Talk:Matrix scheme/Archive 2

Rewrite

Hi there, I stumbled upon the mediation case concerning this page and decided to come in with a compromise of my own as progress seems to have halted. How would you guys be interested in a complete rewrite of the article from scratch, citing all the new information that is put into the new page, hopefully with a new layout to become a completely separate and neutral article? This is a drastic measure, but it usually works by having all the old disputed material removed and everything can be built up once again. If you agree to this, however, the key is citing facts and information so the article is not original research and clearly states the facts - not opinion. What do you think? Cowman109^Talk 01:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not sure that would be such a good idea. For instance, who exactly would be doing the rewrite? Both Arzel and myself have already written our differing versions of the article, and so it feels to me that we have already submitted rewrites. As I would dispute much of the content and the way of writing that would be in Arzels version, and Arzel would do the same to my version, I am unsure how this would help. As I am sure you are aware, there are ways of writing facts that still put a POV style to an article - this is why I asked for mediation in the first place. However, if you or anyone else can help then I am open to ideas. Cybertrax 09:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have submitted my rewrite on the Cabo page. The only aspects which are of any real debate is the legality of Matrix Schemes/Sites and certain aspects of the operation. My new article supports the operation and states only the legal facts regarding Matrix Schemes.

Arzel 23:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is that we take a very basic structure, start out small, and cite facts as we go along the way. For example, we could have an intro stating what a matrix scheme is, then a header explaining how it's been used, and a header for where it's brought up controvsery. Instead of submitting entire articles already complete, I am basically proposing that we start up from scratch and slowly build up from there one area at a time, trying not to put too much emphasis on one header or another. I say this as it appears other compromises haven't been working, and by removing the text in its entirety that is disputed and restarting, we may make some progress. Cowman109^Talk 02:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Cowman109,

Please read section 9, 10, and 11 of this talk page. You will see that almost all of this has been debated to some depth one year ago. There is no room for compromise with Cybertrax and if you read the previous sections (most of which was done by non-matrix watch people) you will see there is a general concensus for my proposed wording. Please do not restart this process.

Let me rephrase that no-compromise wording. Cybertrax does not accept the non-sustainability of the matrix scheme. He has taking a POV on the wording of what a private lottery is to promote a positive light on what a matrix scheme is.

Arzel 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, then. As a third party completely unaware of what a matrix scheme is until coming to this article, it is my opinion that the paragraphs added by Cybertrax do appear to be unnecessary emphasis on the legality of lotteries - this is an article about matrix schemes, not lotteries as a whole. However, I would be more than willing to take the given sources and rewrite the article with my own version, hopefully without any apparent POV as I'd be going completely from sourced facts. I can see if I can come up with something in my userspace first if you guys are interested. How does that sound? Cowman109^Talk 02:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the provided external links and through a quick google search, I cannot find any neutral external links that merely state what a matrix scheme is. Can either of you find any such websites, as a neutral, factual based one as opposed to a website that is intentionally biased would likely be much more helpful for our purposes. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 03:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There are no "neutral" sites as you would say. Matrix Watch has been the primary source of information regarding the Matrix Scheme for the past 3 years. There are several "neutral" media sources regarding Matrix Sites (which are referenced). There are also OFT releases referring to matrix sites (which are also referenced). There are also references within eBay and payment processors which state they will not accept Matrix Sites (which are not currently referenced). There are also Mathmatical references on the Matrixwatch.org site which show the mathmatical comparison to Ponzi and Pryamid schemes. There also many references to "Matrix's" with respect to MLM's, Gold-games, Ponzi Schemes, Pryamid Schemes, and other internet scams. The term Matrix Scheme is derived from the basic operation of these schemes.

If you really wish to get an understanding of Matrix Schemes you need only to look at MLM's, Ponzi schemes, and Pryamid Schemes. It is my belief that Matrix Sites were created to legitimize some of these matrix schemes, specifically the Ponzi scheme. It is the sale of an item, versus an investment (Ponzi) which is the primary difference between the two.

Arzel 03:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Although highly mathmatical, here is a reference regarding the basic underlying theory of Matrix schemes and Ponzi schemes. http://www.stat.psu.edu/~richards/papers/tas-hitech.pdf

Another recent article (July 14 2005) http://blog.worldvillage.com/business/cat_ebay.html

An older site, but also confirms the "Elevator Scheme" word variatio. http://members.impulse.net/~thebob/Pyramid.html

Arzel 04:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to disagree with part of what Arzel has said. The three links above all seem irrelevant to me, and are not good reference sites for this aricle.

• Link 1 is a very technical article containing good mathematics. However, the actual hypothesis and equations mentioned have no relevance to matrix schemes.
• Link 2 is an article from a persons weblog (blog), an online diary. hese contain thoughts and feelings of that particular person, but cannot be relied upon for factual information.
• Link 3 is also a persons own personal homepage, as provided free by Impulse. Again, this contains their thoughts, not factual information. Indeed, the person freely admits that they dislike Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) schemes, despite them being illegal. As such, this also should not be used as a reference.

I would agree with Arzel that there are few articles about matrix sites that are truly neutral. This is the whole point of having this debate and mediation, as the Wikipedia online encyclopedia would be one of the first sites to contain such an article. The information provided by Cyberama.info cannot be accepted as truly neutral as it was written by someone with a vested interest in them - just as matrixwatch.org cannot be accepted as neutral as they were setup specifically to stop them "by any means we can".

The term "matrix" does NOT come from "The Matrix" movies, as has been suggested by Arzel. Instead, the term matrix is also known as a table. A matrix in this particular sense contains content usually of names of people, and sometimes with the date these names were added to the matrix. Other matrices known are those used by computer magazines when testing equipment, as an example. A matrix is the same thing as a table, containing a list.

"it is my opinion that the paragraphs added by Cybertrax do appear to be unnecessary emphasis on the legality of lotteries - this is an article about matrix schemes, not lotteries as a whole." I will try to explain why this is not correct. Both in England and the USA, it has been agreed by official bodies that a matrix scheme operates as an illegal lottery (court system in USA as per EXExpo, Department of Trade and Industry in England). Therefore, my comments about lotteries relate to how a matrix scheme can operate legally as a lottery. I would like to point out that as an attempt at compromise I deleted the portion on lottery aspect from the main article, simply linking it as a reference point. I feel this should stay as it is a key example of how matrix sites can be legal. In my version I also made a point to point out that others disagree with this.

Although it may be hard work to follow all discussions on this Talk page, you will see that many people have tried to correct this article to become true neurtral POV, but have been abused and heckled by others - including Arzel. They have then usually given up as there is no reasoning with them. You can see the reasoned arguements used both on this Talk page and also the mediation page, and the personal comments/uncivil behaviour that occurs as a result. It is hard work when others fail to follow the rules.

I note that Arzel has requested that we do NOT start the process of building this page up from the beginning, I am unsure why this is so. The article as it stands has been altered and corrupted out of all recognition, and is the reason why I asked for mediation.

Cybertrax 11:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

1. A matrix is basically a Peter pays Paul arrangement. The underlying math is applicable, but probably not very useful for this article.

2. Blog or not it is further evidence to the nature of the Matrix scheme.

3. Again, further evidence to the nature of the Matrix scheme.

I make no claim that these should be used as references, more to the fact that with the exception of Cybertrax's info, everything I have found on the internet has what he would view as a negative light. The truth is that Matrix schemes are most likely illegal in most if not all countries, and even if they have not had specific judgements against them, most level-headed individuals view them to be scams and probably illegal.

This is a basic problem with trying to provide a "neutral" viewpoint on the Matrix Scheme. Most people view them to be scams, and almost all published articles also consider them to be scams. Furthermore, the OFT considers them to be illegal lotteries as do certain jurisdiction within the US. Cybertrax's logic would have you believe that since they are considered illegal lotteries that some action could be made to make them legal. However, this is not a cause and effect relationship, there is not some action by which they are caused to be illegal, it is their very opperation which would make them illegal.

A similar annalogy could otherwise be made for illecit drugs like cocaine. Cocaine is an illegal drug, by Cybertrax's logic one could argue it is only illegal in the manner which it is used. If I used it as ballast in a hot air ballon it would not be illegal, since it's only purpose is to weigh down the ballon. But then one could argue for what purpose does it serve?

The meaning of the word Matrix is not well served by Matrix sites, nor the matrix scheme. In mathmatical terms a matrix is usually defined as an 2-dimmensional table with more than 1 row and 1 column. Matrices are typically used in Stocastic Processes, Operations Research, Statistical Analysis, and other math because of the ease of calculating complicated functions. A 1 by X Matrix is typically called an array, thus a matrix list should be called an array list, but that doesn't sound quite as cool, even the MLM description of a matrix is not properly used in it's defintion of X by Y matrices for their downline. In the general sense a matrix is any collection of information in some ordered sense, thus the term can still be applied, even if those applying it don't understand that they are using it for the wrong reason.

The orginal Matrix sites were not called Matrix sites, to be sure they used a Matrix list, but it was the popularity of the movie "The Matrix" from which many sites labeled themselves as Matrix sites. This was evident in there design and the names of many post EZExpo Matrix Sites.

