Talk:MoneySavingExpert.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Possible Improvements Needed

  • Might be good to change the 'Campaigns' section to 'Campaigns and charity' - about the site giving to charity every year - and an estimated £100,000 to charity this year Aldaden 18:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A better way to express the site's popularity without pointing to a specific alexa rating
  • "Both these campaigns have been the subject of Parliamentary early day motions" - While the first one specifically mentions the site, the second one doesn't.
  • Carol Vorderman, ...threatened legal action to try to stop it" - Citation Needed
  • "The MSE Charity Fund" - I assume it will be called "The Moneysavingexpert.com Charity Fund" or something else but can't find this written anywhere.
  • More about the forums? (Threads:223,666, Posts:2,677,424, Members:109,037 right now)
  • The secured loans campaign was covered extensively in the newspapers - perhaps links to them?(e.g. here and here )
  • Some of the site's tools have also been mentioned (here and here )
Aldaden 14:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moneysavingexpert.com (2nd nomination)

The result of this AfD discussion was keep. (aeropagitica) 13:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MoneySavingExpert.com

Looking at the way it's written on the site, should this actually be on the wikipedia page for MoneySavingExpert.com? (Capital M,S and E) or is it fine here and a redirect would do? If it is appropriate to move it, Would it cause problems to the Deletion Review links? Aldaden 15:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I've just made that move; it seems to all work okay. Aark 17:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

" * The Guardian newspaper wrote that the site has "a fearsome reputation for deconstructing the deals on offer from the banks and building societies to find out whether they are really good value"[13] "

Martin Lewis works for the guardian. Is it the right idea to comment on what his employers are saying about his website? He has a vested interest in this company, they are his main employers I believe. Theguide2 12:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The actual quote in the paper said "Which is why we're glad to take on Martin Lewis as our new columnist. He and his team at moneysavingexpert.com have built a fearsome reputation for deconstructing the deals on offer from the banks and building societies to find out whether they are really good value. His new weekly column appears on the back page." If The Guardian were praising the site because Lewis was an employee, it might be bias, but it looks to me that it was the other way round - that they picked him because of MoneySavingExpert.com's reputation Aldaden 14:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gambling Loopholes

"The site includes a number of moderated forums on which users advise each other of deals and financial opportunities. In February 2007 advice posted on the Gambling Introductory Offers Loopholes board led to some users losing large sums of money on Betfair." I just reverted this. I'm really all in favour of a neutral point of view including negative aspects of the site but not the inclusion of this. Firstly this refers to things a very small number of people did on forums with over 4 million posts - no more relevant than reporting what some people get up to on one of Wikipedia talk pages on the Wikipedia main article. Secondly, what happened happened when users went very much against advice posted all over that board and the website about not risking their own money (The boards work on a report abuse basis - Posts are removed/locked later not moderated continually) Aldaden 12:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It may have been a small number of people, but the losses for some were vast. That board's moderator has publically stated on Betfair's forums that he feared some concerned would commit suicide. I think that makes it significant. Sithom66 13:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I missed this comment which is why I didn't respond earlier.The problem is that you have added the 'Forum' section just to add one thing negative. That's hardly neutral or balanced. It would probably be possible to create a huge article on the MoneySavingExpert.com forums and this incident would only be a small part of it. (I can't emphasis enough that you have picked out one incident out of 4 million+ posts and MoneySavingExpert.com works on a 'report abuse' system so whatever happened happened without the knowledge or concent of the admin and against site advice)
Would you be willing to do a whole section on the forums explaining the various boards and important events that have happened on them? I'd be eager to see the whole article expanded by many people since that's what Wikipedia is about. I think that's the only way you could justify keeping the Forum section in. If you are going to include one major incident then you really need to add a lot more detail to balance it out and keep fulfil the WP:NPOV requirement.Aldaden 03:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Calling it "one incident out of 4 million posts" misses the point, which is the scale of the damage done to some users by the incident - which was reported in the press. Some lost thousands, others were only protected from bankruptcy or lengthy legal entanglements by Betfair's decision not to pursue the debts. All of which, incidentally, was a direct consequence of the way in which the forums are moderated. And, if the argument is that the information should be balanced by wider info about the forums, why has it been removed from the expanded section?
Frankly this whole article reads like a hagiography of MSE and Saint Martin. MSE members seem to have a Moonie-like swarm to protect the queen mentality, and the speed with which this was removed merely adds to the impression. This kind of puffery is not what Wikipedia should be for, in my view.
Firstly, the incident was something that happened in the forum out of the advice or control of the site. If I look at any large forum I could probably find some horrible things that no-one had gotten round to moderating yet. Racist, Homeaphobic, Xenophobic, Get-rich quick spam, pyramid deals. If the site admin had endorsed any such thing, or it was a continuing theme that everyone who knows uses the site knows is a continuing problem, then I think it would be relevant, but can you really judge a site by a thread in its supporting forum? If you follow a get-rich quick post you see on a forum, do you usually blame the forum??
As I said before, if I found something outrageous on a Wikipedia 'talk' page, would it be acceptable for me to immediately add it to the main Wikipedia article? Maybe it would after a couple of weeks if it were still being talked about and had become generally acknowledged as an important part of the site's history that the average person would reasonably expect to be a part of the article. But I would guess that probably 99.99% of the people using the MSE forums wouldn't have a clue about the incident you added (and I'm not exaggerating - even though to you and everyone that frequents thatone particular board I'm sure it was quite the talking point at the time.)
"Frankly this whole article reads like a hagiography of MSE and Saint Martin...This kind of puffery is not what Wikipedia should be for" - But the remedy to that is to improve the article by making anything you see biased more neutral, not creating a section about the forum just to add details of one negative incident to 'balance it out'. That's definitely not what Wikipedia is about. If I had wanted to add a section about the forum, I would have given a brief description and would have included only key events that the average person would expect to see as part of the article.
If someone had added a forum section just to point out how they'd saved thousands I would've removed it as soon because that's not neutral either. Aldaden 20:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
"which was reported in the press" I'm genuinely interested. Was there a press report that mentioned what happened and mentioned MSE as the cause? Or was it more about Betfair? Aldaden 04:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. It was reported in The Sporting Life & The Racing Post - Britain's two leading sports/gambling papers, with specific reference made to MSE and its members' role (no one else appears to have been involved) in a fiasco that is estimated to have cost Betfair a near 6 figure sum - ie about as much Wikipedia cites as MSE's total charitable contributions. All of which was entirely the result of the way MSE runs its forums and the culture of the people on it. There was also an editorial piece by Bruce Millington.
You suggest editing the article to make it less biased (ie, i suspect, remove the puffery you yourself are responsible.) Frankly, I can't be bothered as it's clear you are more motivated to remove critical content that I would be to add it.

[edit] why was the forums section removed?

Everything in it was unarguable fact: the gambling forum was used to suggest a dutch bet which inevitably lost those who followed it money. And many did follow it, to a loss of thousands.

So, will whoever deleted it please explain why? This is particularly suspicious on a page that frankly reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sithom66 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

  • Hi. Didn't you read the above? I don't believe that one incident in a forum of 4 million posts is relevant. Especially one that happened just the other day. If you want to create a section about the forums then why not create a section that neutrally describes the forum over all - good and bad points - rather than create a section just to make this one point. The site has over a hundred forums, and while this incident might be really relevant to someone who uses that section of the site, to 99% it doesn't. I regularly use MoneySavingExpert.com and had to look really hard to find the incident in question Aldaden 13:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/n/Talk%7EMoneySavingExpert.com_c39b.html"