Talk:CouchSurfing/Archive 1

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.)

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 &#10002; 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 &#10002; 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 &#10002; 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 &#10002; 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 &#10002; 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 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 &#10002; 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)

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)

"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)


 * Done. Couch surfing is now its own article rather than a redirect. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:13, 4 June 2016 (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
Isn't it saying criminal activity committed through CS equivalent to criminal activity committed in hostels, parties or any web-based community? It would seem strange to have a section in the hostel, party or internet wikipedia pages describing crimes committed by people who met there. Any thoughts on this? -Roger

It seems there is a single individual who wants to whitewash crimes commited through couchsiurfing, condensing them into a single sentence and claiming they are mere "chrages" when they are actually convicted rapists and other criminals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.32.170 (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

I agree with IRN I will put this one up for Wikipedia:Third_opinion ChristopheT (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

IRN's objections were all answered in the responding text and in subsequent changes. Wikipedia is not a PR arm of Couchsurfing. Virtually every article ever written about CS raises the safety question. CS itself dedicates one forth of its site to the safety question. How could it be disproportionate to do less on Wikipedia? 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:415F:E1DE:9419:D1E9 (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In fact in the Padua incident it has now come out in court precedings that at least a dozen CS guests were drugged and raped. If anything, this section should be augmented.

If, like IRN, your objection is to layout, by all means change it. But do not remove valuable information which is unnecessarily brief. 82.224.103.123 (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2015 (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 [http://blog.couchsurfing.com/whats-changed-on-couchsurfing/ 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)

Funny how the South China Morning Post copies the incident list from the Wikipedia Article almost word by word. --ChristopheT (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is useful even to the press? The wording has been changed and there are items in the Morning Post that are not in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:3043:DCFE:4BDD:8D74 (talk) 11:41, 19 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.103.123 (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I have updated the section to include the part of the Terms relevant to the section. 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:3043:DCFE:4BDD:8D74 (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Broken links to CS pages in the ref section
Since the domain changed from .org to .com most of links in the references are now broken. They need to be repaired or be removed - see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Preventing_and_repairing_dead_links and Wikipedia:Link_rot. --ChristopheT (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Official Wikipedia policy: "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:D9C:AE1:B51C:8747 (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I was not suggesting to delete anything ... but having a large number of references with broken links from primary sources is somehow sub-standard and simply ignoring the problem may lead to deletions at some point. WP:Verifiability has nothing to do with a 'link' - it can be any publication as long as : it is a notable source and is well - verifiable. BTW "does not require that all information ... " is not the same thing as  "does not require that any information to be supported by sources". I would not have mentioned it if it was not a large number of the references in question. Again if you do not agree I suggest to ask for WP:3O. As for the quotes - the policy is clear you cannot quote someone without having a source that backs the quote (for example: Ex-CEO Tony Espinoza stated in 2013 on the company website that "CS will continue to cooperate with all governmental subpoenas in accordance with the law."   --ChristopheT (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Safety Mechanisms
Now that the verification process has been broken down in :


 * Phone (SMS) and Location Verification (the postcard is back!)
 * Payment Verification (not sure what is being verified here ... )

I I suggest to move the section about the current Safety Mechanisms (or enabling trust) to 'Membership and site' and leave the controversy / history in the current section. ChristopheT (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the Couchsurfing PR echo page. There is no neutral information available about announced "changes" - which in fact exist only visually but have not taken any real-world effect. It is increasingly visible that ChristophThomas seeks only to echo CS management PR campaigns and seeks to erase anything that disagrees with company PR. This is clear because every time his "reasons" are found lacking, he searches for another "reason". His changes always go in one direction. Suppressing information that does not follow the company line is the obvious goal. Now once again he is trying to erase confirmable information about safety. CS has rushed to give the illusion of "increasing safety" following the CS rape scandals in Norway and Italy that have appeared in the world press. It is not the job of Wikipedia to support a corporate PR disater-control campaign. 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:415F:E1DE:9419:D1E9 (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest you stay on topic - The changes I refer to have been described here. If you have sources reporting the contrary please share them. ChristopheT (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you avoid a rush to include PR information that is known to be false concerning "phone verification" and that will not be in effect, according to your source, at least until hypothetical postcards are returned in 4-6 weeks. What possible hurry is there to provide information that is not true as of today? Are you interested in reproducing false "information"? Do you have a neutral source concerning this? 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:F858:409:7DFF:3E66 (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "is known to be false" - what can I say - I don't have that kind of divine power ChristopheT (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem ChristophThomas is that you are rushing to change the article based ONLY on an obviously biased source. The "telephone verification" mechanism has been tested by several members who were able to "verify" "their" telephone using any random telephone, SIM or even a free online SMS service. Texts describing several of these tests are available on the Couchsurfing.com site. Why the rush to provide false information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:F858:409:7DFF:3E66 (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is really very simple - the section about Safety mechanism is not up to date - adding the features would make it up to date. I don't feel it is my job here is to evaluate or determine how well those features work. I am not rushing at all - as you might have noticed -I do use the talk page putting changes up for discussion. The idea here is to achieve consensus. Personal attacks are not only ineffective but also not in line with Wikipedia:Etiquette in particular "Argue facts, not personalities". ChristopheT (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding unsubstantiated claims from a company PR document does not bring something "up to date", unless all one is interested in is the present state of PR. Couchsurfing has once again laid off half of its engineering staff. Any claims it makes about what it will do about safety - which are obviously responses to the dozens of press articles about CS rape cases in the BBC, Newsweek, The Guardian, etc etc, – does an encyclopedia service to no one. It is only a service to the publicity department of a financially failing corporation. You have made extensive edits on the CS article with no prior mention on the talk page, most of it to erase information that CS Corporation does like, as you just did again. The fact I am arguing is that you constantly change the article to reflect CS PR - that is not a personality question, it is a fact. Deleting truth does not serve Wikipedia. It does serve Couchsurfing corporation. Adding unsubstantiated and false information is not acceptable. 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:2563:C679:2E5A:F772 (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

