| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Care.com article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Please see my COI tag above and I’d like to reiterate here that I am a paid editor. But with that said, it seems to me that a source used extensively in this article clearly violates Wikipedia’s guidelines on source quality, conflict of interest (COI), and original research. Before bringing this here, I ran the following summary past a handful editors. Because I have COI, I wanted to validate my thinking and gauge what consensus might be. They agreed that the situation outlined below is problematic:
1. A college student, Edwin Dorsey, conducted research into Care.com that uncovered lax security practices that needed to be corrected.
2. Dorsey self-published the research on Medium.com where he also admitted to taking up a short position on the company’s stock and stood to make money proportionally to how much his story could depress the stock price.
3. The Wall Street Journal ran a story on him and described the problems his research revealed about Care.com.
4. This Wikipedia article has a weighty section that references Dorsey’s self-published story almost exclusively.
I’m seeking to build a consensus that: the Medium.com article is OR, leans into Dorsey’s COI, and is not a source that meets Wikipedia’s guidelines. The controversy can and should be mentioned in this article, but should be limited to what reliable sources, like WSJ or Boston Globe, have published about the research.
Without relying on the legal teams and journalists behind quality sources such as the Wall Street Journal, Wikipedia becomes vulnerable to short sellers who see opportunity and seek to inflate negative stories, even in the short term, just to boost profits from a short sale.
Please feel free to weigh in with your thoughts to help determine the best way to bring this article back into compliance with Wikipedia’s rules on original research, COI, and source reliability. Thanks for the help and I'm looking forward to hearing everyone's opinions. SBCornelius (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked to look at this, as have other experienced editors, and I think we are all agreed that Medium.com is not a RS, and may not be used for controversial material. I have removed all material sourced only to it, and it may not be restored with prior consensus that the medium.com story is a RS in this instance. I have also removed an unsourced section. Negative material from RSs has not been removed, and should not be.
There are two remaining questions .One is balance, whether the Founding section of controversies is undue coverage. The other is NPOV, about the general tone. I'm taking no action on these for now.
I regret any confusion from my first set of edits, which also removed some RS material inadvertently. I reverted them, and re-did it properly.
I will additionally remark that, if the company is no longer being traded, I do not see how anything here can currently affect the stock price. Whether earlier editing of this article may have done so is another question, but there's nothing that can be done now that will remedy this. WP can deal with ongoing attempts to use nonRS either for promotion or the opposite. Attempts that have relied upon the publication of material by RS, however they might have been influenced or manipulated, is a much more difficult problem. I am fully aware that a standard PR technique is to try to get material published that would otherwise be considered positive or negative advertising in what would normally be considered reliable sources.
I am going to give advice, that neither party above edit this article further. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Our lede currently says: The company is headquartered in "Austin, Texas" but the Infobox currently says Waltham, Massachusetts. --BushelCandle 00:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This business practices bad business techniques. At the time of purchase of a subscription they mention that it auto renews. But months later they will not send a reminder email. THEN then will not give a refund the day of the renewal. The process is set up to make them money, and its a bad business practice. They are robbing people. On the BBB they have a 1.4/5. 2601:381:4200:B510:31E9:CCFD:B0F7:79A3 (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
