Talk:Udemy

Udemy Spam, e.g. from Molly Elizabeth

The article should have material on their practice of spamming to attract visitors. I receive valid-DKIM-signed-by-Gmail emails from udemy.com, e.g. molly.elizabeth@udemy.com, that make a spurious claim and suggest I look at some of their site. An example, Molly claims to have come across my site, http://203.178.137.175/pub/linux/docs/lkml/, and saw I was using the kernel.org tutorial and I may like to read their "perfect supplement". That IP address is in Japan and nothing to do with me in any way. Google suggests many are _targeted by the persistent Molly. -- Ralph Corderoy (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not just email spam. For about a year, Quora was flooded with Udemy spam until Quora admins were finally able to get control over it. There were hundreds of puppet accounts used to post off-topic answers linking to Udemy courses or upvoting such spam posts. 162.207.93.85 (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

May 7, 2014 entry

I have just edited some poorly-worded content in a few places, and added some citations to validate statements made, including the "Jack Welch leaving" mention in Criticism section. I also beefed up the introduction to provide a brief overview of what the company does. It previously stated only "Udemy is a marketplace for online learning" which was a minimal and not-very-meaningful description of what the company does.

I feel that all of these edits and additions are completely fair and informative.

April 25, 2014 entry

The attackers have restored the defamatory version of the entry. Legitimate introduction was restored, and critical information was pasted into a section called Criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.0.131.193 (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

We are not attackers we just don't work for udemy and want the wiki page to show case the issues in this company. instead of copy pasting from the Udemy site try to investigate and learn about what's really going on. From Staff members deleting accounts of major teachers, banning users on Facebook groups and deleting and editing courses of teachers. Try to keep it balanced or this tagging will continue.... you will not win by deleting and bullying. maybe you can do it on udemy.com and on your facebook channel but Wikipedia is owned by the users - this isn't the place for you to promote yourself but a place for users to describe the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.102.179 (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I would say this is a place where editors can use sources to create a neutral encyclopedic description of the company. PhilKnight (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Phil i would agree with you on that. The only problem is all information provided over the last 2 months was deleted or distorted and only PR copy that has nothing to do with reality stayed. I personally am all for a balanced page but i will not let 5-10 udemy staffers just delete everything and put all positive rainbow "how wonderful udemy is". facts that relate to students and teachers i'm all for but not PR copy or things that are based off there website as Most people that know the company don't trust there numbers that they publish. there not a public company and many times there information is distorted and not transparent. like mentions of someone making 250k when they made only a net of around 120k and things of that nature.

last but not least - regarding sourcing when a mega company that has 14 million in investor money pays or promotes itself it can easily get a lot of "sudo-reffrences" online but i don't think having 14 million dollars should allow you to paint reality. I'm not the only former teacher that wants people to know about there practices. happy to negotiate a page or have someoen like you medeate as you sound rational compared to the Udemy staffers that are probably the ones editing and have been editing this page since it came to life. PS why do people care about how they raised there money so much so that 50% of the page is invested to dropping links to there site about it? Wouldn't it be more value to have a paragraph about what the site does (factual information) for teachers and students with both sides of the coin? instead of non factual statements that claim there the biggest, best and such... So if you guys want to have a balanced page instead of deleting posts every day then lets talk about it here and negotiate the copy instead of just deleting and replacing it with PR copy. i'm not saying this to you Phill as i think your edit seams balanced its not pro and not agienst its just factual updates and i'm totally fine with that as long as someone else doesn't come and replace your copy with positive spin offs of the company. --Echo2020 (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

April 23, 2014 entry

The poster of the March 24 entry obviously has an axe to grind with Udemy. I don't know what the truth is about the claims made below, but as of this morning the state of the Udemy entry had the equivalent of graffitti smeared all over it. What the company does wasn't even explained, yet there was a lengthy attack in the opening paragraph -- starting with the second sentence. There were numerous claims made, which were unclear, badly written, and without any reference cited.

In fact, the only reference cited by [Attacker/s] was a link to what seemed to be his/her own blog, with more rants about Udemy.

I have tried to make the entry into a NPOV factual description of the company, based on information found on their website.

I also inserted a new section called "Criticism," noting the Attacker's position, with a live link in the text to his/her blog page, where the reader is free to explore any and all rants that Attacker wants to launch from that platform. But unclear ranting is not appropriate for a Wikipedia entry on any topic.

I've added the information. and would love for actual people and not trolls of Udemy to take part in scoping the page.

as if you really "don't know the truth" why do you think you have a stake in editing it? what i do know is that Udemy employes have been managing this page since day one with facts that are just not relevant to students or teachers that want to know what is the Udemy platform. regarding reusing content on there site that diminished the point of Wikipedia as a place for people to get information about companies by the community that knows the companies. It's true iw as a top seller on there platform for over a year and decided to leave there platform for unethical behaviors and decided to start documenting them when i see them acting in inappropriate ways. i would love to have a debate here as it looks like many agree with my point - just going on and deleting facts that are true seams to me like for someone that "Don't know what the truth is" - you seam to be very opinionated.

