, is the majority stakeholder of Avid Life Media? if so, it's interesting that the CEO of a company which publishes a website "which focuses on family activities and parenting" also publishes a website for facilitating extramarital affairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.144.234 ( talk) 14:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
According to List of countries by suicide rate, 19.4 of 100,000 males in the United States commit suicide per year. This means that if you take a random sample of 34 million males, without adjusting other demographic parameters, if they all came from the U.S., you would expect 18 per day to commit suicide. Therefore, the occurrence of 2 suicides over a month's time is not really a solid proof that the situation is responsible for an overall increase in the suicide rate. I understand that WP:original research places limits on how much of that I could say - after all, to do it right, you should break down subpopulations by country, age, and other parameters. However, I do think it would be appropriate to have a background sentence that says something like "On average, 1 per 1.8 million male Americans commits suicide each day." (It seems hard to believe that this is true, but it's what the article mentioned above says, and it's cited)
I feel like there's a certain kind of BLP involved in not making it out like the victims in this are somehow unstable and about to go off at any time, and I hate to see data without a control to compare. Wnt ( talk) 19:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The article refers to Annalee Newitz's analysis of the released data, but there is a more recent post where she retracts her 12,000-woman estimate. We should update the article to reflect her subsequent analysis. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
If 11 million men used the chat system, but only 2,409 females, as the article says today, who were the men chatting with? deisenbe ( talk) 12:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
How is that a problem with figures? 82.221.131.135 ( talk) 21:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Bots, obviously. Or other men (pretending to be women, or acknowledging they were men). Or they logged on and found nobody to chat with, which is still technically "using" the chat system. But the evidence suggests bots. 104.244.254.162 ( talk) 21:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Some users reported receiving extortion emails[51] requesting 1.05 in bitcoins (exactly C$300)
Should read "1.05 in bitcoin (approximately C$300 at the time)"
82.221.131.135 ( talk) 21:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Can I archive the talk page contents? 8521105559a ( talk) 09:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James, could you explain the basis for adding the "edited in return for undisclosed payments," UDP, tag?-- agr ( talk) 02:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ashley Madison. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ashley Madison at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
![]() | A fact from Ashley Madison appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 January 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
A couple references for new material. TransUtopian ( talk) 15:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is there no mention how people have seen evidence that they get responses from their employees and/or robots posing as candidates? People are told they're "hot" without even having a picture up. People that don't have a "site" up (page/profile on their website?), get "interested" candidates. This reeks of fraud and fakeness. Someone should take the time to investigate all this, collect the evidence, and write up a section on this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.250.252 ( talk) 15:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
That's the idea. Find info already out there, source it and post it. OR can be useful as a tool to this end, but can not appear in the article. 76.102.148.112 ( talk) 08:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Unless sites like ashleymadisonscam and ashleymadisonsucks have some sort of significance besides being a complaint site, they should not be listed in this article. (By "significance" I mean are they well-known opposition sites such that they've been mentioned in articles about Ashley Madison?) Don't add external links unless they meet the criteria of WP:EL. ... discospinster talk 16:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I Disagree. The site is HIGHLY relevant to the Controversy section, and contains original research on the subject. Information contained in a "Controversy" section of a wikipedia page should cite controversy and criticism, as well as responses by the company to that criticism. Your censorship seems prejudiced. AMS has been referenced on "Ojbective" sites like ABS-CBN News, Mumbrella.com, and Slate.com, to name a few. This is valid information, and the site has substantial value in providing both ex-customer opinions and experiences, as well as the original research the site itself provides, which is not readily available anywhere else. Daringly007 ( talk)
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.
OK, let's look at the policy in reference to AMS: it is a 3rd party (independent) published source. The claims made in the controversy section of the article are all easily verifiable.
Are there a collection of user/ex-user complaints on AMS? Yes... that is documented by the site quite clearly and can't be doubted.
Are the two articles referenced about Ashley Madison's demographics, and about the Terms and Conditions of AM versus their other claims based on verifiable fact, and free from copyright infringement? If you actually read the articles, you will see that they are.
http://www.ashleymadisonsucks.com/my-ashley-madison-story/fake-profiles-online-hosts-or-market-research.html
http://www.ashleymadisonsucks.com/my-ashley-madison-story/women-greatly-under-represented-males-greatly-over-represented.html
The articles independently written on AMS include facts based on Alexa and Compete rankings and statistics, as well as a direct analysis of what AM says versus their terms and conditions for the past 6 years. This all falls under "verifiable claims made in articles" and "fact-checking and accuracy".
