Talk:Wonga.com/Archives/2012

Business description

Editorialising the description of Wonga is causing edits to be repeatedly changed. Submitting this page to be locked.

Recent edits The short-term unsecured loan industry receives a lot of negative press and Wonga receives a lot of mentions - not least because it has the highest profile (esp in terms of ad spend). However, this article is about the company Wonga.com and their practices - not the short term loan industry. Please only cite articles about Wonga specifically and their actions. Just because an article mentions Wonga.com and then goes on to criticize the entire industry, does not mean that this represents the actual actions of the company. This is the logical fallacy of "tarring with the same brush". i.e. criticising one person because they are similar to others. There was a paragraph in a recent edit which went on to talk about 'Some companies'. This is not specific to Wonga and does not describe Wonga practices. Therefore, to provide a clear and balanced view of this company -- yes do provide criticism, but make sure that this is specifically against Wonga.com and not the entire industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.253.36 (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It is all very well making reasonable-sounding comments like this, but there is no excuse for not signing your piece! Especially in the context of the current controversy!C.jeynes (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Is Usury NPOV?

I realise that the removal and readdition of usury in the 'further reading' section has been the subject of comment in the national press, so I am bringing this here rather than making the change immediately, however I can't help feeling that it is inherently POV. If you go to the usury page, the first line states that it is the practice of charging 'excessive or abusive' interest rates. If you were to state here that Wonga charges 'excessive or abusive' interest rates, without citation, it would certainly be removed, so I am not sure we should be implying this by a back-door method. Thoughts?--193.109.116.7 (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bishop of Durham called Wonga.com usurious back in May in The Guardian. We don't reference the article at the moment but we probably should. WP:SEEALSO states that which links are included is "ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" and, at least to me, 4000% APRs are 'excessive' so the link isn't particularly problematic, even without the source above. SmartSE (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem whatsoever with adding his reference in quotes.JRPG (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That's excellent, I added it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. SmartSE (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

But we don't need it linked in See also as well, right? --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope. If it's already mentioned elsewhere there is no need. SmartSE (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

We can't really use sources like the Sun and the Mirror, or primary ones like the company's own website, for controversial claims. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed article in the Sun and replaced it with this instead. I couldn't find a copy of the Sun article anywhere (even Factiva which should have it) but I am 90% certain that it wouldn't have supported the following: "Through the experience of processing these loans, the company developed technologies which began to dramatically reduce the percentage of defaults. In July 2009 Wonga raised a further £17m of funding in a Round B led by Accel Partners, Greylock Partners and Dawn Capital which improved the technology" so have added {{cn}}. With the 5 million loan claim, we could change it to say that it is according to their website.... or remove it. SmartSE (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using either the Daily Mirror or http://www.thisismoney.co.uk is Daily mail in origin -see bottom of page This is Money is part of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday & Metro Media Group © Associated Newspapers Limited 2011 see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Is_the_Daily_Mail_a_reliable_source We can't be faulted if we stick to Wikipedia:Suggested sources. JRPG (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Not everything in the Daily Mail is unreliable. Sure, we don't want to use it in BLPs a lot of the time (as the link you provide demonstrates), but it's fine as a source saying that Wonga made the first app for getting a loan. SmartSE (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I use the Daily Mail myself if it's the only source of a simple fact, I'm wary of some of its 'campaigning' as it tends not to follow up when people put things right. JRPG (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. If you can find another source then feel free to remove it. This was the best link I found on google news. SmartSE (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is no better source for this material it should be removed altogether. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Early day motion 2448

From practical experience in a pensions campaign, I expect this EDM to disappear, probably at the end of the parliamentary session. All party EDMs are works of precision verbal engineering -usually only one party will sign. Can someone get this stored on the wayback machine? JRPG (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This link should work forever: http://www.webcitation.org/6CNOckk7y SmartSE (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant. Wish I'd found this 6 years ago. I'm certain the link will disappear, is it best to replace it now? JRPG (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It's best to keep the old one, but use |archiveurl= and |archivedate= in {{cite web}}. SmartSE (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Mention of this article in the guardian

"Wonga's slogan and adverts promise "straight talking money", but company computers appear to have been used to post anonymous comments on blogs critical of its practices and there is evidence that a second Wonga employee has deleted criticism from its Wikipedia page.

