Talk:Video Professor/Archive

message: This is what I'd found here:
" 'Video Processor' is a television-advertised product which claims to offer easy-to-use tutorials for a variety of computer-related subjects, such as learning Microsoft Word, Microsoft Windows, and eBay."
I'm attempting to correct it.
As of June, 2006, I have not,
yet, purchased anything from
this brand.
I have not decided what I think
of this company; though, I
may, eventually, choose to purchase.
The spelling "Video Processor" is
fascinating, as it does relate to
microProcessor [??].
< http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:vFbkKangPOgJ:videoprofessor.com/aboutvideoprofessor/companyinformation/johnwschererbiography.html+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1 >.
Hopiakuta 23:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 2006 

message: I searched online, but can't find anything supporting that these are the same person- at best, an uncanny resemblence can be proven. All of the connections were posted by User:142.176.13.19. I'm removing it. 130.101.31.41 02:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scherer = Layton 

message: It appears that Video professor's owners are trying to use wikipedia for promoting their products and advertising their charity works. Microsoft and sony do much much more charity work. That does not mean that we should put information about their charity work in their ariticles and stop criticizing internet explorer  or playstation 3 Masaimara 20:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Advertisement 

message: So this is getting a little bit annoying. Obviously these two versions are both a little bit biased.  So why don't we make a combination.  Please see new version, and discuss.  I did some research and got rid of some inconsistencies in the criticism section that I corrected.  Also, this is not a rant paan encyclopedia, so lets be better at making this entry as closest to an encyclopedia entry as we can.  Allegations of Scamming is a little bit harsh, however no doubt there is some criticism.  I also left references to reliable sources; however I did take out a few that were not.  Rip off report is not a reliable source.   Also, I have added this article back to a software stub. bubalica
I agree with the the edits made by Bubalica and Tlesher. This new version has only completely reliable sources and appears unbiased (Hi bubalica, you apparently forgot to sign your post. I added your name to above after checking this page's history)Masaimara 16:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Riana (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: OK guys, the article's unprotected. Good luck with it. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Rip Off Report is not a reliable source; there are some allegations of information manipulation, until that is resolved ROR has been removed.  Also, in the Video Professor Criticism section, the text reads that people complained that they did not receive a FREE CD that was promised from the infomercial when they ordered online, but instead they got three and had to return one and if not they would get enrolled into a continuity program.  I think that part of this misunderstanding is that they are two different offers that the company has.  One is online and one is infomercial (They each offer different things).  So that is why the offer explanation of the offers has been entered back.Skporganic 13:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on recent changes

message: Please discuss changes here before editing.  There is not reason why we need to be going back and forth on edits.  The information presented in the newest edit by Nsk92 is not substantiated and it makes this page look like a soapbox or a frustration outlet.  Please read Wikipedia's guidelines before making any more changes.Skporganic 12:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on article changes

message: I just found a rather informative article about "Video Professor" in "Westword", a Denver area weekly newspaper. There really needs to be a link to this article from the main page.
There is quite a bit of illuminating information there about the "Video Professor", both positive and negative, including the company's response and reaction to criticism.
One of the key passages reads:
"The logic behind the subscription offer is a bit dubious: Why would a person who wanted to learn Microsoft PowerPoint be eager to tackle, say, Corel WordPerfect the next month?".
The answer is, of course, that, from a customer's perspective, on its face the monthly subscription business model does not make any sense.
Nobody in their right mind would want to subscribe to a service that bills your credit card automatically $90 per month and sends you a tutorial for a software program that you may or may not have and  may or may not want. 
I am quite certain that no customer stays with the Video Professor willingly and knowingly for more than a couple of months.
It is clear that here is "How it really works": They succer a bunch of gullible people in getting their "free" CD without understanding the terms of the sale or ordering online without reading the fine print (lets face it, most of us don't read the fine print, assuming that it is just a bunch of irrelevant legalese). By the time the poor schmuck figures out what is what,- bam!- his/her credit card has already been charged once or twice the "convenient" monthly fee of $90 or so.
Even if the customer manages to cancel the subscription immediately thereafter, the "Video Professor" has already bagged at least $200 of the customer's money and they can move on to the next victim. A "free" offer indeed!
At the very least this practice is highly unethical. 
Nsk92 01:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a newsarticle about VP 