The content of individual complaints are NOT being cited as reliable sources of information, any more than rip-off-report's or yelp's user complaints can individually be taken as reliable. But taken as aggregate, one can say that there are masses of complaints on the site about Ashley Madison, and that's exactly how it's being referred to on the Wikipedia page... Unlike the sites that others keep putting up here that are in fact affiliate pages for Ashley Madison, AshleyMadisonSucks.com has no links to other products, etc., further boosting the 'objective' feel of the site.
It seems that Wikipedia's primary concern is with copyright infringement and verifiability, which is easily verified that these are original articles (take any section of text and put it into google with quotes). These ARE independently written articles that include fact-checking and verifiable claims. AshleyMadisonSucks.com has been referenced by other independent sites: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/04/21/10/online-service-makes-adultery-easier http://www.slate.com/id/2248023 VerilyVeritas ( talk)
DiscoSpinster, I believe that the information presented above fulfills your request for "significance", as it cites that this site has been mentioned in numerous articles about Ashley Madison, and has provided links to several. WooRank shows AMS has over 60 backlinks to it from other sites online referring to the stories. This is a significant site relative to the topic, and while other sites make tangential mention of suspected scams or suspected fraud, this is the only site of it's kind that presents logical, researched arguments with verifiable information (on top of the "user complaints"). This really should stand. Daringly007 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC).
Do we have Ashley Madison PR people scrubbing this page clean or something? For such a highly controversial organization, this wiki page has an astonishingly short and stubby criticism section.
-- 69.125.144.110 ( talk) 17:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, there has been a request to protect this page against edits based on a personal website. Instead of protecting, I've reverted the material for now. Could anyone wishing to restore it please make sure you have a reliable source? You can read our policy on sourcing, and what we mean by a "reliable source," at WP:SOURCES. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Should the link to Sex.com be deleted? It seems unrelated to the article and might be link spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8101:61BF:110:36F3:DA77:7FCA ( talk) 17:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} 'FIXED' Cannot FIX this because of the page protection on the page. Sorry but this should be changed "who, 2 years after founding Ashley Madison was pursued by the FCC for deceptive business practices in an online "scheme that dupes consumers"." to for deceptive business practices in an UNRELEATED online "scheme that dupes consumers"." this scheme had NOTHING to do with the company and because of the page protection it cannot be modified. and in fact it should be REMOVED altogther since it had NOTHING to do with Ashley Madison but with Darren Morganstern and was COMPLETELY UNRELATED and should go on a page about Darren Morganstern and NOT ashley madison. 38.113.163.225 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) Moved from WP:RFPP by Tbhotch Talk C. 22:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The term "online dating service" doesn't completely/accurately describe Ashley Madison -- we are also a Social Network. Is it possible to add this to the description? Yes, I'm from Ashley Madison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.113.163.225 ( talk) 15:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I wish to open my account in this site Please help me AKKY BATAR ( talk) 13:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks like someone is changing the link over and over for SEO purposes. -- 108.8.13.224 ( talk) 02:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Is it me, or does this Wikipedia article appear to be little else but a list of advertisements? Isn't this kind of thing banned on Wikipedia? Why the hell does around 85% of this article display advertisement/failed advertisement bids for this company?
I feel this content should be removed. What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.26.242 ( talk) 01:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on an article and screenplay and have been researching Ashley Madison, here are my questions about their Wikipedia page:
How come there are no references to the scores of web complaints that Ashley Madison posts fake profiles (along with fake pictures from other sites and some consumer product packaging), and that instead of a site for real affairs, the purpose of the site is to take money from gullible users? And, because users do not want to give their real name, they are hesitant to file formal complaints against the site, e.g., with the Better Business Bureau, state attorney generals. In fact, Ashley Madison has the perfect scam model - it's like when you get screwed over by a partner during a criminal act - who you gonna tell?
Or that it owns websites that post fake glowing reviews? According to a 2/11/11 Forbes magazine, "A WhoIs search will reveal that at least one of these sites, www.AshleyMadisonScams.com, perhaps unsurprisingly, is registered to Avid Dating Life (which is affiliated with the site)."
Or that they own ashleymadisonsucks.com, and on that site there are no complaints from angry customers, instead there are postings for services that Ashley Madison offers, that they want users to click on?
