Talk:Better Business Bureau/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Article is Biased

I find the words and tone in this article to be biased. It appears to be promoting and advertising the Better Business Bureau. From the very first sentence -- which I have since edited -- there is a bias. The first sentence of the last revision (before my edit) read, "The Better Business Bureau, founded in 1912, is an organization based in the United States and Canada devoted to honest business."

Even the so-called "Criticisms" section is biased towards promoting the BBB.

This type of bias seems to run rampant through the article. I was prepared to run right along with it in an attempt to neutralize the article -- but came to this discussion page first for comments. (Wiki writer 17:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC))

Criticisms

In reviewing the long-standing information presented here, it sounds like you are outnumbered, NYCBBB? This fact, combined with your lack of any independent materials in support of your assertions, makes it difficult to consider your actions in the criticisms sections as anything but a vehicle for disproportionality and bias.

If you believe that an effective "Self-policing process" is employed via the CBBB, and know how to cite a source(s) in affirmation, (Maybe real stories have been brought to your attention?) perhaps you should experiment within the sandbox? There could be an opportunity for you to be helpful to responsible consumers who are becoming unsatisfied with the BBB? I suggest that your contributions to the formerly well-established article do not belong in the "Criticisms" section where you put them (in accordance with Blanchardb's and Orange Mike's posts on your own talk page)! Antiobsteika (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The inappropriate language used below about the Better Business Bureau is highly offensive and betrays extreme personal bias. Please stop deleting and suppressing valuable information about how consumers can seek help by using the CBBB's self-policing process to resolve simple complaints about local BBBs. In point of fact, this is the swiftest and best way to get quick attention for most consumer problems that involve unhappiness with a BBB that don't involve any actual illegality. Government entities such as the FTC are law-enforcement agencies interested in hard evidence about frauds and crimes. The wild, rather vague allegations about BBB put forward on this page do not appear to be supported by any factual evidence or documentation. The Wikipedia page on dispute resolution says this: "Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." Please bear this in mind before removing the informational content about the CBBB process yet again. I am calling for independent review of the content of this BBB page by third party Wikipedia editors. NYCBBB (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Due to the substantial number of problems that different parties have had with the Better Business Bureau, it is strangely refreshing to let their reports be source material for the criticism section. The following incidents are not specifically cited in the references:

If a bill collector calls you and threatens your credit score when they have no grounds, is it extortion? I do not know. Should the BBB get involved if you bring the matter to their attention? I would say yes. Should they give the company repeated, and near-indefinite deadline extensions to get their records straight? I find such a policy offensive. Anyhow, there is still a record of a closed matter on the Reliability Report for VLV Professionals of Salem, New Hampshire (http://concord.bbb.org/WWWRoot/Report.aspx?site=104&bbb=0051&firm=92008328 though this happened approximately two and a half years ago), they apologized, but not on letterhead...

In another situation(s), when the branch refuses to even notate a complaint in its Reliability Report for the business, and the CBBB does nothing--but probably lies barefacedly about contacting their office in question--the FTC records the matter and assigns it a reference number. Antiobsteika (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Re editor or editors who have negative opinions of BBB, and who seem to be pursuing some kind of editorial vendetta: please do not state your anonymous opinions as if they were objective facts. If you have an opinion please identify it clearly as such and identify yourself as the source of the opinion. The article as re-edited acknowledges the nature of the complaint that you have mentioned and provides specific facts about the BBB's internal process for handling complaints about the BBB itself. That process exists, it works, and it is valuable for consumers. Please do not keep deleting that material as it is important information about how consumers may get swift help with that type of problem. Please refrain from using "weasel words" or inappropriate language when describing BBB or its Accredited Businesses. Thank you.NYCBBB (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There is really no need to water down the criticisms; they are well known criticism of the BBB -- or to add statements that turn the "Criticisms" section into a forum for debate. If you have statements regarding the actions or performance of the BBB that are not criticisms, then maybe put them in the related section. Or start another section. Wiki writer 06:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok -- the anonymous BBB representative is deleting items from the criticism section again. It has become tiring, so for the time being I am going to save these criticisms right here. If there is no discussion explaining why these were removed -- I will just go ahead and put them back in the article.

