Talk:Guild Education

Notability claim

I feel this sentence belongs here and not in the article, so here it is: "The company has been featured in Bloomberg, Forbes, CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, and Inside Higher Education."

Agreed--CollegeMeltdown (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Whitewashing

This article now reads more like an advertisement rather than an informative piece. The one informative entry of late includes adding Mae Podesta to the leadership. Ms. Podesta is the daughter of John Podesta. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Walmart

Important aspects about Guild Education continue to be deleted, such as the abysmally low percentage of workers that take advantage of the programs.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

In terms of student participation, Guild Education is the company that serves Walmart in this capacity. Information in general about this type of program, which was also deleted, is important. Programs like this generally only attract less than 5 percent of the employees. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

CollegeMeltdown, per WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, so it seems contrary to WP:V to continue to add content about Walmart [1] in an article about Guild, after it has been disputed [2] [3], and a Talk discussion requested, [4][5]. The content also seems WP:UNDUE - this is an article about Guild, not related programs generally, and tangential content can create a WP:COATRACK instead of keeping the focus on the subject of the article, so it should be removed. Beccaynr (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If you do a word count in the Chronicle of Higher Education article, Guild is mentioned 5 times and Walmart is mentioned 5 times. This article should not be solely sourced from business magazines that promote the company. If Walmart cannot be mentioned, I suggest that there should be a disclaimer at the top of the article noting that the article is mostly promotional in content. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not clear to me how the word count in the source (Chronicle) is relevant, when the content added from it to the article does not appear to be directly related to Guild. I think the article may be prone to spam, and to avoid the need for a tag, I think some edits are needed per that guideline, including the removal of tangential content not directly related to Guild by independent and reliable sources, per WP:OR. It is also not clear to me how the concern about the sourcing generally relates to the discussion about the inclusion of specific disputed information about Walmart, and I would appreciate focusing on the issue of whether to include the line about Walmart for now. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be more people to weigh in on this. I propose that a disclaimer be placed at the top of the article noting that the article appears to be promotional in nature. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is about one disputed line that has been repeatedly added about Walmart. Additional edits have been made to remove promotional content, but whether a tag is needed does not appear to be relevant to the question of whether information about the number of Walmart employees during April 2020 accessing Walmart benefits is appropriate to include in the Guild article. Beccaynr (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

CollegeMeltdown, it would be appreciated if instead of reverting [6], you would discuss the disputed sentence here. Beccaynr (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Do a Google News search of Guild Education and Walmart and, in my opinion, you will have an answer.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand how this relates to the inclusion of information not directly related to Guild, especially per WP:OR, e.g To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Beccaynr (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

CollegeMeltdown, a compromise to preserve the sourced information about Walmart, with at least an edit to help clarify that it applies to April 2020, not 2020 generally, is to add it to the Walmart article. Beccaynr (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Education Assistance Benefits or Education Assistance Programs

Education assistance benefits and their programs are gaining in importance as tens of millions of US workers are being displaced. Yet there is no article on these programs. Since Guild Education is a leader in this field, there should be a conversation on how these programs work. I had previously included general information from a credible source (Peter Cappelli, Wharton) but unfortunately this information was deleted. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful to the discussion generally if you could include a diff to the edit you are concerned about and the source you are referring to. Also, you could write an article about educational assistance benefits to help avoid WP:COATRACK/WP:UNDUE issues for this article. Beccaynr (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

You could also write an article about Educational Assistance Programs. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

CollegeMeltdown, I made the suggestion about you writing the article because you have stated the subject is important, added a redlink to a nonexistent article on the subject to this article [7], and claim to have a credible source. WP:COATRACK concerns have been raised about content you have repeatedly added here, and in the AfD nomination for the Rachel Romer Carlson article you created [8] but I extensively edited into more of a BLP structure [9]. One way to avoid the WP:COATRACK concern is to create an independent article and then link it to other articles, and it is a potential compromise solution for how to address the disputed content that does not appear to be directly related to Guild. Beccaynr (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I have created a new article titled Employee education benefits in the United States.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Continues to read like an advertisement

I suggest that there be a note at the top of the page indicating that this article reads like an advertisement. I can't blame it solely on the editors here. What's being published in the mainstream media about Guild Education (e.g. USA Today, CNBC, Forbes) reads like promotional material rather than journalism. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not see a concern about independent and reliable sources in WP:ADMASQ, but I have made edits in response to your concern and the WP:ADS guideline, including, When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view. I think it would be helpful to continue fixing the citations to add dates and wikilinks to the publications when available, which I think makes the article appear more encyclopedic and less WP:BROCHURE. Beccaynr (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the input and the work involved. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This article got on my radar because it was related to the Rachel Romer Carlson article that I substantially revised due to WP:COATRACK concerns, and I kept it on my watchlist due to what appeared to be ongoing efforts to create WP:ADMASQ. I also recently reviewed the WP:IBA and WP:IPR essays to help guide recent edits. Beccaynr (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Dubious statements

