Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:27, 31 December 2010

Companies Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Added POV Template

I've noticed that several people have complained that a controversy and criticism section exists. I believe one should based on numerous news reports that I've read, so I've created one that addresses the allegations made against the company and incldued rebuttals. Some have complained that is not neutral to report on criticisms of a company, but I find that argument unconvincing. A controvsery exists or has existed, as evidenced by stories in online general newspapers and student newspapers. To ignore that controversy would be just as biased as only reporting complaints about a company.

Note that people's general comments are not considered significant or adequate citations unless they are recorded in a significant source. I've read the talk page, and I can understand why some people don't think it's fair to criticize Vector Marketing. Despite allegations that the company is a scam, people have been paid legitimate money. I tried to reflect that sentiment in my edit, and the article can be edited to show even more support for the company if necessary. And if you've been paid, good for you. I couldn't be happier. But to ignore all the allegations against Vector Marketing because you don't believe it's a scam is not presenting a neutral point of view when there are those that do believe it is illegitimate. Their voices must be heard, and if the facts are against the complaints, point that out in the article. Mastermund (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you might want to review Misplaced Pages:Describing_points_of_view; insofar as your voices are concerned, they aren't worthy of introduction not because of our beliefs but instead because they are not reliably sourced. Phentos (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

extent of company / location / other useful figures section?

anyone care to find out all of the states / countries that vector operates in? how much money do they make off the program / pay rates, etc? Nnnudibranch 20:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Both the Cutco and Vector Marketing articles have nearly identical Controversy and Criticism sections. It seems to me, and I believe other editors, that the controversy is not about the Cutco product, but rather the Vector business practice. It does seem that there is some information in the Cutco article section that hasn't made it into the corresponding section of the Vector article, so I am hesitant to just delete the superfluous section.

I instead propose a single Controversy and Criticism section to exist only on the Vector Marketing page. --Greenguy1090 (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Second. The product is not controversial itself, supposedly its the marketing side of its approach. --SomeGuy11112 - 08/08/08 .... :)

I disagree. People considering employment with CutCo will run searches for "CutCo," not "Vector Marketing." Leaving no section on the hiring controversies could lead people to believe that there have never been any controversies associated with CutCo. Keeping a section here could save a lot of people a lot of trouble. --Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the suggestion. Cutno (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

One Sentence

At the end of "Criticisms" the statement...

"students who work for Vector Marketing are considered independent contractors and are not reimbursed for money they spend on gasoline used while working or for the time they spend at training sessions, however, they do get to write off their miles driven going to and from appointments and office trips."

appears. I wasn't sure if this was deletable or not, or if its already been discussed. I figured I check here so I wouldn't step on anyones toes. The reason I suggest deletion is because the gas and miles is tax deductible; so people do get the money back. Also, for me, I get 16$ per appointment + 3$ per appointment "for travel". This is also very biased since all jobs require driving and very few (none that I know of) reimburse their employees. Therefore I find this to be inaccurate, biased, and a misleading comment and I just wanted to check here before I did anything, since this article is having enough trouble staying neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeGuy11112 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 8 August 2008

The cited references are:

• Lucchesi, Nick (2004-02-04). "Vector Marketing targets unaware college students". News. The Journal. p. 2. Retrieved 2008-06-05. (But Vector also seems to have a number of downsides. "You have to attend weekly meetings you don't get paid for, you don't get paid for gas," said Bell .)
• Deal, A. Matthew (2006-09-26). "High wages for student work - but beware". Campus News. The Carolinian. p. 1. Retrieved 2008-06-05. (The main problem that Vector's detractors cite is that many employees of the company are "independent contractors," which means they are not eligible for employee benefits such as health insurance, employee training or payment for transportation. Since sales pitches are sometimes given in a person's home, sales representatives pay for their own gas.)

So these newspapers have cited statements that you do not agree with - fair enough, but please read Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. This principle means here that we do not write our own opinions into the article, and that we do not include or exclude notable opinions according to whether we agree with them or disagree with them.

This is also very biased since all jobs require driving and very few (none that I know of) reimburse their employees. - One could point out that your argument is obviously wrong, because most jobs only involve driving to and from the job before and after the work time, not during the job, and on those that do it is highly unusual that the employee has to pay the drives. But discussions like these are irrelevant and discouraged on Misplaced Pages, for the reason pointed out above. If we find another notable publication which contests this criticism, we can include that opinion too. Until then it remains your personal opinion.

