Talk:Qnet/Archives/2013

Neutrality

It seems very clear that this article lacks neutrality. In the history of the article i have seen that when Positive content is added, that content is marked irrelevant and removed. The first line of this article is also incorrect, as the company's name is QNET. Previously it was called QuestNet and GoldQuest. This information should be in the History section of the page. In the Controversies section, it is made out that QNET was the only company banned in various cases. However, it is very clear, in most cases QNET was just one of the companies banned along with ALL other Direct Selling, Network Marketing or MLM Companies.

Regarding the Edits mentioned below, QNET has put out a statement saying that, "abiding by Wikipedia rules" they can not ask their PR department to change things on the page. As the rules clearly state that a companies own PR department can not add/remove/modify on their own wikipedia article. Again the comments below show how people are not neutral in their take on this subject.http://www.forbes.com/sites/donaldfrazier/2012/12/18/followup-on-the-news-internet-spat-breaks-out-over-qnet-and-multi-level-marketing-in-india/

The authors of this article and main editors should have an objective approach rather than use this article as a means of negative propaganda. Another example was the update made on the rawanda case. The authors are happy adding negative articles, but will not update the facts and news.

Lets make Wikipedia a neutral place for information, dont use this website as a place for negative propaganda. Either go to the source and find out for yourself before reading websites and judging based on others opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanujd (talk • contribs) 05:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have sources that meet Wikipedia's policies, present them. Adding a section on their F1 racing teams is not appropriate, because the only sources saying that it is worthy of being mentioned are QNet and the team's website, which appears to be a redirect to QNet's own site. We need reliable sources, and we need to give due weight to what is basically advertising for QNet. Grayfell (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Im confused, If i put company website sources as citation you remove it, if i put news website as citation you remove it? Wikipedia allows me to cite news sources! whats the problem? And its 3 news items that are relevant. Other wikipedia articles do the same thing, some company articles post information regarding commercial sponsorships. Tanuj Damani (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Those aren't news sources, they are press releases. I do not believe the sponsorship of an F1 team warrants an entire section, especially without much more solid sourcing. Grayfell (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The websites used where the PR articles were posted are websites who verify their information. AME Info is the Middle Easts MOST trusted website for news and PR articles. Thus we can be sure that the information on the website has solid backing, or else that article would not be posted there.Tanuj Damani (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

So you will remove edits made based on trusted websites, while you will leave the line in the controversy section about "According to Bill E. Branscum, the owner of FraudsandScams.com website, QNet operates as a pyramid scheme." How can you let this line and source be there on the page? This is a website where the person posts his opinions. This not neutrality!Tanuj Damani (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not denying that QNet sponsors an F1 team. I'm denying that it belongs in the article in that much detail. Alleging that QNet is a pyramid scheme is noteworthy to an article about QNet. Giving the specific history of the company's F1 sponsorship seems superflous. If you can find independent, reliable articles explaining how QNet's sponsorship of the sport has influenced the sport, or is somehow different from the hundreds of other companies that have sponsored teams, then we might have something. Grayfell (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well fair enough if a separate section isnt made for it. However that source is an opinon. Im not clear as to why that is accepted. So just to be clear, if some person had a website saying QNET is not a pyramid scheme, then that is good enough to be posted here? It means that anyone on the internet in order to verify some claim just needs to create a webpage and cite it in wikipedia. The point I'm trying to bring to light is, that website is clearly a website about some persons biased opinion, its is not a real source. Thus that should not be considered a credible source. However all the other article in the controversies section (as far as i have looked) are news websites. Which can be said are trusted. TanujD (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

His opinion may be wrong, but that doesn't mean it's biased. It is an opinion, and it is presented as an opinion. The source is 'real' in that Branscum's website is a valid source for Branscum's opinions. He is a person who has at least some degree of credibility when discussing these issues, and he is not directly involved in QNet one way or the other. Does that automatically mean his opinion belongs here? No, but it's a good start.

Be aware that many editors have, in the past, attempted to add very promotional things to this article that ultimately come from QNet itself. For this reason I (and I'm sure others) are very wary of anything that looks like a press release. The company, like all large companies, is willing and able to produce colossal amounts of info explaining how wonderful it is. This, in itself, isn't worthy of mention. If you want to improve the article, find good sources that have authority to talk about QNet, and independence from QNet. Grayfell (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That is very understandable as many people who edit this page as not experienced or might be biased against or towards the company. The updates made by me are never about the companies "wonderful" actions or not. It is purely to get this article to be honest and neutral. And to that measure it would be fair to add more articles from credible third party sources. TanujD (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Update on Products Since a claim was made using the qnet website, the claim has been updating using a similar source. TanujD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Scientific claims

