Talk:CouchSurfing

Data security

Please, someone write something about the data security and privacy policy. All servers and all traffic in the USA are open to NSA/Pentagon and it must be assumed that couchsurfing's database is completely in the hands of the enemies of humanity. (read about learned helplessness and the sentient world simulation if you think this is paranoid. Since 1915 there is a big effort to rule people by brains alone, and it is VERY successful USA, Iraq, WMD etc. I keep it at that). Please, where are the couchsurfing servers? Who has officially access to cs database? Has there been any abuse of verified members who are forced to give a valid address and their credit card data? What is their privacy policy? Who are the people in charge? Is there any guarantee against privatization (and the sale of the data)? 85.197.23.114 (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well... do you have any sources?

Removed the external link

Removed the external link pointing to "CouchSurfing for Bands" as that site has no association with the CouchSurfing Project being discussed on this page. Added an external link to "CouchSurfing Camp" because that is an external project that is associated with the actual CouchSurfing Project; all members of CouchSurfing Camp are members of the Couchsurfing Project (CouchSurfing Camp is the burning man theme camp subgroup of the CouchSurfing Project.)

dating site

The criticism about cs being a dating site it is totally out of scope. This happens on all social sites. And it does happen on HospitalityClub too for instance. See "Dating: some people really mistake the club for a flirting/partner finding platform." at http://secure.hospitalityclub.org/hc/stopspam.php?x=1 or http://www.hospitalityclub.org/hc/forum.php?action=DisplayMessage&StartMessageId=29758 or http://www.hospitalityclub.org/hc/forum.php?action=DisplayMessage&StartMessageId=53763

I would remove the criticism altogether or I would suggest to add it to all the social sites that expose a photo: flickr.com, ebay.com, amazon.com, ...

Well, I sort of agree. Maybe there is some other quote that is more adequate? Guaka 17:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, it's probably the biggest problem on CS (discussed periodically in Amb group), and it differs from other sites in that (a) it's thin ice because we want to keep CS censorship free, and (b) any conception of "dating" people encroaching substantially on CS could seriously hurt. I don't know if I'd call it a "criticism" or if it's really worth pointing out on WP though -- my vote is remove it entirely. As a compromise I reworded and added both sides of the debate (to show that it's not some huge one-sided problem that CS is constantly fighting). Doze 14:57, 09 May 2006 (UTC)

Good job Doze. I agree that calling the section 'criticism' is somehow misleading. I'd remove the whole section or at least rename it. --Splette ^Talk 14:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's possible to somehow get some more serious statistics about "spam" and "dating spam" on CS. I guess it's very low...

Also, isn't there a policy to remove recurrent spammers? That could be worth mentioning. Guaka 22:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Say it ain't so, Casey

I wonder about this: "CouchSurfing as we knew it doesn't exist anymore." Does this mean that it is now existing in *some new form*? Such as in www.couchsurfing.net, which looks like a replacement site (or maybe it's just a knock-off ...)?

Hopeful. --Chickensoda 05:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It its just a knock-off. No, it seems like this is it... unfortunately. :-( --Splette ^Talk 06:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No this was not the end. We will start again. Like Casey says, everyone has the Flame inside him. And what happens when many Flames come together? A big fire. Look at: http://groups.google.com/group/Couchsurfing-Phoenix - 194.7.156.55 09:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to know the reason for using the word allegedly. Does the user think that Casey Fenton is bluffing? --Anderssr 18:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write that sentence (using "alleged") so I don't know, but there seems to be a lot of evidence emerging that using the term "fatal" to describe the error, while perhaps technically correct, carries misleading connotations to many. If it's a fatal error that seems to imply that CS (or at least the CS database) is dead, gone, and not coming back. The email discussions that have happened today, though, seem to suggest that CS is probably not permanently dead, and even the databse is not really fully dead. Also, "alleged" doesn't mean the writer thinks Casey is lying or bluffing or even wrong! It just means that the person who wrote that sentence can't personally vouch for whether the error was fatal or not. --Chickensoda 21:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to Casey asking on an MySQL how to recover from a "DROP DATABASE" command. If someone would have said (or mailed) that to me I wouldn't have believed it. I can also remember something about a crashed harddrive, though no mention of that in the MySQL forum. And the original CS=dead message is gone from couchsurfing.com. Guaka 19:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Until they give a detailed statement of what really happened (which they promised to issue by the end of the week) we can only speculate. From what I understood they were *a bit* embarassed to admit that they deleted the database by mistake and instead vaguely spoke about an avoidable crash. However, thats ok with me. Because they implied that it was their fault and didn't try to blame it on someone else. So, in the end what difference does it make if someone crashed the harddisk by dropping a bottle of beer on the computer (yep, I managed to do this once - killed the motherboard) or by accidently performing a drop command and delete the database. It was a human error, that happens... --Splette ^Talk 22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

All history now, thankfully - the site's up and running again, with some changes in process - nothing too major from what I've seen, except that the whole process of recovering the site seems to have drawn the community together more. --Singkong2005 ^talk 06:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed bit about dating

For many of the same reasons as discussed above, I've decided to be bold and remove the discussion about the dating issue from the article. Yes, CouchSurfing, like any other hospitality network, including HospitalityClub, has a small handfull of users whose primary motive is not finding a place to stay while traveling, helping travelers, etc., but rather looking for people to hook up with.

