Talk:Scam baiting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General use of language in this article appears to be sub-standard and is in style closer to a blog then a adhering to wikipedia standards of use of language. Could I inspire a clean-up? wh 16:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


I'd be a lot happier if there was a source on that murder. --195.92.168.167 02:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Likewise. --Cornince 20:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Here it is: http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1641875,00.html

Added it --Yoghurt 23:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit]  ?!?!?!

Some claim that scam baiting is racist, since many of the targets are black Africans. that sounds VERY absurd.

Scam baiting is not racist, and in fact on 419eater.com racism is strictly forbidden. While it is true a large number of scammers operate from the African continent, their are scammers from around the world. Neither is it the fault of the scambaiter if a scammer is of a certain ethnic origin.


What is the relevance of racism policies of non-wikipedia websites Please discuss etiquette of 419eater.com on 419eater.com, not wikipedia. Irrelevant entry wh 16:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links?

I notice there has been some backing and forthing about external links to this page.

I would have added a link to [Scamorama.com], which is a long-established humorous site about scambaiting, but I hesitate based on the apparently contentious history of this page as to external links.

Perhaps someone could explain here what is acceptable and what is not for external links here? Kestenbaum 15:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It may be the case that external links are deleted or edited as a result of in-fighting among scambaiters. There are certainly some inflated egos involved in the pastime. I have added a passage under the "Criticism" heading about the problems between scambaiting sites, which are an unfortunate but definitely germaine subject for anyone considering getting into scambaiting. I have tried to keep the new passage as balanced as possible, since feelings run high.

PS - I note that my addition has been deleted without comment. So that was a waste of time, then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.97.229.210 (talk • contribs) .

The external links? I removed them because they seemed completely irrelevant, with the comment "rm irrelevant links". zzuuzz (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zuuzz - I think that the links to the satellite "ranting sites" are relevant in that they are an integral part of the scambaiting subculture, and their existance serves as a warning about the levels of egotism, infighting and bad feeling that exist within scambaiting. Scambaiting is also discussed on these forums, although the rules about off-topic conversation are much more relaxed, or in some cases non-existant.

Scambaiting sites do not exist as a team effort - it is very much a rivalrous relationship in most cases. In a small number of cases the websites actively hate each other. It's a bit of a jungle, the scambaiting world, and the ranting sites are clear evidence of that. I hope this helps to show their relevance to the wiki on the subject.

Talking as a scambaiter, and a common visitor to more than one forum dedicated to the sport, I must say that 195.97.229.210's edits are competly and utterly alien to me. So far I've yet to meet an experienced scammer whos unwilling to help a newbie, nor have I seen much in the way of infighting within or between the forums I frequent. WegianWarrior 12:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments here, and I can see that my addition caused some controversy, and has been removed again. I understand that one of the sites in particular is taking offence because they think that the addition was a bitter attack upon them, when it really wasn't. If you re-read what I added, you will see that it criticised, under the "criticism" heading, the infighting among scambaiters, and the only specific mention of sites was the mention of the two major "ranting" sites, which were given equal prominence and without comment upon either one's character.

In fact, my addition, which I tried to keep balanced, was intended as a caveat for new scambaiters, who may find the culture a bit caustic. I did not refer to any particular site, either explicitly or implicitly, as being more guilty of anything than another.

I would appreciate it if the addition was viewed in the spirit that it was meant, rather than as part of the very same infighting that it criticised. I think that the discussion of it now, on one of the sites in particular, only goes to *prove* the levels of tetchiness and paranoia that exist within the scambaiting culture! (It should be mentioned at this point that the nature of scambaiting makes paranoia a healthy trait, since scambaiters are involved in baiting criminals, some of whom may be dangerous. It is the fact that this often translates as bickering that I was trying to highlight.)

In conclusion, I can quite understand why my addition has gone, possibly under protests from people wishing to protect the reputation of individual websites. But if you read what I wrote, nobody's website got a harder time than anyone else's.