POSSIBLE SAFETY EMERGENCY? I edited quickly for safety reasons, kindly review and source my posts. As of January 2016, the reference LABELING system has been basically discontinued. A user can no longer identify and read another user's negative references. This is a huge safety matter, as it makes identifying badly behaving members extremely difficult and reliant on the completely obscure complaint system. I have brought the section factually up to date but did not provide sources other than the comments I wrote inside my own profile (I know,it's bad!!!). Kindly review. Spamhog (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a complaint about Couch Surfing, rather than something widely reported in the news. I've heavily edited this section. We don't need to know about the technical processes of Couch Surfing unless it is a major public concern. Sionk (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree about the term "safety mechanism", it's totally misleading. On a firearm this prevents any accidental firing. In other word any accident which could occur while using the device. For a member of couchsurfing such an external system does not exist. According to CS guideline the Safety relies on "reviewing references and trusting your instinct" (see /about/safety/). The former doesn't guarantee whatsoever the safety of the encounter. The latter is not implemented by couchsurfing, it's an "individual safety mechanism" so to speak! The reference system is just that, a reference system. Who writes the references and under which conditions references were written is not controlled by couchsurfing. It's like calling Amazon product review system a "safety mechanism". I changed the page accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludovic FPK (talk • contribs) 16:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hiding and deletion of the Tips section
As usual - use the talk page before reverting ... --ChristopheT (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually belive the edit you wanted to revert was a different one - given the comment "he link may be dead but the reference is still valid, referring to an undisputedly real document. Erasing the title is wrong". What exactly is it you refer to as Erasing the title is wrong ? ChristopheT (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"At the migration to the new website in November 2014 the tip section has been replaced by a new FAQ section"

What is the source for this claim? Original research? A faq section existed before as well. Your claim is manifestly false, old CS pages included dozens of pages of information. This effort to serve as a Couchsurfing propaganda service is getting ridiculous. 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:F858:409:7DFF:3E66 (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism of safety and criminal cases
A repeat offender has completely rewritten the information about criminal convictions to remove all information and replace it with a short intentionally misleading passage about "individual sexual assault and harassment charges". This is a clear attempt to hide the facts and try to minimize cases where people were sent to prison into mere "charges", implying the cases went no further. He has transformed convicted rapists and robbery into "charges". The motivation is clearly biased, with an intention to remove verifiable information and give a distorted picture of the facts. The vandal also removed all information about criminal cases that were not sexual assault, apparently in the hope that "women's issues" would be dismissed as insignificant.

"Several individual sexual assault and harassment charges have been brought forward by mainly female guests against their male hosts. Sexual assault and harassment charges in Leeds (UK, 2009),[34] Marseille (France, 2012)[35] and Padua (Italy,2014)[36][37] have had extensive coverage in the international press."

I will be restoring the original information and augmenting it with additional sources and information.

