From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
WikiProject Companies (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Walled garden[edit]

Quora appears to be a kind of locked strongroom for information. In a sense it's the opposite of the egalitarian and free Wikipedia. Recently on the web, a user's personal details have become a kind of currency. Subsequently Quora will only allow one to view "answers" (which are often incorrect anyway) if one is prepared to hand over one's details: in a sense, "pay" for the information with one's email address / personal attributes. If this were untrue, then why is it a prerequisite for one to be logged in in order to use the site? To many, Quora represents a walled garden of data. There has been much criticism of this aspect of the website, yet the article (which is like an advertisement for Quora) don't seem to address this in any way. (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

IP user is correct about Quora's walled garden aspect. We need some NPOV sources to introduce that concern in the article. Eventually, I'll get around to looking for some, and will update the article accordingly. --FeralOink (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
one more on that. i had the same (very annoying) experience w/ quora. even though finally i gave up and never read the content they were suppose dto have, the quora kept sending emali-spam after that forever. had to put them on my spam list to get rid of it. a CRICICISM section is very much needed for this article indeed. (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC).

Religious Affiliation[edit]

Bearing in mind the large numbers of questions on Quora which appear to emanate from certain American cults, and also taking into account the censorship policies in use by the moderators which seem to favour these cults, would it not be appropriate in any account of the site to indicate whether or not its owners or censors admit to a religious affiliation? I ask because it seems that criticism of world wide major religions is permitted without question on Quora, but any comment on some of the cults is instantly redacted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg40 (talkcontribs) 19:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a common criticism. The persons responsible for content moderation on Quora are very opinionated on some topics they moderate, and seem uninhibited about using that power.
Even major decisions like 3-month blocks, have absolutely no advertised appeals method, and no way to tell who complained or made the decision. It is not even possible to message those who made the decision anonymously, though Quora does have anonymous facilities for this.
So yes given all this, it is perfectly appropriate to delve into Marc Bodnick and Adam D'Angelo's views in particular, though not to excess. If they are widely reported to be involved in some political or social project, and views unfavorable to that project were to be censored, then that could deserve a mention. but it would be hard to source such a claim as no one covers Quora now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:31 2 March 2015 (UTC)‎
Drg40 talk - Of what cults are you hinting? Don't just leave that dangling in the electronic air like that! Thank you, an uninitiated Wordreader (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yet another trolling site[edit]

Quora is just a glorified Yahoo Answers, that's all. (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

article being kept in a 2010-11 promotional state[edit]

[1] is an account created simply to hide an IP, and may be a systematic attempt to censor critical updates to the article, keeping it out of date but favorable to Quora. The fact that a number of edits were all undone one at a time, and by an entirely new account seemingly created for this purpose, suggests a bot. The edits removed many references. Those edits are now consolidated and compressed somewhat with many new references, e.g. in privacy section, and the overall article refactored (so "reception" no longer exists with out of date references from 2010 without date markings). It is up to date as of this version of March 2.

This article was already on watch for being patrolled by conflicted or paid editors, who are clearly warned on top of this page not to censor it. Quora is notable for unverifiable claims like Quora traffic being "5x to 15x" what public measurement services can measure. That is now reflected explicitly in this article version [2], along with the balancing fact that there is no independent auditing or technique involved in such claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)‎

Lack of press coverage in 2014-15 except for one unfavorable article, use of terms like "underachieve", "plateau", "failing", "near-unicorn", etc., all strongly suggest Quora is not the financial darling it once was.

I hope the above satisfies [[3]] or other Wikipedia:WikiProject_Private_Equity editor. There is no financial motive on my part to devalue Quora, and it would be helpful if others could disclos clearly if they have any reason to detract or promote it.

User:Wikidemon also reverted the article to a prior outdated pro-Quora POV without an attempt to retain even clearly relevant links, I have attempted to engage him on this [4] [5] and refocus effort constructively on sourcing criticisms in version that seem to have sources only in Quora itself. Most of the article, on financials etc. is already well sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)‎