What is very interesting is that once probably someone in udemy or there PR company spot a change in there page they aggressively work on bringing it back and deleting all history. I don't think we should need to fight for the right of information to be on the page. editing the copy to make it more natural is one thing but to remove blocks of information raises a lot of alerts about who is doing this and why....

If the Wiki admins are here please chive in as we don't want companies running wiki but real people.

April 5, 2014 entry

The claims about "poor" instructor practices do not have any citations or other verification and should therefore be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.66.13 (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

March 24, 2014 entry

I hope Wikipedia team members will not allow this company to control information as it should represent what the public needs to know about the company so far it looks like udemy has a PR company pumping up content in it to make them look great without sharing very concerning information about there tactics and ways they put students and teachers in there place. any time a teacher shows any sign of unhappiness they are called here accounts frozen and only if udemy feels like they are "Scared" enough to align back then they open there accounts again. people are scared to stand out to Udemy as they have been very aggressive. I do have some evidence I would love to share with moderators privately as I don't want there legal teams trying to attack me as it seams like the only action they know is attack and paying people to say good things about them.

Regarding the copyright claim I don't really understand in copy write law as I wouldn't go there but I do know they use teachers content even after teachers have been forced out of there site using there graphics on there site, using there videos and even using them on external sites, there blog and even mobile applications so I don't know if what there doing is legal or not but it defiantly is not moral. A company can't take someone's work that he never sold to udemy and then use it after they ban the user from the site - and if its legal its still immoral so many someone should edit that in so its clear what they are doing. example is Jack Welsh they put posters all over the web about him and his courses Udemy but even he left the platform but still there is art all over that makes it look like as if he has a relationship with them when he doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.88.162 (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

November 3, 2103 entry RE: Udemy/Instructor Fee Split Radically Changed

Starting Nov 1 Udemy went from a 30/70 split to a 50/50 split, and in some cases 75/25 (Udemy taking the most). Info can be found here: https://www.udemy.com/blog/announcement/

If an instructor brings Udemy a student that has never had a Udemy account before, the instructor can get 100% of the fees for that instructors courses (minus a 3% CC processing fee).

I've never edited an article before so I didn't want to try, but wanted to put this new info out there so hopefully someone can fix the article.

J. A. Whye (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

October 22, 2013 entry

I haven't been able to find any articles backing up the claim that Udemy has violated copyright; I suggest that if such articles don't exist, then the claim should be deleted as either Original Research or as an attack.Reddeyfish (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Conflict

Recent edits from IP 85.65.102.179 and Echo2020 call into question a conflict of interest.

The edits, previously unsourced, later used a blog post seemingly controlled by "Ben Fhala of 02GEEK", the other instructor that was continuously inserted into the page as a "prominent instructor who left". The Udemy profile linked was to a private profile not visible without proper permissions which leads me to believe the person editing may have still been logged in as this user on Udemy.

The source used a screenshot of the unsourced Wikipedia page as a source to its "news".

http://blog.everythingfla.com/2014/04/jack-welch-leaves-udemy.html

I think there is a serious conflict and that these two accounts, if not Ben Fhala himself, have conflicting relationships to Fhala.

A personal blog which updates with screenshots of unsourced Wikipedia lines should not be accepted as sources.

Happy to discuss alternative sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satbridges (talk • contribs) 19:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --75.68.89.195 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

IT CURRENTLY IS A FAIR REPRESENTATION OF ITS SUBJECT, THE COMPANY UDEMY.

I JUST EXPANDED THE INTRODUCTION SO AS TO PROVIDE A BETTER OVERVIEW OF THE SUBJECT. WHICH PROMPTED THIS SPEEDY DELETE CLAIM.

APPARENTLY, SOMEONE WHO HATES UDEMY IS HELL-BENT ON PREVENTING ANY KIND OF DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPANY THAT HE CONSIDERS ISN"T NEGATIVE ENOUGH, regardless of whether it's fair or accurate.

I FAIL TO SEE HOW SAYING THAT UDEMY ALLOWS PEOPLE TO CREATE ONLINE COURSES, AND OTHER PEOPLE TO TAKE THEM IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

I ALSO INCLUDED THE COMPANY'S CLAIM THAT 3 MILLION STUDENTS HAVE TAKEN COURSES, AND THAT 16,000 COURSES ARE AVAILABLE, WHICH I CITED AS COMING FROM THE COMPANY'S WEBSITE.

PERHAPS THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT ENRAGES THE UDEMY-HATER.

It is not necessary to yell (using all-caps) or criticize other users; I removed the speedy tags as they don't cite a specific reason for the deletion, and I didn't see an obvious one. 331dot (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The user who posted the tags has also been blocked for vandalism; likely they had no good-faith intentions here. 331dot (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Udemy has a new logo

File:Https://www-udemy-com.global.ssl.fastly.net/static/images/v4/logo.jpg

Re: The claim that Jack Welch withdrew his courses from Udemy

Skydog10291971 (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)The statement that Udemy's high profile Jack Welch had removed his courses was inserted at some point, apparently to suggest that Welch himself was unhappy with Udemy, or that Udemy was a sub-par platform, or perhaps unethical as a certain editor seemed intent on proclaiming in this entry.