message: Add info.
Pinetree895 19:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Video Professor Criticism

message: *Video Professor
Pinetree895 12:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links

message: So I looked around some more an basically the sales model that fits Video Professor the most is a Continuity sales model.  I couldn't find anything on Wiki so I went ahead and created the page.  I've also found that there are a few different offers that Video Professor has going throught their offers.  One is throught the informercials where you have to call in, their online offer is then different from the TV one and they also have streaming videos with a third offer, so not sure what to do with that info.  
Anyways, I am making minor changes to the page, one is to add the new sales model info under business model.  Please comment if something doesn't make sense.Pinetree895 15:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sales Model Info

message: I'm done for a while (the real world is calling).  Next steps, for anyone to do, as I see them (feel free to add/subtract/rearrange/redelegate/ignore)
*Comment on my two questions/comments immediately above
*Move CD-ROM and online grafs to "Business" section
*Beef up business section with a few sentences about the model (Pinetree, if you're here, since you wrote the new article, want to try summarizing it (with specifics related to VP) in a couple of sentences?  It would give us something to pick apart :)  )
*Beef up business section with a few sentences about criticsm, if we can find reliable source (Nsk92, if you're here, since this is your main area of disagreement, why not take a stab, and again, at least we'll have something to ruthlessly edit)
*Look up, thru prior history of this talk page, see if there are any other subjects that were discussed previously but that were never resolved.
*Massage article until (in a perfect world) Nsk92 and Pinetree895 (and any others) are reasonably happy, and remove NPOV and cleanup tags
*I know there's a better reference format out there, but know little to nothing about it.  , I think.  This can wait til last, but we should look at making refs nicer.
*Check status of BBB report frequently until it is posted, then adjust cite and paragraph as needed.
--barneca (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do list 

