Talk:Crimson Education

Article

I am aware that this subject is mentioned within Jamie Beaton, however I think it’s deserving of its own page given its prominence as a NZ startup Jack4576 (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Preventing an Edit War

I recently used their services for my daughter's college application. It's not the best organization but it's definitely not a fraudulent company as this article seems to imply. This wikipedia page definitely wasn't a good source during our product research stage, and it barely tells you anything about them besides that they were accused of so and so.

Looking through other articles about corporations, it's easy to see that this article is worded differently and has a specific agenda. See the McDonald's page for example, where criticism is mentioned after actual information is presented and is not front-and-center. It's clear this article was written by someone who's opposed to or against their practice, which is fair but still pretty biased. Readers want accurate and objective information.

Parts of the article are just incorrect (the bit about the price was for a completely different service when we spoke to them - which was a pain).

This article needs to be fleshed out and corrected but any updates are immediately reverted and perceived as conflict of interest. Any reason for this? How do we proceed without causing an edit war? 212.81.179.137 (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. I wrote the majority of the prose in this article and I do not have an agenda against Crimson.

I simply Googled the company and drafted the prose based on the available sources, which included allegations from Stuff and USA Today about allegations of ghost offices.

At no point in this article is it alleged or implied that the company is 'fraudulent' as a whole. If journalistic reporting about 'ghost offices' is embarrassing for the company; so be it. Its not my duty or responsibility as an editor to clean up the company's image.

Anyway, I'm somewhat sceptical that you are who you claim to be; apparently merely a happy customer with concerns about a business you've used, for some reason. Do you have any COI with this company or its management at all? You write this comment as an IP editor after the page was recently locked following an edit war. When you say "How do we proceed without causing an edit war?" who is "we"? Jack4576 (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

"At no point in this article is it alleged or implied that the company is 'fraudulent' as a whole."

That is the impression I got when I first came across this page when researching the brand. Bringing up the McDonald's page as an example again: it has a whole section for criticism - and that should be included - but the section also includes McDonald's response to said criticism. It's vastly more fleshed out, objective, and presents both journalistic reporting about McDonald's and the corporation's own claims in response.

I have no COI with this company, except that I was personally happy with their service and I almost didn't use them going off the article had I not done further research. Like I said previously, there's misinformation on things like pricing for example. This is information I read and based decisions off and it was flat out incorrect. There were also spelling and grammatical errors (and there still is by the way - the spinoff? Not even capitalized?)

I don't understand how there's pushback on this being corrected, or on the article being fleshed out. This is in no way polishing their image - it was just adding and correcting existing information. 47.63.202.171 (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

To be frank, I think you're a concern troll, pretending to act out of concern for Wikipedia's editorial policies, but actually attempting PR on behalf of this company. I suspect you're being untruthful about being COI conflicted.

The information about pricing is not 'misinformation'. It is from the 'Stuff' article, per the source:

> "Fees for full-time students would be between $15,000 and $20,000, while part-time students will pay $2000 to $5000, depending on what courses they studied."

If you think that this information about pricing is incorrect, then provide a better source. In the meantime, editors will use the sources that are available. 'Stuff' on its face appears to be a reliable source about this company.

Why would I include Crimson's response to the criticism? Crimson is not a reliable source for articles about itself, and we exclude unreliable sources on Wikipedia. Providing a 'response' is usually done to alleviate legal risks arising from defamation actions. Clearly, for multiple reasons, defamation is not an applicable legal risk here.

I'll capitalise the spinoff for you.

"I have no COI with this company, except that I was personally happy with their service and I almost didn't use them going off the article had I not done further research". This reads to me more like the statement of a concern troll than an actual non-COI consumer. Perhaps other editors on this site would be less cynical, but I've seen this before. Jack4576 (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, both of your IP addresses are geolocating to Spain, one in Madrid and the other in Pais Vasco. Are you using a VPN?

The fact you're commenting whilst masking your IP location is to me additionally suggestive that you aren't who you say you are. (Although perhaps not conclusive) Jack4576 (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Comparing this article to McDonald's is not appropriate. McDonald's is a very well known multinational company with a large number of reliable sources reporting on it. Crimson Education is a company few people outside those looking for "College prep" services will have heard of. As a result, sources are more specialised, and mostly are about its financial success, or the probably-minor setbacks every rapidly-growing company can expect. In time, if the company gains greater recognition, these varying sources will balance out. Limiting edits to establish editors appears to be the most successful strategy at avoiding edit wars at this point.-Gadfium (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)