Talk:Axact

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

Server

For those who are interested in detailed hosting data, 184 of the sites are hosted through Hosting Lance / Singlehop,Inc.[1] (list of sites via MYIP.ms)

Diploma mill

Nothing in the NY Times article says that Axact is a diploma mill. A diploma mill is a real institution that offers illegitimate degrees or diplomas. According to the Times article, Axact's "organizations" are not institutions at all; they're nothing more than legal fictions associated with websites. Calling them diploma mills is inaccurate and a disservice to real diploma mills. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"fake education empire"? I like it... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bit
WP:EDITORIAL-ish but at least it's accurate. My preference would be to avoid contentious labels like this and say it's a company that has created hundreds of fake high schools and universities. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not sure I agree that "diploma mill" is so off target, though. "Real institution" is a slippery idea; I'm not sure Axact is any less "real" than others in this category. It's a different business model, but the idea is the same: pretend to offer education. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most diploma mills offer real education services, except that they're inadequate or inferior. They hire faculty, though that faculty may be underqualified. According to the Times, this is a different beast, as these "organizations" hired paid actors to pose as faculty and, as I understand it, don't run any courses at all. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But if the education is inadequate, then it isn't really "education" -- and if the faculty are underqualified, then they aren't really "faculty". I do see the differences you're pointing to -- I'm just not convinced they're important. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
YO 😜 03:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I got that definition from our article on diploma mills. It's supported by dictionaries such as m-w and wiktionary, and Webster. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fineness of that distinction doesn't really exist. People use it in practice to deride any institution issuing bogus credentials. Anyway Axact's institutions are as real as Saint Regis University, another non-institution that's perhaps the best-known diploma mill until recently.142.232.98.47 (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red links

Do we really need links to all the various universities? It looks bad that they are redlinked, and it seems doubtful that many may continue on (and develop coverage independent of Axact) now that they've been exposed. I'm going to unlink the ones without pages if nobody objects.

YO 😜 03:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Agree, these aren't notable so they shouldn't have redlinks, per
WP:RED. It will be very tedious to strip them all. I left Thue a note asking them to do it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@
YO 😜 05:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
External links, if they exist, are pretty handy for research, but wiki links are needless.142.232.98.47 (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Degree mills website to add in the article

  • Raeford University [2]
  • McMilla University [3]
  • Nixon University [4]
  • Internation Online Studies [5]
  • Job Offers fake website1 [6]
  • Job Offers fake website2 [7]
  • Job Offers fake website3 [8]

fake checker for all their fake universities http://www.globaleducationbureau.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anochka-sambal (talk • contribs) 18:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC) (Fixed fomatting. Abecedare (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC) )[reply]

reliable source explicitly saying that a website is run by Axact then it should not be included. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Humarinews.com

This is a blog.[9] It should not be used as a source as it fails

talk) 20:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

It's almost surely the same person adding the links from IPs 39.48.119.146 (talk · contribs) and 39.48.196.49 (talk · contribs). Just someone spamming what is likely to be their own blog. Abecedare (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article coverage

This article was recently tagged with {{

TheMesquito: who added the tag. Abecedare (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

"Self-identified"

The prefix "self-identified" has been repeatedly added to the Pakistani software company description in the lede sentence. While I understand the motivation behind the addition, I don't think it is needed since:

  • A WSJ article (which is essentially a recap of NYT's investigation) uses that qualifier, but most sources, including NYT don't [10], [11].
  • As written it is not clear whether the qualifier applies to the adjectives Pakistani or software.
  • Also per
    WP:NPOV
    , it is best to describe why the company's claims are suspect rather than try to assign labels.

