Talk:Upwork

Nov. 17, 2008 overhaul

Removed the advert/neutrality flags after doing a rewrite of this article. Added published references, and also cites to the company's site that are in line, I believe, with the way it has been done on better-maintained articles such as eBay. Cut down "awards & coverage" section to the only one I thought looked like a noteworthy award. I invite other opinions regarding restoration or cutting the whole section. Added section on "Controversy" citing news coverage that sometimes suggests the company's model is Big Brother-y, but tried to do so in a balanced way. This small entry is my first attempt at a rewrite quite this large, so I welcome imput/improvements, of course. Thanks. Alias1219 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

unfortunately this seems to have been mostly undone since :-/ (sorry if this sounds like noise, I do have a point though — in case someone comes to the talk page wondering about the tags currently in place and sees the overhaul and figures it's been fixed already. It has, but then it got “unfixed” again.) --Lalo Martins (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Upwork India ( 50K earn from Upwork ) https://www.digisitebymn.online/2023/06/upwork-india-50k-earn-from-upwork-2023.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monishananda (talk • contribs) 07:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It's still an advertisement

rm:

Conversely, some oDesk providers have praised the system.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/business&id=6434457|publisher=KGO-TV|title=Controversy Over Work-From-Home Tech|author=Teresa Garcia|date=2008-10-06}}<ref>

because there is only one provider mentioned in the article ("Lisa") and she does not offer any praise. Also it's weasel worded. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Attempted to fix concerns

The article was recently tagged "advert" and the "other info" section was tagged for integration/removal. I integrated the "other info" as appropriate. I happen to be not very interested in who funded the company in various venture rounds, but I know that this information is of interest to people in the tech/venture cap/startup arena(s), so since someone had bothered to put it in, I thought I'd try to find a way to keep it, for those whose interest in reading this article may regard the company's origins. (I'm open to arguments against that, I add with a shrug) The stats on users and rates, I'd suggest, paint a picture of the nature of the company, so I tried integrating that, too.

I appreciate the previous editor removing the ABC article. Looking at it, I agree that the user's "praise" of the company is implicit at best, and agree with the removal. However, with that gone, I don't think the article deserves the "advert" tag. I note that the editor who tagged it, in his notes on the history page, refers to the company as "this horror." This gives the appearance that the previous editor may not be entirely neutral, but I don't know. I went through the article and satisfied myself that the information included explains what the company does, what it claims it's trying to do, how it works, on what scale it operates, and, as best as possible, who uses it. I think all that is useful and appropriate, and believe the "Controversy" section addresses sufficiently why some might see the company's offerings in a negative light. I don't think any of this constitutes marketing-speak, but I'm open to having other specific failings, such as the ABC mention/link, pointed out and/or edited.

Respectfully, Alias1219 (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

about entry "critical voices"

yes, and as far as I know you have to give detailed sources if you try to remove this again. i would advise not to touch it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingens. (talk • contribs) 03:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You're adding comment to the article, which is not allowed. I have removed it. --ascorbic (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

about deleting trials

you tried to delete not a comment. a page is a page. if it´s about odesk, then comp.-ads-meanings-only are NOT REALLY ENOUGH to call a wikipage about odesk a "wikipage about odesk". OK? and besides: deleting trials are forbidden, please stop quarreling around about this. you have no right to delete anything here. IF -> then you can go and create a poll site about quetions "letting this important information online or not" on doodle.de or where-ever. DON`T TOUCH THIS ENTRY AGAIN! it´s not a comment, it´s an important information for odesk users. I HAVE SEEN this job post of this journalist, who asked your users if and how many ave experienced this so far. i HAVE SEEN THIS. ok? so -> even if i wouldn´t have had to exprience this (and be able via snapshots to PROVE IT) - even if THIS wouldn´s be the case: -> enough of odesk users would tell you details. SO NO! DO! NOT! TRY! TO! TOUCH! THIS! ENTRY! AGIN! WHICH! IS! NOT! A! COMMENT! BUT! AN! INFORMATION! FOR! PEOPLE! NEEDING! A! JOB! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANODDERONE (talk • contribs) 09:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be "important information" but it's not encyclopedic. Read WP:NOT for more information. --ascorbic (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

about this feud

From what I can see in this discussion it seems oDesk's competition is trying to start a war or something. I am an oDesk provider (ybellavance is my username) and I must say it is by far the best site of its kind (my opinion). GAF (GetAFreelancer.com) is the second best(my opinion and only fixed price projects though). As a provider I prefer to be paid by the hour, but for fixed price projects GAF is not bad (oDesk has recently also offered fixed price contracts),the others you can pretty much forget about it. If your thinking of doing fixed price projects I would caution about buyers who just don't offer enough money for your services. You have to be very carefull with fixed price projects. It takes alot of experience to evaluate exactly a work load, and if you can then you dont even need to bother with it and you can get paid by the hour on oDesk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.5.178 (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy" is overblown