2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:1837:7CBB:4CD8:B490 (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The above cases are well established and documented and have been widely covered by the mainstream press. There's no point in trying to deny or belittle them. I support including them in the article as examples of criminals using the Couchsurfing website to find their victims and to commit crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Couchsaver (talk • contribs) 08:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, details of eight well-known cases in which a convicted rapist used Couchsurfing to find victims have been removed and replaced with a single sentence that merely claims "charges have been brought forward by mainly female guests" then mentions only three cities. These are not merely "charges", these are factual convictions of rape in which Couchsurfing played a key role. It seems this person is continually making efforts to delete any factual and sourced information which casts a negative light on Couchsurfing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.32.170 (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

My Kudos to Spieling for having restored the vandalized text, augmenting it with additional sources in the process.2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:2989:8A41:5FC9:FD24 (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Clear violation of WP:undue weight (things would be different if the website actually had an active role in facilitating those crimes). I am sure many crimes have been committed using websites like Facebook or Google Maps or Gmail. If you think any of those crimes are notable (see WP:Crime) you can create an article and link them back here. ChristopheT (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The change was announced weeks ago on this page. Various users agree with the change. You made no comment. There is no undue weight. Virtually very article about CS in the entire Internet - thousands - talks about safety. The idea that mentioning safety is "undue weight" is like saying mentioning computers in an article about Apple is undue weight. 82.224.103.123 (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the text you inserted was manifestly false and completely unsupported, as various contributors here have pointed out. Clearly an attempt to paint a rosy picture of CS. 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:BCF9:2F7A:46BF:BABD (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not going to discuss WP rules here - if you disagree with the rules you need to discuss them on their talk pages and have them change. Just as there is not a list of crimes in articles like Gmail or Facebook - there is no reason to have one here (and editors have told you so before). As I said if any of those crimes are notable you are free to write an article about them (as detailed as ever and link those articles back here). ChristopheT (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no disagreement about CS rules. NO ONE except you has disagreed about this. No "CS editor" has ever broached this subject with me. You are falsely trying every excuse you can find, jumping successively from one to another - several are noted here on this page. Your motives have nothing to do with objectivity on Wikipedia, rather they are an attempt to remove objectivity by censoring a central issue within the subject at hand. The information is fully sourced and completely relevant to the subject. Do you need more sources to establish that safety is a central issue of Couchsurfing? You can start with the site itself, and then you can google Couchsurfing + safety or rape. In fact, except for a small number of business articles, you will find little mention anywhere of Couchsurfing that does not refer to safety. Censorship of fully relevant fully sourced information is not acceptable. There is no logic to comparing with Gmail or Facebook - neither company has a central purpose of inviting strangers into people's homes.


 * Furthermore, you have no apparent understanding of "undue weight" which refers to the amount of space given to opinions. That material reported has nothing to do with an opinion. It is completely factual and fully referenced (if you want more references they are available). And again if you consult google simply with the subject "couchsurfing" it immediately brings you to pages concerned with safety, including the couchsurfing site itself, and to crimes committed by using the CS site. 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:1E6:DA67:D936:70EE (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems seems a single individual has an agenda to whitewash crimes committed through CS reducing them from actual convictions to mere "charges". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.32.170 (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am leaving a comment to express my concern that an individual has been removing important safety information about Couchsurfing from Wikipedia, a critical topic which is discussed daily on several group forums on CS by dozens of senior-most users with long institutional memories. By what right does one Wikipedia user have the ability to remove valuable and important factual information concerning safety that potentially benefits a community of around ten million Couchsurfing users? It additional makes me uncomfortable that a male Wikipedia user feels entitled to remove information that is of primary benefit to female Couchsurfers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.128.173.187 (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggesting that rape, sexual harassment or petty theft is due or has been facilitated through hospitality networks like couch-surfing is not a fact. In 4/5 of all rape cases (see U.S. Department of Justice, National Crime Victimization Study: 2009-2013.U.S. Department of Justice, National Crime Victimization Study: 2009-2013) the victim and offender do know each other. There are no facts to support that using hospitality networks is risky behaviour (with 50% of of all rapes are being committed within 1 miles from the victims homes).
 * Not only is the claim wrong - it supports the myth that rape is committed by strangers in foreign countries far from home. The sad truth is quite different. Rape is a proximity crime and offenders are in most cases no strangers. The narrative of the crazy sexual serial predator is one shown frequently in TV shows, Hollywood movie and newpapers. The reason cases like the Dino Maglio's do have a lot of echo in the press is not because are characteristic - but because they sell well and they support the narrative of the serial rapist (see: Fox, Kathryn J. (28 February 2012). "Incurable Sex Offenders, Lousy Judges & The Media: Moral Panic Sustenance in the Age of New Media". American Journal of Criminal Justice 38 (1): 160–181). ChristopheT (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * re "google Couchsurfing + safety or rape." -that is exactly what Wikipedia is not : Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not - start using arguments instead of launching personal attacks and name calling. ChristopheT (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again ChristophThomas replaces verified sourced data with his personal opinion. He has set himself up as the defender of Couchsurfing corporation's reputation and uses bogus excuses to post unsourced ideas about "mostly female", for example. Why include this "information" that he can not source, while removing real data about real events that are part of the essence of the CS story.