I ask to not restart the process because it serves no purpose. The Matrix Scheme has been well defined, Cybertrax's only purpose is to confuse the issue and twist the meaning to serve his poorly defined lottery example, and try to remove the natural negative light associated with these types of scams. He claims there are many, yet there seems to be really only him. Where, I ask him, are any published news articles which provide anything resembling a positive light on the matrix scheme? All published news articles to this point have painted a "negative" light on the Matrix scheme, by this logic he should argue that none of them are neutral or usable.

Arzel 14:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I will stop you right there; remember to WP:AGF assume good faith and recognize that all of us are here to build an encyclopedia and improve it in some way. Remember to focus on content, not the contributer. All personal attacks do is change the topic from the matter at hand to something irrelevant that will go nowhere. I will not be rewriting the article, instead, I would be glad to take the lottery information (it is relevant to the article in some points) and try to rewrite it so it retains a neutral point of view, and then I will post it here to see if you agree with it. Is that alright? Cowman109^Talk 15:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some changes in my sandbox (see diff). I removed the wording "it is worth noting" as it does not seem to be in an encyclopedia tone. However, I looked over the list of lottery laws, but in my opinion as a third party I think that constitutes original research. It should still be possibly to elaborate on why matrix scheme operators say they are operating legally, using sourced information of course. Could you please propose what exactly you'd like to change about the version of the article in my sandbox? I've copied the current article there to avoid an edit war on this article :) Cowman109^Talk 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Changes/Additions -

I propose my (Arzel) version be used as the base. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-27_Matrix_Schemes, but if that is not acceptable then here are some of my current thoughts.

Introduction -

It should be noted that Matrix Schemes are also referred as Ladder, Escalator, Elevator Schemes. It should be noted that the Model is Non-sustainable. Either it should be noted that most consider these to be scams related to Pyrmaid or Ponzi schemes or that most people buy in thinking they are actually purchasing a spot on the list from which they will recieve a free "bonus" item without understanding that their probability of recieving the item is very low.

Operation -

The operation should be expanded and rewritten following my operation on the medcab page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-27_Matrix_Schemes That description is neutral.

Legality -

The connection to Pryamid and Ponzi schemes should be made. Especially the connection to Ponzi schemes which are mathmatically identical (Ponzi schemes many times refer to their list of investors as a matrix, and the aspect by which a person moves through as cycling through the matrix, or moving up the ladder, escalator, ect.). It should also be noted that PayPal and other payment processors have specific language which forbids the use of their services for Matrix sites, and that these agencies also group Matrix sites in with Pryamid and Ponzi schemes. It should also be noted that if the price of the item to join the matrix is more than a person would pay for the same item without the matrix, then it is illegal and referred as a token item according to the FTC. I will look up the reference for that.

Arzel 17:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that having two separate versions between two parties will not get us very far as each party will prefer their own over the other's. What we need here is a compromise: a merging of the two versions. I think that both versions seem to put emphasis on either the good side or the bad side of Matrix schemes. Would you be interested in going one paragraph at a time to see if we can come to some sort of compromise, starting with the opening? Cowman109^Talk 17:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This shouldn't be a matter of compromise. Wikipedia has a relevant policy. Allow me to quote Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Giving "equal validity"

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

This is a non-negotiable policy. If the only people who think that a matrix scheme is sustainable are the operators (and presumably the suckers) of the schemes, we need to say that. We also are allowed to weight the size of the text dependant on the size of population holding the views: minority views get a minority of the text! Just because someone with a STRONGLY HELD minority view registers a wikipedia name doesn't mean we have to give more weight to that view! Fieari 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said. I admit I did find it odd that there is no information at a glance that says matrix schemes are widely regarded as scams, which is an easily sourcable statement. A the moment we have one version emphasizing that matrix schemes are a good thing and avoids its criticism, and one that focuses more on its downfall. The information that these matrix schemes are often regarded as private lotteries and may sometimes be considered to be legal is also a sourcable statement that could be mentioned, as well. There are some valid points in both versions, which is why I say content from each could be included in the final version. Cowman109^Talk 18:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What? Have you read through the references on the article page? The OFT is quite blatent in how it feels about Matrix Schemes. Additionally all the news articles are obvious in their feelings that Matrix Schemes are illegal. I think the problem here is that a Matrix is basically a pryamid/ponzi scheme simply being called by it's component and not the scheme for which it is known. Arzel 18:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think both versions could still use some changes. Looking through your version, Arzel, I think there are still some things that could be changed. There is too much explanation on how a Matrix scheme works that doesn't appear to be presented in an encyclopedic tone, such as referring to the reader as 'you'. Nonetheless, Fieari's comment is indeed very true. I think what would help a lot in this situation would be an outside opinion to see if we can attain some sort of consensus about what direction the article should be going in, yes? Cowman109^Talk 19:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I am confused. Are you saying the anti-matrix point of view is in the Minority? I agree that an outside opinion would be nice. I am not sure where you will find one at this time. The Matrix scheme has all but been effectively eliminated from the Internet, so you would have a hard time finding a neutral outside source. One thing you have to remember Cowman, is that the Matrix Scheme was devised as a way to rip people off, do not fall into the trap that this was some misconcieved business model gone awry. Untold thousands of people have lost money over these schemes during the past few years. You are correct that some parts of the entry should probably be more in line with a traditional encyclopedia article. Arzel 20:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the direction of the article, that is quite simple in my opinion. The Matrix scheme is a scam closely related to Pryamid and Ponzi schemes. It treads a line of legality by selling a product of marginal value to avoid being called directly a Ponzi. They have been prosecuted as illegal lotteries because of the chance nature regarding recieving the bonus item, and that this was a more clearly defined illegal action. There have been several news articles relating to the scam nature of Matrix sites. There have been official warnings from the OFT labeling Matrix Schemes as a top scam. There is specific wording within PayPal prohibiting the use of their services with Matrix sites and the like as well as most if not all other payment processors. Arzel 20:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is myself that is confused! This should be a rather simple mediation process, yet it seems to have somehow become more complicated. Maybe it would be best to cut through the chaff and summarise it.

There have been in the past and currently still is a disagreement over the content of this article. Many people in the past have tried to alter this article (see history) only to have their edits reverted by others, and called "vandalism". Many others have tried to reason with the others using the Talk page (see Archive) but have given up when faced with illogical behaviour. I am one of who has stayed with this discussion/article over 12 months, and have seen this activity first-hand. After the latest bout of "vandalism" with Samoyed, I decided that enough was enough, and I took action. This involved firstly asking the advice of an administrator who recommended mediation, and then my asking for mediation.

You have a vested interest in having Matrix Schemes viewed as legal when most people do not, this why you continue to argue. I don't see why you view your vandalism as appropriate when there is no logical reasoning to validate them, where you view the correction to them as vandalism. Arzel 14:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the descriptions of it, I agree that my proposed arguement about matrix schemes operating as private lotteries CAN be classed as original research. However, I would liek to point out that the only statement in the article itself does not state this as fact, but merely as a viewpoint by some - which then links to the article in question. Therefore, I feel this follows the Wikipedia rules as there is no original research within the article itself.

I would like to point out that I am not the only voice in the wilderness attempting to restore the neutrality balance. Anyone looking at the Talk and Article history will see that many people have come and gone trying to add their voice to the discussion - and then got fedup with trying to reason and disappeared. I can supply many comments from many people who are happy with matrix schemes, and have provided favourable comments. It is also important to realise that it is human nature that more people will make a comment when they are unhappy, than those who are happy. People are more inclined to complain about something, but those that are satisfied do not feel as strongly and so may not make comments. This would be why it is possible that there are more unfavourable than favourable comments. Matrixwatch.org can vouch for this - there are both good and bad statements/comments about matrix schemes on their website.

I would find it acceptable to have a comment in the article stating that matrix schemes have some similarities to ponzi schemes and pyramid schemes, as long as it is made clear that although similar they are in actual fact NOT the same and have been recognised as such by various government organizations such as the Office of Fair Trading. Some matrix schemes have been sued by individuals through the civil courts for operating as an illegal lottery, but I have not heard of any that have been prosecuted in a criminal court, neither have I heard of any successful court case in England. I would like to point out - again - that my lottery arguement only applies to those based in England, I cannot speak for laws in other countries.

I feel that there should not be mention of Paypal for several reasons.

• 1. If one mentions Paypal then one should also mention other payment processors in order to avoid any mention of favoratism. This would detract from the point of the article, making it longer than it otherwise could be.
• 2. Paypal not allowing matrix schemes does not prove that they are in any way illegal or immoral or to be viewed in any way negatively. They also do not allow a long list of businesses including multi-level marketing, money transfer sites, adult material, adult entertainment, gambling etc. All of these trade legally but are unacceptable to Paypal.
• 3. Holding Paypal as an example of what is and isnt "proper", this puts Paypal as the moral compass. I feel this is not right, as Paypal are often getting into trouble themselves. One example is when they were themselves sued in a class action which ended in them settling out of court for $9 million. Paypal canot be used as part of the moral compass, as they have behaved improperly in the past.
• 4. Making mention of any payment processor lengthens the article. An encyclopedic article should be concise and to the point, and I think that this detracts from the point of the article, while making it longer than is necersary.

