Talk:Internet fraud/Archives/2016

RfC: Do articles like this contribute to fraud? (poll)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While reading this detailed article, I wondered whether articles like this one contribute to fraud. For example, what is the purpose of providing six form letters involved in committing a particular type of fraud? It seems to me that someone with no scruples looking for money could use a WP article like this as a "how-to" for launching a fraudulent business. Would editors please respond with disagree/agree? Thanks. David Spector (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Came here for this RFC and started editing the page a bit: I'm not sure if the specific examples given are cause for concern (I tend to believe that reputable sources publishing examples may give the average consumer more awareness and have a chilling effect on that specific method working in the future), but the overall article feels more like a list of commonly encountered examples rather than the mechanisms of fraud. Therefore I think I would generally disagree that the examples given are problematic, but would like to see the article focus on "how" with equal weight as the examples given. Lizzius (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - This seems to be an overall policy question regarding what to include. The issue at hand, as I see it displayed, is a question of WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTCENSORED. I think the answer to the RFC's main question is that Wikipedia is not censored. If the content is notable, then it should be included. As to being a How-To guide? That's a question of prose. Merely displaying examples is not a how to guide. At its worst, the article does not stoop to that level. None of this is to say that the article couldn't be improved with better explanations, but I do think that explicit examples, properly sourced, are appropriate. Someone looking to learn how to scam can do so literally anywhere. Wikipedia is focused on the academic researcher and layperson... and an academic researcher or layperson would be well served to have examples of what is being discussed. Fieari (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I think this is fine. As an encylopaedia, the goal should be to provide information. The examples here serve the purpose educating the people about various internet fraud. In addition, the example do not go into sufficient depth about "how to" commit the fraud. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment The extant article is possibly of interest to High School students who have been given an assignment or have been looking for an assignment related to petty on-line crime, it would be informative in that context. However I seriously doubt that knowing what other people are doing would motivate someone or give them ideas to commit their own, as you know the Internet is crammed packed with idiot frauds, from "run your car on water" to "magnet motor" to Creationism and no end of abject stupidity including "Chemtails" and politics. It does not seem likely that anybody would gleam anything useful from the article other than examples of petty crime, not ideas to yark off and commit their own. Damotclese (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• Remove the examples. First, encyclopedias don't contain lengthy examples. Think back to when you were in school, and reading professionally written encyclopedias. Do you remember any such content? Look at this old encyclopedia article on a related subject: no examples like these. Look at this new, professionally written encyclopedia article on internet fraud: no examples like these. This content is not wikt:encyclopedic – it is not the kind of material that an encyclopedia typically includes.
  Also, we should remove the examples because of copyright concerns. These are probably copied and pasted from e-mail messages sent from some scammer (probably by well-meaning people who wanted to make sure anyone who received one could easily learn that it was fraudulent). But in most jurisdictions, the author of spam still retains the copyright, and that means that we can't include it unless we're claiming fair use, which seems dubious here. We can remove these and replace the with Wikipedia:External links that show and describe examples. A search at Snopes.com might be a reasonable starting point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

clean up?

This was on the clean up list until today, but seems to have been removed. I improved the English myself a little yesterday but I'm not too sure that it is clean enough yet?

I would put it back on the clean-up list for now. What do people think?

Paulc1001 13:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I did a general clean up and copy edit of about two-thirds of this article this evening before running out of steam. I dropped in a cleanup-remainder tag to mark where I left off; I intend to return and finish the cleanup sometime this weekend. I removed or reworded several instances of first- or second-person point of view, cases where a particular instance of a scam was detailed instead of giving a generally-applicable description of the scam, and some instances where advice was given rather than encyclopedic reference material (Wikipedia is not a manual). Macwhiz (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've completed the copy edit, and removed the relevant tags. Macwhiz (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the copy edit! The article looks much better.  Davtra  ^(talk) 22:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I fixed an error with the "purchasing fraud" section. This section was essentially describing Credit card fraud as it is perpetrated on the internet. Purchasing fraud is a different thing altogether and is usually found in organizations. I also cleaned up some of the grammar in this section and made it a bit more concise. Lizzius (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Note: There should be a (huge) section on online charity (fundraising) fraud. After Hurricane Katrina...online charity fraud is big business.

I am writing a paper, so am sitting on a pile of related citations, but here is a good example:

Hall, Holly. After the Hurricane, Chronicle of Philanthropy, "Online charity scams grow in number and sophistication." 9/29/05. vol XVII No. 24

-JFG The internet fraud page need real editing...I did some editing on the purchasing fraud section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mansa1965 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)