He argues that the verified data of criminal cases "suggests" something. Information is information. There is nothing in the text posted that "suggests" anything. It is merely factual. ChristophThomas is editorializing on the situation, posting himself not "suggestions", but actually making positive assertions that are demonstrably designed to minimize the reality of the situation.

But even if the assertions he makes above were relevant (dubious, precisely because hospitality contacts are "people known to the victim" under definitions given in most of this research), it would still be relevant because it is a subject that is evoked in almost all literature concerning Couchsurfing. You can't eliminate reality.

The subject of Couchsurfing is specifically tied to the question of safety. You can't evoke only the "safety mechanisms" of Couchsurfing without evoking their reason for existing.

The ONLY public statement made by the CEO of CS in that last 12 months was about the Maglio rapes. If Couchsurfing's CEO considers the subject so relevant that it is the only public statement she makes, how can ChristophThomas disagree? 82.224.103.123 (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What I am contesting is using the article as a dumping ground for a list of crimes that come up on a Google News search using Couchsurfing as the keyword. There is some serious research about CS and gender topics and what experience female guests and hosts face and how they feel about. Its just harder to find than the D. Maglio story (which I think has a place in the article). ChristopheT (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

“What I am contesting is using the article as a dumping ground for a list of crimes that come up on a Google News search using Couchsurfing as the keyword.”

Then you are protesting against something that didn’t happen. I simply pointed out that a search of Google shows that the subject of Couchsurfing is strongly related to safety. It is arguably more important, based on public sources of major newspapers and magazines, books and scholarly publications and the questions people first ask about Couchsurfing, than any other subject on the CS Wikipedia page. Why would the factual thing people want to know about a subject be excluded from a Wikipedia article?

“There is some serious research about CS and gender topics and what experience female guests and hosts face and how they feel about.”

Then find them and cite them.

Wikipedia is not a place for feelings, but for facts. You have rewritten the facts, turning fully-documented criminal convictions into women getting upset about men.2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:DC89:6303:9E90:ECBB (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

please make yourself familiar with WP:undue weight ChristopheT (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3]"

You have replaced neutral text with your personal and unsupported opinion. (The citations you borrow from the original poster support what I am saying here, not your editorializing.) There is no disagreement that well-respected international newspapers like the Guardian are reporting the true facts of these cases that involve people using Couchsurfing, which is prominently mentioned in each article. To contrast with this "viewpoint", you cite "There is some serious research about CS and gender topics and what experience female guests and hosts face and how they feel about", and yet you source none of that, and in no way do you show how it contradicts factual information from verified sources. Neither have you shown a SINGLE source that would support the possible claim (since you make no specific claim) that these facts are disproportionate. Disproportionate to what? The opinion that these events never took place? That they are without importance? In fact the overwhelming proportion of "the published, reliable sources" is that safety is of central concern to Couchsurfing, the subject of the article.

If you have ANY verifiable sources that say these events did not take place, please post them. If you have ANY verifiable sources that state that safety is not a primary concern for Couchsurfing, post them. If you have ANY verifiable sources about the completely separate issue of the "what experience female guests and hosts face and how they feel about", then post it.

Stop removing information with no valid reason at all.

If you have any reason why factual information should be replaced with your unsupported editorializing, then please supply it here before again imposing your personal opinion on the article.

Spieling (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" - correct : the problem is the proportion ChristopheT (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You have given NO justification concerning proportionality. Proportionality of what? What viewpoint? Instead you unilaterally revert to a text that is unsourced and unsupported. And you do so against the clear majority of editors here. Spieling (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you go back to CristophThomas's first comment in this section, you'll see just that: "Clear violation of WP:undue weight (things would be different if the website actually had an active role in facilitating those crimes). I am sure many crimes have been committed using websites like Facebook or Google Maps or Gmail." Yes, these crimes were reported by reliable sources, and yes, it is undue weight for an article about CouchSurfing to have so much space devoted to them. -- Irn (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