"instead of middlemen like Google and Facebook" Google and Facebook do not substantially act as middlemen in offering educational programs to students, except to the extent that companies have web sites which are listed on Google etc,, which among msny other things, usually have a link for recruiting potential workers. What the reference actually say, is that companies shuold pay for this company'e educational benefits to attract employees, instead of advertising for employees on G and Faceboo I see no reason why a company would stop conventional recruiting to rely entirely on the company's benefits. It's marketing nonsense DGG ( talk ) 09:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

So what do we do in terms of editing? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Proprietary technology

It appears that a key to Guild's business model is to use technology for efficiency. These technologies include Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Business Intelligence (BI). Is it ok to use video presentations as sources if they are the only available sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollegeMeltdown (talk • contribs) 01:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

That video is described as a presentation by an employee of Guild Education, apparently promoting a product called Looker, on Looker's YouTube channel, so I suggest reviewing WP:PROMOTION, e.g. Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts, and instead trying to find an independent and reliable source that discusses what is key to Guild's business model. Beccaynr (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Looker is not owned by Guild but I will will abstain from using the important information until it is documented in a more neutral source.--CollegeMeltdown (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

References

WSJ cite

What content does this reference support? Geron, Tomio (July 28, 2020). "Jobless Workers Fuel Surge in Demand for Startups Offering Retraining". www.wsj.com. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 15 March 2021. I am not able to access the entire article. Thanks, Beccaynr (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Is Guild Really Offering Academic Coaching?

How can Guild Education, a company with an estimated 500-1000 workers, possibly offer academic "coaching" to the roughly 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 million workers they allegedly serve? I am aware that they have proprietary software (Looker), but that seems to be an impossibility with those numbers. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

References

What do we do when almost all the articles continue to be hype?

Undoubtedly, Guild Education is large and important enough to have a Wikipedia article, but what do we do when almost every article is little more than PR? With the exception of Goldie Blumenstyk at the Chronicle of Higher Education, I'm amazed at the lack of critical attention paid to a US edtech company valued at $3.8 billion and rising and the number of articles pumping up the company despite its unimpressive numbers (a small percentage of workers have earned credentials) and lack of transparency. Another disturbing issue (possibly a conflict of interest) is that the Lumina Foundation is the only current source and it has invested in Guild. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

References

As an initial matter, sources do not appear to support a description of Guild as an edtech company. As to your first question, per WP:BIASED, Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering, and per WP:BESTSOURCES, If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk. As to your second question, the WP:SELFSOURCE guideline may help address the issue. Beccaynr (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Guild Education is described as an EdTech company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollegeMeltdown (talk • contribs) 20:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

In the context of this discussion, about how sources sometimes appear to uncritically reproduce what Guild says about itself, the very brief mentions in a CNBC blurb, a website without editorial standards, and an EdSurge article that seems to obscure who actually employs Guild, do not seem sufficient to support describing Guild as an edtech company as it is defined in the Wikipedia article. It seems potentially misleading to call Guild an "edtech" company and then link to a Wikipedia article that defines "edtech" as something different than what Guild appears to do. Beccaynr (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, per my recent edits, I think it is helpful to not use the advertising language that Guild uses, and just state what they do neutrally and factually. Beccaynr (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Beccaynr, those are all good points. I may need help with that. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the NPOV Noticeboard could offer assistance. A relevant policy appears to include Bias in sources, and relatedly, the WP:BIASEDSOURCES guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Guild Education's "Academic Partners" and two-tiered business model

Beccaynr, Guild Education is adding and deleting Academic Partners on a regular basis. For example, University of Florida is no longer on the list. And Pathstream, a company with ownership ties to Guild, was added. Should we even have a list of Academic Partners?

Guild has also developed a two-tiered scheme for services, with premium services like coaching and data analysis provided to select Academic Partners. This seems to be a pretty significant point given that one tier is bare bones service and the other appears to be like a lead generation company, like Education Dynamics. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Guild Education Claims

Guild Education is making claims that they will "fuel a mission to advance one million Black Americans into quality jobs over the next ten years.” The press releases say very little about how this goal will be reached, or even measured. Are press releases like this worthy of inclusion? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:PROMO, Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. Beccaynr (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Guild Mania

Is there more than one article that's objective about Guild Education? The articles continue to be self-promoting PR. And now Oprah Winfrey is in on the investment. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I have removed press releases, unreliable sources and promotional content that appears to have continued to find its way into this article, but yes, it appears there are independent and reliable sources that objectively describe Guild and its business operations. Beccaynr (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Other than Bloomberg, what other credible sources are there? Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You can review the reliable sources guideline and list of frequently-discussed sources to help review sources in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)