Talk:Shaw Academy

Accreditational issues of Shaw Academy
My changes were reverted by LeoFrank labeling them to be promotional. However, they reflected the lack of accreditation of the provider and their planned offering of possibly non accredited master degrees. The article should urgently be reverted to reflect my changes as Shaw Academy might be a degree mill. Jockel1984 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have pointed out that there is no mention of Shaw Academy's accreditation on their website. They claim to have a CPD Certification, which doesn't grant them any rights when it comes to granting Master degrees. The prices were mentioned to demonstrate the unlikely viability of Master degrees (for both: 100 Euro and 1000 Euro). I am not affiliated with Shaw Academy, but am rather correcting the previously mentioned statements that Shaw Academy issues certificates which are validated by Edinburgh Napier University and that Diploma programmes of this educational company are comparable to Associate Degrees and such like. I am open for every input on the stated matters though. Jockel1984 (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia article's are not intended to places for promoting their subjects any more than they are intended to be places for exposing their subjects; moreover, article talk pages are not intend to be forums for praising, complaining or even just generally discussing their subjects. Article talk pages are only intended to be places to discuss ways to possibly improve articles in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So, if you feel that there are some parts of this article which aren't in compliance with these policies and guidelines, then feel free to discuss them here; however, if you want to "set the record straight" or otherwise bring attention to problems you feel this company has, then the best way for you do that would be to pursue action outside of Wikipedia, e.g. local goverment/consumer support groups that deal with such things. Wikipedia article content should only reflect what is being written about their subject in reliable sources, ideally independent and secondary in nature, which is written in a neutral voice and is not undue in nature. If you can find such coverage in reliable sources, then perhaps content related to it can be added; anything else such as personal experiences, etc., on the other hand, is likely going to be considered original research and not be considered appropriate. Perhaps everything you've written above is true, but Wikipedia requires verifiability first and foremost, and even then such content might not still be considered appropriate for inclusion.Finally, please be careful mentioning anything related to "legal ramifications", etc. like you did in this post on your user talk page for the reasons given in Wikipedia:No legal threats. Such posts can be easily misconstrued or seen as threatening, so great care needs to be taken when discussing such matters. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

POV notice
The additions by an least one COI editor means a neutral volunteer will need to fully check out this article and claims fully verified. The sources for some more critical claims need cross verification and scrutiny. Non neutral content was blatently added by a neutral contributor there are indicators more may be present. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

References in lede
Looks like one is dead and in other places maybe wrongly attached. Too hard to fully sort out for me at the moment. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

MEAT
In this edit summary an editor threated to continue to have people edit until they get their preferred version of the article. Please look out for Meat or Sock to prevent additional harm to the article. VViking Talk Edits 13:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Shaw Academy Accreditation
This page was recently semi-protected due to attempted vandalism from another user. After speaking with the owners of Shaw Academy, it was brought to my attention that the accreditation section is incorrect, containing false information and is causing some difficulty for them with some of the mentioned training establishments.

I have been in contact with Shaw Academy to discuss this with the aim of ensuring that the information is factually correct.

Please can this section either be removed or edited to reflect the correct information:

Many Thanks,

Carl.Burton Carl.Burton (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are in communication with Shaw Academy about this article, you have a conflict of interest(please review) that you should declare. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've changed your declaration to a proper format for an article talk page, you should put the notice you tried to put here on your user page. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There are discussions on the accreditation of this institution. I am declining this request as they seem to have accreditation issues where they are not being recognized per the article in the discussion. Galendalia Talk to me CVU Graduate 16:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

To clear up the confusion about accreditation, Shaw Academy are currently unaccredited, there is no mention on their site of them being accredited by the EQF, could the sentence about this be removed please? Carl Carl.Burton (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @ I have taken a very quick look at your good faith request. I've removed the uncited phrase in the Accreditation section immediate.  As far as I can tell the sources do not immediately support the content of the Accredition section  (They may with a search but that is insufficient, and one may be a dead link).  I've marked all as failed verification and section as requiring update and inaccurate.  A review by another peer may take a different view.  I would not expect the section to remain in this state for an extended period and if it is not fixed/improved it should be removed.  Pinging  CVU Graduate to review who might take a different view. Thankyou.09:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Picking this up. Will update shortly. Darren-M   talk  16:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I've re-drafted this section into a section that more clearly articulates the current state of play. I agree with Djm-leighpark that the sources fail verification for most of their uses, though I am comfortable that the SCQF is a reliable source for the purposes of accreditation and have retained it. On this basis, I'm going to go ahead and mark this as done to remove from the worklist, but feel free to re-open if you have further thoughts. Best,  Darren-M   talk  16:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Worrying Reviews
Hi! I was about to sign up for Shaw Academy following an advertisement for accredited and certified courses, but did my due diligence beforehand. Luckily.

it seems that the company has scammed many, many users - all of which are naturally indicated by anecdotes and anonymous reviews, but it definitely raised some alarms. These complaints include:

- Payment claimed after cancellation of free trials - False advertising regarding device compatibility and live lessons (which are allegedly pre-recorded) - Refusal to repay money claimed for returns.