I agree that perhaps we should take this article one part at a time, and hopefully this will mean that we can move on with mediation quicker than it has done so far. In the past 4 weeks of mediation we do not seem to have got very far!

Cybertrax 18:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I admit I was a bit confused as I was not quite up to speed. Usually, going one article and paragraph at a time is best, else we find ourselves dealing with too much at once. You guys know much more about this than I do, however, and I have had no prior knowledge of these matrix schemes before coming here, so I'm just trying to help guide you guys to some sort of solution. It is my belief that in general, strong citations to state pure facts are the key to solving disputes. Also remember that I'm just an informal mediator, not a formal one by any means (That's Medcom's job). So... since you guys seem to know where we're going, what's the first step, you think? :) Cowman109^Talk 19:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You're asking me?!

Basically, there are two different opinions on what the article should say. Two differing versions have been written, and I have asked for external 3rd party mediation to help reach a concensus on how the final ONE article should read. I asked for this, as it appears that the differing parties are unable to reach a concensus on their own. We need a third party to mediate between us.

And you are asking US what we think should happen next?!!  :)

Cybertrax 19:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that both of the suggested written versions have some sort of bias to them that still needs to be worked on - Matrix schemes are indeedly widely regarded as scams, so that should be mentioned, I believe, though remember we are not here to warn people about them - just to write an informative article concerning them that retains a neutral point of view. The problem in having just one person rewrite the article, though, is that someone's subconscious bias may get put into the rewrite (not to mention the other party would inevitably have something against it for the reason that there is a dispute in the first place). I think we should go one step at a time and first workout a layout for the article if we do intend to rewrite it - but we should rewrite it together as opposed to separately. For example, there should obviously be a brief intro, but what subsections should we have? Cowman109^Talk 23:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I think there should be six separate sections. These would be,

• 1. Introduction/Summary - stating a concise description of what a matrix scheme is
• 2. Operation - how a matrix scheme works in more detail
• 3. Ethicality - the ethics (or lack of) involved in a matrix scheme
• 4. Legality - how matrix schemes do/do not operate within the law
• 5. References - the various material used in the above
• 6. External Links - links to other websites containing relevant information not already used regarding matrix schemes

I have added ethicality in order to try and reach a concensus - I know this is something that Arzel would like. I hope that we can agree on this format.

Cybertrax 13:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• 1. I have already proposed my introduction.
• 1b. A history of Matrix Schemes would also be useful.
• 2. The operation I have proposed is precise in the detail of their operation.
• 3. As with all scams there have been no ethical operation of them.
• 4. While not completely defined, the lottery example is not definitive proof of a legal way to operate a Matrix Scheme. After reading the Wiki Original Research section, I see how the Cybertrax lottery example does fall into this category. This example seems to provide factual information on how to run a Matrix Scheme legaly, yet it is based on a personal interpretation of the UK laws and does not follow how myself or others would define the laws, therefore it is not useable in this format.

Regarding the comparison to Ponzi and Pryamid schemes, the OFT does make the comparison. The only difference between them is in there marketing. The underlying math is the same, however some aspects of the implementation are different.

Cowman, what is it that you feel is biased about my version? My goal from the beginning has always been to inform people as to how the Matrix model is the same as both the Pryamid scheme and the Ponzi scheme.

Example using a 2 wide model.

Pyramid:

• Level 1 - 1 person (Recieves money or goods from all or most people directly below them)
• Level 2 - 2 people (Pay to top level and recieve from below)
• Level 3 - 4 people (Pay to top two levels and recieve from below).

and so on.

Ponzi:

• Level 1 - 1 person (Recieves from next level one time)
• Level 2 - 2 people (person 2 recieves from 4 and 5 of next level, person 3 recieves from 6 and 7)
• Level 3 - 4 people (person 4 recieves from 8 and 9.......)

and so on.

Matrix:

• Level 1 - 1 person (recieves from next level on time)
• Level 2 - 2 people (person 2 recieves from 4 and 5 of next level, person 3 recieves from 6 and 8)
• Level 3 - 4 people (person 4 recieves from 8 and 9.......)

and son on.

In a matrix people recieve a good of value instead of the cash from the next level once the next level is filled. In a Ponzi people recieve their investment in a predetermined amount of time so long as the next level is filled.

Matrix schemes tend to be more long lived than Ponzi's because there is no predetermined amount of time built into the model.

Pryamids usually alow downline builds which don't require a complete level fill, so the number of levels in a pryamid are usually much greater before they reach a point of saturation and stagnation.

The math is unquestionable, they are all the same. Those that join later pay those that join early. Eventually the number of people makes it impossible to move. Arzel 14:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the mention of Paypal is very useful. For one, their acceptable use policy groups them directly to Ponzi and Pryamid schemes. http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/ua/use/index_frame-outside&ed=rich_quick It is also notible that they have specific language about Matrix Schemes. It is clearly a point of reference, and not favoratism as Cybertrax has mentioned. Arzel 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, my opinion is that Cybertrax's version puts too much emphasis on the fact that the legality of matrix schemes is questionable, and I feel yours does read more like a warning to readers (and you did say you are trying to warn people about Matrix schemes). We must remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to warn people of Matrix schemes. I still think we can take parts from each version, though looking through them again it seems that the legality section is the one that needs the most collaboration. Here's a nice quote from WP:NPOV that might help us a bit:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.

So, one thing that I think both versions are lacking is a description that Matrix schemes are widely regarded as scams (Insert source here). Sentences could be explained simply like that, though I feel that the long explanation of how a matrix scheme works and the short warning that the reader should not expect to get a 'bonus item' in some Matrix schemes does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia, as it should not warn readers of certain things. So, given minor changes are done to each version and are combined in some way, would you both be willing to come to some sort of compromise that way? I would gladly see if I can get an example version by combining bits and pieces from each version into one, though we will still need to work on the legality section I believe. If you agree to this, we can scratch the whole rewriting process as that may simply take us back to this step again :) Cowman109^Talk 15:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Have you read the linked news articles and statements from the OFT? Please respond to this question I have asked it several times. Arzel 17:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I must also disagree slightly about the warning aspect. There are several other articles on Wiki that give similarly worded description which could come across as warnings. Including Ponzi Schemes and HYIP among others. Perhaps there should be a more general collection under internet scams with liks to all the main types and the basic operations for each Arzel 17:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It does appear that the main view is that these schemes are clearly scams, and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight does state that we should explain viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each, so you are indeed right that there should be an explanation of how it's regarded as a scam. Nonetheless, Wikipedia is not here to warn people of the scam, but it is to simply explain what it is and why it is regarded as a scam as stated by reliable sources. The viewpoint that matrix schemes are not scams can also be addressed, but that belief should of course not encompass the entire article. And yes, I did read the linked news articles - sorry for not answering that earlier. I'm not saying we should simply take random paragraphs from both of your versions and put them together, but each merging should be carefully weighed to determine if they properlly represent a neutral point of view. I could try doing this and see what you think about the merged version if you'd like, which is why I'm trying to get at. If we don't have parties in a dispute willing to reach some sort of compromise, then mediation usually fails. Does that clear things up a bit? Sorry for taking so long to reply, as well. Cowman109^Talk 19:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me, I just wanted to make sure you realize the connection that Matrix Schemes have to several other scam related Wiki articles. After reading some of the other articles, many of which I was not even aware of until today, I think it will be difficult to not appear to be partially a warning regarding these scams. Regardless of how the article is put together, because of the various news articles and stance from the OFT, it will either give an appearance of a warning or slight approval to Matrix Schemes. So by all means put together your neutral formation of the atricle. Arzel 21:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears as though people are ignoring many of the points I make! First of all, I stated 4 reasons why I felt Paypal was not a suitable reference for this article - none of which have been answered. Secondly, Arzel has not actually followed instructions from the mediator correctly. We were asked to start this mediation by agreeing to the number of sections, and their titles - Arzel has failed to do so. Rather than jump in straight away with arguements about the content of the article, would it not be advisable to agree on the names of the sections themselves first?!

I added the section "ethicality" in order to try and be helpful and compromise to Arzel - I am more than happy to take this back out if it is not required. I feel that the "legality" section is important as not only is it part of the current article, but it is important to point out that the legality of matrix schemes has not been decided in a court of law. In Arzel's version, they would prefer to infer that matrix schemes are illegal, without providing proof of this. In my version, I have tried to be neutral by pointing out both sides of the coin - some people claim they are legal and others dispute this. This is about as neutral as is possible!! I have already made my case above as to why these commenmts should be in the article - there is no original research in the article itself - the original research is held in the referenced webpage and so keeps within Wikipedia rules.

It should be obvious to all - I am more than happy to work with everyone to try and reach a compromised article that is acceptable by all. This is, after all, the reason why I asked for mediation in the first place! Perhaps if we start as originally requested, and agree on the number of sections in the article along with their titles??