A computer in the Wonga offices appears to have been used to remove from the company's Wikipedia page a reference to controversy over its sponsorship of Newcastle United Football Club and to delete the category of "usury" under the See Also section.

Wonga admitted on Tuesday that a "junior employee" may have made unauthorised comments online and would face disciplinary action if found to have been responsible for the abusive tweets. It defended its right to correct "inaccurate" entries on Wikipedia."

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/20/mp-demands-apology-tweets-wonga

--Cameron Scott (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been bold and added this to the criticism section. I realise it might be contentious, but if Wonga.com did this and were publicly criticised because of it, it's not for Wikipedia to blush about it. GM Pink Elephant (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added a template noting this above. Robofish (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It was presumably 109.204.47.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), although I'm not sure how The Guardian reached the conclusion that the IP is owned by Wonga. I've replaced the Newcastle info which plenty of sources discussed at the time. There are other SPA IPs that have edited the page and who's changes have stuck e.g. 176.35.225.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 83.71.253.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who have removed the 4214% APR from the lead. We should probably discuss whether we want to revert these changes. SmartSE (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Smartse. I agree that all three look suspicious (only interested in this article, similar style of writing, all editing to the same agenda).GM Pink Elephant (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Need we mention User:Softcap who oddly is interested only in Wonga's saintly status and Oliver Cromwell? Pinkbeast (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't make any assumptions. I edit wp:blps of politicians and it's actually quite helpful if someone 'very close to the subject' is able to provide new sources and correct outdated information even though they initially fail to understand the rules. See this Conservative Wikipedia editor This stops however if and when the edits become disruptive even after a warning. Shipwrecks -my other interest - are always impeccably well behaved :) JRPG (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Description of company 'high interest' is NPOV

Stating a company is a high interest credit company is not very defensible in terms of neutrality. It's clearly violating npov. High compared to what? Since they have a fixed interest of .98 percent per day, perhaps that is more factual. Alternatively on openwonga they give the average number of days a loan is given, perhaps average over that? Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.252.219 (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not POV - it is what sources state, and we therefore reflect. Even the highest quality financial news source (The Financial Times) has called the loans high interest: [1]. SmartSE (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem in that we need to find a single source using the exact words deemed to be wp:NPOV -which should be put in quotes. The FT article isn't good enough. I'm offline for a bit now but http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2012/oct/12/wonga-newcastle-united-sponsorship-deal is the best I can find. JRPG (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

From what I've read every source calls them high interest - I was just linking to the FT to show that it is not at all controversial to call the rates high. SmartSE (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

What is this 'we' about? The edits and talk here smacks of a group effort turning this article into an attack page. (whatever the good intention). It will be tagged for deletion unless there is neutrality brought about by the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.77.202 (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

