Talk:Video Professor

/Archive

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 October 2019 and 8 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amonteirolima. Peer reviewers: Apllrdbel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed a Couple of Facts

It was 89.95 not 79.95 and etc....

Controversies, lawsuits, etc.

I have archived a long series of discussions all about much the same thing, I will try to summarise the position here for the benefit of the numerous newcomers who arrive here.

• Criticisms of Video Professor do exist, but thus far we have been asked to cite said criticisms from blogs, web forums or Usenet postings. These fail our attribution and sourcing policies. If you want to include critique, please feel free to suggest it here, again sourced from reliable independent sources.
• The Video Professor article is not an advertisement, but if you think it is too flattering you are welcome to suggest specific changes, particularly if you are able to cite reliable sources.
• Video Professor's business model is perfectly legal, it is called the continuity sales model and it has been used by book clubs for decades. While some have found that model problematic, it is clearly the case that many others do not. Whether it is more or less problematic when applied to higher value items such as these tutorials would need to be addressed in a reliable independent source.

Please do feel free to suggest changes, but be aware that unless they are sourced from credible independent sources they will not be added to the article and may be removed from this discussion page. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 15:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that this is a credible source: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/28/video-professor-washington-post-scamville/ (HippieJohn (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

Undue weight concern

Having noted that we've received credible legal threats from this company, it seems to me rather unwise to source two controversial facts from a "Denver alternative weekly". Please find better - ideally much better - sources. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of WP:NPOV and WP:SELF, we really shouldn't care. That's not to say that we shouldn't care for other reasons, and always seek out reliable sources, with or without lawsuit threats. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Westword is an RS. period. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning whether WMF fought the subpoena or not

Anonyfox, I understand, and I wasn't happy with their reaction (as far as I know about it) either. Still, WMF has (Nsk, if you're reading this, you probably remember where that conversation with Mike Godwin happened, because I can't find it now) claimed that they did fight the subpoena behind closed doors, so unless you can find a source for that disproves that, I think it best to keep the wording neutral. Since this is an article about VP, I'm not sure comments about WMF's aggression in fighting the subpoena belong here anyway. --barneca (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The thread with Mike Godwin's comments regarding the lawsuit is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 25#Releasing IP addresses of registered users: the Video Professor incident. Since I was one of the users whose info was released, I have an obvious COI here, so I'll abstain from substantive participation in this discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains that the WMF did not exhaust it's options as it should have. This could have, and should have, been pushed to court if needed, because people cannot safely contribute to Wikipedia if they cannot be assured that their willingness to tell the truth will not end up with them being hit by SLAPP lawsuits. All I want is for the WMF to admit that they failed to adequately protect their user-base. Perhaps stating "without opposition" would not be correct, but it should be noted that they did not go as far as they could have to protect their users. Anonyfox36 (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hotbed?

I've just recently found out about this "controversy" regarding the disclosure of private information by WMF to a third party. I'd thought to find more about all of this here on the VP talk page but it seems to be a non-issue at this time. I'll keep watching. -hydnjo talk 20:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Corrections to Errors of Fact

This article certainly does not help Wikipedia's reputation for being grossly inaccurate and biased. I noticed that the Video Professor Website explains on its front page that if you return one of the three CDs within 10 days you will NOT be charged. They also provide a phone number people can use to contact customer service. I corrected a sentence in the Business Model section to accurately reflect what is stated on the Website.

I don't know whether anyone has been wrongly charged for the CDs after returning one within the timeframe. I'd rather not involve myself in the controversy, but I can see how the article would be construed as defamatory, since it was making a rather blatant allegation that is contrary to the company's stated policy.

And I have to ask if a real encyclopedia would even document this kind of company. This article should be considered for deletion, in my opinion.Michael Martinez (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The VPLitigation Web site has been allowed to expire (it now appears to be a typical domainer's holding page). Should the link be left in the article, as it serves no purpose except to send potential click traffic to a domainer's site? Michael Martinez (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There's been a history of POV editing and edit warring by Pro- and Con- editors on this article. I still have the page on my watchlist, but I have about 800 other pages on there too, and I must have missed the addition of some POV edits in July and last month. Michael, where you refute some of the POV material, rather than keep the original offending paragraph, with your addition/clarification to it, I just removed the whole thing (my second edit). I also removed a blog-like "VP critics" website from the external links.

The general philosophy I think we settled on a while ago is that this is an encyclopedia article, not a puff piece, and not a hit piece. It isn't a place where the critics' comments, documented in reliable sources, are whitewashed, but it's also not a place for dissatisfied customers to vent, either. There was general agreement last year that the article was more or less balanced, and after I reverted the POV edits I beleive it is similar to the consensus article at that time. I generally think it's still reasonably NPOV.

Also, there was an AFD on this a year or two ago, which resulted in "keep". I doubt the result would be much different now, but of course you're welcome to try if you don't think it should be here.

I just re-read your comment about the VPLitigation site, I'll take a look at that. --barneca (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed entire sentence about the VPLitigation website as non-notable. --barneca (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you're trying to keep an eye on things and I just happened to drop by in-between better edits. I have no desire to champion another AFD. But I've stated my opinion here so at least it's documented somewhere in case the subject comes up again.Michael Martinez (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call it "keeping an eye on things"; those edits lasted a long time. Feel free to add this to your own watchlist and revert any new POV stuff too; two sets of eyes are better than one. --barneca (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Price

From the main page on the video professor website, the price seems to now be "we'll conveniently bill your credit card just $289.95". In the event they later change their price, I've captured a screen shot [1] Sysrpl (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Tech Crunch

Just because some guy from Tech Crunch said this or that, does not make it fact that Video Professor is scam, certainly does not belong in an opening paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.150.229 (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• But it is a scam regardless. 132.177.82.214 (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Michael Arrington is not just "some guy from Tech Crunch", he's a well respected journalist. 64.119.130.42 (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Arrington makes it clear that he does not feel obligated to get both sides of topics he writes about. His I'd just opinion. It should also be noted that a member of his staff was caught asking for free merchandise in exchange for positive reviews. Additionally Arrington is also involved in litigation connected to the ill-fated Crunchpad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.160.249 (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed paragraphs

I've removed one unsourced POV paragraph and another paragraph because the source given (http://www.9news.com/9slideshows/gallery.aspx?slideshowname=2009Colorado50MostWanted&N=42) appears broken. --Geniac (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

not sure how to edit....

im not sure how to edit the page to include this info but if you go to the video professor site it says its now owned by falon funding corporation .... i tried looking up that company and found no info sounds like a shell company .... http://www.videoprofessor.com/contactus/contactinformation.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.39.39 (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Video Professor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110511073429/http://videoprofessor.com/ to http://www.videoprofessor.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Video Professor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110511073429/http://videoprofessor.com/ to http://www.videoprofessor.com/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100715064955/http://www.wpri.com:80/dpp/news/12_for_action/complaints-roll-in-on-video-professor to http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/12_for_action/complaints-roll-in-on-video-professor
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121110051257/http://www.bbb.org:80/denver/business-reviews/computers-training/video-professor-in-littleton-co-15503 to http://www.bbb.org/denver/business-reviews/computers-training/video-professor-in-littleton-co-15503

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)