I've also seen that they are under examinership for a period of time. Nonetheless, none of this is reflected or reported on this page. I think that especially in these trying times, with the amount of people hoping to acquire new skills during the quarantine, this information might be pertinent, as I imagine many check Wikipedia to ensure something is acting in good faith before giving away their bank details.

Can anything be done, given there are no available online sources apart from BBB (among many other) reviews? I wouldn't see a reason for so many to want to take down an innocent learning platform, but I understand how that may be a fallacy of some kind on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bainmeach (talk • contribs)

I started a 4-week free trial and canceled it after two weeks. I had to call to cancel since it cannot be canceled online. After the representative made sure that I would not stay, she immediately said something went wrong and a $69.99 appeared on my credit card. She assured me that it would disappear in a few days but later I found it was just a fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.3.122.248 (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jun/13/big-online-learning-provider-faces-calls-for-refunds-after-complaints Plutonicpisces (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020
Add a line fairly close to the top stating that they are under review by trust pilot: Jack Kennedy7 (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I'm not clear what edit you are requesting here, as your suggested text doesn't match with the sources you've included. If you still want to request an edit, please specify here exactly what text you want to be input, what text it should replace (if relevant), and clearly state how the source(s) confirms what you are changing. Thanks, Darren-M   talk  16:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2020
Shaw Academy is a scam, whoever is reading this please take this into account and update the wikipedia page accordingly, they make fake reviews to make there website appealing but then steal money from people, the proof can be found in these links;

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/shawacademy.com

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jun/13/big-online-learning-provider-faces-calls-for-refunds-after-complaints

They are likely trying to use your website to make themselves seem more academic than they are, but for the sake of wikipedias reputation you need to make it clear in their page that they are trying to scam their users and the people who rely on wikipedia as a reliable info source, PLEASE cut them off! 81.106.237.140 (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. Something being a "scam" is an opinion. If there are sources that this organization has been investigated for, charged with, or convicted of breaking laws, we can talk about that. But it will need to be worded neutrally. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2020
Controversy On the 13th June 2020 Trustpilot published an investigation into Shaw Academys legitimacy, highlighting that many of its positive reviews were written by people encouraged to show the company in a positive light. Furthermore they tried to distance themselves from one star reviews that were highly critical of their business practice, asking users to remove them, even offering refunds that the users were requesting as long as they deleted their harsh reviews. 81.106.237.140 (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Your source does not clearly show that it verifies the text you have proposed.  Darren-M   talk  11:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Edits made to article

 * I have examined the Guardian Article of 13 June 2020 indicated above on talk and have determined to leverage it on the article. I anticipate other experienced editors will scrutinise the edit and improve as needed, or may even totally reject my work, I am not the most skilled or eloquent editor by any means.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've determine to self revert those edits due to a possible issue. I need to recuse from this article and remove from my watchlist. Apologies.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I attempted to add in the material from the Guardian Article. The information was well sourced, based on this conversation and the conversations above I am going to add the information back in to the article. I believe any attempt at removing the information in its entirety is whitewashing the article, which based on previous edits to this article and the fact that the company has a history of manipulating their review is a good bet.-- VViking Talk Edits 13:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Qualifications
I'd like to know which qualifications are needed Inhlerh shezi (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2020
Shaw Academy are big scammers and this should be stated in the article. They scam people out of their money in very deceiving and unethical ways. Check out google and trustpilot reviews and you will see that many people are getting scammed. 176.131.194.47 (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2020
In September 2020, Shaw Academy announced that they have received accreditation from CPD (Continuing Professional Development), IAO (International Accreditation Organisation) and ICSOC (International Council of Specialised Online Certifications). This should be added to their accreditation section.

Please change: "Students who enrolled after this date will no longer receive an accredited qualification." to In September 2020, Shaw Academy announced that they have received accreditation from CPD (Continuing Professional Development), IAO (International Accreditation Organisation) and ICSOC (International Council of Specialised Online Certifications).

Also, it appears that an unreliable source has been added to the Shaw Academy page in the last paragraph of the History section, despite it previously being deemed unreliable. There also appears to be some spelling and grammatical errors in this paragraph and appears to have been added by a biased user. The article itself is also potentially biased, as it is written by an employee of a competitor of the company, Guardian Masterclass.

Please remove: In June 2020 Shaw Academy claimed a tenfold increase in students due to the COVID-19 lockdowns. At that time a number of customers of the academy started making complains that they were having difficulties cancelling free trail memberships.[14] Other customers stated that the academy was taking unauthorized payments and the customers were having a difficult time getting their money back. Trustpilot has issued an alert on its website that Shaw Academy may have taken actions that lead to an artificially inflated “TrustScore.” Examples of the artificially inflated scores includes emails being sent by company representatives that asked customers to delete negative Trustpilot reviews or replace them with positive reviews.[14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebelcork (talk • contribs) 11:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have added some of the information from the information you provided on the recent accreditation of the academy. For some of your other points:
 * *Do not make accusation against editors, as you did when you wrote "and appears to have been added by a biased user" please focus on the content not the editor.
 * *If you have issues with the sources being you can request a review at the reliable source noticeboard. VViking Talk Edits 20:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please see the admins decisions from both of the semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2020, which states that both the Guardian article, and the Trustpilot link were not considered reliable sources.
 * Also, can you please add a link for CPD
 * The line 'Students who enrolled after this date will no longer receive an accredited qualification' should also be removed as it is no longer true.
 * Also, I mentioned bias, as it appears that you have added negative content purposely to this article, on more than one occasion. Instead of stating all three accreditation sources as I had, you focused on one of them, linking it to a wikipedia page and an article, and didn't try to provide wikipedia links for the other sites. You've also added in sources which other admins had already deemed unreliable twice. It appears that you have close ties with the subject matter.