This section ought to be toned down. Clearly oDesk providers accept the trade-off to earn assured hourly rates. The 'controversy' was probably stirred up by people who have no sincere interest in the platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.9.131 (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the "Controversy" section reads slightly worse than a supermarket tabloid. The stuff about it "being a scam" citation #13 links to a forum thread on digital point. You can't cite a forum thread as academic evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.12.176.245 (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

To be unbiased, this article ought to address such concerns. To erase them completely might indicate that it is indeed a scam, otherwise why would it not be addressed? Every organization has trials. How has this organization withstood controversy other than hiding it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.150.35 (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsupported Statement Regarding Size

In reading the background, there is a statement "As of 2012, oDesk is the largest online marketplace in which independent professionals and their clients can establish and fulfill work arrangements".

This statement is referenced by the link: http://www.staffingindustry.com/site_member/Research-Publications/Blogs/Andrew-Karpie-s-Blog/Online-Staffing-Seeing-the-Forest-For-the-Trees.

However, on that link, there are only two mentions of odesk:

"...a type of Talent Exchange--typified by a growing number of companies like oDesk and Elance..."

"Companies and models range from larger, more established ones like Elance and oDesk to younger firms like Work Market and NextCrew..."

Neither of this in any way supports anything regarding the size (or status, or market position, or anything else) of oDesk.

UnpoppedColonel (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Upwork

Odesk is now Upwork Source - Arr4 (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Survey from murtazaamin

Not a significant survey. No secondary source was added. The survey was done by the editor himself, referenced from his own website and blog. Probably a case of WP:SPAM. If you can provide a secondary reliable source, you can re-add it. - Mar11 (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

doesn't open id in upwork

i am a fully freelencer but i am doesn't open any id in upwork.i am also working exprince in freelencer.com elencer.com fivver.com plece arenge any prosses i will opeen created a id in upwork. i am from bangladesh

Imran hossain (emon) (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Imran hossain (emon), Wikipedia is in no way affiliated with Upwork and we cannot help you with using that service. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

correction needed

Correction needed to "14 million users and 10.2 regular user"; maybe just missing the word "million" and an "s" on "user" but I don't have time to verify.

Robledoux (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Controversies regarding Upwork's statement on Russian invasion to Ukraine

There are notable sources citing Upwork's statement where it claimed that it stops operations in Russia and Belarus as of May, 2022 following Russian invasion to Ukraine. However, accounts from Russia and Belarus continue to be active on the platform as of October 18, 2022. Internetyev (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Edit Requests, December 2025

Hello, editors. This page has not been significantly updated in a few years. I have suggestions for bringing it more up-to-date. I have a WP:COI as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by the subject of this article.

1. What I think should be changed:

In the History section, please add a new sixth paragraph:

In January 2020, Hayden Brown was appointed CEO of Upwork.

Why I think it should be changed:

Brown’s appointment as CEO of the company was noteworthy enough to be the subject of a lengthy profile in Forbes (written by a staff editor), as well as being covered in other outlets such as Time and Fortune .

2. What I think should be changed:

In the History section, please add the following as the new eighth paragraph:

In 2023, job postings related to AI became the fastest growing category on the Upwork platform and the company created an AI services hub to address the increasing activity.

Why I think it should be changed:

The article hasn’t been significantly updated since 2022 and is missing current information about the company’s business.

3. What I think should be changed:

In the History section, please add the following as the second sentence of the paragraph requested in item 2.

As part of the services hub, Upwork partnered with OpenAI on a program that connected businesses with freelancers who were experienced in AI applications like ChatGPT.

Why I think it should be changed:

The company’s partnership with one of the most prominent AI organizations was the subject of reporting that noted the sudden emergence of AI related jobs, the need to connect businesses with experienced workers and Upwork's role in this economic shift. Their role here is noteworthy.

4. What I think should be changed:

In the History section, please add the following as the new eighth paragraph:

In 2024, the company introduced an AI assistant called Uma. The system was built on large language models and trained with platform data to assist with proposal writing and matching client jobs with freelancers.

Why I think it should be changed:

The company’s creation of its own AI system as reported by Fast Company is a noteworthy example of the company's efforts to expand its AI capabilities in response to a rapidly evolving landscape.

5. What I think should be changed:

In the History section, please add the following as the new ninth paragraph:

Beginning in 2023, Upwork made a series of acquisitions and integrated the acquired technology into its AI tools. The acquisitions included an AI video conferencing platform called Headroom in 2023; a search-as-service company called ObjectiveAI in 2024; and a workforce management company called Bubty in 2025. In 2025, Upwork created a subsidiary to provide services to enterprise clients called Lifted, which integrates Bubty and Ascen, a compliance and EOR company acquired in 2025.

Why I think it should be changed:

Adding information about these acquisitions adds valuable context about the company’s more recent expansion into AI.

Thanks for reviewing. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

References

Done ―Tosca-the-engineer (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit Requests, April 2026

Could you please consider the following quick update? I have a WP:COI as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by the subject of this article.