Please don't accuse editors of censorship. I'm not a "private equity" investor, I just put my name down a long time ago on that page hoping it would be a way to explore some editing opportunities. As it turns out, most projects on Wikipedia are all rather moribund, it turns out not to be a popular way for editors to organize around topics. If you'd like to propose some changes to the article could you please do so one at a time, preferably here, so we can discuss? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, look, sorry, that obvious bot edit by Conaissance99 made me pretty suspicious, and it's not your fault.
I have vetted everything I could say was an opinion, though of course some things that seem obvious to any Quora user may not be to a non-user, etc., so please, go ahead and moderate any language you think remains that is a problem. I removed all the criticisms of the content that have sources only on Quora threads into a section below so we can debate what is adequate sourcing for each.
The article was in such sad shape there is really no way to fix it without a general refactor. If you wish to totally rewrite it from all the same 2013-15 sources that I used, retaining the critical tone of those sources in some context that fairly balances the 2010-11 hype and the valuations that no one seems to believe ("near-unicorn"?), go ahead. But the structure of the article was untenable, with "reception" listing stuff from 2010-11, "operations" including social media and content features, and so on. Someone has to refactor it from the new sources, if not me then you go ahead. But I'm addressing every concern that you raised, including with my pointed talk comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)‎
The material you added is mostly not usable because it does not meet Wikipedia standards for weight, sourcing, tone, etc. Would you please revert it so we can go through changes one by one? There's probably enough there in the stable status quo version of the article, outdated though it may be, to bring things current. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales is a private equity investor, in Quora, in fact. He isn't a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Private_Equity. Just because Wikidemon is a member, does not mean that he is an investor, nor a Quora investor. If Jimmy Wales were editing the Wikipedia article about Quora, there would be a real COI concern. I haven't seen any evidence of that, though I haven't looked. In general, I don't think Quora merits a lengthy entry on Wikipedia, as it just isn't that notable. Quora questions and answers are NOT adequate NPOV references for controversies here. I recall that the original version of the article had many Quora links, mostly promotional, and will check to confirm whether or not they are still included.--FeralOink (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert or edit because I work for the company, but several statements are totally unverified and/or not written in accordance with NPOV. For instance...
No source
'As of 2015 the overwhelming majority of reviews of Quora come from Quora itself. Promotion from New York and Silicon Valley press seemed to have ceased in 2012-13. There was little external coverage even from India (which attracts more Quora users than any other country) nor in the US 2014-15 except one Fortune article (see below).' This is definitely untrue. See my links below which are just two examples.
Biased descriptions and speculation
'Furthermore, outlandish claims such as "5x to 15x" more users than public measurement services reflect, have been made by Marc Bodnick to investors. These claims are seemingly unverified; no company auditor has commented on the basis for them.' This is pretty nonsensical when many sites are relied on as the source about the size of their own userbase. There are no third party sources for things like Facebook user numbers. The additional flourish of language like "outlandish" is particularly not neutral. The NPOV way of saying this is to say, "In X year, representatives of the company claimed..." etc.
Factually incorrect
'Notably direct editorial supervision and control of all moderation being handed to Marc Bodnick, an investor and private equity venture capitalist, described as the site's "grown up"' See How does Quora moderation work, How are moderation and policy decisions made on Quora for examples. We shouldn't cite these in the article since they're primary sources, but they show how inaccurate the statement in the article is.
More editorializing and a BLP violation
'Bodnick has been prone to make odd unverifiable claims about the company, notably that public measurement services “significantly underestimate” Quora, and “are off by a factor of 5X to 15X" as of early 2014.' This is cited to TechCrunch, which does not call out the claims as odd, unverifiable or any other qualifier.
More uncited editorializing
'The validity of this valuation is hotly debated.' Uncited. Hotly debated by whom? This should be stated as speculation by the press. It's also a little odd, since basically all large valuations of private Internet companies are hotly debated.
Unreliable sources used for critical content
'Quora's unusual model has marked it out as unattractive to promoters' cited to a single blog post from 2011.
More editorializing and factual incorrectness
'seems to contain marginally notable people who do not, for instance, merit their own articles on Wikipedia' uncited and 'Most criticism and reviews of Quora are on Quora itself, as it appears few outside critics bothered to review it after 2011.' uncited as well. It's pretty funny too, since the author cites reviews of Quora from 2014 in his own edits. More examples of recent pieces [6] [7] and more in Google News if you look.
I think some of this material, like Quora being criticized for not publishing data on usage statistics like other companies, is pretty well-cited and NPOV. But a lot more of this reads like a hit piece, rather than a review based on a reasonable survey of source material. Ping @Tom Morris: as uninvolved admin who knows the subject matter. Steven Walling • talk 03:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Steven Walling: Am I uninvolved? I'm very active on Quora (on topics I'm interested in) and have been given Top Writer awards on there, which I've received gifts from Quora for. I don't work for them, but I'm probably more involved than your average admin. That said, involvement issues aside, while I haven't looked into all the points you make, I've looked at a few of the points and they do seem problematic. (Sadly, between a busy work and personal life, I haven't got much time to look into the details, but I'd encourage uninvolved editors and admins to take the issues StevenW raises seriously.) —Tom Morris (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Steven Walling, I just thought of an alternative to Tom Morris! Ping @Jayen466: as uninvolved admin who knows the subject matter.--FeralOink (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Given all this, and my own observations, I really think we need to revert all of the additions again, and if the newly arrived editor or anyone else wants to update the article they're free to follow more conventional BRD editing process, and trying to establish consensus (and more pertinently, propose relevant, properly sourced material of due weight and NPOV). They really don't seem to know the ropes here about article sourcing and composition, although they seem to be making a good faith attempt to listen and learn. With respect to content, I do think we need to avoid adding too much detail sourced to tech blogs and their ilk that grouses about privacy, features, indexing, funding valuations, etc. All that Silicon Valley navel gazing stuff isn't terribly edifying to the wider public, and it applies equally to almost any consumer tech site. If we filled each online company's article with complaints about how they implement moderation, we'd be overwhelming what actually makes each company notable and differentiates them from each other. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it's clearly consensus view to revert almost all of this. The part that I think is fair to retain is "Growth since 2011 has been extremely hard to determine as registrations are no longer revealed. Questions about readership on Quora itself go systematically and officially unanswered [20] as of early 2015." cited to sources 20-22. The other part that is fair is "Technical press has also been criticial of forcing users to sign up to read, forcing them to download the mobile app from its earliest buggiest versions even to read or answer online, led to criticism in the technical press that it was "alienating key users"" cited to GigaOm. Other than that I think it should be removed, though I'm still not going to edit directly because of my COI. Steven Walling • talk 00:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(Personal attacks and legal claims removed - Wikidemon (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC))