'We' is a reference to the Wikipedia community, which I'm extremely proud to have been a member of for 7 years. I focus on controversial articles or sections and am dedicated to ensuring they comply with all rules, are wp:NPOV and educational. Please sign your posts JRPG (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a group effort to represent the company according to how sources have discussed it. We can't help that much of the coverage about Wonga is erring on the negative. SmartSE (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources reporting positively on the company's interest rates, feel free to bring them here and we can put them in the article. We can only summarise what the reliable sources say. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP hasn't identified himself, we mustn't assume he is connected with Wonga but he wishes to complain he must identify himself using Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. Back to improving the article, based on experience of editing UK politicians of all backgrounds, what one group of people regard as disgraceful is another group's truly brilliant concept, it depends on your audience as Gerald Ratner found out. Smartse has the right idea, the FT praised the high interest rate Wonga is able to command -as would many investors. Can we get more material like that? Also the controversy section should be incorporated in the main article. -see WP:CSECTION. I'm really not expecting a serious problem with this article or getting agreement with the experienced editors. JRPG (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why "high interest" has been removed from the lead. It is a key part of Wonga's business that they charge a high rate of interest and almost every single source refers to this in some way - 'astronomical rates', 'high interest rates' 'a frankly incredible 4,214% a year' etc. WP:BEGINNING says that the first sentence should be "one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist" and "high interest" is an important part of that. JRPG - can you please explain why you removed it? SmartSE (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wonga are in a controversial space, with broad campaigns against them in the media - right or wrong. This means its easy to quote media sources who say 'high interest' but quoting these in the product description is not NPOV period. That goes into press comment etc. Please avoid putting pejorative or subjective statements about them in the product description. Just state what the product is, what it costs etc. The most despised companies in the world like blackwater usa, at least get a correct product description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softcap (talk • contribs) 23:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Softcap. Please assume that we are all trying to get an NPOV and informative encycopedia article here, I'm certain its possible. Our role is much more than product description & cost -that can be left to the Wonga website. We have to explain why the company is of interest and what the controversies are. If we put in rates and limits etc., we either have to put in a date when they were correct -my preference -or continuously keep them updated. At the risk of breaching wp:crystal, I would expect more positive press reports if and when the company can show that its client base really is the "tech-savvy young professionals who previously used the banks to borrow money." These can be added. Regards JRPG (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". If all sources say it is high interest, then it is against NPOV to not mention it. I'm struggling to see how high interest is not a 'correct product description' anyway - it is a perfectly accurate description of what Wonga offer. SmartSE (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Smartse. If I could find a source that used the simple words 'high interest' I would have put it in quotes in the introduction -as the source opinion not ours. End of problem. I think referring to it as 'Astronomic interest' might be deemed OTT. Elsewhere I've tried to show the numeric amount as per WP:SUBSTANTIATE. I can probably give a much better definition tomorrow. Regards JRPG (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

On the principle that fixing it is easier done than said, I've added a BBC source which uses the unemotive words I'd like to include in quotes. The other sources confirm high APR so the statement can't be challenged. JRPG (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the source, but I'm not really sure that this is an improvement. The point I have been trying to make is that every source (positive or negative) mentions that Wonga charges a high rate of interest. Most of the article is about this and it is not an opinion, but fact - it is no different to the 'short term' that is also mentioned. Saying that they have been criticised because of this in the first sentence is less NPOV than simply stating it as before - the lead should mention the criticism at some point, but not so soon. SmartSE (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Instead of saying the pejorative high interest which is clearly biased, though a few here contend strangely that it is not, then what about stating the actual interest rate - even an example. Then we are on a factual footing. Agreed - there are papers that say 'high interest' but in describing the actual function of the product. That sort of reference belongs in the comment or press section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softcap (talk • contribs) 22:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

How is it 'clearly biased'? It is a simple factual statement to describe the rates that Wonga charges as high interest. SmartSE (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi SmartSE. I don't think we disagree in principle but I want us to be above rational reproach. How about this with the first sentence as Wonga.com is a British payday loan company offering 'short term high cost credit'

This appears rock solid as it quotes Wonga directly. Feel free to change yourself inc. modifications ..or I'll await your reply. I don't think the other 5 references in the first sentence are needed though they could be used elsewhere. Regards JRPG (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That's ok, but it is what Wonga want to be known as, not what they are known as, according to all the other RSs. I don't see anything wrong with the old, unreferenced version as the rest of the article explains it. And yep I agree that all the references can be removed from the first paragraph and kept to use elsewhere.

The quotation marks should resolve the debate about POV. I also think the summary is fair and the rest of the article uses actual figures. Thanks for your comments. JRPG (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The summary is quite biased. You couldn't convince anyone that describing a product as high interest isn't so. Quoting the actual interest rate is not biased and lets the reader determine for themselves. By way of example, Barclay's aren't called a high-interest lender even though the one day interest for an overdraft is about a billion percent. Either take out the high interest or specify the actual interest rate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softcap (talk • contribs) 00:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems in fact that every other editor tracking this page is convinced of precisely that. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)