Cybertrax 22:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I have no problem with sections. I have already stated there should be an

• 1 Introduction
• 2 History
• 3 Operation
• 4 Legality
• 5 References

Ethics aside, this will be subjective and probably not follow Wiki rules. Thus probably does not require its own section. As it is I don't think I have made any request for a ethics section. A simple statement toward the end that almost all individuals purchasing into a matrix scheme will not recieve the bonus item is sufficient.

The problem with your research is that

• 1 The way it is worded implies that it is legal under that format.
• 2 It is original research, the link is to your own website, which is most definately not neutral, just because you don't state it word for word in the article doesn't change the fact it is your research. If you could provide some actual documents which back up your claim seperatly it would be a different story. The opposite is not true because there are offical documents from the OFT describing the scheme and how it is illegal.
• 3 All existing information regarding Matrix sites would lead most people to believe they are illegal, thus any neutral write-up from that point of view would be viewed as POV by Cybertrax even though it is not.

If you want to make a statement that you think they are legal simply state as I have that some people claim they are legal, but don't make the statement that some claim they are legal lotteries under certain situations. This is clearly only your POV and clearly your own research into the matter. Arzel 01:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am currently trying to work a new version of the page here. Of note, looking through the history section, it appears to consist mainly of original research and as such should probably not be used as such unless cited, published information is provided. As for the rest of the content of the article, it can probably still be shortened a bit to state the facts concisely. So, just so we can get started, could you please start making suggestions on specific changes we can make to that page? Also, if either of you can find direct sourced information, adding the link would be helpful. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 03:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for being away for a while - I have been busy at work. I have to say I disagree with much that has happened whilst I was away, as it seems that unconfirmed statements are being considered for the article. I also disagree with much of the article as written by Arzel. I have already pointed out several factors in my analysis, which appear to have been ignored. I feel that it is not beneficial to work solely on Arzels version, but instead to work on a 3rd PROPER official version that can be adopted by Wikipeda and is agreed by all.

I shall make a further comment below about the content of the article that is being considered.

Cybertrax 19.46 8 August (UTC)

Comments for article - Arzel

Introduction:

• 1 The model is non-sustainable.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press+releases/2005/161-05.htm These schemes are unsustainable and will eventually collapse to the detriment of many people. They can also undermine consumer confidence in e-commerce. The OFT's targeting of mass-marketed scams is an important part of its work of making markets work well for consumers'.

• 2 The value of the "bonus" item is of greater value than that of the token item being purchased

http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press+releases/2005/161-05.htm Mobiles4all Ltd promoted a 'matrix' scheme (see OFT consumer alert December 2004) promising people the chance of getting valuable 'free gifts' such as mobile phones and ipods by purchasing a low value product costing £20 - £35,

• 3 Matrix schemes are also commonly considered to be Ponzi or Pryamid schemes.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3078957 But Flynn and his imitators think they’ve found a way around the Ponzi label. Entry into the matrix is a free gift, they say, attached to the purchase of a real product. On many sites, the product is a set of electronic books; others offer digital photographs, vacation packages, pens, cell phone antennas, even Barbie dolls. But in each case, the lure appears to be the chance to walk off with a high-priced item like a $4,000 television with only a minimal investment

Operation:

• 1 Matrix Schemes operate much like Ponzi schemes.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3078976 The ethical concerns came, Kurt said, because operating a matrix site is uncomfortably close to running a Ponzi scheme, a form of fraud in which early investors are paid off with money from later ones.

• 2 The operation needs to be reworded a little bit. More people joining does not change the likelyhood of recieving an item. The probability is somewhat independent. In a typical scheme of size 50, 50 people are needed for the 1st person to recieve a free item, an additional 50 are needed for the 2nd person. 2,500 people are needed for the 50th person, but to say the probability changes is not quite correct mathmatically since in a 50 person matrix the probility is always 1 out of 50 regardless of the number of people. It is true that eventually you run out of enough people to "cycle" anyone else however.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3078976 “If people are really buying the opportunity to obtain the laptop, obviously most people can’t do that,” Kohm said. “Only 2 percent of the people could get a laptop, if you’ve got to have 50 people under you. That means 98 percent of the people have to fail.”

• 3 It is not possible to use outside revenue to move people through the list. If you get an infinite number of people in the list it would take multiples of infinate money to purchase their items from outside revenue.

History:

• 1 The Primary Matrix scheme was started by EzExpo.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3078957 EZ Expo and its founder Damion Flynn started the matrix craze in April (2002) of last year. Flynn said that by January, some $800,000 had poured into his small computer shop in Gulf Port, Miss., where he operates the site. Other entrepreneurs took notice, and imitators flocked to the concept. Now, nearly 200 matrix-style sites are in operation. Dozens more have opened and closed since January (2003).

Legality:

• 1 In most cases the item for sale could not be reasonably sold for the amount asked.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3078957 “If people are really buying the opportunity to obtain the laptop, obviously most people can’t do that,” Kohm said. “Only 2 percent of the people could get a laptop, if you’ve got to have 50 people under you. That means 98 percent of the people have to fail.”

But Flynn and his imitators think they’ve found a way around the Ponzi label. Entry into the matrix is a free gift, they say, attached to the purchase of a real product. On many sites, the product is a set of electronic books; others offer digital photographs, vacation packages, pens, cell phone antennas, even Barbie dolls. But in each case, the lure appears to be the chance to walk off with a high-priced item like a $4,000 television with only a minimal investment.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3078976 Kurt, who operated B-and-K.com, said the electronic books purchased by many participants are essentially worthless, and certainly can’t generate self-sustaining revenues.

“Most of those e-books say you have full resale rights or giveaway rights,” he said. “Most probably were obtained for free. And if people know how to look around the Internet, they can get the same e-books for free.

“I don’t believe any sales (on my site) were generated based on the e-book,” he added. “People were putting their money in to win a prize.”

• 2 If people are buying purely for the chance of obtaining an item of greater value it is probably illegal.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3078976 Free gift a common tactic But that’s a common tactic for con artists trying to circumvent the law, said James Kohm, assistant director of marketing practices for the Federal Trade Commission.

“Simply calling it a gift doesn’t change the nature of what you’re doing,” Kohm said. Steven A. Richards, a lawyer who represents multi-level marketing companies for Grimes & Reese in Idaho Falls, Idaho, said there often aren’t clear legal tests for Ponzi schemes. But if the product sold has no value or very little value, and consumers wouldn’t buy it without the attached free gift, the scheme probably runs afoul of federal and state laws.

“Are people who are paying $100 really getting something of value in return for that $100, or is it some means to disguise the scheme, that’s the question,” Richards said.

• 3 Most people think they are actually buying the "bonus" item.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3078976 Last week, there were over 100 eBay auctions serving as thinly disguised ads for the various matrix Web sites. Most promised deeply discounted plasma televisions — listed with prices as low as 99 cents — and appeared under eBay.com’s plasma TV listing. And in some cases, ponzi schemers are using eBay to recoup their investments by selling information on matrix systems.

References:

• 1 The "How Matrix Schemes Operate legally" is not a reference. This is the same link as provided by Cybertrax's pro-matrix POV.
• 2 Matrix Watch is a Consumer Protection Website, and should be labeled as such.

I will add some when I have some more time. Arzel 22:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed some of your concerns and changed the version of the page in my sandbox, though I had difficulty including some of the information, namely numbers 2 and 3 on your operation points. Feel free to propose how to rewrite that section entirely, as I do agree that it is quite confusing as it is (feel free to edit the sandbox as well - it's better than edit warring in the articlespace, at least :) ) Cowman109^Talk 23:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I must be off for a few days, but I should be back on Sunday. Feel free to propose more changes in the meantime. Cowman109^Talk 22:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I like much of what you have put together and will put forth a proposal for 2 and 3 of the operation. I will also be gone for the weekend, so no worries. Arzel 12:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh! Well, it seems this page has drifted down my watchlist and no discussion has occured in my absence.. well people are obviously still having some issues with this article, so can we address any further problems in my sandbox version of it? Or should we go ahead and replace this article with teh sandbox version and see where we can go from there? Cowman109^Talk 21:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, have been really busy the past week. I have just made a few changes to the oepration on your talk page, but didn't make the footnote conversion that Fieari mentioned. Let me know what you think of the operation aspect. Arzel 22:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

An issue I see with the changes is that it refers to the reader, by using 'we'. Perhaps it could be changed to be in a more encyclopedic tone. The key, however, in coming to some sort of compromise rewrite, is to have references and citations. I will gladly help convert the new style into footnote style, though. Cowman109^Talk 23:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have converted it to footnote style, but the tone of the changes will have to be addressed. Cowman109^Talk 23:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There's something about the extensive use of examples in the revamped version of the article that seems a bit off. Perhaps we should avoid going step by step to explain how a matrix scheme works and give examples to the user - is a matrix scheme's operation not already explained in the paragraph before the examples? If anything, the article could use more citations to confirm that the information within is not original research. How does that sound, Arzel? Cowman109^Talk 02:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This article http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3078976 gives a very similar example as to how a matrix site works. I was trying to provide a better description without making the article excessively long. The previsous article does explain a little, but without an example it can be difficult for most people to understand that the list grows longer in a linear fashion. Perhaps you have some better insight on how to word the operation. As for the rest of the article I am satisfied with the wording. Arzel 02:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded the example opening slightly to no longer refer to 'we' (which innapropriately addressed the reader). Are there any other concerns about the new version of the article? We seem to have lost the other half of this dispute, which isn't too good when we're trying to come to a compromise, heh. Cowman109^Talk 03:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what you were talking about, I didn't even notice the 'we' which you had mentioned. My only other concern is the citation needed for the legality section. It is probably hearsay, even if it is probably accurate. That comment had been made by a number of matrix site owners during the early days of the matrix scheme collapse and was intially intended as an excuse to blame matrix watch for their demise. However, I am unaware of any published articles making that statement. As it is, it was initially put in by matrix site supporters, I personally didn't care because it was probably true, but it could probably be removed or changed because of the lack of citation. I don't know what happened to Cybertrax, but you are right that it makes it somewhat difficult to come to a finalization. It seems that Samoyed is still interested, but he/she has not been willing to make any suggestions as of late. Arzel 04:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments for article - Cybertrax

I edited this bit as I didnt understand what had gone on in my absence - now I do.

