Talk:Certified Internet Web Professional

This article seems to be teetering very close to an advertisement for a commercial CIW program. I struck about half the article because it was a direct copyright violation; the remainder should likely be gone over closely. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a POV tag as I agree that this article is basically an ad for the company. --65.6.10.240 (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.136.154 (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed ... it's (mostly) an ad!

Having come across this CIW article (to find out what the heck a CIW is), I thought it so much an ad I looked for a link to click to report it as such. Not seeing such, I came to this talk page, to see my impression so mirrored. Which is to say ... my impression was strong enough to motivate me to look for ways to do something about it. (And got here.)

It may well be tagged POV, but I didn't notice any such. i.e. To all appearances, this is a 'genuine' and 'authoritative' wikip article. Perhaps something more blatant could be done to the article.

In particular:

- "to become the world's largest Web education certification program." - authoritative reference / basis for statement?

- "Universities, community colleges and secondary schools from North America to EMEA, Japan and China currently use CIW." - same. One example ([5]) does not a statement confirm.

= or ... the implication is that many find them useful / authoritative / of high quality, while no basis is given for the implication. (vs ... 'cause there's nothing else out there.) [Not saying that's true, I don't know, but no reason is given to believe otherwise.]

- "the most popular is Master CIW Designer" - basis for statment?

Having said this, I appreciate the article, -something-, being here. It does, for example, let me know to go over to CompTIA to vet further. Which is something, and better than nothing. The reference to CompTIA is in fact the only hint that somebody ('trusted') objectively finds CIW has any value at all. With the reference, I may go to CompTIA and check further. Without that (such a) reference I would have dismissed CIW entirely at this point.

BS (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Certified Internet Web Professional. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20080610062524/http://www.ciw-certified.com:80/scholarship/emea.asp to http://www.ciw-certified.com/scholarship/emea.asp

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: 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) 18:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]