Talk:Matrix scheme/Archive 1

message: Whether or not a 'matrix site' is a worthwhile means of investment or not notwithstanding, these articles are supposed to be from a neutral point of view. When the first sentence of an article is "such and such is a non sustainable business model", I think neutrality rather goes out the window right off the bat.
I've perused this 'matrixwatch' site. And while I've found a lot of the content to be highly informative and useful, I think it does tend to fall victim to its own propaganda machine to a point. It seems the largest matrix site discussions (remember, these sites are supposedly 'non sustainable business models') are around sites that have seemingly been around for years (such as 'gotmatrix'). I saw thread after thread of the members of this site speaking matter-of-factly of the site's imminent demise as far back as over 2 years ago, but when I plugged the URL into my browser, up it came. It's very much still in business. I tried various other ones that I found in quick search engine queries and again had no problem finding many that were up and running--again, after many years. On the contrary, it seems as though this site has abandoned the whole concept of going against these sites in favor of multi-level-marketing advertising things (I'm not entirely sure what the concept behind the YMMSS thing everyone over there is talking about is). If these sites are still active, then by definition they're sustainable.
It appears as though the 'anti-matrix' crowd has made some attempt at making this article neutral...while tinting even the pro-matrix concessions they have made with negative sentiment. The converse is not held true, however...in a sentence/section that is purely anti-matrix, there is no balancing pro-matrix POV. Looking at the history of the article, I see many instances of people attempting to correct this--only to find the article reverted back to its prior revision a short while later by the 'opposing' side. The most striking of which (to me) was under the "legality" header, first paragraph. It puts in the pro-matrix view of these sites being legal, but follows it up with a rebuke about the claims being challenged in courts, and then goes on to state some warnings have been issued. While the warnings are clearly there (and rightly so, from what I can tell), it appears as though the only "challenges" to the legality of these sites is from the members of this 'matrixwatch' site. And, contrary to the tone of that first paragraph and what it insinuates, after doing a quick search on the legality of these sites I had no problems finding information that states they are legal but walk a fine line, and could not find any rulings by which these sites were ever found to be illegal (at least in America). Furthermore, after reading the 'matrixwatch' site, I find it hard to believe that there is even a discussion to outlaw these sites, as the dollar values for the 'gotmatrix' site alone are rather staggering and would have assuredly drawn the attention of regulating bodies by now...especially with all the complaints the 'matrixwatch' crowd has supposedly heaped upon that company.
The above are just the most obvious conflicts in neutrality with this article. There are so many others, it's hard to even count them. The whole thing is a mess. If ever there was an article/history that was worthy of just being completely stricken from the books just to be done with it so to speak, this one would be it. While I would never give 2 cents to one of these sites, it doesn't really change the fact that this article has basically been contorted into something of a propaganda piece for this 'matrixwatch' site (especially since many of the "sources" for this article are from the site itself) and that there is an organised effort from this site to keep it that way. It needs a lot of work and, like the sites or not, those of you who have organised from the 'matrixwatch' are going to have to make concessions to make this article neutral even if you disagree with some of what belongs in it (and doesn't, as the case more frequently is). The beauty of neutrality is that there's an equal amount of things for everybody to disagree with. This article doesn't do that.
Samoyed  June 25, 2006
I agree with what you have said.  I have in the past along with others tried to rebalance the article, but have been called a vandal, and so had to 'let' most of the disputed comments go.  This is one of the main problems with any Wiki, as anyone can be an editor.  Is there any senior 'moderator'-style persons that could sort it out?  I believe that if this article was deleted or altered in any way to take away the negative slant, it would just be reverted back by the anti-matrix crowd.  
Cybertrax  June 25, 2006
I find it ironic that both Samoyed and Cybertrax would join together at this venture.  It is clear that they both serve to propegate the further scam of Matrix schemes.  The recent edits clearly try to provide legitimacy to this scam and seem to try and remove the aspect that such schemes are mathmatically impossible to maintain, even if outside revenue were to be used these sites still cannot be self-sustaining.
It seems to me that both Samoyed and Cybertrax have a hard time understanding the difference between NPOV and fact.  Since the article in it's previous arrangement was FACT yet didn't agree to their misguided POV they then must claim the article to be NPOV.  I propose the article be restored to the pre-June format, just becuase you don't beleive in it does not change the fact that it is fact.
Arzel 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a lot of problems with this article 