1. Please update the first sentence of the lead to reflect the company’s current headquarters.

Change from:

Upwork Inc. (formerly Elance-oDesk) is an American freelancing platform headquartered in Santa Clara and San Francisco, California.

Change to:

Upwork Inc. (formerly Elance-oDesk) is an American freelancing platform headquartered in Palo Alto and San Francisco, California.

Why: The existing sentence is based on a source from 2015. The company has since moved its HQ from Santa Clara to Palo Alto and San Francisco, which is verified in reporting from SFGate.

2. Please update the HQ in the Infobox:

Change from: | headquarters = Palo Alto, California, U.S.

Change to: | headquarters = Palo Alto, California, San Francisco, California U.S.

Why: Updating the infobox to reflect the update in the body of the article.

3. Please update the logo in the Infobox:

Change from: | logo = Upwork Logo.svg

Change to: | Upwork Logo 2024.png

Why: Updating to reflect current company logo.

@Tosca-the-engineer: Since you reviewed the previous request edit and are familiar with the page, I thought you might wish to consider reviewing this. Thank you. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. Seercat3160 (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I've implemented the approved edits. Thank you for your review. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Serious POV issues

This article, as noted since 2009, reads like an ad. This line in particular jumps out:

In 2024, the company introduced an AI assistant called Uma. The system was built on large language models and trained with platform data to assist with proposal writing and matching client jobs with freelancers.

This was a fairly large scandal resulting eventual partial walk-back of the policy. Yet, as noted here before, there's no mention whatsoever of any of UpWork's numerous scandals or issues which have been well covered in the process. A controversies section needs to be restored, there are far too many SPAs and paid edits around this article for it to stand as-is. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Fifa

fifa world cup was started in 1930 BS. The first game was Organized by Urugay and Also won by Urugay . _Subscript Brazil has 5 world cups Language ~2026-38472-50 (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for admin assistance

I am seeking admin help in reversing an edit made by an IP editor that I think rises to the level of WP:SNEAKY. For this post, I’ll limit the discussion to the editor’s actions on Upwork, but their activity here is part of a pattern of following me from page to page in a disruptive manner. I am a consultant with WhiteHatWiki and work in strict accordance with WP:COI and WP:PAID. I’ll bring a full complaint at a later date when I have time to document their activity across several pages from their various user identities. It’s not straightforward as they are bouncing between multiple IP and user accounts.

On Upwork, the IP editor overrode COI edit requests Talk:Upwork#Edit Requests, December 2025 that were reviewed and implemented by User:Tosca-the-engineer, and made the following changes: . In doing so, the IP editor changed a sourced, factual description of the company’s product to a statement made in Wikipedia’s voice that a product was “controversial” and “resulted in significant user backlash,” and attributed this statement to the same source I had suggested. But that source has no mention of any controversy or backlash. In researching where the claims could be coming from, I found a Reddit thread and some blog posts, but no reliable secondary source. One might presume the use of Reddit or blogs might be a good faith mistake from an editor unfamiliar with Wikipedia RS policy. But the IP editor didn’t do this - they falsely attributed a controversy to a reliable source and did not mention the sources where this information actually originated.

The editor also added two maintenance templates alleging that the article lacked neutrality and contained promotional wording. Yet their edit is the exact opposite of the careful, policy-based cleanup the editor claimed the page needs. They also introduced a string of spelling and grasping errors and incomplete sentences in the same dif.

On Talk, the IP editor said the cleanup templates were needed because “there are far too many SPAs and paid edits” for it to stand. Their real motives are clearly stated: they do not approve of WP:PAID even if policy is strictly followed. There have been several COI edit requests made on this page that were reviewed and approved by independent editors after a PAID disclosure. This is not a legitimate reason to add a maintenance template and also falls under WP:SNEAKY. I suggest all their edits should be reverted without having to waste editors' resources on an RfC. The page should also be considered for semi-protection since these users were created by an IP editor. There are already multiple instances of SNEAKY on this page: 1) falsely attributing an attack of the article subject to a reliable secondary source; 2) improper use of maintenance templates; 3) introduction of multiple grammar errors and incomplete sentences that make the page look more like it needs a clean up. Finally, using an IP address account to introduce so many problems to a page is in and of itself a possible violation of SNEAKY. Thanks for the help. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

This isn't yet something that rises to the level of requiring admin assistance. I'm marking this as answered. It would be beneficial to describe the problems you have with additions by supplying diffs. I'm assuming you're talking about contributions described in this diff. I'll note the author of those edits opened a discussion thread above, the correct venue is to discuss those additions with the editor would be in the section they started. Do not come at it from a place of accusing them of vandalism or trying to ascertain or assume motive, much like they should not come at it from a place accusing you of spam. I've addressed the incorrect citation attribution in this edit but if there are more immediate problems, you may let me know by being specific. Beyond that, this should be resolved in a regular content dispute manner. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)