The actual truth seems less inflammatory. Strayer University acquired the rights to all of Jack Welch's Jack Welch Management Institute (JWMI) in November of 2011, according to http://www.awesomecapital.com/awesome-blog/jack-welchs-management-school-transfers-to-strayer.

In November 2012, Strayer began offering a leadership training program called Welch Way exclusively through Udemy's MOOC platform. Udemy's post about the event said that Welch was actively involved with JMWI and the creation of the Welch Way coursework. https://www.udemy.com/blog/the-jack-welch-management-institute-and-udemy-join-forces-to-deliver-online-management-training-courses/

On February 4, 2014 Yahoo! Finance reported that JWMI had signed an exclusive agreement with Skillsoft to deliver the Welch Way program. In its lengthy coverage, there was no mention of Welch's personal (or Strayer's) dissatisfaction with Udemy as a platform. In fact, there is nothing stated that would suggest Welch had anything to do with the decision to switch platforms. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/skillsoft-partners-jack-welch-management-143000452.html

While Udemy may well be "embarrassed" that they lost a high profile account to Skillsoft, there seems no material reason to flag this as evidence of malfeasance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skydog10291971 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Can dispute heading be removed?

This entry currently reads as a neutral statement of facts about this company. Previous claims about bias focused on the desire by some editors (apparently former Udemy instructor or instructors unhappy with the change in revenue sharing as of late 2013) to make sure that readers understood that the company was crooked. I have been unable to find any published accounts of charges of impropriety.

A Google search of the term "Udemy complaints" does not reveal a widespread groundswell of hatred for the company and its policies. The most notable complaint I found was http://www.quicksprout.com/forum/topic/how-to-prosper-as-an-udemy-affiliate-any-better-option-than-udemy/ , where a person who requested information about becoming an affiliate was unhappy that he did not receive a callback promptly, and when he did Udemy's "Jess" seemed to not have read his application.

Instead, positive reviews of the company, its platform, and its revenue sharing model were typical.Skydog10291971 (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Wonder why the reference to the change of CEO in May 2014 and the latest round of funding (same time) was deleted

Also, why was logo deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.89.195 (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong verb

"which infers 'The Academy of You'" - I'm not sure what is meant, so I won't change it, but perhaps "implies" is meant. A citation for an interpretation is needed in any case. Kdammers (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

An Udemy instructor is now offering a course in how to become psychic

How does one treat such rubbish? I received this in my inbox:

An announcement has been made from Gilad James, instructor of How to Overcome Fears. Follow my Educational Announcements and become psychic... … Learn more if you dare.

This is not an educational course offering. WordwizardW (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Good afternoon, WordwizardW. Please note that this talk page is designed to discuss improvements to the article, and is not a public fourm for discussing personal opinion of the company. Have a great day! Daylen (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was pertinent that the article states this is a company offering educational courses, while this 'course' is clearly woo. If that was inappropriate, forgive my perhaps understandable confusion. This doesn't suggest that the description as given is inaccurate? WordwizardW (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Dire need for a criticism section, 27 of March, 2020

Almost all of the content on the page is advertisement for Udemy. There have been many consumer reported spams. This is an example from a review website-

"Never trust Udemy. It is the most pathetic, unworthy and untrustful site. Here are the reasons:

1. I was preparing for Google Cloud certification and I purchased 3 courses from Udemy. All the 3 courses were removed one week before my certification exam. The refund does not happen automatically. We need to raise a request. The site is too bad and too confusing. So, we cannot rely on Udemy at all. The courses on Udemy are pathetically arranged and recorded. Prefer Coursera, LinuxAcademy or CloudAcademy as they provide a good quality courses.

2. Udemy cannot be trusted as your data is posted on other sites. My comments for a course could be seen on https://courses.javacodegeeks.com/ site of which I don't have account. When I contacted Udemy to remove the message, they mislead the students by saying that contact the instructor. When I contact the instructor the instructor says that "This is really strange and am not sure why and how it's happening. It had happened before as well. Seems these sites like javacodegeeks.com are being paid by udemy to promote these courses because when I click on enroll course on that page, it redirects it to Udemy."

3. There is no guarantee that Udemy will not sell your bank account to hackers if they can post your comments to other sites for publicity and misled the students.

In short, never use Udemy account. They are unreliable and their customer care sucks. Even if the course is offer free, don't register on Udemy. Most of the courses are time waste. Better prefer Coursera, LinuxAcademy or CloudAcademy as they are much safe and protect your privacy in terms of your comments, login details and account details."

There are many posts like this. Therefore, I believe, that the page for Udemy is completely biased and there is an urgent need for a criticism section

References:

           
Akshat109 (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

References

New Corporate Numbers

As of June of 2021, the platform has more than 44 million students, 183,000 courses and 65,000 instructors teaching courses in 75 languages. There have been over 594 million course enrollments. Source here: https://about.udemy.com/