Talk:World Online Education Accrediting Commission

Untitled

WIKIPEDIA should be more careful about who and what an organizations Credentials are before throwing around names and accusations. Let me elaborate for a moment. When speaking of an organization or entity for that matter, who is to say that just because the physical address is not listed, that makes that business fraudulent or less credible. I have an email address on windows live, but it does not have my physical address. Does this make me, as a person fraudulent or less credible. The answer is no. I choose to with hold my physical address because of potential dangers and I find it to be a necessary means of protecting my family. Taking this part of the discussion one step further, the FBI does not list their physical location on every one of their sites. Is that to say that the FBI is fraudulent, no it is not. Moving right along, the reporters who claim they have investigated these different entities have committed fraud themselves by purchasing a degree through the exchange of money. Sure, it is suspicious when someone gives a certain amount of money for documents that lie about someones credentials. The thing is that I do not understand how the Universities or Accredited Commission has been proven to be fraudulent and for that matter labeled as a "degree mill". For example: When I was in high school and a teacher made a mistake, that mistake did not discredit the school. When I was enrolling into College and the Student Adviser forgot to order my books that didn't make the College less credible. The fact is, if I choose to set back and not take proper action in remedying the problem of not having my books, I am just as much at fault as the Student Adviser. This case in point, I acted in the appropriate manner and informed the proper faculty and the problem was resolved. Now, is that to say, that it will never happen again, NO. There is always a possibility of it happening again. The point I am trying to drive home is, did these reporters inform the proper faculty that this particular someone was giving their degrees away, NO. The point that a reporter paid an allotted amount of money for a product to prove someones guilty of a crime, is in no way justified as ethical or moral in finding the truth in the matter. If that were the case, I could go buy some drugs off a street corner(with my own money) and then go to the local police station and state that I just bought some drugs off the street corner and that I have proven that a particular person on a street corner was selling drugs. What do you honestly think the outcome of my own investigating idiocy in this case is going to be. It is very likely that I would get arrested for being in possession of narcotics. The fact that I was trying to make a point through buying drugs in order to prove a point, does not prove any thing at all as far as right and wrong go, other than I am just as immoral and unethical in daily life as the person I am accusing. The only difference is how blatantly stupid I was in proving my point that I would risk my very reputation as well as a free pass to jail. The act of ethics is still valid in this world, are they not? For a person to take an immoral act in an investigation in order to find the immorality of ethics in their investigative claim is completely ludicrous and absurd. Two wrongs do not make a right and that is what this article implies; which the very existence of this article being publish here, now makes for a third wrong. Where is the ethics and morals in this investigation and these claims. The implications of such accusations of reputable names are at stake here and the facts are not straight for this article to take on such bold infringing accusations. If you want to make these kind of claims then I will have to sift through your data base and investigate just how many other reports on reputable entities are falling victim to this carelessness in reporting the facts, both moral and immoral. I would suggest to those in charge of publishing such articles to consider your own reputation at this point. From the looks of this article, anyone would have plenty of material to use in discrediting this site as a unreliable source of reference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupears (talk • contribs) 6 June 2010‎