But I don't think the fact that a few people abuse the site in this way is really noteworty enough for inclusion in this article. And if it is, then it should be included in every article on such a site. Also, listing this as a "criticism" of CS isn't appropriate unless someone can cite a notable source where CS has been criticized as such. But the only sources cited were links to CS's blog, making it largely original research.

So I've decided to go ahead and remove it, since there seems to be no good reason for including it in this Wikipedia article. Helvetica 09:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions

Source coverage:

• here -- 404
• here -- 404
• here 404

etc.

- Francis Tyers · 22:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Francis, you misquoted the first two links... Here is straight from my revision:

• here
• here
• here

I just retested all the links, and the third one you quoted is the only one that doesn't work--I thought it was a GET and it looks like it's a POST after all. Is that what justifies reverting the whole thing for you?

--Valmi ✒ 22:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried searching for Wikimedia, and couldn't find anything on that site either. Does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation article should state that it's not a non-profit? Guaka 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the fact behind "CouchSurfing reports itself to be a non-profit registered according to section 501(c)(3) of the United States"? It seems the only fact that justifies the claim "CouchSurfing reports itself to be a non-profit registered according to section 501(c)(3) of the United States" is a link to a feb 2003 demo page (the first sentence is "Warning: This site is in demo mode" and there are 8 surfers). Not really a fact about what CS *currently* report, no? Just in case you want to check, since July 25, 2004, CS reports in the footer to be "a Non-Profit Company". See http://web.archive.org/web/20040725082359/http://www.couchsurfing.com/

So the fact "CouchSurfing reports itself to be a non-profit registered according to section 501(c)(3) of the United States" is simply false, so I removed it. If anyone thinks that it is relevant for this wiki page to state that "CS reported being a 501..., until July 2004", please add it again: I would love to read again the history of this page in few years, it is already very instructive. Of course I also expect that person to verify that CS at that time was not a 501. SO, i removed the false fact and restored the previous version. Please try to add only true and verifiable facts. --phauly 12:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I do think it's quite interesting that COuchSurfing falsely reported being a 501c3 until July 2004 so I'll put it back. I'm also adding again the sourced statement (made by Casey himself) that he is the only member of the board that you removed. --Valmi ✒ 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's no reason to remove the valid information that CouchSurfing is a non-profit in the state of New Hampshire. Guaka 23:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Did I remove that? (Rhetoric quesion: I know I didn't.) --Valmi ✒ 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Valmi, you removed a reference: "New Hampshire Web site showing CouchSurfing International is a Non-Profit Corporation" and replaced some text. Check your exact edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.185.83.34 (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

???! Absolutely not!! Would you mind reading this diff properly? --Valmi ✒ 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am terrible at editing these things, but I notice that many of the footnotes are not matching up correctly. --TheJDMBA ✒ 17:09 GMT, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up criticisms again...

I'm removing this bit from the article:

"CouchSurfing claims that donations mostly help pay for "server hosting and storage, the database of world cities, and mapping software" and that "the founders and admins are volunteers".[9] Their 2005 Summary of Expenses though show that 62% of the donations in 2005 have been used for the payroll and travel expenses against only 24% on IT expenses. In 2005 CouchSurfing paid a total of $13,500.00 USD in payroll.[10]"

For one, it's inaccurate and misleading. The linked page on CS doesn't use the word "mostly," but it states that:

"CouchSurfing is a non-profit organization supported entirely by member donations. Your contributions help pay for the many costs of running CouchSurfing.com: server hosting and storage, the database of world cities and mapping software, to name a few." (emphasis added)

But even if it were a valid criticism that they had spent a whopping $13,500 a year to run a website that allows many thousands of travelers around the world to save millions of dollars in accommodation expenses, then it would still be *original research* unless a notable source can be cited which has made such a criticism. If anything, I would criticize them for not raising more money and spending maybe $50-$100,000 a year to hire a couple full-time IT maintenance people so that mayor bugs and technical problems can be fixed much faster when then pop up. But that would be original research too, so I won't include it. Helvetica 18:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the valid sources organization_finances.htmland [1] caseys disclosure on the groups --Csdataminer 06:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Csdataminer - What the finances are isn't original research, but *stating or implying that it's something that they are or should be criticized for is* - unless you can cite a source where they're criticized for having such finances. Helvetica 11:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I put the information back but not in Criticisms as you seem to suggest and also left "donations mostly help pay for "server hosting and storage, the database of world cities, and mapping software" and that" out. --Valmi ✒ 00:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the piece about finances. The link that it was sourced to does not say that "the founders and admins are volunteers". Also the way it's written is not a simple statement of the finances, but with words like "only," is very opinionated. Including a finance section seems like a good idea, but the old one wasn't neutral or up to date. I also deleted the information about opencouchsuring. One person's blog who does not like a website is not encyclopedic.Pseudonym214 (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This type of information will be constantly removed as anything related with Casey's activities is censored out each time. After all, he has his followers and it's normal that such a thing should happen given the fact that this is an open encyclopedia. After all, if you check the profiles that are rated interested and the profiles that are rated exotic, it just happens that Casey, his brother and the other dude on payroll, just happens that their profiles are there each day. Also it is obvious that the money don't go for the site as most of the volunteer programmers ask the same type of questions - check out http://www.opencouchsurfing.org/ for example. Also, there is nowhere stated in this page and never will that there was a problem with the servers some time ago and the result is that some features are stopped, some took days to fix and the site is going offline daily for some sort of 'maintenance' 90.16.239.41 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations need to be reworked

