Talk:Wish (company)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 28 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Reinako. Peer reviewers: Sunnysideup373, Amytangg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Date of founding
When was this company founded? The lead says 2010 but the infobox says 2011. Lineslarge (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking at the sources, and according to the Forbes & Bloomberg sources Context Logic(The parent company) was founded in 2010 an according to the others Wish was founded in 2011. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

'Caution' section
I can see that the problems you're trying to discuss in the article are probably real, but I've removed the section again because the sourcing you used was not reliable.
 * Quora.com is user-generated content - not permissible per WP:UGC
 * Chuck's Tech Blog is a personal blog - also impermissible per WP:UGC
 * 'Archy news nety' looks like a news site, but I can't find anything about the publishers, editorial panel, writers, etc. They don't even have an 'about' page, as far as I can see. We could take it to WP:RSN if you disagree, but I can't see this being accepted as a reliable source.
 * Trustpilot.com is user-generated content - as above
 * Highya.com is user-generated content - as above

On a stylistic note, the title shouldn't be 'Caution' - that makes it sound like we are advising the reader to be cautious, which is not what the articles are for. Sections like this are often called 'Controversy', 'Criticism' or similar.

I am not saying that we could not have a section about problems that people have experienced using Wish.com - in fact, from some of the things posted on the sources you've cited, I think that we probably ought to have such a section. However, anything we write has to be reliably sourced, and this is all the more important if we are putting cautionary information about a company into an article. If you can find anything reliable that we could use as a source, I'd be happy to help you with putting the section together. Girth Summit  (blether) 17:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

My recent edit
I deleted a lot of info from this article, and feel the need to justify it. If you'd like to review what I deleted, please do, and if you feel like I made a mistake, revert it. However, what I deleted felt like it was written to showcase to possible investors, not an encyclopedia article. Who cares about a "popularity" section, what "partnerships," they're in, or that they were #1 most downloaded app (with the convenient mention that they had more downloads than amazon). All those things can be stated without showcasing it in that fashion. It seemed too corporate. Hope that colors my rather sizable deletion with a rational reason. Shaun 12:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Neutralizing the text
I agree with others here that the page had a strong "showcashing to investors" kind of feel to it. I removed additional details to make the page be about Wish and not the parent company. I also added som clarification of what Wish actually do as "like Ebay" felt both marginally untrue and not actually explaining by itself. I felt I had to remove multiple references to the claim that Wish sells name-brand goods as counterfeit goods is one of the major criticism that Wish is facing. Also, Wish is not in anyway focused on selling name-brand goods. I backed up those claims with multiple references (newspaper articles). There are tons and tons of references but 4-5 is enough. Kenno Bew (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Phrase does not make sense.
The phrase "browsing technologies which personalise shopping visually for each customer" does not enlighten the reader. What "browsing technologies"?; does Wish read cookies from other sites? What does "personalise shopping" mean and how is that any more "visually" than any other site? FreeFlow99 (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's promotional marketing copy garbage, feel free to remove it. Waggie (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

United States only?
The article refers to the United States multiple times, and there is a reference to shipments coming from China. But there is no information about the coverage. Are buyers mostly from the US? Or Europe too? FreeFlow99 (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Shipments come mainly from China ( More than 50 % of the time) and many other nearby Asia countries like Laos, Taiwan, Solomon islands, Vanuatu etc.

The coverage is on par with amazon.

For example, when a package for me from China ordered via wish.com reaches my destination country ( India ),

After it passes the customs. India Post ships it to my address, which is also the government-operated postal system in India.

So I think this is how it works, around the world.

Rahul (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

my 5 cents
This article feels as fake as the actual website heck are we talking about wish.com? sure??? this site is full of fake products, counterfeit, IP violation, misinformation, low-quality items... and anal plugs, come on!? "Wish is an American online e-commerce platform that facilitates transactions between sellers and buyers. Wish was founded in 2010 by Piotr Szulczewski (CEO), James Prendergast (COO) and..." yeah whatnot, whatnot, let's give wish a peace novel price I don't know even where to start

this is borderline shameful, you make it looks like this is a perfectly correct and honest place where some few bad behaviors may(or may not) occur... and even if they occur you make it look like it's being taken care of As a result, Szulczewski hired Chang Ching Chong to blah blah blah and expose "unsatisfactory dealers" in exchange for cookies, yeah wish by Disney

so you are putting it mild don't you?

who wrote this article? wish mommy?