For these reasons I am removing the adverb for now. Can discuss further if needed. (Pinging @DChinu:.) Abecedare (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universities

I believe that the list of Universities is completely unnecessary, as it relies on only one source, most of these institutions aren't notable, gives

WP:NOTADIRECTORY. I'd welcome the input of others on the matter, but for now I'm removing it. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I believe the list is due and worth retaining since though it is sourced to a single NYT article, that happens to be the single best and most comprehensive source on the subject and has been cited by hundreds of other news articles. The alternative would be not mentioning any of the universities (as is the state after your deletion), or mentioning a select few (which will be somewhat arbitrary and possibly contentious). I would tend to agree with you if the article were unduly long or the lists were affecting its readability, but as its stands that's not the case and the fake front organizations are really the central reason that Axact itself is so notable. Finally, the university names are useful redirect and search subjects; see this and this AFD. So I would prefer restoring the lists, but will wait for other editors to weigh in. Abecedare (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with Joseph2302. In addition to Abecedare's comments, the fictitious nature of each and every one of these organizations is highly noteworthy to anyone who encounters these websites, or for that matter, to anyone considering getting a diploma or degree (a good chunk of our readership). Our
notability policy is only about whether these organizations merit standalone articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I also agree that the list belongs in the article. The main reason is that a key source itself includes that list. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very handy list.142.232.98.47 (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Software company

reliable sources
indicate that Axact is in fact a software company:

  • Declan Walsh (May 17, 2015). "Fake Diplomas, Real Cash: Pakistani Company Axact Reaps Millions". The New York Times.
  • Imtiaz, Saba; Walsh, Declan (20 May 2015). "Pakistani Investigators Raid Offices of Axact, Fake Diploma Company".
    New York Times
    . Retrieved 23 May 2015.
  • Walsh, Declan (22 May 2015). "Pakistan Widens Inquiry Into Fake Diplomas".
    New York Times
    . Retrieved 23 May 2015.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a pretty one-sided case - the sources perfectly support the old formulation "Pakistani software company that runs numerous websites selling fake academic degrees". The New York Times straight up says that Axact does sell some software, citing former employees. Thue (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To Quote the NYT article "Axact does sell some software applications. But according to former insiders, company records and a detailed analysis of its websites, Axact’s main business has been to take the centuries-old scam of selling fake academic degrees and turn it into an Internet-era scheme on a global scale". So if a company's main source of revenue is selling liquor and it makes a few calendars that it also sells would you call it a printing company or a liquor company ? Engine Gone Loco (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The very same source calls Axact a software company, as do the other two sources (which, I might add, were published by the Times after the source we're discussing). These sources haven't been contradicted by other reliable sources. Doesn't that end the discussion? We're talking about
verifiability, right? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Reverse wikibombing

I find it quite interesting that an unregistered IP account from Karachi was recently used to tweak the names of the fake universities. This appears to be a sort of reverse

wikibombing to hide our article from consumers. Currently our article sits as the #1 hit in Google for some of these fake universities (e.g., Arab Continental University). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Could be, but since this clear vandalism we don't even need to speculate about the motives. I have blocked the latest IP for 31 hours. If the problem persists beyond what can be handled by simple reverts and blocks, we can request semi-protection (I am too involved to protect it on my own, since such protection would effect non-vandals too). Abecedare (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just think it's fascinating. I've never seen anything like that before. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True on the first part (lucky you, on the second part :) ). Frankly, I am a bit surprised that a company that obviously knows how to create fake online profiles hasn't made a greater effort to influence this page's content through mean-puppets. Guess, the wikipedia page is not their main concern at the moment given the numerous official and legal inquiries. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been keeping an eye on the article, and there have obviously been bad-faith edits and attempts at whitewashing. But there is only so much they could do before an admin such as me ultimately just restricts edits to administrators. Their potential power is in number of sockpuppets, but that does not help them when we simply delete anything without reliable sources. Thue (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fake diplomas scandal addition

Since the page is page is locked, would it be prudent to add a scandal that happened in Milton, Vermont where the superintendent of the school system was caught having a doctorate from one of their "colleges" (specifically from Woodfield University)? Sources are as follows: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2014/09/17/milton-superintendent-degree-questioned/15796619/ http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/an-essex-company-grades-online-degree-programs/Content?oid=2430906 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:190:4000:8428:3F3B:3EDF:C5FC:A4A8 (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems too tangential to me. Neither of those sources mentions Axact. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assume there are literally millions of fake diplomas which have been issued, and that a non-trivial percentage of them have been used to secure jobs. A superintendent of the school system seems like a relatively minor fish compared to what must exist, and mentioning him would probably be out of proportion to his relevance. Thue (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single witness or evidence present