INTRODUCTION (Elevator Scheme, Escalator Scheme, Ladder Scheme)should be edited to say, (also known as a Matrix Site, Elevator Scheme, Escalator Scheme or Ladder Scheme).

is a non-sustainable business model [1] - non-sustainable should be taken out as it is unsubstantiated. The reference given relates to the OFT chairmans comments, but has been taken out of context. In actual fact, they were commenting on TWO specific matrix schemes that the whole article was about - not all matrix schemes. As such, this reference should not be used.

Matrix schemes are also commonly considered to be ponzi or pyramid schemes. [2]. - this sentence should be deleted as it is misleading. They are NOT considered to be the same as ponzi/pyramid schemes - this is a lie brought up by anti-matrix people. They have been stated as different by the OFT, the DTI, Paypal, Nochex amongst others. If this sentence were to stay then a further addition should be made pointing out that this is a misconception.

This is not a lie. Please read this article http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3078976 There are several mentions to the comparison to Ponzi sites. The non-link to ponzi and pryamid schemes is a lie to decieve by matrix site owners. Arzel 13:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Site owners claim that such schemes are legitimate, though they are often regarded as illegal lotteries [2] - this should be reworded. Instead of site owners, it would be better to state supporters. Also, often regarded should be changed to say sometimes regarded.

HISTORY I think this should be reworded as follows: The first known matrix scheme has widely been accepted as EZExpo.com, which started the popularity of Matrix Schemes in 2002 [2]. Shortly afterwards many others started up, including tymglobal - owned by the same people as Stormpay, the payment processor. In 2003 more than 200 matrix schemes were in operation, and although many have since ceased trading there are still over 100 known to be operational around the world.

OPERATION This part of the article could be better if it were condensed to be shorter. The quote by Steven Richards has once again been taken out of context and is not a direct quote - we have already discussed this issue and agreed that if a quote is used it must not be altered in any way.

LEGALITY This needs rewriting to be gramatically correct.

some matrix sites may claim that they declare themselves to be a private lottery, and thus operate legally. Opponents of matrix schemes declare this not to be so. - this needs a reference point added to, pointing to www.cyberama.info. It has already been pointed out that as the content of the reference is not directly used in the article it is acceptable to be used in the article - even if considered original research.

In 2003 EZExpo and several payment processors were sued for running an illegal lottery in the state of California, with the payment processors abetting the scam.[5] [6][7] - it should be pointed out to everyone that this court case is still ongoing after 3 years, and so any outcome cannot be determined at present. The EZrxpo court case should not be used as a case in point, as it has not finished.

Although there is some disagreement on what the actual result means, payment processors no longer deal with any company running a matrix site - As has already been discussed at point, this statement is misleading. Payment processors have a long list of business's they do not wish to trade with - this in no way proves that they are illegal or immoral. Payment processors also refuse to deal with money transfer companies, adult entertainment, adult material, gambling and many more. I feel that we should either take this sentence away altogether, or add the above facts to the sentence - otherwise it is misleading to other people.

NOTES/REFERENCES I am unsure why there is two separate sections, in my opinion there is no need and instead should be condensed to one section as it was originally. I would like to point out that if the cyberama.info article is used as a reference as per my comments above, this should be added here.

EXTERNAL LINKS Matrix Watch.org - A consumer protection site dedicated to stopping matrix sites. Cyberama.info owned by MatrixWatch Ltd - A pro-matrix viewpoint. I believe that the description of matrixwatch.org should be changed. They are not protecting consumers as they are biased - they do not provide impartial advice. Instead, I would recommend the wording "An anti-matrix viewpoint".

I hope that this is what we were meant to do, comment on the article in the sandbox.

Cybertrax 20:32 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made some of your changes, but didn't remove the sourced link about matrix schemes being considered ponzi schemes - however it appears to be misquoted from the msnbc link, so I reworded to state that they are sometimes considered to be similar to them. I reworded the 'claim that the schemes are legitimate' sentence, expanded the history section, I added the reference you gave above and reworded the section to be more gramatically correct, mentioned the trial was still ongoing, removed the questionable sentence for us to continue that discussion here, removed the second references section (it is unnecessary with the footnote citations). I also changed the description of the external link to match that of the other external link so neither is highlighted more than the other. So, then. Let's discuss! :) Cowman109^Talk 20:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Its definately coming along!

INTRODUCTION I am happy with it.

HISTORY I am happy with it.

OPERATION The quote by Steven Richards is misquoted. The correct quote should be, "Steven A. Richards, a lawyer who represents multi-level marketing companies for Grimes & Reese in Idaho Falls, Idaho, said there often aren’t clear legal tests for Ponzi schemes. But if the product sold has no value or very little value, and consumers wouldn’t buy it without the attached free gift, the scheme probably runs afoul of federal and state laws."

LEGALITY However, several matrix sites have shut down whilst defending lawsuits, such as the legal action taken against the EZExpo.com. [citation needed] - legal should be substituted with civil.

In 2003 EZExpo and several payment processors were sued for running an illegal lottery in the state of California, with the payment processors abetting the scam.[6] [7][8] However, the trial is still ongoing. - sued should have the ammendment; sued in the civil courts. The word trial should be substituted for the words civil case. Question - is abetting the right word to use? I feel that this is too "sophisticated" a word, and perhaps we should dumb down a bit, use a similar word such as "helping".

Apart from spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, it looks like coming along nicely.

Cybertrax 23:19 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There is enough "dumbing down" in the world, please do not change this from abetting. Arzel 23:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Converted to Footnote style

I changed the inline citation method to footnote style. Click the link if you have any questions. Hopefully, we can make all our references inline this way, so every claim is backed up immediately. Fieari 18:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Samoyed

Samoyed. Please leave the article as it stands. If you have points you wish to discuss please do so here. The article under current consideration is here.

I have reverted the article back to how it was when mediation first started. It was altered a few days ago by Fieiri, and then changed back by Samoyed. I can see that the best option would be to rvert back to the original and so this is what I have done. Until mediation is complete I feel that the article should not be altered. I hope others agree. Cybertrax 19.39 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I must again state that the matrix model is non-sustainable. The reference used was not making a specific statement against those two matrix sites. It was a general reference to this type of scheme. Arzel 23:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole article was a press statement about ONE company and its matrix scheme, mobiles4all. "The OFT has obtained undertakings from Mobiles4all Ltd, and from Lewis C Bryant (company director) and Jonathan Darch (company secretary), under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002." Therefore, he statement by the OFT chairman will also have related to these individuals, their limited company and the matrix scheme they operated. As such, the statement should not be used out of context against ALL matrix schemes.

Cybertrax 23:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

From the OFT release.

The nature of matrix schemes means that the number of members waiting for a 'free gift' always far exceeds the number of 'free gifts' awarded. Even though both sites offered participants the opportunity to move themselves up the waiting list faster – for example by recruiting new members to the scheme, buying further products or by signing up for third party services – the OFT contended that a participant's success in influencing their position on the waiting list was dependent, for the vast majority of those taking part, on what other participants did.

This is clearly a statement against all matrix schemes, not just those that were shut down.

The title of the media press release article should give us a clue - "Matrix website scheme stopped by OFT". The word scheme, without a plural s, should indicate that this article was about one scheme in particular. Perhpas Cowman would like to examine the article and mediate this point for us.

Cybertrax 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Although the title is in reference to one specific matrix site, the release doesn't make specific statements as to why just that matrix site was illegal. It makes specific references as to why all matrix model sites are illegal. You should be happy that I am not pressing that issue further, but as it is the OFT clearly states it thinks matrix schemes are non-sustainable, and that is the title of this article. Arzel 23:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition we have this statement from James Kohm, assistant director of marketing practices for the Federal Trade Commission. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3078976

"Without a viable product that can generate revenues and profits on its own, any Ponzi-type structure is doomed to collapse, and that’s why they are illegal, Kohm said." More evidence that they are non-sustainable in general. Arzel 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Change the following line "though they also sometimes regarded as illegal lotteries" to "though they have been regarded as illegal lotteries" Arzel 13:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Legality

The reference (number 5 to the cybertrax site) is original research, and by wiki rules cannot bot be used as a reference in this format. I am fine with the Cybertrax site as an external link, but not as a reference explaining legality. Arzel 23:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia rules make it clear that original research should not be used on Wikipedia articles. This is why the lottery arguement was deleted from the article itself, and instead referenced from a separate webpage. This IS acceptable according to Wikipedia rules. If you disagree, perhaps you could quote the Wikipedia rule that says so, along with the appropriate link?