But his reasoning does not hold water. First, he has removed ALL mention of the crimes. Second, CS cannot be compared with sites that are primarily online. CS is primarily about direct contact between individuals in individual homes. Third, he has replaced the text with unsupported opinion. Forth, the crimes listed are only representative of various categories of crime, the list is far from exhaustive, but only informative. Fifth, the list is less than proportionate to the issue in impartial literature concerning CS. If proportionality were the criteria, the section would need to be increased radically. There are of course other questions. By expunging factual and well supported data about the subject of Couchsurfing, readers are denied an impartial and neutral treatment of the subject. Spieling (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "CS cannot be compared with sites that are primarily online" - well many people meet through websites like Facebook, Tinder or AirBnB ect. - have a look at those articles - there are no section of Tinder, FB AriBnb "related crimes". However there is a section about security in the AriBnB article. If you have a close look -this is by no means a list of all known incidents that occurred on AirBnbB. It mentions a few particular incidents that either :
 * * did shape AirBnB's policy on incidents and how to manage certain types of incidents
 * * or include incidents for whom AirBnB has been criticized for not providing support, not taking appropriate steps to prevent them ect.
 * I am sure you can see the difference between the simply compiling a list of crimes a service has been used for and specific incidents that actually are due to, have been failed to address, had a direct impact or have been facilitated by a service (otherwise we might as well blame the company selling to drugs being used in one of the rape cases)
 * There is one aspect I find particularly interesting when re-reading the coverage of the Guardian (1) : one of the victims did try to get other women to testify - apparently she never managed to make them come forward. It begs the question - does CS does provide enough support in those kind of situations. If so what are the reason women not use the way to report issues ... unfortunately there is not much research / analysis done on the subject in many of the media that reports the story (the Guardian being the exception with the follow up story how law enforcement agencies failed to follow up on initial reporting in the Padua case ).
 * BTW I am ok with the current wording - I still think it is a little light on demonstrating why the information is in this article (apart from having been covered in main stream media and "having raised concerns" about security). ChristopheT (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The safety team of AirBnB, for roughly the same number of stays, has 20 times as much personnel. The majority of AirBnB stays do NOT include hosts and guests sharing lodgings. AirBnB stays are all insured. There have not been the CS level of sexual violence on AirBnB. For all these reasons, your comparison again doesn't hold water. If there was the same level of violence on AirBnB, that would be completely appropriate in the article. The AirBnB article does contain a longer section on criminal activities - even though they are less serious - than the section you removed in the CS article.

I am also still waiting to see the information that you said existed about "feelings" on CS. Spieling (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * well - doing a little research goes a long way (1)
 * and as for feelings - there are a few studies on CS (for example "Hospitality Exchange: Overcoming safety, trust, and gender concerns in the Couchsurfing community" and "Trust in an online hospitality network : An interpretive study of The CouchSurfing Project" ChristopheT (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

US Trademark
here the US trademark description :

IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: (Based on Use in Commerce) Computer application software for mobile and cellular phones, smart phones, tablet computers and electronic devices featuring technology which provides members and users with the ability to meet other members, exchange messages with other members, discuss and arrange exchanges of home and travel hospitality, provide and review feedback about their peers, form virtual communities and engage in social networking; (Based on Intent to Use) Computer application software for mobile and cellular phones, smart phones, tablet computers and electronic devices featuring technology which provides members and users with the ability to access and receive travel, touring and adventure information and opportunities, and receive and transmit geolocation based alerts and information. FIRST USE: 20120630. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20120630

source : http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:iuk3zo.2.1 ChristopheT (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course the classification of trademarks is different in different countries ... however writing CS has submitted a trademark as a Dating site is a bit as saying it has submitted a trademark for geolocation tacking service.

BTW: Trademark classification use a fix set of "fixed expressions" for certain classes in to allow well "classification" and to avoid legal issues. Make yourself familiar with the legal language used in those fixed categories before making assertions. Same goes to TOS - a lot of the language in the TOS is in there for very specific reasons. Next edit that comes across like this one gets a go to jail card (I am not kidding) ChristopheT (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Article fully protected for 2 weeks
Edit warring by either side is not acceptable. If discussion has stalled here without reaching consensus, please look at the other options listed at WP:DRR. --Neil N  talk to me 15:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:NeilN I don't agree ... the changes introduced clearly violate WP:UNDUE WEIGHT (I mean clearly not just a bit)  - but I am happy to let someone else manage content resolution and watch it happen. ChristopheT (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for the record my last request for WP:DRR/3 had been dismissed - it s like everybody is giving good advice as long as it does not require any effort ... like in real life ;) ChristopheT (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you, it's still a content dispute and an edit war. It's just frustrating that one user stopped participating in the conversation on the talk page and came back weeks later to edit war the content back into the article. -- Irn (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have invited the IP to join this conversation. When protection expires, I'll be checking to see if they've participated in constructive discussion. --Neil N  talk to me 16:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

CEO Spinoza said ...
Just to be clear - if someone is quoted there needs to be a verifiable source to back the quote up - see: WP:QUOTE and CouchSurfing forums are not a source - more to sources on Wikipedia:SOURCE/FAQ ChristopheT (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