message: I tried to digest the guidelines for external links etc at WP:EL.
It does seem that this is a bit of a grey area. As a matter of practice, it appears that external links to fan pages, external reviews, imdb.com, blogs, etc, are quite common for films, actors, singers, etc. Other examples of this sort are fairly common. The article for Dell gives an external link  Consumer Affairs Customer Complaints under the "Customer complaints" header.
Clearly, ideally such links should be avoided or kept to a minimum. This is usually possible if the article refers to a highly notable subject where there are lots of reliable sources available. But that is not always possible and is not the case here. I think that my suggestion for including two links in the "External Links" section
Video Professor Complaints
and
Video Professor Defenses
is an acceptable compromise in this particular case. Including both links would serve to preserve neutrality and avoid giving undue weight to a particular POV. Regards, Nsk92 11:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read WP:EL again yesterday, and agree it's grey, and therefore a judgement call, and subject to consensus.  Since you and I are the only ones active on this page now, and I agree that adding both links is the side I would come down on, let's do it, and discuss with whoever shows up later to disagree.  Also, I'm inclined to remove the NPOV tag now.  Finally, I'm taking your paragraph from yesterday, massaging it, and putting it in. I'll check back in maybe tomorrow. --barneca (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, very good, thanks. However, I noticed that you included "VP complaints" and "VP defenses" in the list of cited references. In all fairness to the "Video Professor", that may not be quite the right thing to do and that is not quite what I was suggesting. I was suggesting to include these two links in the "External links" section without citing them directly in the article. My understanding is that the guidelines for cited references (that are explicitly listed as "References") are more strict and that there one really should try to stick with "reliable sources". The standards for "External links" are less stringent, so it is OK to put these two links there. Anyway, that is what I thought. Regards, Nsk92 13:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are 100% correct.  I got distracted and tried to do it in a rush.  I'll fix that.  --barneca (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Very good. Thanks, and take it easy! Nsk92 15:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for replying.  OK, I'm quite willing to leave those 2 external links off for now, until I can think about it and reply (as you can see if you read above, I wasn't thrilled with them to begin with), and hopefully others can chime in too.  But the version you reverted to is obsolete, and has incorrect information, and you've removed sourced, NPOV info as well.  Any reason we can't revert to your previous version, where the links are gone but everything else remains, until this is resolved?  I'm perfectly willing to put the NPOV tag back up too. --barneca (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, great, thanks, I've just done that.  Like I said, let me think about the two external links, I'm not a big fan of them, but Im not sure they're inherently POV, especially when they're together, and the last time I looked at them, I liked the article a little better swith than without.  I don't know if it's just you and I in here or not, so who knows if someone else will pt in their 2 cents.  Anyway, it's fine as it is for a while, until we can find a consensus one way or the other. I will go ahead and put the NPOV tag back on, if nothing esle it might generate more opinions. --barneca (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not the greatest fan of informercialscam.com, so I would like to see the links off.  I also suggest that the reference to the last part of the criticism section is the Denver Post article http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_6966387 vs. http://www.villagevoicenation.com/2007/09/infomerical_guru_video_profess.php.  I just think that the newspaper article is a better source.Wikifan111 21:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the Denver Post article still available?  I get an error when I clik the link. --barneca (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the best solution is to include both of those articles as cites.  The Village Voice one appears to be written in such a way that it is slanted against Video Professor, while the Denver Post article portrays more of the Video Professor side of the story.  In my opinion at least, WP:NPOV would be best achieved by providing both links and letting readers make their own conclusions.--Isotope23 talk 14:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding external links: I don't like them enough to try to add them back.  In the grand scheme of things, probably not appropriate.  Regarding Denver Post/Village Voice, Adding both doesn't hurt anything, and helps give balance, so I'll go along with Isotope's suggestion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barneca (talk • contribs) 16:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, the external links are fine as is (i.e. with just one link to the official website).  My biggest issue with today's edits were the removal of valid citations from text (leaving the text) with no comment... and done in such a way that it was messing up the formatting.  That doesn't really further the goal of WP:NPOV.--Isotope23 talk 17:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You were right to defend against the anonymous reverts. I think both the Voice blog and the Denver Post column references are fine and not unduly slanted. The Voice blog is similar to others I've seen. Example: Seattle PI. Canuckle 17:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh, on second look, shouldn't the Village Voice ref be replaced with the Westworld blog entry that it advertises? Really the Voice ref isn't a newspaper article but a blog entry that is just a teaser for the full-length Westworld blog. PS - I also clarified the ref for Denver Post that it is a "business column" (and therefore opinion) rather than a "newspaper article" Canuckle 17:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification on the cites.  I missed that it was based on a blog.  That changes things in my mind a bit.  I don't pretend to know anything aboout the Westworld blog, but I'm not a huge fan of blogs as sources in articles... but you are correct, both cites are really opinions on the action.  I guess the question is which best meets WP:RS or is balance best achieved by citing both as each has a slight slant?