Cybertrax 23:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You are referencing your own work as a reference to the legality of Matrix sites. In any case the reference is misplaced. Arzel 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is a reference to the viewpoint by some pro-matrix people, and as such should be allowed. Who has written the actual reference article is irrelevant - after all, you yourself Arzel have written numerous articles on matrixwatch.org. By your reasoning this would mean that matrixwatch.org could not be referenced as you have written some of their articles - is this what you really mean?!

I agree with you, it is misplaced - the reference point should be at the private lottery comment and not later on at the opposite arguement sentence. That is something for Cowman to sort out, along with the various spelling mistakes/grammar problems in the article. It is in my view a small point compared to getting the jist of the article agreed by all.

Cybertrax 23:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What "some" people? It is your site and your research. The Matrix Watch link describes how the mathmatical operation of a matrix site works. Are you saying that is not how they work now? It has been stated in several of the articles already as well as in the description of "how this works" of every matrix site I have ever seen. You are using your own conjecture of how to interpret the lottery laws of the UK, which I find most incredulous considering the OFT shut down matrix sites violoating the very laws you are trying to manipulate to show they are legal. If you want to have your own link to how matrix sites work mathmatically go ahead, but using the reference in the form you have is clearly original research into the laws of the UK.

Additionally, nothing I have written is linked specifically from the Matrix Watch site. Arzel 23:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, my belief as a third party is that the reference would indeed not be appropriate. However, it is a good point to mention that by WP:AUTO both of you are dealing with a conflict of interests as you are both affiliated with an organization that is either for or against matrix viewpoints. Nonetheless, we have made a good deal of progress. I have made a few more changes to the sandbox version of the article and included a mention that the OFT considers the schemes to be unsustainable (it appears to be an opinion, and delving into interpretations of sources to determine it is fact may be borderline original research. So, are there any other further qualms with the sandbox version? Cowman109^Talk 00:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and everyone seriously needs to stop reverting the article, please. We are coming close to a complete rewrite, and full protection of the article so we can't put in the rewrite won't help. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 03:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't completely agree with the weight given to the pro-matrix point of view, I accept the re-worded introduction, and other sections. I can't think of any other suggestions at this time and am willing to accept the current sandbox article. I will make no more changes to the original article. Although I am guessing the discussion is not complete, thanks for your contributions Cowman109. Arzel 04:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - Cybertrax, are there any further problems you have with the sandbox version of the article? Cowman109^Talk 05:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with the content of the sandbox version. Once the spelling/grammar are corrected it will, in my opinion, be ready. I feel that this is a good thing we have done, creating an impersonal neutral piece from an opinioned piece. My main worry now would be how to stop others from altering it in the future - we can all see the most recent alterations by Calton and subsequently Samoyed. I do not know how this could be stopped - some people do not have the respect for others that we all do. Thanks too from me to Cowman109, and also to Arzel - who despite our differences and disagreements has 'stuck it out' until we have a concensus.

Cybertrax 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have taken one last look at the article, and the history section needs to be re-worked. I didn't notice the statement that over 100 are currently in existence. Any way to verify that Cybertrax? If that statement is going to stay then it must be added how many are no longer in existance and that most are no longer in existance due to violation of Payment Processor TOS. Arzel 12:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Our records as of July 2006 have 29 open and over 650 closed sites. Although Open in this case simply means their website still resolves, how many of these still operating is questionable. In any case, the statement of 100 seems to be personal opinion and not factual. Arzel 12:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I will remove the mention that there are still 100 as it's not verifiable and it isn't crucial to the understanding of the article :). Cowman109^Talk 17:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Another final note, guess I was too tired last night. The description for Matrixwatch is not acceptable. We are a consumer protection website. We are biased against matrix sties, but that is not relevant since we provide consumer information. Additionally we have been labeled a consumer protection website by several other news organizations and groups through our other work. I will accept the term anti-matrix site if the description for Cybertrax's site removes the "Owned by Matrix Watch ltd." The only purpose of that title is to confuse.

I am going to take a another look today to see if I have missed anything else. Arzel 13:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the extended title of the second site. Is that fine? Cowman109^Talk 17:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

History

The reference to tymglobal needs to be removed. Or else it must be stated that Stormpay was sued as part of the EzExpo case and as a result droped the matrix model and also will no longer also matrix sites to use their payment processor.

Sorry for the late changes, but many of the "small" changes suggested by cybertrax clearly put a positive spin on the matrix model. Arzel 13:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the sentence Shortly afterwards many others started, including tymglobal - owned by the same people as Stormpay, the payment processor., as your statement will require verification (it can always be added after we find a source to the article if we replace it, first). Cowman109^Talk 17:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

To verify the stormpay/tymglobal statement, there is a reference to the Tymglobal being "under common ownership and/or control." in this article: http://www.theleafchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060208/NEWS01/602080335/1002, that should probably be a decent reference for the above. Let me know if you agree.Jokach 16:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of that connection. Nor was I aware that Tymglobal and Stormpay had been accused of running a Ponzi scheme. Arzel 17:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Last minute changes

I have made the changes of concern above and copyedited the article, so are there any last minute issues we have with the article? User:Cowman109/personalsandbox is the link, in case it's hard to find in all this discussion. :) Cowman109^Talk 17:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything else, thanks. Arzel 14:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like the history section to be reinstated due to Jokach's reference provided for tymglobal/Stormpay. I actually knew this information from posts made on matrixwatch.org, but an independant reference is very useful. The statement was, "The first known matrix scheme has widely been accepted as EZExpo.com, which started the popularity of Matrix Schemes in 2002 [2]. Shortly afterwards many others started up, including tymglobal - owned by the same people as Stormpay, the payment processor. In 2003 more than 200 matrix schemes were in operation, and although many have since ceased trading there are still over 30 known to be operational around the world." I would suggest that the reference provided by Jokach be used and added to the list of references, along with a footnote number at the appropriate place.

I have reduced the number of matrix sites still trading to 30. This is because the conservative number is verifiable from the matrixwatch.org website showing active matrix schemes, but some of the sites they show as non-trading are actually still available - including my matrix site. I think it best not to mention the statement about WHY some of them ceased trading, as we have no verifiable way of knowing this.

Under the Operation there is the following, "In most cases, the token product alone could not be reasonably sold for the price listed". I ask that the word "most" be changed to "some".

Apart from these three points, the article - although not ideal from my point of view - is acceptable as a neutral piece.

Cybertrax 18:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made the above changes. Arzel? Your input is requested once again :) Cowman109^Talk 19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The history should be re-worded slightly, but I am not sure how the connection to tymglobal is even relevant, there were several matrix websites shortly after ezexpo, the only relevance to tymglobal is the stormpay connection. however, this connection is pointless unless you go into the aspect of the ezexpo legal case and how stormpay was connected and accused to be running an illegal ponzi scheme in concert with they tymglobal company. If anything that whole story could be its own article as it has a pretty rich history itself. Shortly after PayPal began to stop allowing matrix sites to use them as a payment processor a matrix site decided to develop its own payment processor to avoid the legal problems encountered by ezexpo, subsequently Stormpay backstabed the matrix world by cutting off the world that created them.

As for the number of active matrix sites, this serves little purpose, however if it is to be used, then it should also be noted the number that have been shut down. By the same arguement this could also be a conservative number as there are probably many that closed up that few people know about. Arzel 19:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Under the Operation, the "some" should be MOST, because this was the case in MOST situation, which is why MOST matrix sites no-longer exist. Arzel 19:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for the HISTORY. The first known matrix scheme has widely been accepted as EZExpo.com, which started the popularity of Matrix Schemes in 2002 [2]. By 2003 more than 200 matrix schemes were in operation, including TymGlobal which was owned by the payment processor Stormpay. Subsquentally TymGlobal and Stormpay were accused to be running an illegal Ponzi scheme [new citation]. Stormpay later claimed to be independent of TymGlobal and no longer accepts Matrix sites. The current number of Matrix sites in the world is not accurately known. Since 2003, over 650 Matrix sites have ceased to operate. While some 30 or more sites may still have a visable pressence, not all of these sites are actually doing business at this time. This is a much more accurate description of the history and the connection to TymGlobal. Arzel 19:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What if I changed the wording in operation to 'many' cases, as the mainstream view does seem to be that the majority of matrix schemes are bad for this reason (based on the lack of news articles supporting them)? Also, I don't quite understand the TymGlobal issue, so you two will have to discuss that - Cybertrax, how does Arzel's version of the history section sound? Cowman109^Talk 19:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Many" is fine with me. Arzel 19:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with all of the article except the revised History section - I think that could be reworded slightly. I think perhaps it would read better as follows:- The first known matrix scheme has widely been accepted as EZExpo.com, which started the popularity of Matrix Schemes in 2002 [2]. By 2003 more than 200 matrix schemes were in operation, including TymGlobal which was owned by the same people as the payment processor Stormpay. Subsquentally TymGlobal and Stormpay were accused to be running an illegal Ponzi scheme [new citation]. Stormpay later claimed to be independent of TymGlobal and they no longer accept matrix schemes. Although many have since ceased trading, there are still over 30 matrix schemes known to be operational around the world.