 * I have added the link for CPD, I have also removed the statement about 'Students who enrolled after this date will no longer receive an accredited qualification.' For the statement that the sources have already been denied by administrators on 12 July 2020, I respectfully disagree. The first one which was responded to by user:331dot looks more like they were responding directly to the attempt to add that the Shaw Academy is a scam. Not the information that that people were having difficulties with Shaw Academy or the claim that they have taken actions that lead to an artificially inflated "TrustScore". I have pinged that editor so if they would like to make a comment they will know about this conversation.
 * The other Semi-protected edit request on that date that was answered by user:Darren-M was specifically mentioning the trustpilot website and they didn't say it wasn't a RS, (which I don't think it is) but mentions that the source does not clearly show that it verifies the text that was proposed. So no the source added was not deemed unreliable twice.
 * Finally your accusations of me having close ties with the subject matter are false, I had never even heard of this organization until I made my first edit on 27 April 2020 after I noticed another a new user adding information of a promotional nature to the article. VViking Talk Edits 13:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2020
I request that this page is amended to no longer read like an advertisement, and information on the media and user reported potential fraudulent activity of the company is added to the page, ie, potentially reference the Guardian article on the topic, as well as the Trustpilot page and history with the BBB, to make Wikipedia as reliable as possible, in providing information about this company, and therefore it's prevalence in the media, during July of 2020, regarding this issue, it is a part of this company's history, and as such ought to be added to The Free Encyclopedia

Grounded44 (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Darren-M   talk  14:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Add Section Called Scam Controversy
There are many sources of hundreds of unhappy customers that they have been scam. The hundreds of reviews narrate the same problem. They sign up for a free trial and end up charged right away. The newspaper The Guardian have release an article where they expose the controversy and how the ask people to remove the bad reviews if they want their money back. There are many website reviews that have hundreds of these stories. The website TrustPilotTrustpilot has a WARNING on their site "Warning! We’ve detected misuse on this page" you can read the full explanation about the problem Aldreams (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ We don't summarize customer testimonials here, that would be a primary source. If you have independent reliable sources that discuss this organization being convicted of violating a law or regulation, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: This content is already included within the History section. Darren-M   talk  18:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The scam controversy is very difficult to spot in the History section. After seeing an ad for Shaw Academy, I went on the Wiki page myself. I was specifically looking for a "Controversy" section, but there wasn't any, so I thought the company must be trustworthy. I signed up with them and now they stole money from me through the toolkit pop-up scam (as mentioned in the Guardian post). Please put the last paragraph of History into a "Scam Controversy" section as originally requested. Mrsbellamy87 (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That will not be done, for the reasons already stated. Wikipedia is not a consumer affairs site or a consumer review site, but an encyclopedia that provides a historical overview.  If you want to tell the world about your experiences with this organization, you should use social media or a consumer complaint-oriented website, perhaps along with contacting the appropriate authorities in your country. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2021
I request that the Wikipedia for this Scam artists mention how they have built a website to scam people out of money. 89.160.237.156 (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please propose the specific change you want to see, sourced to independent reliable sources, of this organization's activities or any criminal or civil judicial findings. This is not a consumer complaint site; please contact the relevant authorities in your jurisdiction. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Add a section about Crimnal Labor Practices
Shaw Academy has a history of entering into places, setting up call centers, then leaving without paying their workforce for their time. In June of 2021 Shaw Academy closed down their Tbilisi, Georgia office leaving over 100 works without their final month's wages.

DucoGranger (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Shaw Academy linked to scamming complaints.
Shaw Academy have YouTube media, petitions, Twitter threads, national press articles and a website claiming mass scams. Thousands of people complaining of being scammed worldwide. Could they run legitimate courses and a back door scamming operation where they take peoples money unauthorised? Thousands of people are complaining of various scams internationally. Trading Standards London have had thousands of complaints. 143.159.75.137 (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Shaw Academy seem to suppress claims of implied scamming
Shaw Academy seem able to suppress groups of people talking about claims of being scammed or defrauded by this company. There are thousands of such claims worldwide.

It seems they have blocked such a section on Wikipedia although it is claimed it’s a large part of their operation by many.

Thousands and thousands of people are flagging this company as scammers. 143.159.75.137 (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Scam claims
There are thousands and thousands of claims of scamming by Shaw Academy that warrant discussion. Researching on the web is a good idea. This company are reported to be very slippery. 143.159.75.137 (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)