message: I've made some preliminary edits to this article.  Among them includes:
1)  Removed the phrase "non-sustainable" from the first sentence of the article.  There are clearly instances of matrix sites that have been around for years, and show no signs of going out of business.  By definition, their model must be sustainable.
--This is probably the most flawed arguement that I have ever heard.  By this arguement one could say that the sun will never run out of fuel because it hase been around for billions of years. Arzel 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimming and balancing edits 

message: I don't quite get how this differs at all from a pyramid scheme.  How is the fact that high-end consumer gifts are given to those "winning" seperate it from any other pyramid scheme?  It works on the exact same principle... so what gives? Fieari 06:34, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
:From the description given, I'd say that with a pyramid scheme, the layers are explicit, and branches of the pyramid are independant.  With a matrix scheme, layering is not easily defined, and branching is non-existant or poorly-defined. --Carnildo 07:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I keep reverting because your edits fall under the classification of simple vandalism.  If you want the article changed to define a "matrix scheme" in some other way, make the changes and back them up with citations to a reliable reference. --Carnildo 19:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

text: What, the link removal I just reverted?  That's easy enough to take care of.  If the person doing the removal is too persistent, list the page and user on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. --Carnildo 21:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: As requested, I've spent five minutes browsing MatrixWatch.org.  Then, on my own initiative, I've spent another five minutes browsing it.  I find it highly relevant to this article.  It explains exactly how a matrix site works -- and why no amount of pumping advertising dollars in will avoid the pyramid effect. --Carnildo 06:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference from a pyramid scheme 

message: If you won't discuss my edits, are you willing to discuss yours?
:They are often rebuffed, however, by supporters pointing out additional revenue streams from advertising are used to keep the lists moving.
If a matrix site requires five new additions to the list to cycle one person off the top of the list, how does the injection of a few million dollars into the system keep the list moving?
:Furthermore, the Oregon Attorney General, Hardy Myers, has examined the business model and deemed it to be legal.
Could you cite a source for this statement?
:The U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.K. Trading Standards office have issued warnings to the public about the sites as some are scams, but have deemed them to be legal if run correctly.
Could you cite a source for this statement?  In particular, what does "If run correctly" mean?  What is the correct way of running a matrix scheme?
:lawsuits from a certain group
What is this "certain group"?  Vague rumors are not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
:the ultimately dismissed legal action taken against the grandfather of the matrix site, EZExpo.com
Source, please?  Everything I've found on the lawsuit says that it was decided by default in favor of the plaintiffs.
:The courts have ruled in favor of EZExpo on numerous occasions, though opponents to EZExpo have launched a number of appeals to these rulings.
Source, please?  The rulings and appeals I've seen (other than the default judgement against the owners of EZExpo) have been in regards to the companies doing payment processing for EZExpo.
Why do you keep removing citations of sources used in the creation of the article?
Thanks, Carnildo 04:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of edits

message: I suggest both sides do research to back up their respective positions. It shouldn't be too hard to find position statements from the bodies concerned nor legal rulings. Until this is done, a sterile "I'm right/you're wrong" doesn't get us anywhere. Dan100 10:30, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
:I have.  I've spent several hours searching the FTC website, matrixwatch.org, and a couple of matrix scheme websites.  I haven't found anything on the FTC website that says that a matrix scheme is a type of pyramid scheme, but it's obvious that they consider the two to be similar, and illegal.  MatrixWatch and the matrix sites agree on how matrix schemes operate, and I'd really rather not cite a website that will be shut down in the near future as a source, so I decided to cite MatrixWatch -- something that the anon apparently won't allow.
:I've also tried to discuss the edits, as can be seen above.  It hasn't worked -- the only response I've recieved is "You're wrong". --Carnildo 17:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I've found something on a government site.  It's a very nice page on the U.K. Office of Fair Trading entitled "Top ten scams to watch out for", and it lists matrix schemes right there at #7.  --Carnildo 18:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments 

message: I've made this edit a couple times, and had it reverted.  I'm just about positive I'm right though.  First person needs 50 new signups, second person needs 50 + 49 (because he counts as one for the guy above him), third person needs 50 + 49 + 48, because the first guy has now had two signups, the second guy has one signup, and he has none so far.  If you revert back again, please tell me where my math is wrong. Fieari 16:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your math is wrong because the second guy has no signups.  The second guy doesn't start getting signups until the first guy has been rotated out of the list. --Carnildo 06:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math 

message: To all parties;
I am the Mediator. Please post your side of the dispute on the case page at WP:TINC
To Cybertrax; Who is reverting your edits?
Please keep all discussion on the case page.Geo. 00:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: In this medcab case, there is a proposed solution for the parties to review. Please do so.Geo. 22:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed solution