Cheers

[edit] Dispute tag

This article is ridiculously biased toward the pov of scam-baiters. It is edited mostly by anons and entirely unreferenced. There have been several users who have made valiant attempts to NPOV it but I feel the tag will be necessary for the near future. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is well written and there are a lot of external references. In fact, I'll add some shortly. Could you be more precise in your criticism? PizzaMargherita 21:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious, what is the opposing view that you think is underrepresented here, Savidan? The views of scammers? Of people who think that scam-baiting is dangerous? Of law enforcement, who have various differing opinions about people taking the law into their own hands? Please describe the views that you think are underrepresented, rather than just smearing "POV" all over the place. --FOo 21:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, please do not bother making comments such as "it is edited mostly by anons". Anonymous editing and posting is fully supported here at Wikipedia. We judge contributions by their content and their references -- not by whether the person who added them has a user account. Attacking contributors for being anonymous is not OK here. --FOo 21:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the unreferenced template for now. It's not so much that I think that the views of any one group's views are not represetned (FOo mentions spammers, law enforcement, non-scam baiters, etc.). Rather I think the problem is that some things which are the views of scam baiters are presented as fact. There are no sources from newspapers etc. All of the sources are from the scambaiters websites themselves taken at face value. For example, "A few scambaiters have succeeded in recieving cash from the fraudsters." Says who? The scam baiters? The New York Times? This is my main concern. Perhaps some of the regulars here can assuage it. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If you head over to 419eater.com and either read the archives, or contact Shiver (the owner of the site) directly, I'm sure he'll be happy to explain that he (and otehrs) have managed to get cash from the scammers in the past, and the reasons why cashbaiting is frowned upon today. WegianWarrior 08:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly my point. To state that scam baiters have gotten cash from scammers would be original research, which is under no circumstances accepted at Wikipedia. If you can track down a reference to the cites archives, that validates the sentence that "scam baiters claim to have gotten money from scammers". If you want to state it as a fact, you need a reputable, third party source, like a newspaper. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Sadivan, thanks for the clarification. I accept your point. I'll see what I can do. PizzaMargherita 19:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability - are we pushing it too far?

In the article is full of "claim" and "alleged", for a phenomenon that is under everybody's eyes and ears. I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that at least some of the documentary evidence publicly available (email and audio) are genuine. By Occamm's razor, we should reject that there are hundreds of people in dozens of websites whose only intent is to produce evidence to make people believe that they are baiting real scammers.

I mean, are we really waiting for a complete BBC dickhead who doesn't know the first thing about scambaiting to bump into one (1) of these websites, actually believe these "claims" and produce a report in order to make the phenomenon verifiable? I think not. PizzaMargherita 06:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would think that websites dealing with baiting and the various forums dedicated to the sport ought to be excelent primary sources for information. WegianWarrior 12:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. So, if nobody objects I'm going to remove the "missing references" template. The article now has quite a few references. PizzaMargherita 23:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. PizzaMargherita 10:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." This article needs serious attention on this front, as it is currently unverified and littered with original research. I also agree that is biased toward the POV the scambaiters. I'll add {{fact}} tags to those places I feel a direct source citation would be useful. — BrianSmithson 17:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Some scam baiters specialize in hunting down and "killing" these fake sites in order to remove one of the tools in the scammers' arsenal.[citation needed] The sheer number of Citation Needed tags in this entry is bordering on the retarded. I'm counting 16 of them on this one page. For example, who exactly are you looking to 'cite' this statement? Some guy who says he's "killing fake sites"? A Newsweek article about a UN initiative to "hunt and kill" 419 websites? What about all the other Citation Needed tags? Each sentence about scam-baiting doesn't need a citation. It only needs to be informative if it is objective. If it isn't objective or is unverifyable remove it.65.28.34.108 12:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC) JP

An independent source would be needed to cite this article. The current page is mostly original research based on editors' first-hand experience with scam-baiting sites. The citation needed tags are there for a reason, to ensure that Wikipedia remains verifiable and reliable. This article isn't in many places. — BrianSmithson 22:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Would this page be an acceptable source? http://wiki.aa419.org/index.php/FAQ_and_Support Silver923 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scam baiters or scambaiters?

Since the title of this article is scam baiting, with a space between the words, I've assumed that the word 'scam baiters' should be used rather than 'scambaiters'. I've standardised this throughout the article. If anyone thinks a different word should be used (scambaiters? scam-baiters?) please put it forward here. Latinata 06:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ranting sites

Ranting sites is a reality in the scambaiting community, and it definitely needs to be mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.175.149.2 (talk • contribs) .