The reasons for these minor changes are as follows.

I included tymglobal originally as I felt the History section was lacking, and needed more information. tymglobal was started up BEFORE Stormpay; the payment processor was only started up in order to facilitate processing of payments after their original choice stopped their usage. This is why I changed the emphasis from saying Stormpay owned tymglobal - not true - to the fact that both were owned by the same people. I have also deleted the statement regarding how many matrix schemes have stopped trading, as I beleive this to be unverifiable. If this can be verified I would be happy for this to be added. I have also altered the final sentence regarding operation but not trading, as it read in a negative light, and was unsubstantiated.

I hope this is acceptable. If this can be agreed, I think we can publish it as a finished article!

Cybertrax 20:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to use 30 as the number currently operating, and use partially the Matrix Watch figure as a basis then we should also include the number that are no longer operating. In any case this will either have to be cited through matrixwatch or droped completely. Also, the term "operational" is a loaded term, since not all of those sites that are still visiable are actually taking new customers or updating their site. For all intensive purposes they could be said to be closed, but they still have addresses resolve. Finally, there is no way to "Know" that all of those sites are operational. Arzel 21:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The number 30 was used by myself for very good reasons. You yourself have stated that 29 matrix schemes are still operational - a figure drawn I believe from the matrixwatch.org website. As my own matrix scheme - www.cyberama.net - is operational but classified as non-operational by matrixwatch.org (why I do not know!), then 30 must be the minimum number of matrix schemes operational currently. As stated before, this is a conservative number - I personally believe that there are far more but this would be unverifiable without some intense work verifying all known matrix scheme domains.

To include the number of matrix sites that have ceased trading would be hard if not impossible - there is no proof that any domains that would be claimed by anyone were ever matrix schemes. If domains have expired, there is no evidence that either they ever existed or what their content consisted of. Therefore, I feel it is unverifiable to state any given number of matrix schemes that may have ceased trading. Stating that many have ceased trading is the best solution, in my opinion.

In my mind, the term "operational" regarding a website would mean that it was viewable and that it is possible for it to operate. Therefore, any matrix scheme that is able to take payment should be regarded as being operational. www.dictionary.com defines the term as, "Fit for proper functioning; ready for use". I would have to say that as both Arzel personally and matrixwatch.org have stated that they 'know' 29 matrix schemes are operational, it is silly for them now to backstep and try and say that there is no way to 'know' these sites are operational.

Would it be of additional help in the History section to include details on Gotmatrix? This was also a very well-known matrix scheme that is apparently still operational and trading - and is one of the older websites too. Greg, the owner, is still answering emails - when he chooses!

Cybertrax 21:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd much rather replace this article sooner rather than later, so I removed the number to just state that there are still matrix schemes operating around the world until specific figures can be found. Can we replace the article with the version and then work from there? Cowman109^Talk 21:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am happy for the sandbox version as it stands to be used as the definitive article. I am still concerned, however, that others may edit this at later dates, and so all our joint efforts will have been in vain.

Cybertrax 22:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is a Wiki, so they are welcome to edit it, but the talk page is here for you to discuss controversial edits that may come up :) Cowman109^Talk 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I stated "Operational", my term was that 29 sites still resolve their IP address. Now there may be a few that still resolve that we have listed as not resolving, but they are in the minority. Additionally, just because they resolve doesn't mean they are actually in operation. The first one I checked listed no way to contact them or even recieve payment. They listed that you should buy the item through "Buy it now" on eBay, but there are no auctions on eBay's website, and even if their were they would be against eBay's TOS. Furthermore this site gives ebooks for purchase, and the top 5 names on the list are for the same person (kind of takes away the point that the product being purchased is actually worth anything, I mean who would pay $500+ for the same ebook 5 times?). The second site I checked hasn't been updated for at least 5 months, and still advertises an early purchase for Feburary. So I ask are these sites still operational or are they just there in name? Even your own site has recorded no sales on the matrix side for some time, and I believe the 3 names you have are made up anyway because they used to be names of Matrix Watch members. As it is I don't have a problem using 30 so long as it is made clear that their are over 650 that no longer resolve (which takes into consideration both your site and any others that we may have missed). The point is that are very few matrix sites which appear to actually be doing business. Arzel 23:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based off of verifiability, so unless we can find an external source that gives the exact numbers, it would be best not to go out using original research to come up with an estimated figure. The sentence already states that 'many' have been closed and that there are still some in existence. Could it be left at that unless a source pops up that gives specific numbers? Cowman109^Talk 23:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that you/we will ever be able to determine an exact number, however, my statistical background would lead me to believe that the numbers quoted are correct, at least within a statistical region. That said I don't have a problem with leaving actual numbers out of the sentence. The only request I would have is that the 'many' be replaced with 'most'. It is quite clear that over half of all previously existing matrix sites are no longer in existance, even if we hare missing many of them. From our estimates over 90% of all matrix sites that have existed no longer resolver their IP addresses, even if we are an order of magnitude incorrect, there would still be well over half of all matrix sites no longer resolving, which is 'most' by definition. Arzel 06:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The only reason there has not been much activity with my own matrix scheme is simply that I have not been advertising, and this is my own fault. I plan on changing this soon, and I hope that the number of customers will increase as a result. As I am happy to leave the numbers out of the article - in the interests of compromise and getting this article finished - I see no reason to argue this point any further.

My main problem is with Arzels insistence on using the word "most" in the article. They want most, and I wanted "some" - Cowman mediated and compromised to the word "many", which in my mind should be acceptable to all as a 3rd option and a good compromise. My reason for not wanting the word "most" to be used is simple - it is misleading. Arzels latest statement is that if over half of matrix schemes have shut down this is classed as "most" of them. An interesting point is that the word "many" is actually the adjective of the word "most", as shown on www.dictionary.com. Therefore, Arzel should be content for the word "many" to be used. My opinion is that the word "most" should not be used. I would prefer the word "some", but will be happy to have it replaced with "many".

Cybertrax 12:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromise does not mean simply taking the middle ground all of the time, especially when that middle ground is incorrect. This has been one of my biggest problems in working through this process with you over the past couple of months. You insist that we mediate to the middle on everything, when the middle (from your point of view) is simply factually incorrect much of the time. My problem with the word "Many" is that it does not provide the reader with the information that over 90% of all matrix sites are now closed. Most implies the greatest degree or extent. There are only 2 options for matrix sites, either they are closed or resolving (either not actively operating or at least giving the appearance of operating). Of those 2 options, closed is by far the greatest degree, therefore by definition the most. Many, by defintion, is simply a large number, but you lose the magnitude of what that many means. Some is an unspecified degree, which is even less information about the actual extent. We know for a fact that well over 200 existed at one time (this was reported). We know for a fact that far less than half of all sites that have ever existed are now closed, thus the greatest degree of current operation is closed, which is Most. Mediation is good, but to simply accept a middle ground that is incorrect to make a couple of people happy is pointless.

Most

1 : greatest in quantity, extent, or degree <the most ability>

2 : the majority of <most people>

Many

1 : consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number <worked for many years>

2 : being one of a large but indefinite number <many a man> <many another student> - as many : the same in number <saw three plays in as many days>

Some

1 : being an unknown, undetermined, or unspecified unit or thing <some person knocked>

2 a : being one, a part, or an unspecified number of something (as a class or group) named or implied <some gems are hard> b : being of an unspecified amount or number <give me some water> <have some apples>

3 : REMARKABLE, STRIKING <that was some party>

4 : being at least one -- used to indicate that a logical proposition is asserted only of a subclass or certain members of the class denoted by the term which it modifies

You clearly prefer the term "some" becuase it gives a more positive view of matrix sites, however the adjective "most" is correct in all cases because all of my information has dealth with the majority of situations.

Arzel 13:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for posting the above information - it makes it easier for me to make my point. You are correct in the reasoning asto why I like the term "some", the fact that it makes the facts look in a more positive light. Likewise, this would be the same reason you would like the term "most", because it puts a negative spin on it. As we have been collaborating on a NEUTRAL article, the third option - as suggested by the mediator - was the neutral "many". As stated above, the definition of "many" is consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number. I feel this is accurate as no-one is able to say with any certainty how many matrix schemes there have ever been, or how many have closed down. Therefore, it is a large number but unknown - indefinite. This is why I am happy to accept the mediators suggestion to substitute "most" for "many".

