Talk:Who's Who scam

Metropolitan Registries

According to the Better Business Bureau link that keeps being removed, "Metropolitan Registries publishes electronic biographical directories on CD-Rom and on the internet. _ _ GENERAL INFORMATION: Better Business Bureaus often receive inquiries regarding direct mail solicitations which offer to include the recipient in a biographical directory. The solicitation may be accompanied by a request for a membership fee or for an order of one or more copies of the directory. Some publishers don't charge for the listing, but require purchase of the directory by those listed for a substantial amount. In most cases, no nominee or entry is turned down by the company."

This statement seems to verify that Metropolitan Registries is a legitimate example of a Who's Who scam. I have had a long discussion with user:Amanda11 on my talk page about this. See: [1] Amanda11 appears to be an employee of Metropolitan Registries. I have advised that her best recourse is to deal directly with BBB rather than delete material from WP. This will then clear up the issue. Otherwise it simply appears to be an attempt at a whitewash. Maustrauser 23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Some people feel it is a legitmate action to be included in biographical publications, paid for or not. Political Correctness seems to doubt that any fee should be paid for a biography, but it is, this is just business. Time is spent in research, and paper is used in the bindings as well as the distribution of any book on any shelf. It is reasonable to accept that there is a fee involved with any business transaction, unless it is non profit or charity. Since these are so rare in our scheme of influence, registres often do charge some fee. Sometimes this fee is for the listing, as in advertising. If one considers every paid incluson a scam then an aweful lot of business actions would lead to the conclusive ideas. From personal experience I dont think that paid inclusion is a "wrong" thing yet many people seem to have various thoughts on these principles. Legitimacy can be a question "always". To call Whos Who -a scam- is overlooking many of the potential uses for these books. If biography, any biography publishing is termed a scam, we should go to church to condemn it, or continue to develop within ourselves better biographies and vett those contingincies with accuracy instead of blanket white wash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.198.196 (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, legitimate Who's Who services/publications can be useful. However, with this particular publication it isn't that people are being asked to pay for biographies. It is that they are being told one price over the phone, and being charged a much higher price on their credit card. That alone would make them a scam (and thus the involvement of the Better Business Bureau). Also, it is meant to be a "Who's Who" but there is no selection involved; they send their invitation letters out widely with no selection criteria apparent. Finally, anyone who has blogged about their experience and questioned the service has been bullied by this company. As a result, most that has been written incriminating them is anonymous. Here on Wikipedia and on other sites, their employees tend to write anonymously or otherwise misrepresent themselves to defend them. Which makes me wonder who the last contributor is. Connie Crosby 1:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge Who's Who "see also"

I have re-added Cambridge Who's Who since the target article ssems to have enough sources to justify inclusion here. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

unsourced entries in "see also"

I have removed the following from the "See also" section:

• Distinguished Professionals Online
• Emerald Who's Who
• International Association of Business Leaders
• Madison Who's Who
• Presidential Who's Who
• Who's Who Among Executives and Professionals

They have no sources to support that they are a Who's who scam, and they don't appear to be notable. If one of them is really notable then please write an article on them before re-adding them, or provide a third-party source showing that they are notable enough to mention them in this article. Wikipedia is not a place to smear random companies. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

While some may have been persuaded to join thinking that listings imply significance and importance, many of us, myself included have chosen to list with the organisation because of it's features and it's novel marketing approach that is obviously an attention getter. Comments and articles that bottom line it as a scam do a diservice to the 400,000 or so members who have paid to list and who have had features and tools to use that are useful as business and networking tools. Vic Jasin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicjasin (talk • contribs) 21:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing Marquis' Who's Who from legitimacy

When I was an undergraduate I received materials from these guys asking me to pay them to be included in the Who's Who in America book. I'm just some random undergraduate who won an award or two, haven't accomplished anything, and they want to include me? And for a payment of cash? This is ridiculous to even consider them as a legitimate publication who accomplish what they themselves claim to set out to do. They are fraudulent in their claims and it is correct to include them in an article titled "Who's Who scam". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.30.222 (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that Marquis' Who's who has been added to the list of 'volumes beyond question' by someone partisan. Although it seems to have been an august and long-lived institution, its recent practices of selling the addresses of its biographees as described in the Forbes magazine feature here: [2] make this a contentious claim at the very least. Cefn

Ouch! Another issue of trying to bring society to a personal background (ego less- State enforced, defacto) erasure- plain in wrapper-biographically extinguished culture--Some of the biographical entries are of important backgrounds, people---not corporations,syndicates, but people who wish to share their own backgrounds and experiences with us! Call a spade a spade--If its corporate unions and State controlled biographies we are wishing for our (the individual will be left out) Im not condoning some of the 'pay for play' schemes, but some of them are legitimate---its only the current iconoclasm of putting everything--all legitimacy in the suspect category that I am opposed to! Suspect--Suspect--Suspect, is this all the issues we can come up with? The current iconoclastic age---Suspect Everything, acknowledge Nothing! Its getting out of hand with the rampant consirparacy theories- As per organizations---how do they make a profit? Is pay for play legitimate? Look at the Oscars--Academy Awards--other venues!! Scheme has been since day one on this planet! Who is Who---Next level, who is "State" and Who is Olegarchy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.26.155 (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Whos Who in america

This articel talks about whos who in america, the article removes was about the college and university listing which most universitites ascribe to, its different to say its a scam vs, its standards have gone down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.70.247 (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Opinion from IP-user

Note: The text below was (re)moved from the article page. AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

First and foremost we need to recognize a scam is when you purchase something and do not get what you pay for. That is a scam. If a person is inducted in Who's Who and of their own free will decides to purchase a copy of that book, where I ask you is the scam? Think about that. Read it again if you have to. Please note there are very legitimate companies out there who Publish Who's Who publications annually and serve as a networking tool for all members. Thank You.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.175.161 (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert merge into Who's Who

This article was merged into Who's Who in what I'm sure was good faith, but the content from this article was subesequently deleted away to almost nothing, often on very questionable policy grounds. This has led to the various Who's Who scam links leading nowhere. Therefore, I'm restoring the article now. —  AjaxSmack  02:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the restoration, as if the content was not good enough to remain in the other article, then it probably shouldn't be given its own full article. If there is relevant information to add, then I think it should be added to the main Who's Who article first until there is enough content to justify a separate article, along with good quality sourcing. If there is a problem with broken links, then an anchor could be created in the main Who's Who article. I have also updated this page's redirect to go to the appropriate subsection (although that short subsection could also be restored to the top section if it's not being expanded since it's the only prose paragraph outside of that). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

​OK. I added back referenced content, but that creates WP:WEIGHT issues at the Who's Who article. The actual text (minus lists) on the topic of legitimate Who's Whos is only three sentences, whereas the content on scams is about three times that much. That imbalance could be seen as an unwarranted tarnishing of legitimate Who's Whos. We'll see how it holds up. —  AjaxSmack  07:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)