Jump to content

Talk:Better World Books

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DUN & BRADSTREET

[edit]

Go to http://www.dnb.com/us/

At the right of the screen is a dialog box named "Find a Company". Type in "Better World Books" and choose the state of Indiana and you will see the records for QUMPUS, INC. Also Traded as BETTER WORLD BOOKS 55740 CURRANT RD, MISHAWAKA, IN. That is the same address listed on the Better World Books contact page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.37.210 (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC) --Tintle (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be overly critical, but what does the "Qumpus" name have to do with anything? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Indiana Secretary of State

[edit]

The Indiana Secretary of State database https://secure.in.gov/sos/bus_service/online_corps/name_search.aspx

In the dialog box type "QUMPUS" and click "submit" to see the same results, Better Wolrd Books is owned by QUMPUS described by the Indiana Secretary of State as QUMPUS, INC. Legal For-Profit Foreign Corporation MISHAWAKA, IN. If you type in "Better World Books" the database returns no listing.


Of note, since the inception of this article it has been set up as an advertisement. The laudatory comments about Better World Books are promotional in nature. --Tintle (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.37.210 (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To whomever is rewriting the first paragraph. Please cite your sources. D&B and the Indiana Secretary have been contacted and the information given will soon be changed as it is false. Better World Books is a for-profit, however to say that students are mislead is hearsay, at best, for that matter, they are not an off-shore company, nor are they owned by an offshore company. They were, are and always have been owned by three guys from Indiana, two of whom still live there and one who is in San Francisco. I'm not sure what the "Avatar Game" is but that's decidedly NOT where the name "Qumpus" is derived (it's actually a play off of a name of an apartment at Notre Dame). I will be happy to report you for taking out legitimate cited information from third party websites and for perpetual use of weasel words. 208.127.240.120 (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain bookselling companies (that will go unnamed) that buy back books for $1 or $2 just to keep them off the used market and then rip off the covers and throw them in the garbage, and it's a company wide rule. I'll let you do the searching there. Any book that Better World Books gets would be a book not in the landfill based on something like that. Just disgusting business practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.240.144 (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article states: "Environmental impact: Saved over 5,350 tons of books from landfills." Does that mean they go to landfills and dig out the books? If books are not wanted they are usually tossed in the paper recycling bin --- that's what we do at the library with damaged and unwanted books. Why would books go to landfills? And BWB is obviously a For-Profit Corporation - they say so on their website. --68.97.42.127 (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not a Non-Profit Organization, and also listed in the "Wikipedia entries of Non-Profit Organizations"? - 8472

Its a subsidiary of a giant corproation plating on the same theme as the supposedly green companies - the whole campaign for literacy is an advertising gimmick and there is nothing wrong with advertising gimmicks.

Systematical elimination of critical remarks

[edit]

On September 19, 2006, an anonymous user (71.106.117.122) who exclusively wrote Wikipedia contributions on Better World Books, and only between September 7 and 20, 2006, deleted the parts of this article that were somewhat critical of the BWB enterprise, as can be seen here: [1], and also the sources of this article, without any reason given. If you look at the history of the article, you see it's a pattern. Several times referenced critical views were put in the article; they always were removed by User:Fritzlovesmaggie, who, like anonymous user 71.106.117.122, has been writing about BWB solely, and only between March 23, 2006 and October 2, 2006.

I'm going to restore the latest critical version, and add another reference (I came across BWB being a book buyer on Abebooks, and noticed BWB's woefully inadequate book descriptions and other hallmarks of a 'megalister' - this reference will tell you more about BWB as a megalister). Soczyczi 08:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed sections/moved information for neutrality; left referenced critical remarks. Removed NPR references "Reports via NPR in January of 2006 state that yearly revenue is above 6 millions USD.", "In recent interviews by National Public Radio, the company refused to disclose its actual revenue or full donation allocations.", as not verifiable - search for “Better World Books” and "betterworldbooks.com" on NPR.org had no results. Corrected misnomer of “non-profit organization” as it is not. Literacy123 21:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining Neutral Point Of View

[edit]

Anonymous user 69.207.232.204, please refer to Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, please avoid posting opinions as part of encyclopedia entry. Critical points of book listing are already addressed in article - see first sentence under "Online Sales" for megalister link, external links to NACS discussion & Independent Online Booksellers Association Newsletter's megalister Discussion. I edited to adhere to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, moving description of BWB under title, and edited impact section to include a critical POV. Please cite verifiable sources (refer to Wikipedia:Verifiability) for further edits. Thanks - Literacy123 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

I just did a revert, mainly because the previous edits had destroyed the lead paragraph. However, a number of the citations in the previous version aren't valid. Specifically, a number of them are links to the site's main page, or a search page. If this information is to be included, it needs source links that work. Also, this mess doesn't belong in the lead, but a separate section further down. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

BetterWorld should be merged here. It's an article for BWB's website, but it wouldn't pass WP:WEB from what I can see. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, should be merged. 208.127.240.145 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this how we do stuff now?

[edit]

Why are there no less than twelve footnotes after a single very mundane introductory sentence? It looks ridiculous. The footnotes outnumber facts in the sentence by about 4 to 1. -R. fiend (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contributed Sourced Material That Was Removed Without Cause

[edit]

Dozens of libraries have chosen to partner with "Better World Books" rather than continue to hold library hold sales. Library directors and Friends boards may not have realized then or realize now, however, that Better World Books is not actually a charity or a charitable organization. The sourced criticism has every reason to be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.13.90 (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern, but I removed the material because, as my edit summaries explain, the information was not contained in the sources cited. In addition, the sources are not what Wikipedia requires as Reliable sources.
I also note that you do not have a User Page, that your Talk Page was created by another editor in order to inform you of Wikipedia policies, and that as far as I can tell, the entries on this Better World article are the only ones you have made.
Please accept my apologies if I am wrong. ch (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely certain that CNN is a reputable source for Wikipedia and that point cannot be disputed. That section will have to be restored. As for "boilerplate," the American Heritage Dictionary lists "phrases or units of text used repeatedly" - a perfect synonym for a practice that only repeatedly uses the exact same phrases [and] units of text. Editors who have trouble understanding the English language should consult a dictionary and not the Wikipedia page for the same. As you well know, Wikipedia is not a source.

Thanks for your quick and courteous reply and explanation. CNN can be an acceptable source, though it can in fact be disputed. Please see Reliable source. The problem is that CNN didn't say what the text claimed. The text that I cut said
Better World Books has drawn criticism from some who find the company's posturing tantamount to suggesting the company is a not-for-profit corporation, which it is not. The company does not disclose the salaries of its executives, the costs of its operations, or profits. The practice is potentially problematic as a single "literacy book drive" can bring a bounty of $20,000 worth of books or more -- Elam, Stephanie. "Building better world a book at a time"
There is nothing like that in the source. Words like "posturing" are not acceptable, and concluding that a practice is "potentially problematic" is WP:Original Research. I'd be happy to spell these out in more detail, but I would like to entice you into using your energy to make more contributions! Cheers in any case. ch (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this worth writing?

[edit]

For me the phrase The company discloses information about funds raised, books re-used or recycled, and books donated in a ticker at the top of its website. has absolutely no interest. Also this phrase is followed by 2 footnotes that seem useless in this case. OK for remove?--Bretelle (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sentence is awkward but, as you can see looking over the earlier discussions on this Talk Page, some editors wanted to include critical material that was not reliably sourced, so it might be just as well to leave the sentence to show the nature of the operation, or maybe move the sentence from the lead to someplace below.ch (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Better World Books. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Better_World_Books&oldid=1199936767"