CEO departure
The article contained information identifying the CEO, who has now stepped down. One user wants the article to maintain old no-longer factual information, even though the ex-CEO herself has publicly posted that she is no longer CEO. Unless he has some reasonable evidence that she is in fact misrepresenting the situation and is still the CEO, difficult to understand the desire to hide the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:CC12:5261:540D:D1FC (talk • contribs)
 * It's not about "hiding the fact". It's simply that without a login to LinkedIn, a company that has been proven repeatedly to practice shady and deceptive data mining, we have no evidence per WP:BLP that the CEO has stepped down with no replacement. The article is already poorly referenced. Has that LinkedIn profile been verified, per WP:ELPEREN? NeemNarduni2 (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The real question should be whether these boeard changes are of any note, if the only source is the person's social media page. The article is largely sourced to primary sources, and my opinion would be that these personnel changes are largely irrelevant to Wikipedia if they have attracted no interest from wider news sources. Sionk (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If the information - ie, name of the CEO – is worth having on WP, then it is certainly preferable to have correct information. Billock has stepped down. She herself announced it publicly when she revised her LinkIn page. 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:7D01:66F2:47D1:1F37 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Board changes, perhaps not, but a CEO stepping down without replacement is certainly relevant, if we can find a reliable source to confirm. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If the issue is that there is no public source for the fact that CS has not announced nor made a replacement, then it is true that it is difficult to prove a negative. Asking them, as I did, is "personal research". One can note that CS removed all mention of its personnel when Billock stepped down, while it existed before, but that is also personal research.
 * Asking them is indeed WP:Original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Removing unreferenced claims is not original research. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But claiming that Billock is still the CEO is factually wrong. 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:7D01:66F2:47D1:1F37 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine, but we need a WP:Reliable source to confirm that it's factually wrong. Please see WP:VERIFY. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No, actually you need a verified source to show that it is true if it is in the article. WP does not encourage flying in the face of common sense. If Billock publicly posts she is not CEO, then you can perhaps remove all mention of her, or say she was CEO, but you can't claim she is CEO when she is not. That is unethical. And also against WP standards concerning a living persons. 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:7D01:66F2:47D1:1F37 (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves Shortcut:

WP:SELFSOURCE

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:7D01:66F2:47D1:1F37 (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We do have reliable sources to show that she was made CEO earlier. What we don't have is a reliable source that she has since left. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a WP-compliant source that Billock is no longer CEO, Billock herself in the form of an acceptable WP:SELFSOURCE source. Vague unsupported ideas (in this specific context) about data-mining or someone hacking LinkedIn do nothing to make this source less credible. Her stepping down is acceptably sourced; no source contradicts it. Do you have any reason to doubt its veracity? 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:7D01:66F2:47D1:1F37 (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have the reasons to doubt its veracity that I outlined above. It's clear you don't agree with me. That's fine. Let's get some input from other editors. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You didn't give any reasons for doubting the veracity of the fact that Billock stepped down. You simply said that LinkedIN is SOMETIMES not credible (like every source under the sun), even though according to WP:SELFSOURCE it is an acceptable source in this situation. 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:7D01:66F2:47D1:1F37 (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, like I've said in reply to this point already, I respectfully disagree. Let's get some other editors' perspective. Thanks, NeemNarduni2 (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The LinkedIn page only tells us she is no longer CEO of Couchsurfing. Personally I've no problem with her LinkedIn page verifying that. It's a fact about her. And the CEO is the most important post in Couchsurfing management. Her LinkedIn page doesn't say how or why she is no longer CEO, nor does it she she hasn't been replaced (which is why I moved the LinkedIn citation, rather than re-move it). Sionk (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Synth and RS