To be honest I don't oppose a (better written and perhaps shorter) section about the scambaiting subculture... PizzaMargherita 07:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
And properly sourced, off course. Remember WP:V. WegianWarrior 08:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. This particular scambaiting sub-culture is limited to a few people at 419eater, and a few people who are no longer members of 419eater. It's not a major subculture of scambaiting, but of current and former Eater members. Zhadov 16:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that ranting sites should be mentioned. The ranting sites are populated with people from other scambaiting sites, too. It's definitely not just a 419eater.com thing. Also, at least one of the ranting sites has members who seem to have never heard of scambaiting before joining the ranting site. The ranting sites are also relevant to the rivalries which exist between scambaiting websites. One of the rant sites even made a parody of one of the scambaiting sites complete with larger than life caricatures of the members. Note that I'm not linking to anything or naming names here folks.

[edit] David Lee Roth

Fabricated? Does that mean he's a puppet? Buster79 10:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that these outright criminals and cheats are treated this way should be manifested by all serious media. The BBC know all too well about the 419 fraud, never mind. they ought to record a song someday--maybe call it Bait A Mugu. Next to illegal immigrants pretending to be refugees these scammers are people that should be abhorred.

  • The article currently states: Fictional characters used have included Bruce Wayne, The Thane of Cawdor, Mr. T, Marty McFly, Homer Simpson, HRH Princess Margaret, Marion Morrison and so on as well as the regular, entirely fabricated personalities and celebrities, such as David Lee Roth. But Mr. T, HRH Princess Margaret, and Marion Morrison are real people, and Mr. T is still working as a celebrity. --Metropolitan90 20:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics section

Hah. Ha. Hahahaha. Okay, safety I can do. But a serious look at the ethics of scambaiting? Keep it there for humor, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beepboop77 (talk • contribs) 03:49, March 24, 2008

Please elaborate on how you would prefer to see the Ethics section written. Currently, your tone comes off as trolling to me. --Geniac (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Which of these (if any) that i removed form the article meet the Wikipedia guidelines for external links? WP:ELTheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

See these directories also:

Please discuss:

Well, the 419eater.com link at least should be reinstated, considering that it is probably the biggest scambaiting site on the net, to the extent that it warrants an entire article to itself- I think it is most definitely relevant. It is also in fact soruce material for a lot of material that just suffered rampant deletion- anyone who looks on that site for five minutes will soon find references to much of the stuff that was deleted. Please see below.
"probably the biggest scambaiting site on the net" does not appear to be one of the reasons that we include external links in articles: Per the external link guidelines: Wikipedia articles may include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews).
Also "It is also in fact soruce material " is the reason that much was deleted. Please read Wikipedias reliable sources. Reliable sources need to have some type of peer review or editorial oversight. The fact that it has an article of its own in Wikipedia does not make it a reliable source. Wikipedia has an article and it is not considered a reliable source. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't say it should be delted because it's a reliable source. It should be reinstated because it's significant. And it definitely contains accurate and on-topic information on scambaiting, considering that thousands of people there actually do it.

[edit] Deletion of Much of the Article

Much of the deleted information was in fact accurate and should not have been removed. Redpen, the intention of marking stuff as unsoruced is not to delete it, it is to instruct editors to attempt to find sources for deleted material. Remember, just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist). I personally don't have the time to search for all of it, but will have a look if and when I can. Anyone with sources or who has time to trawl through all of 419eater to find examples, please reisntate or delete as appropriate and it would be greatly appreciated.211.30.66.138 (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a 'how to' on how to scam bait, not is it a place for a personal essay about the pleasures of scambaiting. I stand by my deletions. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
But it is a site where information about scambaiting can be shown, a lot of which was removed. Now the article barely outlines what scambaiting actually is, and parts of it don't even make any sense. At the very least, the article should list some of the more common practices scambaiters use, as they would provide relevant information as to what it is. (I know lists are discoraged, but still) I'll give it a quick edit now that I think is a fair enough compromise. If you don't like it, feel free to remove it; I won't try to stop you. Reminds me, though- if you do wish do do this to any more articles, please read what you've left to make sure it actually flows to someone trying to read it. Too many editors will legitimately remove information and leave behind stuff which sometimes doesn't even have the correct punctuation, let alone structure.

(Note: I'm probably dropping off the net for the next week or so after this, so chanes are I won't be able to respond to further communication for a while- sorry!211.30.66.138 (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)