There is a mixed citation method which causes headache, and non-standard use of the note tag coupled with the ref tag makes it difficult to work with. the {{citeweb}} template should be used on all references to format them properly, and they can be given a unique tag for multiple use with that, then use the {{reflist}} template to create the references list.--Crossmr (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, did you remove the references because of their formatting or because the reference itself was a poor source? --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 20:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the sources which didn't meet WP:V.--Crossmr (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Headache is fixed. Here are the orphaned refs. We can format them correctly and put each back in the article after a datum to cite:

• Heesakkers, P.J.A (2008). The CouchSurfing Project; Participate in Creating a Better World, One Couch at a time. An Explorative Study on the Phenomenon of CouchSurfing. NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences
• Policy FAQs at CouchSurfing.org
• Wanderlust 5
• DNS registry information about couchsurfing.org at WHOIS.
• Expired Alaska business license for "Casey Fenton Consulting"
• CouchSurfing Donate page
• CouchSurfing Finances
• CouchSurfing Project Team Founding
• New Hampshire Web site showing CouchSurfing International is a Non-Profit Corporation
• CouchSurfing disclosing member support after the crash
• Surf this couch; A new web site introduces you to people who want you to crash at their place Couches all over the world are out there waiting just for you Toronto Star February 17, 2004, by Keith Beaty & Emily Mathieu
• Demain, je dors chez un inconnu à Annotto Bay Liberation 25/03/2004 à 23h56 by Besse DesMoulieres Raphaëlle
• Short of cash and need a free place to flop? Try couch surfing Los Angeles Times August 1, 2004, by James Gilden
• Surf a couch and see the world Chicago Tribune Aug 29, 2004, by James Gilden
• Couch potatoes unite Sydney Morning Hearld September 15, 2004, by Ben Wyld and Bonnie Malkin
• The couch connection; A web site introduces travelers to locals who offer a place to stay and a new perspective on a destination Orlando Sentinel September 20, 2004, by Aline Mendelsohn
• Couch Surfing ABC National Radio on Life Matters, 5 November 2004, with Julie McCrossin
• CouchSurfing featured on Nightline

Self-referencing and promotion

Most of the material in this article is sourced to only one place - couchsurfing.com, and was written in a way that promotes the website and the services it provides. This contradicts both WP:SPS and WP:AD, in that they use a self-published source to promote an object or entity. Wikipedia is not a howto, it is not a directory and we do not need detailed instructions on how to use a website that itself barely (if at all) meets the standards of notability for inclusion. This article needs significant work to meet WP:POV and to keep it out of COIN. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

All true. While some of the stuff you removed may have value, much of it is far too promotional, and none of it has independent citations. Unless citations are found I stand by the removal. Keithonearth (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe there can be a balance where in some of the material that was sourced can be reinserted. I appreciate your attempts to stay within the spirit of what you believe wikipedia to be. I believe that wikipedia should also be informative and give a flavor of the issue of the article which I believe that some of the material you removed, gives this article. I would urge you to reconsider your edit. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added this material back, as I found a large list of media references to CouchSurfing.com at http://www.couchsurfing.com/wiki/Media_reports . I'd urge anyone planning to remove bits to have a browse through that list and see if it's covered in one of the many media references. They're all third party and mainstream as far as I can see. Orpheus (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Abuse and crime discussion

The following below was added by 87.208.5.192 (talk), but needs verification, refs, and a total rewrite before it can be integrated into the article. As it is, it's unsubstantiated personal research and opinion. -kslays (talk • contribs) 17:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Read below: this paragraph is the result of many many years of heart-breaking experiences of many members of CS and Westeuropeans in general, the aim of this paragraph is to avoid people having pain and loss of money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.5.192 (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Cases of abuse

It is a fact that female members (and even male members) of CS have to be careful when contacting male members from certain countries. Citizens with passports from a large number of countries are not granted access easily into Europe or North America: it is very difficult for many nationalities to obtain a visa for the latter parts of the world. Many men on CS are out to charm female members from Western countries and will pretend to have feelings for them only in order to obtain luxury goods, visa, money, free travel, college abroad. The global rule applies: the best charmers are the best cheaters: a long row of positive references does not necessarily mean that that member is trustworthy in all senses.

This is not unfounded but based on many, many experiences of members thatI know personally and of myself. And actually one should consider "ignorant" the one that does not know this and the information could be regarded therefore as totally superfluous, but, still, it is good to warn those that never had any contact with people from "certain" countries before@! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.5.192 (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

While I certainly think any dangers should be highlighted, this paragraph at the same time sticks out as something not easily verifiable, and with many sweeping generalisations, in an article that is otherwise quite well written. If you add a verifiable source (unfortunately, your own / friends experience does not count as a verifiable source under wikipedia guidelines) then we can go ahead and include it. For example, "certain countries" -> which countries?, "Many men" -> How many? From where? etc. So for now, I'll remove the paragraph again, pending agreement. I'm doing this in good faith, and am happy to discuss this further. 211.168.250.100 (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's right. The paragraph is original research. "the aim of this paragraph is to avoid people having pain and loss of money" That however, is not the aim of an encyclopedia. Please get familiar with some of the policies here. I suggest to start with WP:NOR,WP:NOTHOWTO Thanks SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 17:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree here. An encyclopedia states that the flowers and leaves of a potato plant are poisonous because it wants to prevent people to die / get sick from eating those parts. "certain countries" means: poor muslem countries (Arabic plus Pakistan) and African countries. If you want to write this, go ahead, but people will cut your head off. Take a look at the CS profiles of e.g. "Wimbledonian" and "Julia Satsiri" for mere examples. "Hubert Michael Russ" has many similar bad negative experiences in Arab countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.5.192 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. Of course, I don't want people to get into trouble. But an encyclopedia is simply the wrong place for such stuff. Did you read WP:NOTHOWTO? Please stick to the rules, thanks SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 19:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"3.3 Tax status" - Meaning

"CouchSurfing International Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated in the U.S. state of New Hampshire,[17] where it also is a registered charitable organization.[18] An application for the federal 501(c)(3) non-profit status was filed in November 2007.[19] As of July 1 2009 CouchSurfing is not in the "list of organizations eligible to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions".[20]"

What does it mean that CS is not in this list? That the application for the federal 501(c)(3) non-profit status was neglected? If so why? Is there anything wrong with CS or is this status just a privilege that only a few not-for-profit organizations get? 138.246.7.9 (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone an idea how to find this out? I mean if CS is NOT a *real* non-profit organization it should be mentioned in the article! 138.246.7.9 (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

At least should be put in the article if CS was refuse from the 501(c)(3) status, and the reasons of it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.51.249 (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about writing in the article that the non-profit status is questioned? 79.204.95.9 (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism deleted??

Why was the criticism about CS deleted? There are some serious security threads in the "architecture" of CS. If you write what CS thinks it does to ensure security you should also write why this is flawed!

"Security verification

There are three methods which are supposed to increase security and trust, which are all visible on member profiles for potential hosts and surfers to see prior to arranging anything with each other: Personal references, which hosts and surfers have the option to leave after having used the service. CouchSurfing claims that over 99,9 % of all references are positive [4] which probably is due to a flawed assessment system: People who want to give someone a negative reference are afraid of getting a negative reference in return and therefore not writing anything. An optional credit card verification system, allowing members to "lock in" their name and address by making a credit card payment and entering a code that CouchSurfing mails to an address of their choice. This also allows CouchSurfing to recoup some costs by requiring a fee for verification. For fairness, the verification fee is based on a sliding scale, taking into account the Purchasing Power Parity and Human Development Index of the country of residence.[5] A personal vouching system, whereby a member that had been vouched for three times — originally starting with the founders of the site — might in turn vouch for any number of other members he knew or had met through CouchSurfing, and trusts. The vouching system still inherits the thread that someone who wants to misuse CouchSurfing (e.g. to steal something from the hosts) can make up three profiles and getting vouched for by playing by the rules for a couple of times. Once he got three, two and one vouches on his profiles he is able to create an unlimited number of faked profiles and giving each one an unlimited number of vouches to make them look trustworthy. This thread could be banned if CouchSurfing would only allow verified members to vouch." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.204.95.9 (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that this belongs in the text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.204.89.41 (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel like these criticisms do have a place on this page but just need to be written objectively giving both sides. The issue I have is finding valid sources of criticism other than the personal experiences and discussion of myself and other Couchsurfing members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.0.168 (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary

Can someone sort out the location of the box please? I am really bad with sorting screwups with the layout :( UKWikiGuy (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"Couch surfing" was a word before it was a corporation

I am proposing that the Wikipedia page Couch surfing be a separate page from the Wikipedia page CouchSurfing. Just as a face book existed prior to Facebook, couch surfing existed prior to CouchSurfing Inc..ref1ref2. Therefore, I believe that Wikipedia should differentiate between the corporation CouchSurfing Inc. and the activity couch surfing. What do other editors think about this proposal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenschulwitz (talk • contribs) 20:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this makes sense. Guaka (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well. I wanted to read what Wikipedia says about the term couch surfing and didn't expect an article about a company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formicula (talk • contribs) 19:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, these should be separated as many of the inbound links make no sense. For instance, transnational marriage claims that one of the article's subjects met their future spouse "while couch surfing". Nothing to do with this one company, per se, so really shouldn't link here. K7L (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Membership

the last paragraph of the chapter "Membership" is mistaken. The idea of the camps was born within Hospitality Club. The beach camp and the winter camp were initially organised within Hospitality Club. The beach camp is not happening any more, the last one was in 2009. The winter camp and the new year's eve party are the same event, so the "and" is a mistake. the winter camp is actually a new year's eve party, that happens each year in a different (so far Euorpean) city. Right now most of the organiser call their camps Couchsurfing/Hospitality Club and BeWelcome camps. Members of these 3 organisation are always accepted, but mostly also other interested persons or newbies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iotrj (talk • contribs) 17:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've gone ahead and deleted that bit. -- Irn (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

pity, because i posted a new version of this paragraph:

The website features a searchable database of hundreds of upcoming events organised by CouchSurfing members. The so called camps were started in 2004, mainly organised by former volunteers of Hospitality Club, including the annual (2005 - 2009) "Berlin Beach Camp" which drew over 1,000 attendees, the annual "WinterCamp" (2004 - today), a New Year's Eve party hosted in a different city in Europe every year. Most organisers open their camps for members from CouchSurfing, Hospitality Club, BeWelcome and everyone else, that is interested. Iotrj (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Massive vandalism by Contra-CouchSurfing individuals

Due to the recent organized digital vandetta + protest by a small group of people on CS, a lot of unneutral, unproven and pretty much anti-propaganda information is being spread on this page. Just as an example, take a look at the changes done by 78.250.10.58. Where ever I look, I find biased information by, as far as I can assume, AirBnB, BeWelcome, Hospitalityclub and-so-on folks that try to throw a bad light on the site and company to pull them over to their companies. I have no clue what to do, just to let you know that the text and especially the recent edits need a review for neutrality or at least a profound source of information instead of just false claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.11.77.137 (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between "false claims" and "unclaimed facts". Apart from that, I suspect most of these people are not "Contra-CouchSurfing", they're just opposed at the direction taken by current management. Anyway, please create an account here yourself to help fix the article. Guaka (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's the users (or ex-users) of Couchsurfing that are unhappy about the new management and the direction that it's taking, that have modified the pages. Couchsurfing itself removed many of the initial criticism from it's website (like by closing down their previous Zendesk support website), which makes referencing the sources of the information very hard. Some of it was copied and republished on private blogs though. As a Couchsurfing member myself I can confirm that a lot is moving at the moment. Many Couchsurfers that criticize the organization are afraid though that it's the organization itself that removes the controversies here. If Wiki users would like to contribute or correct, please sign up with a user name and try to keep comments politically correct, even though you want to post allegations. Read the wiki guidelines. Thanks! Jurjenb (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Guaka and Jurnjenb, please refer to WP:DNB There is no requirement that IP editors sign up for an account before editing and no reason they should not be allowed equal input. That having been said, unsourced allegations of a serious nature (and sadly blogs are not sufficiently reliable sources) do not belong on Wikipedia. I am going to attempt to work through this article tommorow and remove various unsourced accusations. If anyone can find better sources for them (newspaper articles, government documents, etc) feel free to add them now and save time in rewriting them. Regards, --Mortosthegodly (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you guys think about adding a Criticism or Controversy section to this page? I think that might clean it up a bit and we can move the information about censorship and profile deletion out of History and into a section with a bit more clarity. Thoughts? --Leesneg (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Censorship cases

Couchsurfing has resorted to revoking membership of people who have spoken out against recent changes to site functionality. I have started an overview (especially of links) at couchwiki. Nothing in there is probably usable as a reference - yet. But I'd like to mention it anyway somewhere. Guaka (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

B or C corporation?

It s bit confusing. The first sentence begins with :"Couchsurfing International Inc. is B Corporation [4] based in San Francisco[5]

,then in description lay out CS is categorized under type C corporation. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.71.199.2 (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's confusing. If I understand correctly, it could be both - it's not an either/or situation. For federal tax purposes, it either has to be a "C" or an "S" corporation, depending on corporate structure, but the "B" status is apart. That said, the "benefit corporation" standing depends on the state, but the "B corporation" certification is independent of that. CS clearly has the "B corporation" certification (from B Labs), but I can't find anything about their standing in Delaware. However, I'm gonna change the first sentence because the cited page only states that it has the certification. -- Irn (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

-

No, it can't be either/or, at least not as described above. An organization has a single legal corporate status.

CS is a "C Corporation", in other words an ordinary for-profit corporation, a "general corporation" incorporated in the State of Delaware. This can be found on the Delaware State Corporation Site (https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/GINameSearch.jsp). No hard link can be provided, because each user must do a name search. Delaware passed benefit corporation legislation in 2013. CS has not applied, and must follow "existing corporate law that recognizes only one legitimate corporate purpose -- to maximize value for stockholders." (Delaware governor in http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-jack-markell/public-benefit-corporation_b_3635752.html.)

"THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF GOOD STANDING File Number: 4943580 Incorporation Date / Formation Date: 05/03/2011 (mm/dd/yyyy) Entity Name: COUCHSURFING INTERNATIONAL, INC. Entity Kind: CORPORATION Entity Type: GENERAL Residency: DOMESTIC State: DE"

Furthermore, the California State corporate information site confirms CS as a Delaware corporation.

California, where CS has its offices, has "Benefit corporation" legislation. (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=corp&group=14001-15000&file=14600-14604). CS has never pursued this legal status.

The confusion arises because CS claimed it was a "B Corporation", referring to the paid certification it received from a private organization. It then ambiguously cited "benefit corporation" or "b corporation" status, implying it was legally "socially responsible", certainly to try to justify it ceasing to be a non-profit organization. The position of CS spokepersons was that CS had not become a normal for-profit corporation, but legally that was exactly what it had done. Regardless of any intention by CS to be "special", its constraining legal status is as an ordinary for-profit corporation, respecting the fiduciary responsibility of optimizing profit.

82.224.103.123 (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Establishing trust

The title of this section already reads as public relations. The only source cited in the entire section is CS itself, ie self-promotion.

Dubious propositions are stated as fact, with no source, for example "three methods [...] that increase security and trust".

While this section may be of general interest in explaining how the site works, it has to be rendered neutral.

82.224.103.123 (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ambassadors

This section reads as self-promotion. There is no material from a neutral source, and much of the material is obviously biased, and does not follow Wikipedia guidelines concerning encyclopedic content.

In one detail, CS announced that CS would not entertain self-nominations, so this sentence, "Active members can nominate themselves to be appointed ambassadors", would seem to be false, unless a new procedure has been created.

A long section has recently been added from CS's guide for so-called ambassadors, also in contradiction with guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTAFORUM#FORUM.

Removing this entire section should be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.103.123 (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Membership numbers

"As of January 2012, the website had 3.6 million members.[4] In March 2013, the website had 6 million members in 100,000 cities worldwide.[5]"

Both founder Casey Fenton and the most recent CEO Tony Espinoza have publicly stated these figures are highly inflated, referring not to present active membership, but to anyone who has signed-up for the site in the last ten years, even if their contact lasted for a single internet session.

By way of comparison, the Wikipedia Facebook page refers to members using the site within the last month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.103.123 (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Any suggestions for how to render these figures more truthful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.103.123 (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Major Revision

The article as stands is a mishmash, reflecting mostly random changes over the years (for example data about membership numbers which was current when added now have little logic as presented), with important omissions, and a dubious structure.

The "membership" section reads mostly as a how-to, in contradiction with wikipedia norms, and largely consists of self-promotion, also in conflict with wikipedia norms.

The history and controversy sections are overlapping.

I believe "safety" should be given its own section, since it is a prime concern of both the site and of published sources concerning CS. The present article presents CS publicity about safety as "fact".

The existing footnote sources have often disappeared. Numerous other sources exist.

I am inviting input from other editors before preceding to a major revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.103.123 (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of any further input about proposed changes after several weeks of notification, and in respect of Wikipedia principles, I am now beginning editing, first by removing self-promotion material and duplicate information, and restructuring (the logic of the restructuring will become obvious with the add-on of new material), before continuing with the addition of updated material and additional sources. I will also verify existing footnotes at a later date

82.224.103.123 (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

warning boxes

I have temporarily removed the warning boxes about neutrality (self promotion) and sources. Please give me a couple weeks before deciding if cautionary messages should be added.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.103.123 (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

criminal activity

Given the safety concerns that arise with couchsurfing, I think that having a section devoted to safety issues and criminal incidents related to the website makes a lot sense. Even more so given the site's policy of not commenting. (Do we have any RSs discussing the website's reactions or lack thereof?) However, I don't think we should be putting so much weight on different incidents. Specifically, having a section heading for each incident strikes me as excessive, especially when incidents consist of no more than one line. And listing each incident where "couch surfing" was mentioned in relation to criminal activity also strikes me as excessive; imagine if we had a section on the facebook or myspace page where we listed every incident involving criminal activity that in some way related to the website? It would be out of control. And, finally, I don't think we should list anything that doesn't specifically mention couchsurfing.com. When articles speak of "a couch surfer" or "a couch surfing website", we have no way of knowing if they are, in fact, referring to couchsurfing.com or someone just crashing on someone else's couch or someone using another hospitality website. -- Irn (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Irn, for the comments. They are very much appreciated.

FWIW, my editing of the site is a work in progress. I asked for input before starting, and your input is much appreciated. In regards to the brevity of the mentions of specific incidents, for the moment I have simply evoked the incidents, supplying a single press reference. My intention is to at least add other references from other press sources (at least to guarantee their continued utility, since many Internet press articles disappear after a year or so).

I have been asking myself about the layout and titles, which as you say, are certainly excessive in their present form. But I am also considering adding additional information about these verifiable events.

Given the nature of Couchsurfing (which is quite different from FB or MySpace, which are conceived as primarily online contact, whereas CS is conceived as primarily face-to-face), safety is evoked in almost every press article, except those speaking only about investment and business. CS itself spends much of its information output evoking its safety measures. So it would seem to be an appropriate issue, which needs to be considered with balance.

Mentioning real verifiable events seems more valuable than quoting vague statements of principle, whether they be from CS management or from press articles.