Wikipedia should be fair and call the things by their name, this article should be full of warnings, cautions, be aware, not a good place, please use amazon or ebay instead or support your locals business or whatever, no this travesty

do you want a fact? do you want a reference? when you search for "smartphone" on wish the first 20 results are fakes/clones/illegal products https://www.wish.com/search/smartphone

the most expensive Rolex costs less than 50 bucks https://www.wish.com/search/rolex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.194.194.70 (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 23 January 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Wish (marketplace). There is a consensus to move, with two competing titles with similar levels of consensus. "(marketplace)" was chosen over "(company)" by coin flip; if anyone is sufficiently in disagreement with this, they may open another RM without prejudice. Sceptre (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Wish (platform) → Wish (company) – a "platform" has many meanings for a global audience and does not clarify the scope of this topic; "company" does better. NB that the article was titled "Wish (company)" from 5 minutes after its creation until this undiscussed move in 2020. —  AjaxSmack 08:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Favonian (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Wish isn't a company; Wish is an app.  The company, (Nasdaq:$WISH) is ContextLogic Inc., but moving the article to that title would go against WP:COMMONNAME. 162 etc. (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * &#8203;NB a subtopic of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAMES ("Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title") . Wish itself uses "Wish" as the name of the company (and not just the platform) in its own materials and even in more legalistic contexts "Wish" is also used, e.g. its SEC filing details link page reads "Company: Wish; Issuer: ContextLogic Inc."; other pages use phrases like "ContextLogic dba Wish". —  AjaxSmack 04:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Move to Wish (e-commerce marketplace), Wish (marketplace) or Wish (e-commerce service): Platform is gibberish. It has a website as well as a mobile app, according to the article, so "app" doesn't seem sufficient. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with BarrelProof to move the article to Wish (marketplace) or Wish (e-commerce service) -DownTownRich (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No objection to "company" as a dba name per Cerebral726. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support (company), from reading around their website and per above from AjaxSmack, this is clearly a case of ContextLogic Inc. dba Wish, aligning with Wish as the common name of the company in most sources. "Company" perfectly summarizes what Wish is, and is much more streamlined then any longer descriptor of their business. --Cerebral726 (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support (marketplace) - I have no preference regarding "company" - it is normally what we would prefer but the company isn't formally called Wish. However, (marketplace) is an obvious improvement over (platform). User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 23:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 7 February 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Colonestarrice (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Wish (marketplace) → Wish (company) – This was just moved from Wish (platform) to Wish (marketplace), with the comment by that since they decided between (marketplace) and (company) with a coin flip, another RM could be opened up if there were any objections. I'd like to continue the discussion here, as I find the term "company" to be significantly more standard and unambiguous of a term than "marketplace", which could also refer to a physical place rather than a corporation. "Company" also more fully reflects the content of the article, which goes into the business dealings of the company doing business as Wish that operates a marketplace, all of which is covered by the term "company". Cerebral726 (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC) 17:16, 15 December 2020‎ UnitedStatesian talk contribs block‎ 76 bytes +76‎  UnitedStatesian moved page Wish (company) to Wish (platform): more accurate title which does not have much of a rationale. The focus of the article is on the company, and this seems proper. The platform and marketplace are of course key aspects of its activity, but less prominent in sources (which is not what the company wants at all) although both the company and their marketplace platform seem to attract a lot of news comment. Andrewa (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support 'marketplace' is ambiguous. 'Company' is more fitting for Wish. Vacamiera (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. This would complete a circle of moves starting quite recently

Arabic language added
I hope to add an Arabic language to the game, because there are many players who want this language 149.255.249.12 (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)