POV tag[edit]

The article is still in this "promotional state" due to the removal of almost all criticisms, and still badly out of date. After almost a month, no one has bothered to actually address the issues raised by the initial editor who made seemingly several good-faith attempts to moderate language, dull pointed claims, reflect the actual language used in the press, and so on. He or she certainly has not been met with same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erantan (talkcontribs) 18:02, 30 March 2015‎ (UTC)

(deleted personal attacks, threats, legal accusations, disparagement; I also removed the POV tag - Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC))

Content criticisms and reviews[edit]

Omitted because Quora and Apple Store and Google Play, none of which are really valid sources"

ADWEEK is not a valid source? AdWeek? that's a POV claim. "the only list of criticisms"? Not exactly, the web is rife with complaints about Quora, but AdWeek not valid? This is beyond POV and COI, it is just censorship. Likely by Quora's own employees.

These are the only list of criticisms current as of March 2015. This list was in prior versions of the article that User:Wikidemon objected to:

Some general criticisms include:

  • lack of non-English-speaking users
  • crude, personality-not-policy-based, moderation, with lack of formal appeals or short term "cooling off" blocks like Wikipedia's
  • lack of dialogue between multiple competent scholars
    • no requirement to provide verifiable sources in answers, many heavily upvoted answers are just widely shared views
  • lack of any neutral board or other oversight to ensure systemic biases do not affect quality or diversity of answers
    • specifically, lack of any oversight over overt political censorship by key editorial personnel

Most of these appear to be scale problems. Wikipedia, for instance, only evolved an appeals and arbitration process, and scholarly participation at a much larger size than Quora has achieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"On Quora, a core of insiders often decides what is considered wit, correct language use and currency of knowledge for the rest of the community. They implement their biases by using several tactics, one of which is collapsing answers—even those with a very high number of upvotes." - AdWeek [8]
Quora question: "Why is it so hard to give feedback to Quora?" [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:46, 2 March 2015‎ (UTC)
AdWeek IS a valid source! The problem with that particular article is that it was written in September 2012, and is titled, "The Quora crisis: How long can the center hold?" Obviously, the center HAS held to some degree, as it is now November 2015 and Quora still exists. If there were more recent coverage in AdWeek, that would be a great source to use for an updated version of this article. That is part of Quora's problem though: It no longer is on the radar enough for a publication like AdWeek to bother writing about it.
The list of "general criticisms" left by IP user above are valid. I say that as a Quora user: My off-Wikipedia and Quora identity is Ellie Kesselman, although I am not a Top Writer like Tom Morris nor an employee like Steven Walling. Unless the criticisms can be sourced adequately, they cannot be included in the Wikipedia Quora article though. The only bullet point in the criticisms list that is invalid is "lack of non-English-speaking users". Quora is an English language ONLY website. That is stated explicitly, and there isn't anything unusual about it. reddit is English-language only too (although there are now some sub-reddits for other languages). Given that Quora's stated intent is to be an English-language only website, it is not surprising that there would be few non-English-speaking users!
I am completely sympathetic to many of the critical comments about Quora that were voiced on this talk page, both this section and the ones preceding it. As a Quora user, I know that the criticisms are valid. However, that doesn't really matter for purposes of Wikipedia, not unless NPOV secondary and tertiary sources can be found to support the criticisms. Quora's idiosyncratic moderation and heavily politically biased editorial employees are not considered sufficiently notable to receive media attention, perhaps because Quora doesn't receive much media attention in general. Until that changes, there is no point in giving visibility to these issues in a Wikipedia company article. Wikipedia isn't a user review website, so complaints about unfair Quora moderation, while sometimes justifiable, don't belong here. In general, Quora is just not that important, and doesn't warrant a lengthy entry, whether positive or not. --FeralOink (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

