Talk:Market America/Archives/2019
Latest comment: 5 years ago by CaribDigita in topic Information regarding what is legal
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Information regarding what is legal
The original text contradicts what is legal to be operated in canada and reflects only one close minded view of the company. The reflection it gives is a misconception based apon an outward look that doesn't take to fact that they have received a A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau and have been found to not actually be a MLM based on the core fundamentals of the business model. Kururu968 (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking your concerns to the Talk page. The BBB accreditation link is included in the article's external links. However I don't understand how it negates reliably sourced criticism contained in the article as well as factual material cited to independent sources. According to the link, it doesn't say anything about a "finding" based on core fundamentals. However it does say that "BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services" [1]. As for contradicting "what is legal to be operated in canada", I'm afraid I don't quite understand the connection. You need to explain a bit, and present WP:RS sources supporting your assertions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed the link. The BBB rating is purely routine information that would need reliable, independent coverage providing context. Per the above reasons, it's not informative to link to, as it implies a level of endorsement that's not neutral or supported by neutral sources. For similar reasons I have removed the Hoover's link. Hoover's is just one company providing such info, and the site requires a subscription, so it seems borderline per WP:EL. As a source it might be helpful, but as general reading I'm not sure what's being provided. Grayfell (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Independent verifiable information of a source verifying performance of the company? What kinda craziness? Does Verizon's article need a reliable source to the sources claiming that Verizon's network performance is "x"??? CaribDigita (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. We most definitely do need independent sources for a company's promotional claims about itself, and now that you mention it, the Verizon article does need a lot of work. This is a routine certification which applies to thousands and thousands of companies, and can be thought of as one business deal among many made by both Market America and the BBB. We don't mention which company handles the shipping for Verizon's home office, or who provides their liability insurance, because Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of info. Having a BBB accreditation isn't all that encyclopedic, but it is flattering, at least to people who overestimate the significance of the BBB. A 3rd party would have to have some reason to comment on the BBB & Market America accreditation, and if we can't explain that reason, why bother? Grayfell (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Anybody can put anything into a legal brief is my point. It is up to the court to determine if the allegations made in the legal argument are with or without merit. For example anybody could write in a legal filing they were grouped by a politician for example, but it isn't actually relevant until the court hears it and determines whether it is true, or not. There's a lot of undue weight on this one legal case metioned and the case hasn't even been decided yet. Will it be removed if the plaintiff loses? Or updated to state if the court deems the charges are without merit? Just recently a North Carolina publishers called Market America one of North Carolina's best kept secrets. πππ«π€ππ ππ¦ππ«π’ππ Η ππππ.ππ¨π¦ π’π¬ ππ«πππ§π¬ππ¨π«π¨βπ¬ πππ¬π πππ©π ππππ«ππ, Premier Gazette, April 5, 2019. CaribDigita (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. We most definitely do need independent sources for a company's promotional claims about itself, and now that you mention it, the Verizon article does need a lot of work. This is a routine certification which applies to thousands and thousands of companies, and can be thought of as one business deal among many made by both Market America and the BBB. We don't mention which company handles the shipping for Verizon's home office, or who provides their liability insurance, because Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of info. Having a BBB accreditation isn't all that encyclopedic, but it is flattering, at least to people who overestimate the significance of the BBB. A 3rd party would have to have some reason to comment on the BBB & Market America accreditation, and if we can't explain that reason, why bother? Grayfell (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Independent verifiable information of a source verifying performance of the company? What kinda craziness? Does Verizon's article need a reliable source to the sources claiming that Verizon's network performance is "x"??? CaribDigita (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed the link. The BBB rating is purely routine information that would need reliable, independent coverage providing context. Per the above reasons, it's not informative to link to, as it implies a level of endorsement that's not neutral or supported by neutral sources. For similar reasons I have removed the Hoover's link. Hoover's is just one company providing such info, and the site requires a subscription, so it seems borderline per WP:EL. As a source it might be helpful, but as general reading I'm not sure what's being provided. Grayfell (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)