• Their method of dispute resolution is also dubious, as a simple acknowledgement of a complaint is enough to consider the matter resolved.

• Also of note, not all industries or companies are handled. Some companies and professions the BBB won't take complaints against include real estate firms, public utilities, and physicians.

Wiki writer 07:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again --- our anonymous BBB rep has decided to take it upon himself to shine up the BBB image by deleting criticism. I have included the deletions here.

• Their method of dispute resolution is also dubious, as a simple acknowledgement of a complaint is enough to consider the matter resolved.Wiki writer 00:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that the BBB is a FRANCHISE and benefits from sales of memberships and advertising in it's registries. They cannot be an impartial third party in a dispute if they are taking money from their members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.36.61 (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

One criticism of the BBB could be that their employees delete criticisms from its Wikipedia article. ;) 03:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfair Critisms

I think this section should be deleted because something writen in NPOV can not be considered Fair or Unfair--141.153.188.101 14:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - One or two editors seem determined to make this look like a BBB advertising brochure. An article about the BBB is difficult to keep objective. Making arbitrary deletions and adding obviously biased information is not going to help. The best place to discuss these issues (before the edits) is this discussion page or the article will not progress. Wiki writer 07:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The only thing biased is the BBB itself. They have a long standing track record of not resolving complaints against non-member companys, while those who PAY the subscription (remember this is supposed to be a charity, not a business in itself [which it is]) can have complaints resolved by a simple email or phone call. The BBB has "certified" MANY border-line scams, including blatant multi level marketing ploys. The only reason they're still in BUSINESS (they should never have been classified as non-profit) is because their name fools the average person into thinking they're a credible authority. In reality they're no different than the "100% beef" company contracted by McDonalds. 17:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.224.206 (talk)

Better Business Bureau

The Better Business Bureau was founded in part by Al Capone. If you follow the link within the existing article (http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff1343.htm), it says that. It also says it on this link. http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v257/__show_article/_a000257-000013.htm Shuim 15:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this partly because Al Capone was only 13 years old in 1912, that was the first tipoff. I suggest taking a look at WP:Reliable sources. I like reading Ripoff Report too, but a side observation in some anonymous victim's complaint isn't a reliable source; nor is the anonymous item in your second citation, apparently someone's blog. My edit summary said "revert unsourced statement" to be polite; I hope the next reverter is as nice. --CliffC 16:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Understanding a business reliability report

Text is needed to describe a Business Reliability Report which is one of the main products of the BBB.

Fair use rationale for Image:BetterBusinessBureau.gif

Image:BetterBusinessBureau.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinion Moved from Article

Moved the following from the main page, as it is not encyclopedic Icemotoboy (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC):

The Better Business Bureau is normally used by consumers as a means to extort money or services from businesses. Consumers regularly threaten a business with a bad profile unless they pay up. Unfortunately the nation's Anti-Slapp laws tend to protect the BBB in their extortionary endeavors as they mask themselves in the glow of consumer protectionism.

Officially a non-profit the BBB makes a considerable amount of money for its presidents. The Los Angeles chapter long time head in charge, William G. Mitchell, has been reported to make in excess of $220,000 for his non-profit each year since the late 1990s. He has also been accused of misappropriation of funds, fraud, false, inaccurate, and libelous reports and has been accused of actually selling “Good Reports” to firms with dubious dealings. http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/001/RipOff0001343.htm is a website that deals with the Bad Business Bureau.

-several grammatical errors corrected, though not corrected for content!-

Article Tidy

Following a request for help at Request for Editor Assitance I have just done my best to revise the article to remove repetition and advertising. The article lacks independent referencing or citation so I have not done enough to remove any of the warning tags on the article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Better Business Bureau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110220071536/http://www.bbb.org:80/bbbinformationcenter/ to https://www.bbb.org/bbbinformationcenter

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)