Talk:Chegg

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Navjot79.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Planning to get article in better shape

I'll try to add inline references but I'm working on other stuff at present, as well as try to get this article less like an advertisement, and settle other problems with tags at the top of the page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why there isn't a NPOV tag on here already. This is clearly advertising copy. 67.88.181.72 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC).

I revamped the article in january 2010 and I thought it was fairly neutral; so did an admin who worked with me on it. Wondering if you might explain what particular things you find to be advertising so they can be addressed. Plus there's an advertising tag instead of a neutrality tag which might be what you're saying.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Cramster

Nothing about the acquisition of Cramster(an online homework help-site) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.174.141 (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. Tell us more about this?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Burning Couches

Mike Seager at Iowa State had a habit of setting couches alight on the outskirts of Ames, IA. He held a blog that would detail the burning couches up to the moment the fire trucks arrived. The logo for the cheggpost website, back when it was hosted out of a Lyon Hall dorm room, was originally a burning couch cropped from one of the blog images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4930:192:0:1E0:A5BA:6B42:CC3D (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for this?--Morris of Orange (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Improving the article

I am working on the article, I found some articles about information that is not present in the current article. I want to make changes in the history of Chegg, add information about revenues in the recent years, add more information about the officers and directors. Navjot79 (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Circling back to this page as well. History section needs attention, growth and acquisitions section could use copy editing. As is, the reading is choppy across the page; even small cosmetic changes are welcome. Trying to get ahold of to corroborate all on-page claims. EdTech space is consolidating right now. Lots to watch. Betanote4 (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Betanote4Betanote4 (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

References

OWL criticism controversy

Proposed change, per WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS

from:

Concerned by Chegg helping students cheat in their homework, professors in Purdue university have criticized the partnership Chegg is establishing with the university. A report published by Citron Research in July 2019 claims that "Chegg has created forums to attempt to circumvet Turnitin, proving that Chegg is trying to help users continue institutionalized cheating".

to:

In February 2019, Chegg formed a partnership with Purdue University's Online Writing Lab (OWL), to make online educational writing tools more accessible to its students. The affiliation was met by some faculty criticism; OWL director Harry Denny reported that he did not expect Purdue’s reputation to suffer as a result, citing that “My experience has been that the company is committed to partnering with faculty and administration to address their concerns."

I have fifteen years with an honest on-line tutoring service teaching physics, high-school and college. Chegg is a cheat site, complete with solved problems (their solutions are typically rotten) and a fee to access these, and essays, and all the rest. They'd make no money otherwise. Citron Research may not be a reliable source, but my students are and, somewhat to their disappointment, they've used Chegg for years. Chegg would seem to be an extension of India's famed academic cheating business which has, like the rest, found success in the US. It's just the latest version of an age-old 'cheating-industrial complex' that's become a very serious problem for on-line students and institutions. Kinsler33 (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Because Citron Research is not a reliable source, ie:

"'What they seem to do quite well is they're able to spin existing facts into a horrible scenario. It reads very badly," Peter Hodson, chief executive officer of 5i Research Inc., an independent research firm, said in an interview. "Their job as a company is to create the most amount of panic so they and their clients can make the most amount of money.' Los Angeles-based Citron Research was set up in 2001 by former commodities trader Andrew Left. In the late nineties, Mr. Left and others at trading firm Universal Commodity Corp. were sanctioned by the U.S. National Futures Association." https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/who-is-citron-research/article26918763/#c-image-0

I had already changed it, as above, about a week ago, after reading about the source, and thought I'd left enough explanation (in a civilized manner, I might add). I then removed the section title and added it to Chegg Services (where it redundantly remains, despite the restored section). Being the singular item under the overstated heading "Criticism and controversies" also seemed to give it undue weight, as if the OWL Lab deal were a major scandal. To me, adding the criticism as is reads like a tabloid, lacks WP:NPOV, demonstrates WP:Recentism and reflects WP:NOTNEWS, serving only Citron's interest in becoming an authority on Wikipedia. I tried to give it a more encyclopedic form and historic perspective, but I'm not sure that it belongs on here at all.24.186.175.206 (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC) @Kuru: @Masumrezarock100: ?