Talk:Upwork
 | California: San Francisco Bay Area Start‑class | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Nov. 17, 2008 overhaul
Removed the advert/neutrality flags after doing a rewrite of this article. Added published references, and also cites to the company's site that are in line, I believe, with the way it has been done on better-maintained articles such as eBay. Cut down "awards & coverage" section to the only one I thought looked like a noteworthy award. I invite other opinions regarding restoration or cutting the whole section. Added section on "Controversy" citing news coverage that sometimes suggests the company's model is Big Brother-y, but tried to do so in a balanced way. This small entry is my first attempt at a rewrite quite this large, so I welcome imput/improvements, of course. Thanks. Alias1219 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- unfortunately this seems to have been mostly undone since :-/ (sorry if this sounds like noise, I do have a point though — in case someone comes to the talk page wondering about the tags currently in place and sees the overhaul and figures it's been fixed already. It has, but then it got “unfixed” again.) --Lalo Martins (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
It's still an advertisement
rm:
Conversely, some oDesk providers have praised the system.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/business&id=6434457|publisher=KGO-TV|title=Controversy Over Work-From-Home Tech|author=Teresa Garcia|date=2008-10-06}}<ref>
because there is only one provider mentioned in the article ("Lisa") and she does not offer any praise. Also it's weasel worded. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Attempted to fix concerns
The article was recently tagged "advert" and the "other info" section was tagged for integration/removal. I integrated the "other info" as appropriate. I happen to be not very interested in who funded the company in various venture rounds, but I know that this information is of interest to people in the tech/venture cap/startup arena(s), so since someone had bothered to put it in, I thought I'd try to find a way to keep it, for those whose interest in reading this article may regard the company's origins. (I'm open to arguments against that, I add with a shrug) The stats on users and rates, I'd suggest, paint a picture of the nature of the company, so I tried integrating that, too.
I appreciate the previous editor removing the ABC article. Looking at it, I agree that the user's "praise" of the company is implicit at best, and agree with the removal. However, with that gone, I don't think the article deserves the "advert" tag. I note that the editor who tagged it, in his notes on the history page, refers to the company as "this horror." This gives the appearance that the previous editor may not be entirely neutral, but I don't know. I went through the article and satisfied myself that the information included explains what the company does, what it claims it's trying to do, how it works, on what scale it operates, and, as best as possible, who uses it. I think all that is useful and appropriate, and believe the "Controversy" section addresses sufficiently why some might see the company's offerings in a negative light. I don't think any of this constitutes marketing-speak, but I'm open to having other specific failings, such as the ABC mention/link, pointed out and/or edited.
Respectfully, Alias1219 (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
about entry "critical voices"
yes, and as far as I know you have to give detailed sources if you try to remove this again. i would advise not to touch it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingens. (talk • contribs) 03:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- You're adding comment to the article, which is not allowed. I have removed it. --ascorbic (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
about deleting trials
you tried to delete not a comment. a page is a page. if it´s about odesk, then comp.-ads-meanings-only are NOT REALLY ENOUGH to call a wikipage about odesk a "wikipage about odesk". OK? and besides: deleting trials are forbidden, please stop quarreling around about this. you have no right to delete anything here. IF -> then you can go and create a poll site about quetions "letting this important information online or not" on doodle.de or where-ever. DON`T TOUCH THIS ENTRY AGAIN! it´s not a comment, it´s an important information for odesk users. I HAVE SEEN this job post of this journalist, who asked your users if and how many ave experienced this so far. i HAVE SEEN THIS. ok? so -> even if i wouldn´t have had to exprience this (and be able via snapshots to PROVE IT) - even if THIS wouldn´s be the case: -> enough of odesk users would tell you details. SO NO! DO! NOT! TRY! TO! TOUCH! THIS! ENTRY! AGIN! WHICH! IS! NOT! A! COMMENT! BUT! AN! INFORMATION! FOR! PEOPLE! NEEDING! A! JOB! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANODDERONE (talk • contribs) 09:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- It may be "important information" but it's not encyclopedic. Read WP:NOT for more information. --ascorbic (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
about this feud
From what I can see in this discussion it seems oDesk's competition is trying to start a war or something. I am an oDesk provider (ybellavance is my username) and I must say it is by far the best site of its kind (my opinion). GAF (GetAFreelancer.com) is the second best(my opinion and only fixed price projects though). As a provider I prefer to be paid by the hour, but for fixed price projects GAF is not bad (oDesk has recently also offered fixed price contracts),the others you can pretty much forget about it. If your thinking of doing fixed price projects I would caution about buyers who just don't offer enough money for your services. You have to be very carefull with fixed price projects. It takes alot of experience to evaluate exactly a work load, and if you can then you dont even need to bother with it and you can get paid by the hour on oDesk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.5.178 (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
"Controversy" is overblown
This section ought to be toned down. Clearly oDesk providers accept the trade-off to earn assured hourly rates. The 'controversy' was probably stirred up by people who have no sincere interest in the platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.9.131 (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, the "Controversy" section reads slightly worse than a supermarket tabloid. The stuff about it "being a scam" citation #13 links to a forum thread on digital point. You can't cite a forum thread as academic evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.12.176.245 (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
To be unbiased, this article ought to address such concerns. To erase them completely might indicate that it is indeed a scam, otherwise why would it not be addressed? Every organization has trials. How has this organization withstood controversy other than hiding it?
Unsupported Statement Regarding Size
In reading the background, there is a statement "As of 2012, oDesk is the largest online marketplace in which independent professionals and their clients can establish and fulfill work arrangements".
This statement is referenced by the link: http://www.staffingindustry.com/site_member/Research-Publications/Blogs/Andrew-Karpie-s-Blog/Online-Staffing-Seeing-the-Forest-For-the-Trees.
However, on that link, there are only two mentions of odesk:
"...a type of Talent Exchange--typified by a growing number of companies like oDesk and Elance..."
"Companies and models range from larger, more established ones like Elance and oDesk to younger firms like Work Market and NextCrew..."
Neither of this in any way supports anything regarding the size (or status, or market position, or anything else) of oDesk.