Can I also ask you to sign your posts on this talk page by appending four tildes (~~~~) to them, and to append new threads to the bottom (you can use the "new section" link at the top for this). I had reverted your deletion because it did not contain any explanation in the edit summary, and because on this talk page there were no recent comments visible about this passage.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hummanity Blues blog

I have once again removed the information about Vector being a "scam" that is cited to the Humanity Blues blog. There are official policies concerning why such an assertion, as cited, is not appropriate for a Misplaced Pages article: Please see WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources and WP:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Also see the guidelines WP:Reliable sources#Statements of opinion and WP:External links#Links normally to be avoided. Thank you. — Satori Son 15:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal article

Cutco and Vector Marketing was just in the Wall Street Journal because of the continual increase in sales during the recession and the opportunity provided for college students. It is titled "Nice Summer Job- If You Can Cut It" It explains it takes hard work but there is certainly money to be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.79.129 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The article was "Summer Job: Nice Pay, if You Can Cut It" by Eileen Gunn on August 5 2008. tedder (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism

"Vector Marketing, in the past, has required sales representatives to make a security deposit of $135 + tax in order to procure a set of knives for demonstrations..."

This practice continues at present, according to the hiring interview I attended yesterday. --Volkai (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR. Can you find a reliable source for it? tedder (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that its possible to find a proper source, perhaps you could get the information in writing from the company itself? If possible, try to get it from a manger and insist that this information is given to you in writing with a signature. You could also tape recoard, but there are legal implications that you may need to search out about recording someone. Cutno (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk page clean-up

Please be aware that this talk page on 12/15/09 was recently cleaned up by tedder to comply with WP:NOTFORUM. Cutno (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That refactor is here. Looks reasonable to me. — Satori Son 17:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

error

Illinois State University is in Bloomington/Normal, Illinois, in the center of the state about 3 hours away from Chicago, not "in Chicago".. please correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.158.173.141 (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you eventually fixed it - thanks. Any editor is welcome to fix these kinds of errors. I've wikilinked it as well. — Satori Son 17:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Information without citations

Please understand that most people who have experience from Vector Marketing are high school students. Many of these high school students don't write books and don't write articles. Most don't even have an official blog. They usually cannot use quotes from Facebook as "proper" citations. Students try to contribute to the collection of information from personal experience by editing Misplaced Pages, however are refuted because of lack of citations. The cost of opening a new blog to write entries is higher than the cost of adding a few words on Misplaced Pages. Once the cost of writing blogs becomes lower than the cost of editing Misplaced Pages, only then will you see an abundance of sources. Otherwise, you will continue to have this problem of uncited information appearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.246.53 (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the ability of high school students, blogs are not accepted sources anyway. I do understand the hardship of those unable to accurately write to this article because of that sort of limitation. Phearson (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No offense 173.3.246.53, but Misplaced Pages looks for information recorded objectively and with journalistic standards in mind. Amateur bloggers cannot be relied upon to write according to those standards. While there are many people who may believe that Vector Marketing is untrustworthy, we must rely on established reporters. Anecdotal evidence is not reporting. Until the day comes when the media establishment comes crashing down and all we have left are the bloggers, this website for one will not count on amateur journalists for news reporting. Mastermund (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The line between "Amateur" and "Professional" is difficult to establish. Although an "established reporter" has a higher chance of understanding of the subject better, there is no guaranty that the reporter's information will be of higher quality than that of an "amateur". People can write about information professionally, but not be taken seriously because they are not writing from under an established media.

Even if you disagree with everything I wrote above, I would at least find it productive to write in a "Citation Needed" sign instead of deleting anything that does not link to a professional article. Perhaps someone with more time on their hands can find a proper citation. 204.52.215.9 (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No matter how you feel about the established media, Misplaced Pages has adopted strict rules that it only publishes information that has already first been published by reliable sources. Remember, as an encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages is not a primary source, or even a secondary source: It is a tertiary source of information. In short, if some "high school student" has some personal observations about Vector and wants to get that information into this article, they need to convince a news reporter, not us. Finally, it is perfectly appropriate to immediately remove information that has not been cited to said reliable sources. — Satori Son 19:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is apparently "perfectly appropriate" to immediately remove information that has not been cited to said reliable sources, then apparently there is no need for a "Citation Needed" sign in the first place. 204.52.215.9 (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was mandatory to remove the info, I said it was appropriate, and it is. The {{citation}} tag is a courtesy template that can be used at an editor's discretion for non-controversial, minor details. It would "apparently" be helpful for you to re-read WP:BURDEN. — Satori Son 00:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Which parts of the article in particular? Phearson (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing tags placed long ago

