 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I've moved these edits here for discussion [1], minus the two links that are not reliable sources. I think this editor was trying to source the information with the links, but I don't see the connection: -- Ronz ( talk) 19:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
FNBM was twice cited by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for fraudulent marketing practices and entered into consent decrees which included establishing restitution funds to repay defrauded consumers (2001, $4 million; 2004, $10 million.) Numerous complaints continue to be filed against Credit One regarding disclosure and imposition of fees, improper crediting of payments, refusal to close accounts as instructed, and fraudulent and abusive collection practices.
Sherman and its related entities are also the subjects of voluminous consumer complaints.
I did some research today and found some strong direct/circumstantial evidence that the Credit One Bank article has corporate and/or public relations firm editing going on. Specifically, there has been scrubbing of the unflattering/negative information in the article and the addition of unsourced promotional/positive material.
Recently, I edited the article citing high authority sources like the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News and the Better Business Bureau so the article more reliably reflects reality.
In the past, I caught another company's employee editing Wikipedia to remove negative information using the IP address (A fellow Wikipedian awarded a "The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar" in relation to this matter). So I know Wikipedia has to guard against this type of thing.
Wikipedia admins, please do what you can to prevent the article from being scrubbed of legitimate negative information concerning this company.
Below is some research I compiled today that shows direct/circumstantial evidence of corporate and/or PR editing.
I hope this information I compiled is helpful as far as maintaining the quality of the article. Knox490 ( talk) 04:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- It certainly is. And good work piecing it together! I noticed this article was in fairly poor shape a few months ago, so I put it on my watchlist; I am going through clearing it out right now, but after seeing this I will keep it on there! jp× g 22:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I need to pay for my cards and I'm in Germany and it won't let me pay online, please help 188.210.19.1 ( talk) 14:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is a Wikipedia talk page, and nobody here has any way to contact this company -- all we can do is write an encyclopedia article about their questionable business practices.
jp×
g
🗯️
11:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you keep restoring this section when I delete it? This has no use to Wikipedia. —
W.andrea (
talk)
16:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- We aren't going to run out of server space for the next thousand years -- what is wrong with just archiving it? Moreover, what is wrong with just leaving it? I mean -- we have, right here, solid evidence that at least one person got to this page accidentally, while trying to figure out some unrelated thing, so it seems fairly reasonable to suppose that someone else might show up with the same issue, at which point they can see the answer to this question rather than having to waste everybody's time typing and posting another and then getting told the same thing.
- If someone gets stuck at the end of a narrow road, I can understand an argument against nailing up a note that says "dead end", but I can't really understand an argument in favor of actively removing it.
jp×
g
🗯️
16:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia is not a forum. Keeping this is just clutter as far as the project is concerned. —
W.andrea (
talk)
16:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll close the topic. jp× g 🗯️ 16:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia is not a forum. Keeping this is just clutter as far as the project is concerned. —
W.andrea (
talk)
16:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- We aren't going to run out of server space for the next thousand years -- what is wrong with just archiving it? Moreover, what is wrong with just leaving it? I mean -- we have, right here, solid evidence that at least one person got to this page accidentally, while trying to figure out some unrelated thing, so it seems fairly reasonable to suppose that someone else might show up with the same issue, at which point they can see the answer to this question rather than having to waste everybody's time typing and posting another and then getting told the same thing.
- Why do you keep restoring this section when I delete it? This has no use to Wikipedia. —
W.andrea (
talk)
16:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I've moved these edits here for discussion [1], minus the two links that are not reliable sources. I think this editor was trying to source the information with the links, but I don't see the connection: -- Ronz ( talk) 19:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
FNBM was twice cited by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for fraudulent marketing practices and entered into consent decrees which included establishing restitution funds to repay defrauded consumers (2001, $4 million; 2004, $10 million.) Numerous complaints continue to be filed against Credit One regarding disclosure and imposition of fees, improper crediting of payments, refusal to close accounts as instructed, and fraudulent and abusive collection practices.
Sherman and its related entities are also the subjects of voluminous consumer complaints.
I did some research today and found some strong direct/circumstantial evidence that the Credit One Bank article has corporate and/or public relations firm editing going on. Specifically, there has been scrubbing of the unflattering/negative information in the article and the addition of unsourced promotional/positive material.
Recently, I edited the article citing high authority sources like the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News and the Better Business Bureau so the article more reliably reflects reality.
In the past, I caught another company's employee editing Wikipedia to remove negative information using the IP address (A fellow Wikipedian awarded a "The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar" in relation to this matter). So I know Wikipedia has to guard against this type of thing.
Wikipedia admins, please do what you can to prevent the article from being scrubbed of legitimate negative information concerning this company.
Below is some research I compiled today that shows direct/circumstantial evidence of corporate and/or PR editing.
I hope this information I compiled is helpful as far as maintaining the quality of the article. Knox490 ( talk) 04:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- It certainly is. And good work piecing it together! I noticed this article was in fairly poor shape a few months ago, so I put it on my watchlist; I am going through clearing it out right now, but after seeing this I will keep it on there! jp× g 22:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I need to pay for my cards and I'm in Germany and it won't let me pay online, please help 188.210.19.1 ( talk) 14:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is a Wikipedia talk page, and nobody here has any way to contact this company -- all we can do is write an encyclopedia article about their questionable business practices.
jp×
g
🗯️
11:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you keep restoring this section when I delete it? This has no use to Wikipedia. —
W.andrea (
talk)
16:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- We aren't going to run out of server space for the next thousand years -- what is wrong with just archiving it? Moreover, what is wrong with just leaving it? I mean -- we have, right here, solid evidence that at least one person got to this page accidentally, while trying to figure out some unrelated thing, so it seems fairly reasonable to suppose that someone else might show up with the same issue, at which point they can see the answer to this question rather than having to waste everybody's time typing and posting another and then getting told the same thing.
- If someone gets stuck at the end of a narrow road, I can understand an argument against nailing up a note that says "dead end", but I can't really understand an argument in favor of actively removing it.
jp×
g
🗯️
16:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia is not a forum. Keeping this is just clutter as far as the project is concerned. —
W.andrea (
talk)
16:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll close the topic. jp× g 🗯️ 16:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia is not a forum. Keeping this is just clutter as far as the project is concerned. —
W.andrea (
talk)
16:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- We aren't going to run out of server space for the next thousand years -- what is wrong with just archiving it? Moreover, what is wrong with just leaving it? I mean -- we have, right here, solid evidence that at least one person got to this page accidentally, while trying to figure out some unrelated thing, so it seems fairly reasonable to suppose that someone else might show up with the same issue, at which point they can see the answer to this question rather than having to waste everybody's time typing and posting another and then getting told the same thing.
- Why do you keep restoring this section when I delete it? This has no use to Wikipedia. —
W.andrea (
talk)
16:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)