Talk:ACN Inc./Archive 1

message: why was there a good page on ACN Inc. That talked about its controversial multi level marketing (aka pyramid scheme) business techniques, with such a low rate of success for employees, and now it is basicvally advertising? No other article on a company would be allowed to promote itself as the largest ANYTHING company in world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.92.159.110 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, understand that I know where you're coming from- I did a similar venture and hated my experience there. However, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so your rants are better served on a blog. Now, if you can find verifiable sources for what you are contributing then you can put them in the article.-RomeW 07:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: As discussed, the previous detailed ACN article has been removed with what is essentially advertising in the form of an "impressive" history of ACN's achievements.  The old article included quite a bit about problems with ACN as perceived by some.
Mduser63 04:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-NPOV 

message: Prior lawsuits that have been dismissed years ago clearly do not qualify to be put in prominence in an encyclopedic context.  Deleting this is not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louispgagne (talk • contribs) 00:05, 24 April 2007
:If you do not want this lawsuit to be put in such prominence, then please add other information that is well sourced to supplement the content.  Blanking wikis is considered vandalism.  The information was reported in serveral large newspapers and was important at the time.  Encyclopedias are not just for current information, but for that of the past. Tristan.buckmaster 00:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic context 

message: Tristan, it's clear that it irritates you that many people will succeed with ACN regardless of your opinions and actions.  A lawsuit that has been filed and dismissed is not to be put in prominence in an encyclopedic context more than the types of services that the company offers.  It's an obvious and weak attempt at blackmailing the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louispgagne (talk • contribs) 01:16, 24 April 2007
Why do you not write the types of services the company offers?  You might want to however mention where the actual profit comes from, not just the income pools that have the most considerable costs (the telecommunications area of the company). Tristan.buckmaster 01:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic context 

message: this pyramid scheme allegations in Australia is a case that has been dismissed. It is not relevant here.  I kept deleting this due to its irrelevance in an encyclopedic context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louispgagne (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 April 2007
:How is it irrelevant?  It was a very important lawsuit that shut ACN down in Australia.  The fact that it was reversed was mentioned quite clearly.  Legal cases involving companies do constitute encyclopedic content, even if they are dismissed, especially when they close down the operations of a company.  Please read other articles on other companies (try pharmaceutical or tobacco companies) and you will see this is considered encyclopedic content. Tristan.buckmaster 00:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that this is the only information a news search on the company usually turns up.  It was covered in many important Australian newspapers, such as The Age.  Here is one such article http://www.theage.com.au/news/Breaking/ACN-avoids-pyramid-injunction/2004/11/26/1101219715017.html?from=moreStoriesTristan.buckmaster 00:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you happen to have some verifiable information, such as that of the lawsuit about ACN, then please go ahead and improve this wiki, as it is very brief.  There does however seem little information about the company readibly available, other than advertising material by ACN, which is not suitable for publication on Wikipedia.  Tristan.buckmaster 00:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pyramid scheme allegations 

message: Personally, I don't have any opinion on if it is referred to as "a Multi-level marketing (MLM) company" or "direct-selling telecommunications-based company"... but DMOZ isn't a valid source for any text.  It's a volunteer edited database; that is akin to using Wikipedia to source itself.  Find a better source.--Isotope23 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening sentence source

message: The ACN article now contains 75% of its bodytext discussing a pyramid scheme court case that has been filed and dismissed years ago in a foreign country.  This should in no circumstances make up 75% of the article as it is aiming to discredit the company.  Unprotect the page or change the current version.  At most, a small reference should be given to the australian case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.28.221 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 25 April 2007
Please point out articles written about ACN Inc. by media that has wide circulation that does not involve the court case in Australia.  That is the only articles I can find about ACN Inc. by mass media.  The fact is ACN Inc. is a very small telco company and that is the reason it does not receive larger coverage.  The only interesting thing about the company is that it's structure is very similar to a Pyramid scheme.  Please do the mathematics. Let us assume 70% of revenue comes from it's telco business and 30% from registration and other costs to "independent representatives".  Now let us make the generous assumption that it gets 10% commission goes to the "independent representatives" from it's telco business.  That means that only 23% of the representatives income comes from it's telco business. (since there is not much cost in the other side of the business)  We both know if it was not for it having the telco business it would be considered a pyramid scheme, although the legitimate accounts for so little of the representatives income.  The problem is you see is that of the incredibly representatives per telco customer.  A legitimate company cannot operate if all its customers are members of the company, it just doesn't work.  So basically ACN Inc. is just uses a legal loop hole so that it is not classified legally as a pyramid scheme.  Unless you are near the top of ACN Inc. I suggest you find a better way to spend your time, as it is likely you are earning very little money and you would be better off getting a proper job and investing in the stock market, than supporting a morally corrupt company.  Tristan.buckmaster 05:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Unprotect the page or change the current version 

message: "Tapping the Network," Smart Business Detroit seems not to be a trustworthy reference.  The credited author does not list Small Business Detroit as one of her credits on her website and the start date of the company is wrong.  The business started in 1992 (http://search.detroit.bbb.org/nis/newsearch2.asp?ID=1&ComID=0332000028000808), not 1993 as reported.  The magazine is also in very small distribution and it seems highly likely that the article was simply a thinly veiled paid advertisement rather than a proper article. Tristan.buckmaster 06:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I just want to warn people who try to discredit ACN that you guys will not succeed.  It may irritate you, but ACN will help thousands of people to reach financial independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louispgagne (talk • contribs) 05:40, 25 April 2007
If you have achieved financial independence, then surely you do not need to defend ACN, since by definition your finance is independent to your actions, you should be retired by now, living on a private island.......... :-) Tristan.buckmaster 06:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think you are being slightly hypocritical?  I have no clue who you are.  I do not see huge advertisements for new "Easiersaid3" drinks or books with that alias.  Obviously if you quit working, you would have no financial worries.  Then stop trying to defend ACN!  You are financially independent.  You do not need to defend them as by definition your financial well being is independent of their wealth.  Also why do you believe personal attacks on people is a good method of getting your opinion across?  If I am wrong with my opinions then you should answer my questions, which you have failed to do on numerous occasions, instead of dodging them by quoting ACN propaganda.  Oh and btw I earnt $10 000AU (which is not bad considering I am only 22) last year from shares, how much did you earn from ACN?  I did not have to do any work for that money, as I brought the shares the previous year.  How much time do you waste on ACN?
Tristan.buckmaster 02:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a Message 