--Isotope23 talk 18:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, I didn't see the change to www.westword.com when you click thru the Village Voice link.  I'd say just nuke the Westword blog; the Denver Post column is balanced anyway by the reference that follows it. --barneca (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: If you are removing the two external links, please explan why here. --barneca (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for replying.  OK, I'm quite willing to leave those 2 external links off for now, until I can think about it and reply (as you can see if you read above, I wasn't thrilled with them to begin with), and hopefully others can chime in too.  But the version you reverted to is obsolete, and has incorrect information, and you've removed sourced, NPOV info as well.  Any reason we can't revert to your previous version, where the links are gone but everything else remains, until this is resolved?  I'm perfectly willing to put the NPOV tag back up too. --barneca (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, great, thanks, I've just done that.  Like I said, let me think about the two external links, I'm not a big fan of them, but Im not sure they're inherently POV, especially when they're together, and the last time I looked at them, I liked the article a little better swith than without.  I don't know if it's just you and I in here or not, so who knows if someone else will pt in their 2 cents.  Anyway, it's fine as it is for a while, until we can find a consensus one way or the other. I will go ahead and put the NPOV tag back on, if nothing esle it might generate more opinions. --barneca (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not the greatest fan of informercialscam.com, so I would like to see the links off.  I also suggest that the reference to the last part of the criticism section is the Denver Post article http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_6966387 vs. http://www.villagevoicenation.com/2007/09/infomerical_guru_video_profess.php.  I just think that the newspaper article is a better source.Wikifan111 21:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the Denver Post article still available?  I get an error when I clik the link. --barneca (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the best solution is to include both of those articles as cites.  The Village Voice one appears to be written in such a way that it is slanted against Video Professor, while the Denver Post article portrays more of the Video Professor side of the story.  In my opinion at least, WP:NPOV would be best achieved by providing both links and letting readers make their own conclusions.--Isotope23 talk 14:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding external links: I don't like them enough to try to add them back.  In the grand scheme of things, probably not appropriate.  Regarding Denver Post/Village Voice, Adding both doesn't hurt anything, and helps give balance, so I'll go along with Isotope's suggestion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barneca (talk • contribs) 16:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, the external links are fine as is (i.e. with just one link to the official website).  My biggest issue with today's edits were the removal of valid citations from text (leaving the text) with no comment... and done in such a way that it was messing up the formatting.  That doesn't really further the goal of WP:NPOV.--Isotope23 talk 17:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You were right to defend against the anonymous reverts. I think both the Voice blog and the Denver Post column references are fine and not unduly slanted. The Voice blog is similar to others I've seen. Example: Seattle PI. Canuckle 17:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh, on second look, shouldn't the Village Voice ref be replaced with the Westworld blog entry that it advertises? Really the Voice ref isn't a newspaper article but a blog entry that is just a teaser for the full-length Westworld blog. PS - I also clarified the ref for Denver Post that it is a "business column" (and therefore opinion) rather than a "newspaper article" Canuckle 17:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification on the cites.  I missed that it was based on a blog.  That changes things in my mind a bit.  I don't pretend to know anything aboout the Westworld blog, but I'm not a huge fan of blogs as sources in articles... but you are correct, both cites are really opinions on the action.  I guess the question is which best meets WP:RS or is balance best achieved by citing both as each has a slight slant?--Isotope23 talk 18:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, I didn't see the change to www.westword.com when you click thru the Village Voice link.  I'd say just nuke the Westword blog; the Denver Post column is balanced anyway by the reference that follows it. --barneca (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  October continuation of discussion 

message: There are dozens... possibly hundreds of company articles that mention lawsuits.  Just off the top of my head:
*SCO Group
*Web.com
*Overstock.com
*Enron
Give me some time I will dig up more.--Isotope23 talk 13:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Need more?--Isotope23 talk 13:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Negative?  Please... pull the other one.  I've had almost no involvement in this article, I just watch it because it seems to be a magnet for some serious POV pushing on both sides of the debate.  I'm all for a balanced article (in fact read my above comments about the sources for the lawsuit), but hacking out references (while leaving the text in) and messing up the formatting isn't the right way to go about that.--Isotope23 talk 14:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, a POV-magnet on both sides (take a look at June/July/August!).  The whole reason I'm even involved is the fact that there was a POV edit war earlier.  The lawsuit seems definitely notable, but I'd love for each side to discuss the best way to mention it here, instead of blind reverting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barneca (talk • contribs) 16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, and you seem to have handled things exceedingly well here, which is why I've done my best to stay out of the way. --Isotope23 talk 17:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawsuits

message: Should we add a section about the company trying to sue individuals who criticize them?  It looks like they're trying to go after Wikipedia members too:  http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/12/video_prof03.html Greenplasticme (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuit?