Talk:Confidence trick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Crime (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

wrong redirection of "scam" term, Is this vandalism? Please reinstate "scam" in below meaning in area of Internet and computers[edit]

The scam is commony used in internet and computer slang. Below I enclose automated translation of other language version of "scam" term. I think easiest would be to place it here around. I am not sure but when such important term as "scam" has disappeared I would suspect an act of intentional vandalism, or unintentional damage of Wikipedia content. "Scam" also can have more meanings wht perhaps would be a solution and acceptable compromise. Below translation, sorry automated, so may need some corrections. Scam is not the same thing as a con and should not be displayed on the page entitled 'confidence trick'


Scam definition[edit]

'Scam' - the act of introducing someone in error by the suggestion that he is the beneficiary of a good, mostly financial. The purpose of this activity is to carry out difficult to prove fraud. Scam is the most common form of correspondence in the form of traditional or electronic - the variety of spam.

mail/spam scam[edit]

With its content, it's (usually implies that) probably the allegedly mistaken addressing of that correspondence.

Web Pages scam[edit]

Another forms of scam are websites that offer high returns and very valuable information most often in exchange for a small contribution of investment (HYIP). It could also be filling in questionnaires, data entry online and receive by e-mail ads (GPT). There is also a lot of matrimonial agencies (mainly in Russia), whose goal is to enlist as many people (SCAM VICTIM) in order to extort money from them for alleged visa and travel to beautiful women known via the Internet. When registering for this type of site required e-mail address, so it is often the cause of a large number of spam in mailbox.

In some cases, the party initially pays that later transformed into a scam, be more profitable. After a short time scam disappears from the network or announces change of ownership, which in reality does not necessarily occurred.

Scam on the Shareaza[edit]

An example of the active scam page scamowej (at 2007-12-23) is site available at, a previous project home page of known P2P network client . This is an example where, following the acquisition of a known location by unknown individuals, there is a trap for unsuspecting and unwary surfer. In this case it is an incentive to download the file "shareazaV4.exe" or respectivly v5,v6 etc., which manages the installer of commonly known software of Shareaza.

The potential hazard to the user may provide the following indications:

1) The site (by software authors) has lost its old structure, have disappeared: discussion forums, sub, languages - in a word almost everything - left was just minimum site with the option "download", 2) site layout uses a distorted image elements of the original page, note the deformed logo which is "similar" 3) There is no way of checking who maintains and creates what is on the page, any communication between interested in persons has been cut off. 4) elements of the site to which everyone is accustomed are to appear soon ("...coming soon..."), 5) file name of "shareazaV5.exe" for download only recalls the original files such as "Shareaza_2.2.5.0.exe. 6) In consequesces of using site or downloaded file scammed person give scammers personal data including card numbers and is to pay money. They can't be claimed as there is no real adress to where they are paid or even phone of receiver.

In fact, the real service operates at It is instructive to compare the original and the scam site.

Scam on the Ebay[edit]

Scamu on ebay example, are those offering mysterious ways, supposedly allowing for earning a few thousand dollars in one day, without leaving home and the issue of extra money. In addition to the description of the auction shall be accompanied by photographs vendor, with a very elegant car or home.

Examples of ways, at a price of $ 30:

1. Buy e-book for $ 10 from someone 2. Obrób his program for $ 300 3. Purchasing a server for $ 500 4. Create a page to promote e-book.

Method Two: Earn money by Forex

The third way: Sell jewelry, homemade.

Scam in online games[edit]

Scam in online games takes place during the exchange of objects. The seller and the buyer opens a window replacement, the seller shall issue a valuable item, the buyer shall issue an appropriate amount of cash, including changing the type when a valuable item on a much smaller value, but not different in appearance. Players approve the exchange, and the buyer instead of the desired item got the trash in equipment and lost considerable sum of money. The seller retains the item and the money. <<<

In above "scam" article contains different, but lost, meaning and the knowledge very important to let people to know what they risk with scam. The lack of this article is serious lost for Wikipedia content IMHO, and lack of description of common problem of "scam" and "scammers". I'd be very happy for reinstating it. Greetings to all wikipedists.

what!? has anyone here ever heard of "short-changing"?[edit]

the most common form (i would imagine) of confidence tricks is short-changing (a.k.a quick-changing). it seems odd that this is not mentioned here, or that it doesn't have it's own aricle entry. someone listed a very petty version of it in the listed cons, but that is nowhere sufficient. the only idea i can think of is that somebody (administrator perhaps), wouldn't allow this in the article because it would encourage people to try it, because of it's relative ease to commit. anyone? Helio462

I'm so angry I don't have to pay you????[edit]

This paragraph is the first under "Other Confidence Tricks" and, in my opinion, comes across very soapbox-y and personal. Certainly, there's no reference offered to this particular "scam." I think it should be removed, but I'm new to this and therefore not sure if I should go ahead and do it or leave it those who have been responsible for editing this page so far. Also, the author seems like the kinda person who I wouldn't want to piss off, even in cyberspace. Please advise. Thanks.----guinevere34

introduction sentence[edit]

hey guys, i was reading the introduction and i`m a bit confused by that sentence.

"Confidence tricks exploit characteristics of the human psyche such as dishonesty, honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, naïveté and greed."

confidence tricks exploit dishonesty? doesn`t realy make sence to me. greetings johny — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Because anyone responding to an anonymous email request for help smuggling $50 million of unknown provenance into the U.S. (et al.) in exchange for a percentage of the amount smuggled is clearly a paragon of honesty Face-smile.svg 2600:1006:B10A:B052:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

that makes sence of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The “Stages of the con” section may be copypasta[edit]

I don't have a copy of the book, so I can't check, but nearly all of the Stages of the con section is enclosed in doublequotes and written with a different tone than the rest of the article (and in the first person!). This makes it seem to me like it's a verbatim copy of the book referenced at the end of the section.

BlacklightShining (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the whole text (the introduction and the six-point list) appeared as written in a 1920 collection of The Police Journal, so yes, this should be cut. I'll replace it with a summary of Smith's list. --McGeddon (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)