message: Tristan, you have suppressed dreams. You work at a dead-end job. you feel the need to try to bring down others to your level.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Louispgagne (talk • contribs) 06:27, 25 April 2007
hey unsigned, you're right, this is a great way to waste 500$+230$/year ESPECIALLY if your the kind of person who's always stuck in dead-end jobs (especially as if pyramid scheme peddler wasn't the lowest dead-endest of jobs !!! ) I'm trying to convince my boss NOT to enter this scam, it'll be easy because everyone who is biased for this company is easy to spot since they are desperatly sensitive to anything bad said about this ponzi scheme !
-shodan 
69.159.255.32 00:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey 

message: ACN inc. is a small company compared to most telcos.  As a comparison, consider Telstra, it has a revenue of 23 billion or Optus which has a revenue of 8 billion.  Both of these company are solely based in Australia and yet they are far larger than ACN Inc.  ACN inc. claims to have a revenue of 500 million, which is tiny considering that they are spread across the globe.  As they are spread, it means ACN incs footprint on each country is very, very small.  This is why ACN Inc. receive little media coverage.  The only time they receive media coverage (from mass media) is when a scope such as direct marketing is mentioned, that includes them.  Like the link below:
http://www.timeinc.net/fortune/services/sections/fortune/corp/2003_08direct.html
Or, when they are involved highly controversial legal cases.  Like in the links below:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Breaking/ACN-avoids-pyramid-injunction/2004/11/26/1101219715017.html?from=moreStories
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/02/1096527989866.html?from=storylhs
The latter links was actually specifically about ACN, unlike the Fortune article which was about direct marketing.  So since this case received such high relative prominence in the media (I say relative, because ACN does not receive high prominence in the media), it should receive prominence in this wiki.  The argument that is less important because it is in a foreign company does not make sense as ACN is registered in Australia as Australian Communications Network Pty Inc and its business is in the country it is registered, not in a foreign country.  ACN is a multi national country and  thus its business is relevant in all countries it operates in.
The date at which this legal case occurred is inconsequential as this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a pop culture magazine.  If the date mattered, then I would imagine most of the wikis on wikipedia would have to be removed, since they happened years ago.
Finally since Louispgagne has admitting to be involved in ACN, it is obvious that he has a conflict of interest.  Any perceived negative comment on ACN inc. may have a negative impact on the success of his business with ACN.  This is one of the most obvious conflict of interests and therefore he should exclude himself from these discussions.
Tristan.buckmaster 04:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral does not mean avoiding addressing controversies; it means presenting both sides. Actually, since the full court held on behalf of ACN and required ACCC to pay court costs, the end result of the section is not negative against the company. I hear your concern that the length of the section feels disproportionate in length compared to the rest of the article. I don't see a shorter way to neutrally cover the court case, and in fact, I did lengthen the section a bit by adding the sentence on the ACCC being required to pay court costs, but I felt it was important to fully explain the ruling on behalf of ACN. On balance, I would guess there is more verifiable NPOV information about the company that can be added. — ERcheck (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Do not remove the material, instead expand the article. The controversy section is NPOV, and fully referenced. — ERcheck (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Australian legal case 

message: Paid advertisements/endorsements should not be used on wikipedia to support the credibility of a organisation/individual.  Otherwise we would have to mention that Coca-cola is the greatest soft drink in the world and list all the famous people that have said so.  This is clearly a ridiculous idea, as is saying that ACN is a fantastic organisation because Donald Trump said so after being paid a large sum of money.  Donald Trump previously made a joke when he was asked what he would do if he suddenly went bankrupt.  He said jokingly that he would join Amway (another MLM company).  Why has he changed his mind now?  Because he got paid, it is as simple as that.  Donald Trump doesn't do anything unless he somehow benefits from it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.215.68 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 26 May 2007
That has nothing to do with what should be put on wikipedia.  Louispgagne 05:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not re-add the Donald Trump "endorsement" without reference and consensus.  Is this a paid endorsement?  Likely.  If so, that information needs to be included, else it is misleading.  The investigation by his legal team definitely needs to be verified, else it is WP:OR.  If this is continued to be added without reference / consensus, the editor may be blocked for disruption. — ERcheck (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well there you go, you have answered your own question.  Most people have never seen this interview (me included).  ERcheck mentioned that ACN were not legally allowed to use his name in anything but that promotional material, which seems to be the case.  So if only people that are part of ACN and who have already been brainwashed into thinking it is a good idea are able to see this footage, there is no prospect of it ruining his reputation if ACN turns out to be a dodgy scheme.  If ACN was such a great scheme, why would Donald restrict the distribution of that said interview?  
Tristan.buckmaster 02:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paid Advertisements / Endorsements 

message: There has been a continual insertion of POV on the company, which has been removed and then reverted by a series of different IP addresses.  As such, I've semi-protected the article.  All editors are required to follow Wikipedia policy, including WP:NPOV and WP:3RR.  — ERcheck (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page semi-protected