Talk:Video Professor

message: I have archived a long series of discussions all about much the same thing, I will try to summarise the position here for the benefit of the numerous newcomers who arrive here.
* Criticisms of Video Professor do exist, but thus far we have been asked to cite said criticisms from blogs, web forums or Usenet postings. These fail our attribution and sourcing policies. If you want to include critique, please feel free to suggest it here, again sourced from reliable independent sources.
* The Video Professor article is not an advertisement, but if you think it is too flattering you are welcome to suggest specific changes, particularly if you are able to cite reliable sources.
* Video Professor's business model is perfectly legal, it is called the continuity sales model and it has been used by book clubs for decades. While some have found that model problematic, it is clearly the case that many others do not. Whether it is more or less problematic when applied to higher value items such as these tutorials would need to be addressed in a reliable independent source.
Please do feel free to suggest changes, but be aware that unless they are sourced from credible independent sources they will not be added to the article and may be removed from this discussion page. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 15:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies, lawsuits, etc.

message: Having noted that we've received credible legal threats from this company, it seems to me rather unwise to source two controversial facts from a "Denver alternative weekly". Please find better - ideally much better - sources. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of WP:NPOV and WP:SELF, we really shouldn't care. That's not to say that we shouldn't care for other reasons, and always seek out reliable sources, with or without lawsuit threats. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Westword is an RS. period. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight concern 

message: Anonyfox, I understand, and I wasn't happy with their reaction (as far as I know about it) either. Still, WMF has (Nsk, if you're reading this, you probably remember where that conversation with Mike Godwin happened, because I can't find it now) claimed that they did fight the subpoena behind closed doors, so unless you can find a source for that disproves that, I think it best to keep the wording neutral. Since this is an article about VP, I'm not sure comments about WMF's aggression in fighting the subpoena belong here anyway. --barneca (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The thread with Mike Godwin's comments regarding the lawsuit is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 25#Releasing IP addresses of registered users: the Video Professor incident. Since I was one of the users whose info was released, I have an obvious COI here, so I'll abstain from substantive participation in this discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The fact remains that the WMF did not exhaust it's options as it should have. This could have, and should have, been pushed to court if needed, because people cannot safely contribute to Wikipedia if they cannot be assured that their willingness to tell the truth will not end up with them being hit by SLAPP lawsuits. All I want is for the WMF to admit that they failed to adequately protect their user-base. Perhaps stating "without opposition" would not be correct, but it should be noted that they did not go as far as they could have to protect their users. Anonyfox36 (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning whether WMF fought the subpoena or not 

message: I've just recently found out about this "controversy" regarding the disclosure of private information by WMF to a third party. I'd thought to find more about all of this here on the VP talk page but it seems to be a non-issue at this time. I'll keep watching. -hydnjo talk 20:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hotbed?

message: From the main page on the video professor website, the price seems to now be "we'll conveniently bill your credit card just $289.95". In the event they later change their price, I've captured a screen shot  Sysrpl (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price 

message: Just because some guy from Tech Crunch said this or that, does not make it fact that Video Professor is scam, certainly does not belong in an opening paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.150.229 (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tech Crunch 

message: I've removed one unsourced POV paragraph and another paragraph because the source given (http://www.9news.com/9slideshows/gallery.aspx?slideshowname=2009Colorado50MostWanted&N=42) appears broken. --Geniac (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraphs 

message: im not sure how to edit the page to include this info but if you go to the video professor site it says its now owned by falon funding corporation .... i tried looking up that company and found no info sounds like a shell company .... http://www.videoprofessor.com/contactus/contactinformation.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.39.39 (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  not sure how to edit.... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Video Professor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110511073429/http://videoprofessor.com/ to http://www.videoprofessor.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Video Professor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110511073429/http://videoprofessor.com/ to http://www.videoprofessor.com/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100715064955/http://www.wpri.com:80/dpp/news/12_for_action/complaints-roll-in-on-video-professor to http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/12_for_action/complaints-roll-in-on-video-professor
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121110051257/http://www.bbb.org:80/denver/business-reviews/computers-training/video-professor-in-littleton-co-15503 to http://www.bbb.org/denver/business-reviews/computers-training/video-professor-in-littleton-co-15503
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified