Talk:Ashley Madison

Sources

A couple references for new material. TransUtopian (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Cohen, Alex (2008-03-12). "Web Site Makes Millions by Connecting Cheaters". National Public Radio.
• Matyszczyk, Chris (2010-03-02). "Oscars ban online dating site ad". CNet.
• Baute, Nicole (2010-04-07). "Female newlyweds flock to join cheaters club: Infidelity service Ashley Madison says the honeymoon is over fast for GTA newlyweds, particularly women, as they hunt affairs". Toronto Star. (WebCite URL)

Lies

Why is there no mention how people have seen evidence that they get responses from their employees and/or robots posing as candidates? People are told they're "hot" without even having a picture up. People that don't have a "site" up (page/profile on their website?), get "interested" candidates. This reeks of fraud and fakeness. Someone should take the time to investigate all this, collect the evidence, and write up a section on this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.250.252 (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be original research. 206.116.61.16 (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/toronto-woman-injured-while-typing-fake-profiles-for-dating-website-sues-for-20-million/article15368872/ --68.148.81.100 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the idea. Find info already out there, source it and post it. OR can be useful as a tool to thus end, but can not appear in the article. 76.102.148.112 (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Criticism sites

Unless sites like ashleymadisonscam and ashleymadisonsucks have some sort of significance besides being a complaint site, they should not be listed in this article. (By "significance" I mean are they well-known opposition sites such that they've been mentioned in articles about Ashley Madison?) Don't add external links unless they meet the criteria of WP:EL. ... discospinster _talk 16:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the reference to ashleymadisonsucks.com again because there is no indication that it is anything other than a complaints blog and thus not a reliable source by Wikipedia's criteria. Please see WP:RS for more information. ... discospinster _talk 16:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

AshleyMadisonSucks.com is an objective site that has no affiliate links, and no advertisements. It is cited in over 60 online publications and receives over approximately 30,000 uniques per month. It is HIGHLY relevant to a page about Ashley Madison, and even more relevant to the section on controversy regarding Ashley Madison, as it is the only aggregation of user stories specifically about Ashley Madison on the Internet. However, aside from user complaints, the site also contains articles that cite references and original research showing information about the suspected scams. To remove this from the Criticism section is to pretend that there is no actual criticism, which is not objective, and turns this entire page into an advertisement for AshleyMadison, whose IPs are incidentally all over this page's edits and creation history... (e.g.; username: Ashley Madison, or user IP: 38.113.163.225, which happens to be Avid Life Media's IP, and matches with email received from Evan Back, their VP of Sales). To remain objective, we must present both sides, and that is what the inclusion of AshleyMadisonSucks does. VerilyVeritas (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)VerilyVeritas

First of all, a site called "ashleymadisonsucks.com" is not a site that can be called "objective". Secondly, the site is not the only source of criticism against AshleyMadison.com; there are several other references in the article from reliable sources such as ABC News and the Toronto Sun, so there is no danger of the article being an advertisement for AshleyMadison.com. The problem with ashleymadisonsucks.com (AMS) is that it is an anonymous blog with the sole purpose of collecting opinions about AM and its alleged/suspected scams. This pretty much makes it the complete opposite of what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. Even the Microsoft article (or the separate Criticism of Microsoft article) doesn't link to sites like microsoftsucks.org or what-have-you. If AMS itself contains links to other reliable references criticizing AM, then those references themselves can be referred to within the article rather than simply linking to the anonymous AMS blog. ... discospinster _talk 21:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, not only are these sites unverifiable and void of any real evidence or citations, they appear to be bogus altogether. It seems to me these sites were actually created by Ashley Madison, which already has a history of reverse psychology tactics (mymarriagematters.org). These sites appear to fall in line with that strategy. Most "criticisms" are quickly refuted, and many of the links within the pages link TO Ashley Madison. If the sites were truly exposes of Ashley Madison, wouldn't they be filled with real stories of member dissatisfaction? In fact most entries to the "blog" tend to promote the website. I think this article and possibly this discussion page are being manipulated by the dubious efforts of Ashley Madison.Robquail (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I Disagree. The site is HIGHLY relevant to the Controversy section, and contains original research on the subject. Information contained in a "Controversy" section of a wikipedia page should cite controversy and criticism, as well as responses by the company to that criticism. Your censorship seems prejudiced. AMS has been referenced on "Ojbective" sites like ABS-CBN News, Mumbrella.com, and Slate.com, to name a few. This is valid information, and the site has substantial value in providing both ex-customer opinions and experiences, as well as the original research the site itself provides, which is not readily available anywhere else.Daringly007 (talk)

Again, the site is an anonymous blog and therefore has no oversight. It could be written by anybody for any reason. If the blog has been referenced by other well-known sites that that has to be shown. Whether the information contained in it is true or false does not matter. Wikipedia relies on verifiability of the information that is presented. Furthermore, as already noted, there is a "Controversy" section in the article with references from reliable sources already. ... discospinster _talk 01:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

From the policy page Wikipedia:Verifiability:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.

... discospinster _talk 01:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's look at the policy in reference to AMS: it is a 3rd party (independent) published source. The claims made in the controversy section of the article are all easily verifiable. Are there a collection of user/ex-user complaints on AMS? Yes... that is documented by the site quite clearly and can't be doubted. Are the two articles referenced about Ashley Madison's demographics, and about the Terms and Conditions of AM versus their other claims based on verifiable fact, and free from copyright infringement? If you actually read the articles, you will see that they are. http://www.ashleymadisonsucks.com/my-ashley-madison-story/fake-profiles-online-hosts-or-market-research.html http://www.ashleymadisonsucks.com/my-ashley-madison-story/women-greatly-under-represented-males-greatly-over-represented.html

The articles independently written on AMS include facts based on Alexa and Compete rankings and statistics, as well as a direct analysis of what AM says versus their terms and conditions for the past 6 years. This all falls under "verifiable claims made in articles" and "fact-checking and accuracy".

The content of individual complaints are NOT being cited as reliable sources of information, any more than rip-off-report's or yelp's user complaints can individually be taken as reliable. But taken as aggregate, one can say that there are masses of complaints on the site about Ashley Madison, and that's exactly how it's being referred to on the Wikipedia page... Unlike the sites that others keep putting up here that are in fact affiliate pages for Ashley Madison, AshleyMadisonSucks.com has no links to other products, etc., further boosting the 'objective' feel of the site.

It seems that Wikipedia's primary concern is with copyright infringement and verifiability, which is easily verified that these are original articles (take any section of text and put it into google with quotes). These ARE independently written articles that include fact-checking and verifiable claims. AshleyMadisonSucks.com has been referenced by other independent sites: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/04/21/10/online-service-makes-adultery-easier http://www.slate.com/id/2248023 VerilyVeritas (talk)

DiscoSpinster, I believe that the information presented above fulfills your request for "significance", as it cites that this site has been mentioned in numerous articles about Ashley Madison, and has provided links to several. WooRank shows AMS has over 60 backlinks to it from other sites online referring to the stories. This is a significant site relative to the topic, and while other sites make tangential mention of suspected scams or suspected fraud, this is the only site of it's kind that presents logical, researched arguments with verifiable information (on top of the "user complaints"). This really should stand. Daringly007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Sorry, but it is a very common practice in online marketing to create your own online fake "consumer advocate" website that praises the product with very faint damnation; it's a well-known variation on "astroturfing." The coverage the website receives at AMS is overwhelmingly positive, and in my opinion it is very likely part of Ashley Madison's promotional efforts. Unless it can be proven not to be, it will remain out of the article. 70.173.183.85 (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we have Ashley Madison PR people scrubbing this page clean or something? For such a highly controversial organization, this wiki page has an astonishingly short and stubby criticism section.

--69.125.144.110 (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, there has been a request to protect this page against edits based on a personal website. Instead of protecting, I've reverted the material for now. Could anyone wishing to restore it please make sure you have a reliable source? You can read our policy on sourcing, and what we mean by a "reliable source," at WP:SOURCES. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editsemiprotected}} 'FIXED' Cannot FIX this because of the page protection on the page. Sorry but this should be changed "who, 2 years after founding Ashley Madison was pursued by the FCC for deceptive business practices in an online "scheme that dupes consumers"." to for deceptive business practices in an UNRELEATED online "scheme that dupes consumers"." this scheme had NOTHING to do with the company and because of the page protection it cannot be modified. and in fact it should be REMOVED altogther since it had NOTHING to do with Ashley Madison but with Darren Morganstern and was COMPLETELY UNRELATED and should go on a page about Darren Morganstern and NOT ashley madison. 38.113.163.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Moved from WP:RFPP by Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If you had an account (a confirmed account), you would be able to modify it. Wikipedia does not have an article about Darren Morganstern. I suppose that's why his information and related activities are here. I'm going to leave this request to editors who are familiar with this subject. This is a content-related/dispute discussion.  Davtra  ^(talk) 05:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The term "online dating service" doesn't completely/accurately describe Ashley Madison -- we are also a Social Network. Is it possible to add this to the description? Yes, I'm from Ashley Madison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.113.163.225 (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Link Changes

Looks like someone is changing the link over and over for SEO purposes. --108.8.13.224 (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Advertising Website

Is it me, or does this Wikipedia article appear to be little else but a list of advertisements? Isn't this kind of thing banned on Wikipedia? Why the hell does around 85% of this article display advertisement/failed advertisement bids for this company?

I feel this content should be removed. What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.26.242 (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

How Come There is Only Limited Negative Information in the Criticism Section???

I'm working on an article and screenplay and have been researching Ashley Madison, here are my questions about their Wikipedia page:

How come there are no references to the scores of web complaints that Ashley Madison posts fake profiles (along with fake pictures from other sites and some consumer product packaging), and that instead of a site for real affairs, the purpose of the site is to take money from gullible users? And, because users do not want to give their real name, they are hesitant to file formal complaints against the site, e.g., with the Better Business Bureau, state attorney generals. In fact, Ashley Madison has the perfect scam model - it's like when you get screwed over by a partner during a criminal act - who you gonna tell?

Or that it owns websites that post fake glowing reviews? According to a 2/11/11 Forbes magazine, "A WhoIs search will reveal that at least one of these sites, www.AshleyMadisonScams.com, perhaps unsurprisingly, is registered to Avid Dating Life (which is affiliated with the site)."

Or that they own ashleymadisonsucks.com, and on that site there are no complaints from angry customers, instead there are postings for services that Ashley Madison offers, that they want users to click on?

Or that Ashley Madison has a team of people that specifically manage its web image/reputation (including its Wikipedia page) to ensure that no negative information is posted.

C'mon Wikepedia users, defeat Ashley Madison in its tactics to ensure that Wikipedia includes only unbiased information. And lastly, based on some of the comments on this edit page, it appears some were posted by people associated with Ashley Madison. Which brings me to my last point, I'm now thinking of writing an article about how web sources (like Wikipedia, Amazon reviews, etc.) have over the years become more and more subject to companies posting false information, and that there is nothing truly one can trust on the web anymore.

The demise of Wikipedia, the canary in the coalmine for lack of truth in online content... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.69.191 (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)