Talk:Seeking Alpha

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles

Websites: Computing

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Information on founder David Jackson

I an writing a report on Seeking Alpha for school but can't find much information on the founder/CEO David Jackson. There seems to be no entry for him on Wikipedia. Can someone please create one or direct me to where I can find more information about him? Thank you.

I'd like to see one too. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.195.185 (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and sourcing

This article seems to be written like an advertisement.

I am convinced that random anonymous internet users can and do upload misleading articles to seeking alpha purely for the purpose of manipulating the stock. I do not think that seeking alpha has the resources or inclination to fact check such articles, only to check to see if they are well-written.99.235.250.152 (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the text that is unsourced and toned down the self reported claims. I've also edited the content so that it more accurately reflects the sources cited. Finally I've added a ref needed tag since the majority of the info is self reported. Thanks for the heads up.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still written like an advertisement, unfortunately. Probably by the company itself. — Gopher65_talk 00:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wisdom of Crowds

This entire section is a murky hack, with punctuation errors and Spoonerisms. The last paragraph, in particular, makes no sense whatsoever. Either the section gets rewritten, preferably by the original contributor(s), who might have an idea of what they were trying to say, or it should be deleted. — Quicksilver^{T @} 16:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section is relevant, and the citations provided reliable. This is a wiki; there is no need to wait for the original contributor. If you don't have any idea what was meant by it, review the supplied sources and provide your own synthesis, or let someone else rewrite it. I don't see anything in that section that warrants complete eradication. Owen× ☎ 21:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wisdom of Clowns

Seeking Alpha is infested with clueless opinionated f*tards spouting sh*te. Either that, or many posters there are falsely inflating demand with the intent of offloading their own holdings of worthless stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.14.232 (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most people who come to dislike SA do so because they acted on someone's idea or opinion, without deep investigation of their own. 76.18.115.128 (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unreliable source: to be deprecated ?

As a crowd-sourced outlet, this can't be used as a WP:reliable source, but often is, maybe it could deprecated?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]