Just a note on my recent revert. The science behind the BioDisc is dubious (and that's putting it mildly). The claimed properties and the language used to describe them are typical of snake oil peddlers (see Hologram bracelet, Ionized bracelet, QT Inc. and so on). It's interesting to see how Qnet is able to describe the benefits while still covering its ass in the case disgruntled clients sue. (I guess you can learn a lot from the demise Power Balance) If, in Qnet's information booklet, you look at things that were "confirmed by scientists" you get things like: "BioDisc protects against electrosmog" which I find particularly funny since there's no scientific evidence of adverse effects from electrosmog. My favorite though is "the BioDisc is not radioactive" which is sort of expected for a piece of glass. In any case, there's no reason to believe that this research is independent of Qnet: it's in fact quite rare for scientists to study specific products of a specific company unless they are funded by that company. Until it can be shown that this research has been published in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals, it would be misleading to say that there is any scientific evidence that the BioDisc has the properties Qnet claims. Note the keyword "leading". The claimed properties of the BioDisc are so fantastic that they would be Nobel prize worthy and any scientist with this kind of result would publish in Nature and not in the Siberian Annals of Bio Energy. Pichpich (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

All research of a companies products are usually sponsored by the company or its competitors. However, that does not mean the reports are false. As the organisation being tasks on doing the research will have to release the exact details of the tests. Which is why people even consider third party research. However if any company had their own research team do the tests then that cannot be considered. The statement that was removed simply stated that the product was evaluated and certified by various organisations. Just because something was published, as you say, in the Siberian Annals of Bio Energy and not in the Nature does not mean the document should just be ignored. The idea again of that line being added was to be neutral and present all the information. Your take on the mater is not neutral. No one here is claiming the properties of the biodisc or saying it is Nobel prize worthy. Again the line did not claim to say anything about scientific evidence of anything or the other, it is purely to say that these reports exist and it is very fair and neutral to present all relevant information. TanujD (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually I am claiming that the properties of the Biodisc are Nobel prize worthy. They would revolutionize our understanding of water and our understanding of medicine. Even Qnet says it's a revolution in the way we were able to redefine and harmonise the energy of water, greatly maximising its positive affect on the human body. From what I can see, Qnet has payed people with no scientific credibility to evaluate their products and get the answers they're looking for. Those scientists (such as Manfred Doepp and Wadim Säidow) don't seem to have any research published in peer-reviewed journals, yet despite the fact that they have now stumbled upon one of the most remarkable phenomena of the history of medicine, they are still not publishing their results. (Note that whoever designed the BioDisc also deserves the Nobel Prize but we don't know who that person is) You want to add a sentence (copied from Qnet's website) that says these products were evaluated by third-party organizations but there's absolutely no reason to believe that they are independent of Qnet or credible as scientific organizations. The guideline Wikipedia:Fringe theories is quite relevant. Pichpich (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Compensation plan outlined on fraudsandscams.com

Frauds and Scams - Examples. This article, which is used as a source for the section describing QNet's compensation plan has a couple of problems. Right now it's tagged as an unreliable source. I don't think it's too unreliable, exactly, but it's painfully out of date, and far too vague, as well as being only a short mention mixed in with dozens of others. Beyond that, the article has been modified so that it no longer actually matches the source. If that weren't enough, the parts that weren't changed are a cut-and-paste WP:COPYVIO!

I've been trying to find a replacement source that's more comprehensive, or at least more timely, but I'm not having much luck. It seems like QNet goes out of their way to avoid giving actual hard-and-fast numbers. I have found numerous blogs and forum posts of people asking for this info, but the responses are all the same- people offering to sign the questioner up without actually answering their questions. QNet's many websites are even worse. Slick PDFs which use cryptic acronyms to give overly complicated explanations of their multi-point systems. Long on jargon, very short on facts. Any leads would be appreciated, but until something is found I'm inclined to remove the section. Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The solution might be to rewrite parts of the discussion on the compensation models and the controversies in chronological fashion. It is indeed difficult to keep up with the changes given QNet's apparent willingness to obfuscate that information but we could say "Bill E. Branscum analyzed QNet's 2008 compensation plan and concluded that it was a pyramid scheme". This makes it clear that the sentence is about past practices while still allowing us to preserve an important bit of info. Also, many of the legal and regulatory cases against QNet in specific countries are a few years old and listing them chronologically would provide a useful timeline of the evolution of QNet. Thoughts? Pichpich (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Request to please not refer Qnet Business model as Pyramid scheme

Dear moderator,

I would request you to please make update to your information about Qnet and do not refer it as Pyramid Scheme, as it is not. I am citing definition of Pyramid scheme below for you reference and as per that definition Qnet doesn't qualify being a pyramid scheme.

"A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves promising participants payment or services, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, rather than supplying any real investment or sale of products or services to the public.[1][2]"

As per the above definition pyramid scheme doesn't supply any real sale of product or service, whereas Qnet has range of product and services and a customer may chose to buy these products as consumer or may become partner to promote the products and business opportunity.

I hope to see the changes in the article at soonest.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.86.250.139 (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that multiple sources refer to it as a pyramid scheme, it seems appropriate that we use the term. —C.Fred (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

NPOV issues by structure

"Controversy" sections by their very nature are generally WP:NPOV issues that should be addressed. See particularly WP:STRUCTURE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)