How widely used is Quora by famous people?[edit]

Here's the list from Quora's own list of most famous. The list includes some obviously using ghostwriters such as politicians, and is clearly not of the same depth as say the users of Twitter or facebook or LinkedIn.


Business & Entrepreneurial

Comedian Scott Aukerman, Host of Comedy Bang! Bang!

Composers Nathan McCree, Hans Zimmer

Film Alfonso Cuarón. Francis Lawrence


Screenwriters Sean Hood, John August

Sports Jeremy Lin, Point Guard for the Houston Rockets, Pat Cash, Tennis player, Tiki Barber, former NY Giants Running Back — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This is all WP:OR, and therefore not usable - Wikidemon (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I will research the more notable celebrities. Democratic Canadite Hillary Clinton is about to answer questions on the site on the eighth. I will add these points once I find these citations. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, other than Obama (profile)), Clinton and Tim Kaine have both done multiple Q&A sessions. The full list of sessions is at Steven Walling • talk 06:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Need justification for, or reclassification of Quora as not a high importance website[edit]

Quora is classified as "High" importance to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Websites . I don't know what the basis is for that classification.

I cannot think of any reason why Quora as a website would merit a classification of high importance. Most of Quora isn't even accessible to visitors who are not registered users. Quora is not among the most visited websites, not based on any web analytics provider, e.g. Quantcast, Alexa. Quora is not widely known in the media or by the general public as a high importance website. Quora is not known as a high importance website among web developers or by any other technical users, not that I am aware. Maybe I am wrong though. Any thoughts? I can also address this issue on the WikiProjects Websites page, although I might not get around to doing that for awhile.--FeralOink (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

As of now, 2015, it is a "unicorn" company, meaning one of about 100 tech-related companies that are worth more than $1 billion.It is the most successful Q&A site ever, and qualitatively different than anything that came before. As a website with sparse design and branding, and some real-time javascript updates, it is pretty good. But it is not primarily a website, it is an online media property. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there anything critical on the net at all, any search for quora naturally gets flooded by the same. A for profit "opinion and knowledge" aggregateor, paying its contributors as far as i can gather nothing. Is this totally acceptable now? my apology if comment is inappropriate, really looking for a way to combat things like this and pintrest, parasitic middlemen reducing the potential to noise ratio of the net, and trading on the rep of things like wikipedia. sorry ranting. Agree that being a big business venture/profit scam does not one notable make. -nonregistri dhortali — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
That's kind of WP:NOT#FORUM-ish, isn't it? There are plenty of websites where you can embark on a campaign against user-generated content sites run for a profit, a singularly ironic act of luddism if there ever was one. Wikipedia, by contrast, is intended as an aggregator of encyclopedic knowledge, not a platform for protest. Good luck. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Do we have any kind of consensus here that Quora is not a high importance website? All the comments seem to confirm that. Wikidemon made the most positive comments about Quora, while acknowledging that it is not primarily a website, but rather, an online media property. I agree with that.--FeralOink (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It's also a spamming website. To see the content, you have to get an account, then deal with an amount of email spam what would make LinkedIn blush. The fact that the page is locked from such a criticism should tell even the most brain-dead wikipedia admin that it's a fanboy site, and open to that criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3769:EE00:38AF:481F:74A9:CD95 (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Requesting edits for vandalism[edit]

[10] is vandalism and should be reverted, but I have a WP:FCOI (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Green tickY Done. Please note that it's best not to describe anything as vandalism that could simply be unsupported opinion, policy-violating allegation, untrue, or even trolling of a different nature. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the edit mentioned above was not vandalism, just a controversial statement. Altamel (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Rithu pathak[edit]


Jillujilla (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)