Cybertrax 13:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I have written. We do know that most Matrix sites are no longer in existance, there is no personal spin on this, it is purely the correct verbage to use. I am sorry that you cannot accept the truth on this matter, but your attempt to make it neutral (in your eyes) provides a positive POV on the article. My personal preference for the verabage for these situations would be to use the phrase "almost all" in place of "most", thus my choice of "most" was already a compromise toward a neutral form. Since by our calcuations over 90% of all previously existing matrix sites no longer exist, those remaining are a statistically insignificant compared to the total, and thus almost all matrix sites no longer exist. By the same logic almost all matrix sites were in reality selling the bonus item and not their token item for consideration into the matrix list. However, I have accepted long ago, that the verbage of "almost all" was too contensious for the few matrix supporters, even if it is true. Which is why I accept the "most" verbage. As to your final point, we do have statistically certainty of how many matrix sites their have been. I really don't know why you are arguing this point. It is clear your only goal is to provide a POV on the verbage. Arzel 14:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that over half of all matrix sites are still in existance and or operating? This would be well over 300 matrix sites, if so where are they? Why is there presence missing from their forums and ebay. Arzel 14:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be having a disagreement over ONE word - is it really all that important?! Will your life be changed forever if one word is not quite to your taste?!!

I would like to bring your attention to one of your comments made earlier:- "Many" is fine with me. Arzel 19:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC) So perhaps you can explain to everyone why you have suddenly changed your mind??

Cybertrax 14:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it is to you! Your whole basis for this discussion has been over a couple of words. Taste has nothing to do with it, correctness does. Apparently you feel taste is more important that being correct, making all sides happy more important than being correct. This is not a good way to view the world.

The "Many" to which you are referring is in OPERATION and referring to the number of sites which sell token items. Although I believe it to be true that most did sell token items, it is immpossible to verify this iformation as most sites no longer exist thus it is immpossible to determine which token item they were selling, unfortunately we did not keep good records of the token item being sold at all of these site. Although I would prefer "most" in this situation there is no way to verify that it was the majority, even though it was. In regards to the number of sites still in operation, we do know that it is far less than half, and are quite positive that it is less than 10%.

Perhaps you can explain to me why you choose to take my comments out of context, and why you refuse to acknowledge that most sites are no longer in existance. Arzel 16:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Phew! A lot happens in a few hours. Remember that we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to put a negative or a positive outlook on the article. After looking over the reasoning, Arzel does bring up a good point that we cannot find a middle ground on everything and Wikipedia is to state things in a neutral point of view. The fact of the matter is that most have been closed down. I don't think that fact can be denied. Already I must remind you that other people probably would have shooed you both away from this article for WP:AUTO problems, namely that you both have a conflict of interest as you have subconscious biases when it comes to this article. It is usually best to get third opinions from unconnected people on what the best wording is. I think, as a third party, that most does put it in the clearest light as it is true given the information (though a citation would settle this once and for all). But that's just it - a citation. We could interpret data and then post what we make of it, but that would be original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such it needs sources. Unless we can find a source that explicity writes that most matrix sites have closed, it may be best to use the slightly more vague 'many'. Arzel, does that sound reasonable? Cowman109^Talk 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that I believe that the Matrix Model is nothing more then a thinly veiled Ponzi scheme, to say that I have a personal conflict of interest in the same light as Cybertrax is unfounded. My primary interest in this issue is mathmatical, as I have a BS degree in Statistics and a MS degree in Operations Research. Cybertrax, on the other hand, has a financial interest in the Matrix scheme being presented in a positive light, I simply wish to provide a factual and mathmatical based entry on the model and the math behind it. However, because of my affiliation with Matrixwatch, all of that factual information becomes instantly branded as POV and the actual facts of the matter are ignored with the new direction being a moderated middle ground. This begs me to ask what is the point of even having an entry if it is skewed so much as to no longer be of any factual use? I have already made several concessions regarding this issue because even though I can mathmatically show it is identical to a Ponzi scheme, because it has not been presented in any journal or news article it gets viewed as POV or original research. I wish that I could find a specific doucment that states "A matrix is a modified Ponzi" however, that is not the way the FTC or other government agencies work. To them there is really no such thing as a Matrix. The operation would define it as a Ponzi because of the value of the token item, but that connection won't be allowed to be directly made because of the original research aspect of Wiki.

All you have to do is ask yourself the motivation behind why this is even an arguement. Cybertrax is against anything that would state how matrix sites fail on an almost universal basis, plus how they are directly related to Ponzi schemes, not because he believes this to be false, but because it makes his matrix business look bad. My motivation is to simply state the truth about this model and provide evidence that they do fail almost universally, and that the math behind them can never work, there are decades of ponzi examples to back this up, but yet it is viewed as POV because it speaks truthfully about the nature of these schemes, and those that would benefit are upset about it.

I stand behind my statement. Most (almost all) matrix sites have failed, there is no vaugeness to this. If Cybertrax could provide evidence to the contrary then I would change my mind.

I will be out of town for the weekend, so do what you must, I am tired of aruing this subject. Arzel 18:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

One final note before I head out of town. I just went through most of the master list of sites we have that are still resolving. Of them, it looks like only 3 (including Cybertrax's site) are currently updated. A couple of them are not actually matrix sites for this discussion, they are actually MLM's and I am not sure why they are in our list (I didn't compile the list). At least 15 of them haven't been updated in over 2 years. Another 5 or so don't appear to have been updated for some time given the product lists they have (including gotmatrix and moveonup), but it is difficult to know for sure because they keep their information locked up. Based on this, it would appear that most of those still resolving are not actually doing business at this time. Feel free to look at the list yourselves. http://www.matrixwatch.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1282

Arzel 20:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This does seem a little surreal, considering we are discussing the choice of ONE word! I would like to make two points - in fact, I want to just REmake two points as they have already been stated in previous conversation.

1) Arzel has kindly given descriptions of what each word means, above. The word that seems to best fit is "many", as it is used in a situation where the number discussed is an indefinate number ie- the quantity is unknown. This would seem to be appropriate here, as no-one is able to come up with a defnitive number of matrix sites that have ever traded, or ceased trading.

2) As I have said earlier, www,dictionary.com states that the word "many" is actually the adverb of the word "most". Both words are related to one another, and therefore are interchangable.

I still feel that the word "many" is the right word to be used - especially as it was the mediators suggestion.

Cybertrax 21:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and add the rewritten version of the article into the article - I trust that we can discuss this afterwards as it merely concerns one word, but the simple fact is that Wikipedia is based off of verifiability, so we will need a source that explicitly states the number that have been closed. If anything we could discuss this further and simply remove the questionable sentence or rewrite it completely. There are always options. :) Cowman109^Talk 21:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Cybertrax, If you are of the belief that the words are interchangable then why do you have a problem using the word "Most"?

Cowman109, MatrixWatch is the resource which has information regarding the number of Matrix Sites no longer in existance. You will find no other source of information regarding the number or names of sites which have existed in the past. If we are going to use Matrix Watch as a resource that there are some still in existance, then I don't see the problem using Matrix Watch as a source for the number no longer in existance. By the logic put forth thus far, the only site which is confirmed to be operating is Cybertrax's website, so perhaps the statement should be "As of this time there is only one matrix site confirmed to be operating." You can't have it both ways. Arzel 20:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

With both Arzel and I have done some grammar correction, the article is looking rather good. I personally am happy with what is currently there, and I hope that others are too.

Arzel, I have explained why I prefer the word "many" to your chosen "most". I have copied it again in order to stress my point; The word that seems to best fit is "many", as it is used in a situation where the number discussed is an indefinate number ie- the quantity is unknown. This would seem to be appropriate here, as no-one is able to come up with a definitive number of matrix sites that have ever traded, or ceased trading.

I am not sure why there is a problem with stating that matrix schemes still exist. Unless there are verifiable facts to the contrary, it should be acceptable. After all, there is no verifiable proof online that I exist - but I know that I do! We have verifiable proof that they did exist at some point, and with the absence of verifiable proof that they no longer exist, it is logical to presume that they still exist. This arguement could be used with a persons life. We know that they were born by referencing their birth certificate, in the absence of a death certificate it is logical to presume they are still alive. That is, of course, unless we are able to prove verifiably that there is a certain life span and that it would be illogical that someone would live past this span. Even then, it would simply be conjecture and therefore not allowed under Wiki rules. Back to the point; as we know matrix schemes did exist in the past (referenced by several media webpages)and that there is no verifiable reference to say they no longer exist, it is logical to believe that matrix schemes still exist to this day. To believe otherwise would be illogical.

I am afraid that I am not very knowledgable about Wikipedia rules/regulations; perhaps there is a standard already made to follow with this type of thing.

Cybertrax 21:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY states it nicely - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth." Cowman109^Talk 21:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a basic question regarding the debate we had about the link/reference footnote for cyberama.info to do with the private lottery aspect. I have been looking at a few WP rules, and under AUTO it had this; Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves . . . so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources. I am unsure if I am reading this correctly, but it seems to me that this statement would indicate that the website link could be used?? Like I said, I am unsure on this, so am simply asking for clarification.

Cybertrax 22:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more of an issue of WP:AUTO if one is personally involved in an external link. It is frowned upon to add links one is affiliated with, for example. Cowman109^Talk 22:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)