Talk:eBay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the EBay article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3


Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3


Contents

[edit] Locked for editing...?

Why is this article locked for editing? (Or is it open for editing only for current and former eBay employees?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.23.57 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's semi-protected to prevent vandalism from editors who are not, or very newly registered. Since you have chosen to remain anonymous, well, you cannot edit it. Now if you're willing to properly register yourself, then you can edit after 4 days. It's not an eBay conspiracy if that's what you're suggesting. However, if your goal is to criticize eBay's new policies, it may get reverted if you go to far from NPOV (Neutral Point of View). Mattnad (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] proper place to state eBay forcing all people in the UK to offer PayPal

So, from http://www2.ebay.com/aw/uk/200803211515302, eBay uses its auction site to force PayPal, which is an illegal monopoly action. Jpgordon removed it from the controversy & criticism section [1] saying "In what way is that either a controversy or a criticism?". Now I find Jpgordon knows this article well so I am assuming there's a better place to put this in the article. Any ideas??? William Ortiz (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, that first link in your post is broken, last I checked paypal was not mandatory for UK sellers though I agree that they certainly give preference to it. Plugwash (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, you put it in two places, and I just removed one of them. That should suffice. And I do ask again, in what way was the policy change either a controversy or a criticism? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot the .html. It was http://www2.ebay.com/aw/uk/200803211515302.html Well it's a controversy because ebay is using their monopoloy to force everyonee to accept paypal, which they, own. They already have been forcing most people to use it. A lot of people are panicking in the USA because they fear this is going to happen there soon, too. Paypal itself is full of controversy, just googling "paypal" brings up lots of critical sites about it. William Ortiz (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
They aren't forcing anything. You choose to use their site, and you need to play by their rules. Just like McDonalds only offering you Coke products. They aren't a public service where you necessarily have some natural right to select your own payment provider. Sure, that would be ideal, but it is completely within their discretion to limit the options. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Further, it appears they are only requiring you offer PayPal as an option; they are not restricting the use of other payment providers. You need to provide reliable citations noting that this is somehow monopolistic in order to make your claims as such. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Find some reliable sources backing your claims -- not noise on chat boards and the like -- and such issues can be included. You already know this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I only included the link from ebay stating the announcement. William Ortiz (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] eBay Australia to force Paypal as sole payment method.

I'm kinda suprised this hasn't been mentioned here yet. [2]


21st May, 2008: "All items listed for sale on eBay.com.au must offer PayPal as one of the payment methods. "

17th June, 2008:" All items appearing on eBay.com.au must be paid for using either:
• PayPal
• Visa/Mastercard (with transactions processed by PayPal)
• Pay on pick up (i.e. paid for when picking up the item)
No other payment methods will be accepted."

Naturally, this has created a bit of a stir. If eBay is proposing similar restrictions on it's UK website (and there are rumours that the Paypal only requirement will eventually be a global one), perhaps there should be some mention in the article (in the "controversies" section, or a sub-section of it's own?) Johnmc (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah, we need to find some news articles on this so we can include it. eBay and PayPal also do false advertising falsely claiming PayPal as safe and safer than other payment methods when it is just to cover up how unsafe paypal is. There's a million websites on how paypal is unsafe, but they're not good as sources here. There's two news reports from TV but I only see them on youtube youtube dot com/watch?v=0DlLK7aS8PE youtube dot com/watch?v=KAlM0E-zrhM and can't find reference on the news org's main websites -- and the rest of youtube are all home videos either blogs or recordings of people calling paypal's "customer service". William Ortiz (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah? I would have thought eBay's own announcement would suffice. Here's a link to a Courier_Mail article on the subject, [3], and one by The_Australian, [4]. Would the comments on The Australian article (99% negative) constitute proof of existence of a "controversy"?--Johnmc (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Those look good. Just make sure not to use blogs. australianit.news.com.au has comments and looks like a blog but as far as I can tell it's not a blog and just regular news but lets people comment (obviously the comments can't be counted to the article). I'm glad this kind of thing made the news. William Ortiz (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To add, this announcement was shortly after Australian News tonight ran a report on how paypal was unsafe for buyers and sellers. There's a youtube at http://youtube.com/watch?v=KAlM0E-zrhM but I think someone didn't like that as the refernce. If anyone can find the actual news company mentioning that on their website, it would be very good. William Ortiz (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • your wish.... :-) The Australian_Competition_and_Consumer_Commission is examining - no doubt after ebay user complaints - whether or not ebay Australia is violating trade practices laws as a result of the proposed changes. [5]. I think you have enough to add this to the controversies part of the article, so long as it is NPOV. (ie, even though this is controversial, there are no proven charges of wrongdoing against ebay at this point.) --Johnmc (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This stuff should go in the article. William Ortiz (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Another news report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDqpNsIg9vA William Ortiz (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sniper bidding?

Should Sniper auction programs be mentioned on here? Are these litterally last second bidding computer programs legal on eBay? 67.160.154.48 (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's notable and you find sources that are notable. William Ortiz (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure, but I think the proper term is "sniping" - not the same as "sniper". Mattnad (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • They're entirely legal as well as within eBay's rules. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vladuz Stories

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071009-hacker-exploits-forgotten-ebay-administrative-system.html

http://www.suspendedfromebay.com/?p=86

http://www.pheebay.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=43193&highlight=vladuz

http://www.ebaymotorssucks.com/vladuz-is-back-again.htm

75.7.240.28 (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Hacking, legal threats, revenge, posting pink, posting user info... All in one handy dandy news article. :D

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/oct/25/ebay.hacking

75.7.240.28 (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mystery Auctions

Since mystery auctions will no longer be allowed in June should this be removed from the article or would it be better to leave it in but note in the article that these are no longer allowed? Kaid (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)