As of now, (with the article in it's current condition)would it be fine to remove the dispute and citation tags? Phearson (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Being there has been no discussion on this for a month I have done so. Phearson (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

business model section rewrite

i removed the mostly promotional content sourced entirely by primary refs associated with the subject, article read like i was being pitched a job before. moved and edited more factual info from lede to rewrite the section from a NPOV. any objections/concerns, let me know. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I like what you did, fixing minor errors and such. I do have a small concern though about removing the "formally Alcas corp" part. The company only recently changed it's name. Phearson (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

sure if you would like it in there, just figured the companies wikilinked article would discuss that. if you think it should be in there, by all means. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:Battleground

This article seems to have be a combination of two things: axe-grinding, and puffery. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be either. Please see WP:Battleground and WP:SOAP. I'm going to have a go at a more-neutral and fact-focused rewrite. AkankshaG (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you point out exactly what you intend to change? Phearson (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Stylistically, the Apple Inc. article is a good model. It gives a broad overview of the company, including history, corporate structure, leadership, products, advertising, controversy, corporate outreach, and is heavily referenced to reliable sources. Generally, it's just much more neutral in tone, which is what we should strive for under WP:NPOV. Sorry it took so long to reply -- I work very long hours during the week, so I don't edit much on Misplaced Pages except on weekends and days off. AkankshaG (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Modeled on the Apple Inc. article, I have now uploaded a new version of the article. My goal was to present a more complete version, yet maintaining neutral language meeting our requirements of WP:NPOV. AkankshaG (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Hold up! I reverted the edit and would like to point out that some key things were removed, The cited unfairness of the company was removed and the current federal lawsuit was completely obliterated. The further paragraphs added seem to be undue weight, reading more like an ad about the company's participation in other organizations. I laughed when I read that a collage franternaity was included in talks with Vector, and seem to only serve purpose of advertisement. Instead of adding everything all at once, lets review each section you want to add, discuss the removal of the other content. Phearson (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and add-back everything controversial that you wish. I won't dispute anything that's supported by reliable sources under WP:RS and is neutral. AkankshaG (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There is some undue weight issues that need to be addressed as well that requires your participation. If you are willing to give me a bit (or rather, a couple of hours since I am EST 130am, I will point out the things that may be a problem. Phearson (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, if you think the article is unbalanced, go ahead and add back all of the controversy section if you think that will help. What I am asking for is for you to allow the article to be different than the version you have maintained for long periods of time. The version you are trying to preserve is more like an axe-grinding session than an encyclopedia article. It's fine to have controversial information in an article -- the Apple article I cite does, and yet is a complete article. I understand that your previous username was Cutno, and that you might want to maintain the article as one decidedly negative, but that's not allowed by our rules. AkankshaG (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I will admit that I do have a tendency to be not as Good Faith Giving as others, but this particular article is targeted by Cutco in removing content critical to its operation. Yes I did hold that username before, but I changed it because it would occur to people I may have a slant against the company. My recent editing history will reveal that is not the case. It may interest you to know that I got a rather nasty message from someone that might of represented the company. As for the content, I will start moving things back here in just a few minutes so that we have a coherent article. Phearson (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, go ahead and add back ALL of the Criticism & Controversy section if that makes you feel better. Please revert back to the version offered first, and then add-back in that entire section if you wish. AkankshaG (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this with me. I don't mean to be offensive when I say then, but most people move on after they've had a negative experience with a company. It's not healthy to stay fixated on negative experiences for long periods of time, and it often does a person a world of good to focus on something that might actually improve their life, rather than extracting revenge against somebody that does you wrong. Anyway, I hope you understand that our rules here require us to leave those battles behind us, and to try to build a neutral encyclopedia. I've been editing here since 2006, and have found that in the end the most stable version of an article is not one that presents a particular slant one way or another, or that "presents all points of view" (ala television news and commentary shows with battling parties), but one that presents a neutral point of view, with an almost boring straight-forward presentation of the facts without WP:SYNTH. Anything less won't survive long here. Thanks for listening. AkankshaG (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I am seeing a lot of links that only refs vectormarketing.com. Most of these cant be used because they need a more reliable source (news etc). The pictures themselves are an issue because they are from another wiki, And I cannot verify the licensing issues with that being that mybizwiki.com belongs to www.viziworx.com which does brand development and internet-marketing... I don't like the look of this, I need assistance from the other editors here, but I'm returning the things I think are crucial here and I will edit more tomorrow. Phearson (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-controversial corporate info can certainly be taken directly from the corporate website under our rules. As to viziworx, I have no idea what that is, or why it would have a bearing here. I grabbed those photos because they were licensed under CC 3.0. I see that you are trying to revert back to your previous negative version, and have to alert you again that Misplaced Pages requires that we be neutral in our presentation. I hope that you will not insist on owning the article, as I think you know that's not permitted on Misplaced Pages under WP:OWN. AkankshaG (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the edits I am making are creating more balance. However, the more I look through the changes, the more WP:SOAPBOX I see. And it will be fixed accordingly. As for WP:OWN, This works both ways. Phearson (talk) 08:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Tax Deductibles