But what do you think? Should these individual events, of differing nature, all be limited to about a single sentence, as is the case now, and the layout reduced? Or do they warrant expansion?

My feeling is that the particular differences in each event evoked merit attention, as does the geographic element. Sequestration, drugging people, peeping toms and theft are all markedly different events. As are events in different parts of the world. When I started editing, the article had many paragraphs explaining (in company language) that CS was safe. I felt a little balance was necessary. Respecting wikipedia principles is very important to me, but I did not simply erase all the CS self-promotional material. But while it furnishes information about how the site is "supposed" to work, I don't think reality should be off-limits. I have also limited this section to publicly-available sources from the professional press, even though that means not mentioning many other known safety events of various natures.

Concerning whether "Couchsurfing International Inc" of Delaware is specifically evoked in each incident, that is a very valid point. The word "couchsurfing" is used to refer to many websites and to the entire hospitality exchange movement (as well as for visiting friends and family), so any use in the press or by anyone is subject to ambiguity. A recent murder in the US was of a "couchsurfer". For all the incidents I have evoked, there are press articles that specifically mention www.couchsurfing.com/org, although that may not be the case in the single article referenced for the moment. In respect of wikipedia principles, I tried to be careful to not advance anything in my short texts that was not specifically mentioned in the limited references I have furnished for the moment. [Not always the case for references supplied previously on this Couchsurfing wikipedia page - in the future, I hope to re-verify all those references previously supplied.]

When one considers the sources of "verifiable" references concerning CS, there is very little material on any subject. Many of the numerous press articles on the Internet about CS are actually company-created press releases - especially concerning the business side. Much of the material on the wikipedia page for the moment comes word-for-word from CS Inc itself. Much of the same ideas can be found in the press in "neutral" sources - though many of these articles originate from CS and are based completely on CS sources - often word-for-word, the proof that they are simple press releases that were republished "as if", or slightly reworked. If someone wants to find "neutral" sources for that material, I am not opposed. Again, according to wikipedia guidelines, it should arguably be removed as "self-promotion".

Concerning "(Do we have any RSs discussing the website's reactions or lack thereof?)", CS itself can be directly quoted on the subject. But since access to the CS site is limited (parts of the site are generally accessible, other parts are visible only to members or only to some members), I would prefer to verify that a reference is available to all wikipedia readers. I tried to place a "reference needed" tag when necessary in what I myself wrote and had not yet supplied references for, even though I am sure they exist.

Thanks again for your comments. My goal is to provide an informative irreproachable article.

82.224.103.123 (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Terms of Use controversy

the current TOS is quite different from what is described in the section - is therefore up for review--基 (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of an encyclopedia. We still have articles about King George, even though he is no longer king. If you wish to add information about who is NOW the regent of English, please do not remove King George to do so. The article talks about controversies in CS history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:885C:79DE:E699:50C6 (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

if it s clear the we talk about TOS at a certain time - that's just fine - as long as : a link to the TOS as they existed can be refered to (using time machine or similar) and the context states that the remark is about the TOS from a certain date.--基 (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia does not demand that information can be verified with a **url link**. One can, to site an extreme example, quote an out-of-print book that exists in a single copy in a private library. The proper reaction of an "editor" is not to remove a quote, but rather to add a "reference needed" mention. This allows other editors the possibility of tracking down a verifiable source.

DavytheFatBoy (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

But let me ask a frank question, is it your contention that someone has invented a fake quote of the CS ToU? DavytheFatBoy (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"you hereby grant us a perpetual, worldwide, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, display, perform, adapt, modify, create derivative works from, distribute, have distributed and promote such Member Content in any form, in all media now known or hereinafter created." the quote is imcomplete - it is misleading - just read the current TOS I am sure you will see for yourself. Again maybe in September 2014 the TOS was different from the TOS in it's current form - if that is a the case the section should also mention it. --基 (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

verification which still exists

I reverted this edit :

2a01:e35:2e06:77b0:551a:1a31:7073:4100 (talk) at 13:45, November 27, 2014 (→‎"Establishing trust": correcting edits made by previous editor, who confused "vouching" (indeed removed, but still of historical interest with "verification", which still exists.)

I am not confused - please see What’s changed on Couchsurfing? NOVEMBER 19, 2014--基 (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"Get Verified" appears on the profiles of ALL CSers who are NOT verified, along with the mention that you will recieved "35%" porofile completeness for doing it. The payment is US$25. This is readily visible if you log-out of your present profile and start to join under a new name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:885C:79DE:E699:50C6 (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand your confusion. Here is the passage you are referring to: "Location Verification has been removed and we no longer send Verification postcards. Members who are Location Verified will retain that status. We’re building better methods of identity, account, and location verification."

