Talk:Work-at-home scheme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Business (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2007-04-13 Automated pywikipediabot message[edit]

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 05:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


I removed the following sentence from the end of the Consequences section because it looked to me like vandalism:

Urban term for working at home is Durick

I think "Durick" is a surname. What else it might be, I don't know. I've certainly never heard of working at home being called "Durick." It just doesn't ring true. If someone knows that this is legitimate, please restore the material, but include more information and, for goodness sake, a source! —CKA3KA (Skazka) (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

suggested archival of this sub section . Reason = purpose served Sanjiv swarup (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

section = good schemes[edit]

suggestion = insert a sub section called "good schemes" Sanjiv swarup (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The scheme itself[edit]

The article doesn't say a word on what the very deceit is. Is it low payment? Or not paying for the job at all? Making to sign a fraudulent contract? How does a conner actually 'extort' money as the preface mentions? I can't figure that. — Vano 08:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The article mentions an "initial fee to join", but you're right, this should be more obvious. Skimming the sources, the other obvious con is to sell apparently cheap goods to the victim for resale, which turn out to be worthless or very hard to resell. I'll update the article. --McGeddon (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
There's also the classic "envelope stuffing" scam, which this article didn't go into any detail about, despite envelope stuffing redirecting to it. Not sure if this has been deleted by a scammer over the years; I've written it up in the lead. --McGeddon (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)