Regarding these edits, as I stated in my edit summary, they represent a synthesis not found in the cited sources. What we need here are reliable sources making these claims themselves; that's how the verifiability policy works. , I know you're new here, so please take a moment to familiarize yourself with those policies and guidelines I've linked. Just as an aside, I don't personally disagree with the information in your edits; I do think people use CS for sex and that CS's safety mechanisms leave much to be desired, but whether I agree with that doesn't matter: what matters is what reliable sources say about it. And if reliable sources don't say anything about it, that's a pretty good indication that maybe it's not adequate material for an encyclopedia. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I spent time and contributed, changing my edit each time to try to make it more objective, adding references and stuffs. There is not such a thing as a "safety mechanism" (source?) described anywhere on the couchsurfing.com website but it seems that nobody can touch this paragraph protected by "DrMies" and you. The term safety mechanism is misleading in itself and don't belong on the page. My edit has A FEW words about dating and MUCH MORE on the new Terms of Services. You (and Drmie, see my talk page) just go on "undoing" 826 character but you complain here about what amounts to a 100 chars. Why are you doing this? Do you claim that the couchsurfing ToS are NOT relevant to the couchsurfing page? So I gonna revert your undoing ONE MORE time and remove the thing about dating. Let's see what you have to say then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludovic FPK (talk • contribs) 16:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That the ToS omits mention of safety mechanisms is not a source that there are no safety mechanisms - if you want the article to say that you need a source that directly says 'CouchSurfing has no safety mechanisms.' - MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually you are right, I misread you, but I am not saying that. In the same way I don't need a source neither to say they have no chemical warfare program because I don't need to talk about it on the page! Couchsurfing does not claim to have such a thing, because they could be hold liable on this. They promote safety but they have no "mechanism". The reference system doesn't include any "did you feel safe with such host" question. Questions are: "was it fun", "central location", etc. I discussed it above in a "Safety mechanism" section. If you have a problem with me suppressing the section title entitled "safety mechanism", talk there please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludovic FPK (talk • contribs) 16:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your example of the chemical warfare program is totally spot-on. You would need a source to say that. Because even though it's obvious, there's no reason to include it on its own, just like like the lack of safety mechanisms - we need to report what other sources say about it. You are using the ToS as a primary source, and we need to be very careful when we do that.
 * To be fair, your edit doesn't stand out in this regard; it's a larger problem with the article. However, because you started off making a different claim and have been so combative about it and engaged in egregious edit-warring, it feels like you're pushing a certain point of view, and that breeds more resistance to the changes you want to make. Please take the time to consider what we're saying and find reliable sources that support whatever change you wish to make to the article. -- Irn (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I started by reading something that sounded totally misleading in regards to my knowledge of the matter. Then I did provide changes quoting right away the ToS, because they are extremely precise and relevant. And instead of contributing or giving me precise directions about the references issues, which concerned in fact the dating part for both of you, you just clicked "undo". Unfair. But seeing how easy it was for you guys to smash my contribution, I started to doubt the entire screen around my contribution. This is where I got interested in the section title. Who wrote this title? Based on which claim, which source? Couchsurfing.com is not claiming any "mechanism". In the best case we can call it "safety advices" but this wikipedia page is not a guide on how to use couchsurfing. "Safety concerns" is neutral and fits well (I did some more talking above about it). Ludovic FPK (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry--"retard"? Drmies (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on CouchSurfing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303040548/http://gawker.com:80/5836946/users-revolt-after-hippie-couchsurfing-site-goes-corporate to http://gawker.com/5836946/users-revolt-after-hippie-couchsurfing-site-goes-corporate