Indeed, one must still pay the $25 fee for what CS calls "verification". But as they state, they no longer verify "location". They verify that you have a working credit card, and then they add the "verified" member status to your profile. They no longer send postcards. But the verification has now become an essential element in having access to CS functionality and in members' placement on search results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:885C:79DE:E699:50C6 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is approximately what you will see if you try to register a new account on CS:

"Your profile is 10% complete YOUR ACCOUNT Confirm Your Email +5% Get Verified+35% Connect to Facebook+35% PHOTOS Upload A Profile Photo+10% Upload Additional Photos+10% ESSAYS Write A Profile Essay+5% Write 3 Profile Essays+10% REFERENCES Get One Reference+10% Get More References+5%" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:885C:79DE:E699:50C6 (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

As stated above, "Location Verification", indeed removed, is not the same as the paid "Verification" feature, which still exists. If anyone likes, I would be happy to send you a screen shot of today's CS site, simply give me an email. (I can't upload here, because the image does not arguably enter under "fair use" laws.) DavytheFatBoy (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

sorry - the 'verification' by Credit card does still exists ... but I dont see any verification of the mail address in the process ...at what stage is the mail address being verified by CS?--基 (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I also do not see any mention of the payment being anual - it looks more like a one off payment to me --基 (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I've done a fast and dirty edit of the section to bring it into conformity with the present situation, without removing the historical information. I'll try to clean it up, as well as provide references, in the near future. DavytheFatBoy (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

[For information, the annual payment scheme has been at least temporarily removed. No addresses are verified to become a member. A verified email address gives 5% points to having a "complete profile". 50% or more "completion" is necessary for access to some site features. To have access to all site features one must either be "verified" (usually by making the payment - in the past some people received verification status for "free" for "services rendered") OR link the CS profile to a Facebook account.] DavytheFatBoy (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

[Also for information, payment of the verification fee by new members upon sign-up in the US was marked as "annual subscription" for a period of time in 2014. "Annual" has since disappeared from the site. The CEO has told the press she is considering a paid premium membership, but has given no details, including about frequency of payment. Premium membership in fact already exists, because full access to site services already requires either payment or FB linking.] DavytheFatBoy (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Safety Mechanisms

There are a few things changing so the section talks mainly about stuff that has been discontinued since the last major update. If you want to apply changes please discuss them here ;) As to the verification see : What’s changed on Couchsurfing? where the current CEO elaborates what has changed and what has yet to come.ChristopheT (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss things here before deleting changes that are more up-to-date than what you have restored. The source you give is not neutral. A newspaper is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:3043:DCFE:4BDD:8D74 (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Certainly if ChristopheT believes that "What’s changed on Couchsurfing? where the current CEO elaborates what has changed" has encyclopedia information to include, you may do so. I see no information there, simply PR. An independant newspaper has presented proof of what "verification" consists of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.103.123 (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The verification process is no longer a verification process. Have a look at the link I posted above. Nobody questions the facts noted by the newspaper. But the verification process is no longer a safety feature. Part of the latest major update was this change here :

Location Verification has been removed and we no longer send Verification postcards. Members who are Location Verified will retain that status. We’re building better methods of identity, account, and location verification.

so in a way the thing that can be criticized is more that CS has removed the location verification and has not yet replaced it with a better one.

what makes no sense is to add 4 lines of text explaining the feature no longer does do location verification.

and then there is UNDUE WEIGHT - the length of the addition has to in line with the importance.

Let me know if you want me to elaborate on any of those points. ChristopheT (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

CS, including the CEO Billock, does still present verification as a safety feature. As you have explained, it doesn't work. But it is all they have, and they announce it as such. It is the opposite of undue weight - it is precisely the very first safety recommendation they make - "look for verified hosts" - see the Morning Post article. "Billock declined to detail Couchsurfing's vetting measures for members as it "would give potential system abusers knowledge to better infiltrate the system and would be detrimental to the safety of the community".

"Instead, she said members should follow a number of safety procedures. At the top of the list, she urged members to seek host profiles that had been verified." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.103.123 (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Terms of Use controversy

Terms of Use controversy

I have returned the deleted quote, putting it in the past tense.

"The Couchsurfing Terms of Use have been changed since[51] to address controversy."

The terms of use have been changed many times. Has anyone at CS or elsewhere ever claimed it was "to address controversy"? Do you have any sign that the objections made have effectively all been addressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.103.123 (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

well the issue I have here is that the quote is not backed up by anything or anyone it might be correct - incorrect - incomplete. At the very least you have to include a source to quote that confirms that the quoted text was actually the TOS on September 2014. ChristopheT (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is not Wikipedia position that sources must be available online. Are you arguing that it is not true? The quote was present at the time CS still had that version online. No one argued it was incorrect then (including yourself - weren't you already following this article at the time?) . Your position does not seem to come from a desire for accuracy, but rather to remove information that you find distasteful. At the very least, if you are indeed interested in having a source, you should use the "source needed" caption, instead of deleting information that has long been present in the article.

Has anyone at CS or elsewhere ever claimed it was "to address controversy"? not that I would be aware. ChristopheT (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And yet that is what you have added that to the article. You want a source for something I believe you know was historically in the ToU, and yet you replace it with something that you admit is unsourced and to the best of your knowledge unsourceable.

there are ineeded rules that apply for quotes - see Wikipedia:Quotations : 'Quotations must be verifiable attributed to a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence).' It does not have to be online - it just needs to be verifiable. ChristopheT (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ChristophThomas.