Or that Ashley Madison has a team of people that specifically manage its web image/reputation (including its Wikipedia page) to ensure that no negative information is posted.
C'mon Wikepedia users, defeat Ashley Madison in its tactics to ensure that Wikipedia includes only unbiased information. And lastly, based on some of the comments on this edit page, it appears some were posted by people associated with Ashley Madison. Which brings me to my last point, I'm now thinking of writing an article about how web sources (like Wikipedia, Amazon reviews, etc.) have over the years become more and more subject to companies posting false information, and that there is nothing truly one can trust on the web anymore.
The demise of Wikipedia, the canary in the coalmine for lack of truth in online content... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.69.191 ( talk) 20:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Should the phrase "marketed to people with absolutely no morals" be in here??? Wulfysanjose ( talk) 22:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
There are a lot of different levels of "veracity" here - beginning with the reported fake email addresses in the AM database itself - but from the Wikipedia point of view, it's important for us to have some way to validate what is contained in the published leak, to support future research. The problem is, Wikipedia policy is against linking copyright violations, which this probably is, and until the reportedly active credit card numbers are all cancelled by the banks, it may even be illegal to link it in the U.S. Therefore, we need some strong and reliable proxies in order to preserve for our history what was actually the real archive.
One method is the PGP key. For example, this reddit post, which reddit says was posted three days ago, claimed to give a PGP key whose signature should be checked. The problem though is that the deadline was already known, so anybody could have posted that just to mess with our heads. What we need, therefore, is some good attestations of the Impact Team PGP key from as soon after the initial announcement of the hack as possible, to which any circulation files might now or later be compared. These sources are not themselves prohibited by EL policy, so can someone recommend some? Wnt ( talk) 14:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
There needs to be a section on Ashley Madison's potential or real liability to its customers. True Observer ( talk) 18:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC) True Observer ( talk) 18:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
There isn't any sourcing and why would we report on something that might happen?
Jonathan biderman (
talk)
19:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The site allows anyone to register any name with zero verification (not even the usual conformation email) then charges money to delete accounts. [4] This makes the alleged list of users completely unreliable. I propose that we mention this prominently in the lead paragraph. Comments? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Is Kaboose's CEO Jason DeZwirek the same Jason DeZwirek who, according to the Ashley Madison data breach of August 2015, is the majority stakeholder of Avid Life Media? if so, it's interesting that the CEO of a company which publishes a website "which focuses on family activities and parenting" also publishes a website for facilitating extramarital affairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.144.234 ( talk) 14:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
According to List of countries by suicide rate, 19.4 of 100,000 males in the United States commit suicide per year. This means that if you take a random sample of 34 million males, without adjusting other demographic parameters, if they all came from the U.S., you would expect 18 per day to commit suicide. Therefore, the occurrence of 2 suicides over a month's time is not really a solid proof that the situation is responsible for an overall increase in the suicide rate. I understand that WP:original research places limits on how much of that I could say - after all, to do it right, you should break down subpopulations by country, age, and other parameters. However, I do think it would be appropriate to have a background sentence that says something like "On average, 1 per 1.8 million male Americans commits suicide each day." (It seems hard to believe that this is true, but it's what the article mentioned above says, and it's cited)
I feel like there's a certain kind of BLP involved in not making it out like the victims in this are somehow unstable and about to go off at any time, and I hate to see data without a control to compare. Wnt ( talk) 19:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The article refers to Annalee Newitz's analysis of the released data, but there is a more recent post where she retracts her 12,000-woman estimate. We should update the article to reflect her subsequent analysis. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
If 11 million men used the chat system, but only 2,409 females, as the article says today, who were the men chatting with? deisenbe ( talk) 12:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
How is that a problem with figures? 82.221.131.135 ( talk) 21:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Bots, obviously. Or other men (pretending to be women, or acknowledging they were men). Or they logged on and found nobody to chat with, which is still technically "using" the chat system. But the evidence suggests bots. 104.244.254.162 ( talk) 21:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Some users reported receiving extortion emails[51] requesting 1.05 in bitcoins (exactly C$300)
Should read "1.05 in bitcoin (approximately C$300 at the time)"
82.221.131.135 ( talk) 21:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Can I archive the talk page contents? 8521105559a ( talk) 09:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James, could you explain the basis for adding the "edited in return for undisclosed payments," UDP, tag?-- agr ( talk) 02:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)