Some of our editors have repeatedly entered information regarding a "Tax-Deductible" that supposedly could be entered for the transaction of the knives. This cannot be so under the current Tax-Law for several reasons. Particularly, Cutco/Vector Marketing touts these as "Deposits", meaning that the money will be returned upon receipt of the knives, its not selling- Therefore, not a real business expense that can be claimed on the tax forum. Also, there are other tax-laws in play where ultimately you will lose money when you report fiscal earnings. As a "independent contractor" you will be responsible for taxes due for your "Business". Phearson (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that discuss this specifically? In other words, not synthesis or howto? tedder (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Not specifically, to source the exact wording of US tax law regarding Business taxes would take too long. I'm going to have to admit guilt on Synthasis regarding my expertise in this area (used to account for family business). Though, recent edits are not cited either regarding if indeed the knives are tax deductible. If editors can find source, please include it. Phearson (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree that it should stay out of the article until reliable sources talk about this specifically- such as if WSJ was to say "the deposits are tax-deductible". Simply citing tax code (to support or discredit the theory) isn't sufficient. tedder (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminder to All Employees/Contractors/Vendors/PR

In accordance with WP:COI, editors who have a business relationship with Cutco & Vector Marketing are not allowed to edit the articles related to their companies. This policy is in place to prevent bias and to prevent wikipedia articles from becoming free advertising. You may however, use the talk page to communicate to other editors your edit requests. If your request is valid and does not violate policies, it will be acted upon unless there is a concern about the content of your edit request, which will require follow up by the requester. Phearson (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutral nomination discussion

I have restored the article to the version prior to the modifications made by AkankshaG. The overall reading of the article makes it look like it's lifted from some company brochure to tell people how good they are. The photographs of a Make a Wish Foundation Child and the guy that played Cliff on Cheers also push it over into this area. The quality of the images are also questionable. I don't know what MyWikiBiz's policy on images is, but I really doubt that images of this quality should be so small to be of use. If they're truly free, they wouldn't be smaller than most standard computer monitors' resolutions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need to see Ratzenberger at the factory? It is entirely unrelated to the article other than to say "The guy from Cheers likes our product!" "Look at our nice looking employees and products." And unless that wheelchair is made from Cutco knives I don't see how that has anything to do with Vector Marketing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I more or less have to agree with you. At the beginning of the new article revision by AG, she removed key criticisms from the article as discussed above. I have been pretty much all evening been investigating much of the source and editing it. The article style was great, but there were lots of issues regarding the sources. The pictures were of special interest to me, as they were uploaded to mywikibiz right before they were uploaded to Misplaced Pages, almost immediately. I am awaiting response at the content notice board regarding that issue.

To sum up, this major edit was indeed puffy, With no disrespect to AkankshaG. But I do see alot of potential here. Phearson (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Page Diffs

When introduced by AG.
Last edits to the page to fix multiple issues before current revision by Ryulong.

For the consideration of other editors for the Neutrality Review. Phearson (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality discussion

I think that we need to find a middle ground between the two extreme alternative versions, both of which have POV issues. The status quo ante version that has been restored does appear to focus a bit unduly on the issues regarding student-salespeople, while this version proffered as an alternative comes off entirely as a puff piece for the company, with a tiny mention of the issues raised regarding contractors. An intermediate version that drastically tones down the puffery of the promotional version, removing the too-extensive details in the "Partnerships with Academic Organizations" and the advisory board and business relations sections while re-adding material regarding concerns about business practices, would provide some measure of balance in an article that sorely lacks it. Any volunteers willing to give this a stab? Alansohn (talk)

I want to cut up AG's version, getting rid of a bunch of "organization this, organization that, initiative etc". Way too much PR stuffs, the style is nice admittedly, but the pictures have to go. Phearson (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I will address these issues over the NYear's weekend. Sorry, I work 12-14 hours a day, and don't have much energy left for Misplaced Pages after a long day. AkankshaG (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a probable WP:COI issue regarding User:AkankshaG and Ciplex, until I can hear back from her, and then voice my concern to the community, we need to hold off on any revert backs of her work. Phearson (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Unassessed company articles
• Unknown-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics