User talk:BC1278/sandbox/Noah Kraft

Hi BC1278. Your request for revision leaves out some vital context, and I would ask that any editor reserve judgment until I have the opportunity to reply. I should have a response for you by Monday.

In the interest of transparency, I would ask that you migrate your complaint to the Noah Kraft article's Talk Page. I was not even aware of the existence of it until I looked at your contribution history.

Also, given the extensive history of sock puppets, single-purpose accounts, edits by people with admitted connections to Kraft, and edits by people with undisclosed financial connections to Kraft, I think it's important that you disclose the nature of your financial interest in this page, including the actual amount that you have been paid, or the hourly rate you are charging, as well as any incentive-based payments you may receive if the page is edited in accordance with your request. Please disclose this information in this page as well as Noah's Talk page.

DaRonPayne (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

DaRonPayne This is just a sandbox space for drafts. Nothing is submitted for review until it moves to Talk.

Understood. Could you clarify your financial interest in Noah Kraft's page, including the actual amount of your compensation and any incentive-based payments you may receive if the page is edited in line with your request? DaRonPayne (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

DaRonPayne Take a look at WP: PAID. The disclosure requirements are explicit -- a disclosure needs to happen on Talk, it must state that you are paid, and state who you are working for. The additional information you are asking for is not part of WP: PAID or WP: COI disclosure policy. I've been doing this many years. I find theses discussions go much better for everyone and are more amicable if everyone sticks to talking about the content -- how to improve the article - instead of meandering into the nature of COI contributions and muddying up the substantive discussion. There's actually formal policy at WP:TPNO about not using article Talk to attack the authority of the writer (see the bottom of triangle.) If you have COI questions or issues, it's best to raise them on the COI noticeboard. Or feel free to discuss them directly with me on my own Talk page. Cheers. BC1278 (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

===========================================================================================

I am an experienced Wikpedia editor but have a conflict of interest as a paid consultant to Noah Kraft and am therefore only making suggestions for edits on Talk for review by independent editors, in keeping with WP: COI policy and instructions on the official Wikipedia.org "Contact Us" page for subjects of articles. [1] This disclosure follows all the requirements of WP: PAID.

I have noticed that a former vendor for Mr. Kraft's company declared he made edits to this article. I have no connection to this editor and am in no way collaborating with them. I have also noticed that allegations of sock puppetry have been made in the past. This is my first time having anything to do with this article. I do not use socks and have no association with any user or user accounts related to this article. I would urge that no one who has a previous or current connection to Mr. Kraft participate in the review of the following Request Edit, as only independent editors may participate in reviewing a request by someone with a COI as per WP:COI

Request Edit

1. I propose this lead be re-edited as follows. Change:

Noah Kraft (born 1987/1988) is an American entrepreneur, and the co-founder and former CEO of Doppler Labs, an audio-technology company that closed in 2017 after losing over $50 million of investor capital, according to Kraft.

to:

Noah Kraft (born 1987/1988) is an American entrepreneur, and the co-founder and former CEO of Doppler Labs, an audio-technology company that closed in 2017.

Summary:

A) Removes Crunchbase as a source because it is largely self-generated material so not suitable as a reliable source WP:RS, especially when RS are available for the same information.

B) Chooses just one highly reliable source for this information (Wired Magazine). Multiple sources with the same information are not needed for the same citation, and string citations are not a best practice. So far as I know, there's no ban on the practice, but you won't find it on FA-rated articles used as best practice models.

C) Deletes "after losing over $50 million of investor capital, according to Kraft." I have carefully read the cited sources and none of them say Doppler Labs lost $50 million, or that Kraft said this. Discussion above in Talk indicates that an editor said Kraft made such a statement in a speech for a trade group called "Products that Count." I take the editor at their word that this page contained such a speech, but I cannot find it or a transcript on the page at present. A perennial problem with UGC-primary sources such as blog posts is that they are very often impermanent. By the description in Talk, it sounds as if it might have been a tongue-in-cheek or hyperbolic remark. To the extent very different interpretations of the primary source are possible, it shouldn't be used in any case. "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source." WP: NOR.

I will anticipate the argument that it is still acceptable to state that the company lost $50 million, even without the attribution to Kraft, because sources state that the company raised $50 million. But, without a third-party, RS stating the loss, Wikipedia should not conclude that the amount of the announced raise is the same as the loss. This would be contrary to Wikipedia policy prohibiting original research or synthesis of source. WP: SYNTH. Since there is no acceptable reliable source for this claim, it's not required to refute any Wikipedia original analysis. But just to demonstrate why the NOR and SYNTH policies are a such a good idea, here is the refutation:

i) when it is announced that a company raised money, that does always mean all the money was transferred to the company. Venture capital financing is often doled out in tranches. Money is sometimes scheduled to be released over a period of months or years, but only if the company hits certain milestones. If the company closes, the unrewarded money is never released.

ii) before a company closes, it sells its assets, such as intellectual property. The proceeds from these assets are distributed to the stakeholders and might substantially reduces the amount of any losses. As this company spent a fortune on R&D, I would assume their IP sold for a substantial sum, but I can't find it reported.

iii) companies, particularly venture backed companies, often close with substantial cash still on hand. That cash is then returned to investors, which reduces loses.

For these and other reasons, a RS would normally check with a company and/or its board or investors before reporting total losses. Absent a RS, WP shouldn't draw a conclusion that the amount of the raise is the same as the amount of the loss. WP:NOR

D) Removes WP: NPOV bias. The current phrasing is a subjective and selective interpretation ("lost $50 million) designed to reflect poorly on the subject. It could just as easily be phrased as "a company he raised $50 million in funding for" in an attempt to make the subject look good. I would suggest that neither approach is a good idea for POV reasons. It was the business that raised and lost the money - it has a board of directors, officers, multiple officers. Attributing raising and losing money solely to the subject of the article is not supported by RS or common sense. BC1278 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)BC1278

References