Due to lack of any evidence / witnees , the degendant has been granted bail along with the while company management ,13 officials. Instead of providing any evidence , this whole page is edited on the basis of mere speculation of an article and media trial . Kondly establish any basis for all this stuff thats written down and remove the editing protection so that the real facts and figures can be quoted as per the happening from the court of law . Hasaanzia (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our
verifiability policy establishes what "evidence" is needed to support article content. We have plenty. Check the footnotes. This isn't a court of law. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Paramount California University

reliable source that says PCU isn't associated with Axact. Or, perhaps you can convince the Times to retract its story. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Former prosecutor's home attacked

See [15]. Doug Weller talk 11:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Axact. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2017

Hello,

Being an employee of Axact, I think that Axact's page is wrongly written with false accusations. I'd like to edit this page & add the most relevant & updated information on this page. Request is to change the whole page as it's fully wrong information. All the allegations on the Axact has been cleared & now it's running in Pakistan again, winning the court cases.

Regards, - Zoma Ahmed Shaikh. ZomaAhmed (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per
WP:COI, that's not going to happen. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast Nomo and DB. Zoma, please don't edit the article yourself, but what information do you believe is inaccurate, and can you please point to
reliable sources supporting the content you wish to add? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: the user in question made exactly ten unconstructive edits before running afoul of the waiting period before auto-confirmation that would have allowed them access to the page. Given that the user has admitted working for a criminally fraudulent company, I'm not sure what you're hoping to get out of it. Matt Deres (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged for running numerous websites

The company is being alleged ( accused ), hence its presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond the reasonable doubt, but the author seems in personal war with this company, the NY times has alleged and the Pakistani authorities are investigating the accusations, whereas an ex employee of the company was arrested in US and the US justice department also accused the person for selling degree in individual capacity, please note that according US department of state Umair Hamid was involved in this practice even after the authorities in Pakistan had shut this company. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/pakistani-man-pleads-guilty-axact-diploma-mill-scam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.109.55.139 (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Innocent until proven guilty" may be a feature of the Pakistani criminal justice system, but it's not a feature of Wikipedia. The threshold for inclusion is
reliable source says something, then so can we. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Well Dr. I am not sure if you are dictating your term on this specific article, I am not representing AXACT, but I'd wish you to refer me the features which WIKIPEDIA says for an allegation defined as GUILTY , " Innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt " is feature practiced across the world including USA, oh yes its a term and practice, but lets say as your definition if its a feature, then yes its a feature, here are the links for your reference [1] [2] [3] and this is what wikipedia feature says for your reference Doc, [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.5.134.23 (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.wabash.edu/international/uslaws
  2. ^ http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/videos/innocent-till-proven-guilty.html
  3. ^ http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Innocent+until+proven+guilty
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
I'm sorry, but that's just not how Wikipedia works. I'd suggest you read our
Teahouse. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Website URLs

How do we feel about converting the list of fraudulent schools to a table and adding URLs? Not clickable links but the bare, non-hyperlinked domain names so there's no confusion as to which websites are fake schools. An additional benefit is that it would reinforce that these are websites, not schools. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strange additions by IPs and new users

There have been some users adding universities attributed to Axact, which are not supported by references. E.g. [16] and [17]. A typical entry added is "* Mayford University<ref name="nytlist" />". But Mayford University is not in the list of universities at the nytlist reference.

What is up with that? Thue (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Website list

Most of the websites are no longer in use as new ones have been created, I cant see the point of keeping them. Haris920 (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Hilly

Pro-nuclear power advocate who had a column in the New York Times on April 28th of 2023. Wikipedia serves up the Axact page when her name is used as a search term. Apparently an error. 174.20.177.153 (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axact&oldid=1205544277"