Talk:Collection agency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, I removed the section on "How to deal with a collection agency" from the article and formatted it so that it is only visible in the text when editing the page. The problem with this section is that it is written specifically for debtors who are dealing with collection agencies, which makes it unencyclopedic. Encyclopedia entries should always be written for a wide audience, not a specific one. This section may contain some useful facts, but they will need to be formatted and presented differently to be encyclopedic. And finally, I noticed that the article cited no sources, so I added a reference tag at the top. Andrea Parton 14:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now rewritten the article and corrected the problems. I reviewed it and removed several statements that have been construed as POV. I researched and added several references. And finally, I reread the article and corrected some parts that may have violated the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry.

Since I addressed all of the concerns listed in the tags at the top of the page I have removed said tags. Anyone is of course free to add those tags right back to the top of the page if they feel that I did not successfully address those concerns. I ask only that you read the article before slapping the tags right back up there. If you have any problems with the article please list why on this talk page. I hope to reach a consensus and continue to expand and improve this article. Seanr451 12:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Advertisements do NOT belong in Wikipedia 2 Incorrect Assignment of Debts 3 Page that was linked from here is a copy? 4 BIAS 5 Cleanup needed

[edit] Advertisements do NOT belong in Wikipedia

So please grow up 65.248.134.166 and quit adding them to the article every single day. -- message was unsigned by User:Seanr451

I added warnings to his talk page. ~a (user • talk • contribs)

Oooo, a warning. And after this assclown racks up 10 or 12 of your warnings are you going to actually do anything? Seanr451 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you suggest? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

151.197.71.226 This guy is linking to a page with an audio file that clearly is an advertisement for debt collections. That is not welcome here. Turn on your speakers you won't believe your ears. www.collectionagencyservices.net/ Collection Agencies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RRSMONDO (talk • contribs) 17:50, June 30, 2006 (UTC)

De-spammed, Removed list of debt collectors. Wikipedia is not an ad vertising venue, nor a list of businesses. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Assignment of Debts

This whole article seems to be written from a debt collectors point of view or at the very least it assumes the debtor is in fact a debtor. Sometimes a first party will incorrectly assign a debt. I don't know enough about the internal working of collection agencies to author a section on incorrectly assigned debts, but a section really needs to exist.

On a semi-related note, Blockbuster has twice lost a movie and blamed it on me. Both times they admitted to their mistake but only long after assigning a debt. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is not written from a debt collectors point of view. It's simply a description of what happens during the collection process. I did have a section that mentioned that debts are occasionally incorrect, and what to do about it. But, everybody and their brother complained about this Advice Section. They said it wasn't encyclopedic, etc. So I finally removed it.

If you'll read the article nowhere does it say; "Every debt assigned to a collection agency is correct." Nor does it say; "The collection agency or their clients are infalliable." I assumed that people reading this article realize that collection agencies are staffed by human beings and so by definition mistakes are made. I take it as given that human beings make mistakes, and I wrongly assume that other people are smart enough to realize that as well. Seanr451 04:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's not very encyclopedic. They're probably right. It's not like it's a rampent problem in which case it would be section-worthy. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page that was linked from here is a copy?

I found this URL: collectionagencysupport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=32 which was recently added and removed from the "external links" section. It seems to be a verbatim copy of many sections of this article. Except, there is no attribution (see the verbatim section of the GFDL). Does anybody know what should be done? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The link needs to be kept off. If you review the site, the sole purpose of this page is to push the link for retrieving quotes for service. This is just a sneaky advertisement. I edited the URL you listed and made it an inactive link. Having an active external link only gives them what they want. Bill 16:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Sorry I made it a link at all. Anyways, my question stands: where do we report plagerism of Wikipedia? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not mean that the way it sounded. I meant that their links should be kept out of the article. I was just letting you know that I edited your the link in your comments. I can't answer your question though. It would be good to know where to report it. Did you try the Village Pump? WP:VP Bill 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, they did have something in the Village Pump: Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks. Thanks for your help, I'll add the site there. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BIAS

This page is written with bias in favour of debt collection agencies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.17.168 (talk • contribs) .

How so? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.193.221.144 (talk • contribs) .

I'll answer this question by referring to an above section where I wrote: "This whole article seems to be written from a debt collectors point of view" out of context, the response was "nowhere does it say; 'Every debt assigned to a collection agency is correct.' Nor does it say; 'The collection agency or their clients are infalliable.'" I agree, however, if collection agencies make newsworthy mistakes, then that information belongs here. Sadly, no such information has been proposed or added. Maybe we should add {{bias}}? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You make a valid point. However, I don't think it's so much a matter of the article having a pro-debt collector bias as it is, as you point out, that the article doesn't have a section dealing with criticism of the collection agency model. I have knowledge in this area, and expanding the article is on my personal to-do list. -Kubigula (ave) 07:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup needed

I like the concept of having a section on collection agencies in the UK (and perhaps other countries too). However, the current section reads like a how-to column on collecting debt. I don't think that's any more appropriate than the how to get out of debt section that was previously deleted. Any objections to removing this info? Kudos to Dlohcierekim for cleaning up some of the advertising that had crept in. -Kubigula (ave) 20:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I removed the info. However, I would still love to see someone add material on other countries. -Kubigula (ave) 00:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)