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Far more negative than articles on similar activities
"While you may be safer Couchsurfing than you would be in a hotel, hostel, on public transport or in a taxi, you should keep your wits about you and be aware a tiny percentage of people have malice aforethought." was reverted.

Could someone who understands the ways of Wikipedia make the point in the correct jargon with references that gets this across? I assume no one would suggest couchsurfing has been more dangerous than hotels, hostels, public transport or taxis?

EDLIS Café 11:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on CouchSurfing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://support.couchsurfing.org/hc/en-us/articles/231749507-How-can-Hosts-earn-Verified-Membership-
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070214232549/http://www.sos.nh.gov/corporate/soskb/Corp.asp?473515 to https://www.sos.nh.gov/corporate/soskb/Corp.asp?473515
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/10/14/long-beach-german-tourist-date-rape-sentence/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

recent changes regarding membership and membership fees
While I do understand a certain amount of frustration and irritation - wikipedia is not the place to vent them. I suggest we stick to the facts rather than various interpretations "broken a promises" & "outrage" and predictions what that could mean in the future (as always we leave the future to our future Wikipedia editors). --ChristopheT (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this is the appropriate section to note, with a NPOV and citation, that Couchsurfing did say in 2011 that they would never make people pay to either host or surf.--Schroedinger&#39;s Mouse (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * members still do not pay for hosting or surfing - some users will have to pay a membership - regardless if they surf, host, take part in events or use the website to upload pictures. The intention of the "promise" was entirely different and stemms from a time when AirBNB was growing exponentially. --ChristopheT (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The quoted 2011 promise was that "CouchSurfing will never make you pay to host and surf," and it is clearly now impossible for many members to host or surf without paying money to Couchsurfing. Rather than start an edit war, you should leave the quote up as it is clearly relevant to the new membership fees, and gives insight into why there is so much outrage from members, as is evident from the many recent negative reviews being given to the Couchsurfing app. You suggested sticking to facts and I've made a good faith attempt to try to present this one as neutrally as possible (i.e. "despite having stated that" rather than "broke its 2011 promise that"). Schroedinger&#39;s Mouse (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * the "broken promise' part is an interpretation not a fact - it is also unsourced making that argument without having a source that makes that argument is somewhat close to original research see wp:or  --ChristopheT (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why does ChristophThomas persist in removing the quote by Couchsurfing that they would "never make you pay" from the section concerning their new policy which makes people pay? He first complained that original presentation of the information as a promise was interpretation (although the wording "will never.." in English is widely regarded as meaning a promise). I changed it to a more neutral point of view (i.e. "stated that") and see no reason for him to keep deleting it.  Schroedinger&#39;s Mouse (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * there two reasons and I think I did outline both above. I will try to elaborate a bit on the first one because I think it is more prominent. The edit basically say : "now you have to pay for something that used to be free although the same company said it would be free for ever - and here is the link where the company said that" But that is not what the source says. The editor is making the argument and it is the editor that creates the context. And that is text book "original research". But wikipedia explicitly forbids original research. --ChristopheT (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * another reminder still WP:OR exists as well as the talk page. I would appreciate if discussions happen here on this talk page rather then in the edit comment section. Regarding : "promises about keeping CS free in the Change to Membership Fee Revenue Model section" I think we can all agree that this is WP:OR as long as you do not have a source. Also adding all kind of old context in the new section is not helping to structure the article. The remarks from 2011 and 2012 were made in the 2011 2012 context (please read the source) and therefore belong there. Anything else is just yet another attempt to focus everything on the latest news and expressions editor sentiment (frustration) at this time but it does not help to improve the article.   88.101.26.202 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Undid revision 966885236. The citation was clear and accurate: "But there is widespread anger that thousands of member profiles and their public data -- including mine, with more than 230 references from hosts and others I interacted with in 50-plus countries over a decade -- were blocked overnight with no explanation - again text book original research ...  the few thousands users out of a few millions are not relevant to the point where this needs to be added at this point. At some point there will be information available as to the effect of the membership fees - just be patient and what for it to happen. I would also appreciate if you could bring changes here to the talk page vs using the edit comment. This is not how we as editors proceed. The talk page is the place for discussions to submit improvements and work out a version that we all agree on. --ChristopheT (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the WP:NOR content policy. Tagging mainstream media sources as WP:NOR is not appropriate. Consulting the talk page before adding sourced content is optional. There is no policy requiring users to do so, and refusal is not an acceptable reason for content deletion. Further, as far as best practices go, the "citation needed" tag is preferred over deletion of content that you are not familiar with, and repeated deletion of content that is successfully cited upon request reflects poorly on your familiarity with the topic or the sincerity of your good faith efforts. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with WP:OZD and WP:3RR. Please refrain from engaging in edit warring to remove sourced content.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.110.254 (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Non-profit status
The official statement says CouchSurfing has never been non-profit, as the status was denied: https://blog.couchsurfing.com/we-hear-you/?fbclid=IwAR043ilAmb37C5v6NCoV3zdkm0RGeSP-hSoyLatjXqkKGmjsOL_mExcGxrk. Therefore, you should remove the data from the table. --91.142.213.109 (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "Couchsurfing International Inc. was formed on 2 April 2003 as a New Hampshire nonprofit corporation,[2] with plans to convert to a 501(c)(3) organization." I think this is well sourced and clear enough - not sure why we would need to remove anything ?  --ChristopheT (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Gift economy?
The long-standing version of this article said in the abstract Couchsurfing is a gift economy, citing sources dated 2017 and before. These sources, and the claim, are outdated, as with obligatory subscription fees introduced later (in 2020) it is not a gift economy anymore. It is a usual for-profit, subscription-based service now, where all members are paying the company for the service allowing to meet, hangout and live together with like-minded folks. Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Change to subscription business model (2020) ... wide spread anger vs positive change
I think both poit of views can be reconciled : the initial reaction across the board was negative - mainly due to the lack of communication how it was implemented ect. The same is true for the ong term effect : at this point nobody actually disputes the subscription is a bad thing and has overall improved things in regards to engagment, adherence ect. The problem are obviously high quality sources ... the article in Nikkei Asia written by a travel guide is to say the least misleading :

...including mine, with more than 230 references from hosts and others I interacted with in 50-plus countries over a decade -- were blocked overnight with no explanation. That is simply not true : hosts that did host within the last 12 months have never been "blocked" ... they did get a 12 months grace period before hitting a paywall. Either the author did not know that and therefore was not really using CS very much or did intentionally misrepresent things. In either case the source does not stand up to WPs idea of a source.

In light of absence of sources there are 2 options

1/ is to stick to the facts : which is : users in some cuntries have to pay a yearly subscription (including those that alreday paid for verification earlier, with a 12 months garce period ..)

2/ include the "wide spread anger vs positive change" and come up with a sentence that describes the initial response and the longer term effect - as for the source unless there is something a little less opinion and more alon the facts I suggest to drop it.

food for thougt ... ChristopheT (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)