Talk:Lenddo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contested deletion[edit]

Well, I was trying to write about their history based on available sources while trying to establish notability--I didn't realize it was starting to sound promotional. I'm researching a little more about them, primarily about their method of determining a person's creditworthiness using only his or her social networks and why they think it's a good idea. I think it's a little insane, but at the same time potentially very helpful especially in my country (Philippines).

If anything, I'm more excited about such a novel idea being born (or at least first tested) in the Philippines. But I am also interested about how things will pan out if Lenddo becomes a standard thing--will we be required to give banks our Facebook accounts in the future? Et cetera. I really wish someone would help me out here.

Blatant self promotion[edit]

The original author of this article is a clearly self-promotional account who returns daily to blank out a section with a properly sourced section on criticism and controversy from a well known media outlet. Consider banning this user from further section blanking vandalism and request they reveal their relationship to the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.229.252 (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a look at your contributions to this article. First of all, on your first edit, you added outright untruths like your "shell company" fiction and referencing a random company from New York (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lenddo&oldid=575651590#cite_ref-4), as well as claiming that the company is "making credit decisions for banks." During that same edit, you sprinkled some loaded words around the article, like "operating in a limited number of developing countries" and "Its stated vision is...," both suggesting that the company is doing something unscrupulous. Upon removal, these never returned.
Now, on to your "controversy" section. You are right about Mother Jones, it's a good website, and you know how to reference, good for you. The problem is you are not only blatantly misquoting the article, but also not being neutral. Number one, if your goal is to truly show the criticism about the startup companies you mentioned (Lendup, Kabbage, Neo, and Kreditech), then when making these claims, for the sake of neutrality, you MUST discuss this in their respective pages as well, which you strangely never do. Number two, let's take a look at the article you're quoting versus what you actually add in the article, and see how much you've taken quotes out of context:
Your edit:
A Mother Jones article published in September, 2013, states the company "may also be discriminating against applicants who essentially appear socially undesirable and cites David Jacobs, the consumer protection counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, who says "Even if the tactics are technically legal, they can constitute a form of 'digital redlining,' he says, referring to the practice of banks refusing to issue loans in poor or minority neighborhoods.
Mother Jones:
But then again this might reveal less than companies like LendUp think, consumer advocates counter. "For you and I to call each other friends in the real world, we'd have to hang out a lot," says Ashkan Soltani, an independent expert on consumer privacy issues and behavioral economics. But "I might follow you on Facebook because you post funny cat pictures."
Neo's use of social media presents a similar issue. The company measures the quality of applicants' LinkedIn connections to gauge their employability. But a LinkedIn profile is not necessarily indicative of the entirety of a person's professional connections.
These new-fangled lenders may also be discriminating against applicants who essentially appear socially undesirable, experts say. Federal law protects consumers from lending policies that discriminate based on factors like race, gender, and sexuality. But discrimination law does not yet cover people who are unpopular.
"There's a general risk caused by using personal information to clarify and sort people and determine who is a high-value consumer and who is not worth engaging with," says David Jacobs, the consumer protection counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Even if the tactics are technically legal, they can constitute a form of "digital redlining," he says, referring to the practice of banks refusing to issue loans in poor or minority neighborhoods.
What is wrong with this? In your edit, you're making it appear as if the article (titled "Your Deadbeat Facebook Friends Could Cost You a Loan") talks specifically about Lenddo, by taking quotes out of context, when the article is quite clearly criticizing the practice in general--and even the article itself does not have hard evidence that any of these companies actually redline anyone, aside from "experts say."
And finally, your controversy section is being blanked out because there is no controversy surrounding this company, or any of the other companies you mentioned. There is criticism about social network-based lending, definitely, but not controversy--those two are not the same--especially company-specific controversy. Some may consider the methods controversial, but even then, there still isn't any actual controversy. Even if you search "Lenddo controversy" in Google you don't get anything.
This is why your section keeps getting blanked--it's full of misinformation, and there is no verified existence of any company-specific controversy, and your only purpose seems to be solely to scandalize this company.Eljeffo9999 (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This is obviously a corporate public relations effort at aggressive self promotion. The quotes and facts in the controversy section are properly sourced and follow Wikipedia style conventions. Please cease your page vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.229.252 (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously did not read any of what I wrote above. Very well. Since you insist on having your information retained, I will let you keep it, but I will give it a more neutral tone. Eljeffo9999 (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article no longer an advertisement[edit]

Article has been cleaned of promotional material and the according issue template has been removed.

No information has been added or removed, so there should be no reversions where grammar fixes or information additions could be made instead. A1Qicks (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lenddo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lenddo&oldid=1201079937"