Talk:Credible Labs

Merger with Fox Corporation

Credible Labs entered into a merger agreement with Fox Corporation in August 2019. As Credible Labs is a public company listed on the Australian Securities Exchange, it is subject to the rules and regulations of the exchange and the Australian corporate law. As such, shareholders are protected and are entitled to have their say in the affairs and potential acquisition of the company. As such, the merger agreement and announcement give shareholders votes to either approve or disapprove the merger. ("Credible Enters Into Merger Agreement with Fox Corporation" (PDF). Australian Securities Exchange. Credible Labs. Retrieved 24 August 2019.) These are slated to occur in October 2019. Therefore, any additional edits that describe that the deal has already occurred or that Fox Corporation is already the head company or something to that effect, will be reverted and labelled as vandalism, without evidence to the contrary that the merger has been completed.

Puuugu (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Disclosure of paid contributions

In compliance with Wikimedia's terms of use requirements regarding disclosure of paid contributions, I am disclosing that I was paid to edit this article by its subject, Credible Labs Inc., as a freelancer hired through the site Upwork. My paid contributions related to Credible were as follows:

• Expanding/updating the article's contents (diff).
• Moving the page from "Credible Labs" (now a redirect) to "Credible (company)".
• Locally uploading the copyrighted, fair-use screenshot Credible homepage.jpg and adding it to the infobox (diff).
• Creating/editing redirects at "Credible Labs Inc." and "Credible Operations, Inc."
• Adding a hatnote (diff) to the article "Credibility": "'Credible' redirects here. For the American financial technology company, see Credible (company)."
• Editing Template:Fox Corporation to link directly to Credible (company), and to change the link name from "Credible Labs" to "Credible" (diff)

I am confident that these edits comply with general Wikipedia policies, particularly with respect to use of reliable secondary sources and neutral point-of-view. On other Wikimedia projects, I edited Credible's Wikidata entry (separately disclosed on that entry's talk page) and uploaded the company's logo to Commons here (although Commons does not require disclosure of paid contributions, I am doing so here anyway). —BLZ · talk 20:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Partial revert rationale

Leaving some notes here to provide a rationale for a partial revert I just made of some recent edits. While some of his edits were productive, others were not—for example, taking out encyclopedically information and leaving three incomplete sentences. I want to go through what I revertted in the interest of transparency and discussion. (Important note: I have not received, and will not receive, any additional payment for the revert edit or for this talk page edit.)

• The main thing I removed was the "multiple issues" banner from the top of the article. The banner carried two warnings: one about potential conflict of interest (COI), one about being written like an advertisement.
  The COI note warned that a "major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" (emphasis mine). Well, there's no doubt about any "appearance" of a COI—I've already declared my conflict of interest, with a disclosure that not only meets the bare minimum required by Wikimedia's TOS but which, I hope, is exceptionally transparent compared to most similar disclosures. A warning about the "appearance" of a COI would be most appropriate when (1) there is a question of concealed COI, or (2) the plain bias of a conflicted editor (declared or undeclared) has permeated an article to such a deep extent that a major overhaul or audit is in order. I don't believe either applies here, and regardless I don't think an indefinite banner carried like a scarlet letter is the right solution.
  As for the "written like an advertisement" note, it seems peculiar to me to leave such a note after editing the page. As the banner itself asks, "Please help improve [the article] or discuss these issues on the talk page." If there were still problems remaining, why not correct them, or at least open a discussion here identifying specific issues to be improved?
• I added back a sentence identifying notable businessman Alex Waislitz as an early investor and added in some further context establishing Waislitz's active role in the history of the company to tie him into the article with more relevance and particularity. In retrospect I can see why the one-off mention could have seemed trivial on its own, but with the addition of further information I don't see any reason not to include this info. I only wrote the sentence in the first place because Waislitz already had a Wikipedia article of his own, and I believe it's worthwhile to identify an independently notable investor who played a public, vocal role in the company's historical development. Credible did not ask for this line about Waislitz to be included and I highly doubt they care one way or another.
• I added back the names of Credible's partners (Radius Bank, Fidelity Investments, and Morgan Stanley) in a sentence about, well, who its partners are. Again, this information helps to establish the subject's notability and to tie it into the broader encyclopedia through linking. I don't believe naming these partners introduces any NPOV—it's simply uncontroversially true that those are the company's partners. A sentence that conveys "the company has partners" while omitting the names of any of these partners is vague, counterproductive and uninformative. It's like writing "Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. had three sons", or "In April 2012, Facebook acquired a company."
• I added back the CEO's comparison of his company to travel sites (though paraphrasing entirely this time). Believe it or not, it wasn't the company's idea to add this line. I added it after doing some of my own research about the company and seeing the CEO had been quoted making the statement in multiple reliable secondary sources. As a person who understands very little about the somewhat abstract industry of "financial technology", I felt like this comparison was a concise (and again, reliably sourced and responsibly attributed) explanation of what the company actually does. I don't think it's mere advertising copy, as it's an accessible, useful comparison even for readers with no interest in using Credible's services. It's an essentially neutral comparison as well; for example, a critic of Credible could cite the same comparison as a means of quickly conveying what the company does. If the encyclopedia's purpose is to be educational and accessible about the subjects it deems to cover, I feel like this was my most succinct and important contribution to the page.

Thanks—I hope the reasoning and basis in site policy is clear. —BLZ · talk 05:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)