Talk:EBay
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| ProStores was merged into this article. The discussion was closed on 22 February 2024 with a consensus to merge. The original page is now a redirect to this article. Its history now serves to provide attribution for the content in this article, and it must not be deleted as long as this article exists. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the eBay article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives (index): 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
| This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2008. |
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
"Criticisms"
Time to do some housekeeping, especially since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of eBay is happening. First of all, we should not have a "Criticisms and controversy" section at all, per WP:CSECTION: sections such as "Criticisms and controversies" are generally inappropriate.
Given that we have one, this one is full of questionable stuff, some of it now almost two decades old. For example, "Requirement to use PayPal". eBay hasn't owned PayPal for a decade now, and the "criticism" is 17 years stale. "Buy.com" as a controversy? That was 16 years ago; are people still pissed? "2010 survey criticizing eBay customer service". Obviously stale. "Overcharging fees": 13 years stale. "Low tax rate paid in the United Kingdom": how is this a controversy if eBay is adhering to UK law? Oh, there was a security breach a decade ago. "Sale of controversial items" shouldn't even be in there even if we do have this section. "Stalking scandal" deserves its own section; it's pretty unique. Oh, 14 years ago eBay did something silly and banned a silly board game and someone decided it was "pandering to political correctness"...
Let's nuke the whole section. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Jpgordon You make some fair points, but I disagree with some of your analysis. First of all, "it happened decades ago" is not a reason in itself to remove anything. Wikipedia documents history. But it is a reason to distill some things down and move them into their appropriate historical context. Use of PayPal was a significant deal that shaped a lot of the business of both companies in their early days. Rate of tax paid is a controversy because, as sources show, it attracted criticism. The legality of their tax arrangements wasn't the issue, and tax avoidance by multinational companies remains an ongoing controversial topic. Security breaches of online businesses is always a big deal, so the article shouldn't be pretending it's never happened at eBay. Escape Orbit (Talk) 06:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Who said it should pretend anything? But that's a good example of things that should be rolled into the article in the appropriate place (perhaps in a discussion of eBay's technology?) rather than stuck into a list of "criticisms and controversies"; how is it a controversy that someone had a security breach? (And at this point, I wonder what companies haven't had security breaches?) Is eBay somehow special that it some people don't think it's paying enough taxes, or is that just a blanket statement that could be put in absolutely any multinational's article? Anything of interest here should be integrated into the article as a whole, as spelled out in WP:CSECTION. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 02:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
OK, I did some major trimming here. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
LLM usage
EBay has started using LLMs, this needs a section in the time line. It has impacted their customer service and they are offering this LLM service to vendors, so it's in many of the ads, too. 173.222.1.191 (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Fees
Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2025
The page itself is not fully considered secured by vandalism. Someone must do this act right now. MainRecline (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
