Talk:Insilico Medicine

Unjustified revert
Hello, fellow wikipedian David_Gerard. Can you please elaborate why you reverted my edit in Insilico Medicine? 😏 You claimed it was a “spam”, though it has nothing to do with WP:SPAM, so it sounded quite discriminatory and looks like poor behavior.--Birulik (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Literally promotional paid editing, thus doesn't belong in Wikipedia. That you openly declare it doesn't mean it's okay or that it belongs here - David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I endorse David Gerard's removal. It was appropriate to do so. --Yamla (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I’m a paid editor, and I abide by the rules. And this does not justify your shoot first, talk later approach, because my edit was neither disruptive, nor vandalism. Would you kindly participate in the content discussion, as I believe that my text was written in accordance with all the rules and based on reliable sources. Or should I request participation from someone who has no professional disagrement with the founder of the company in question?--Birulik (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t think that my suggestion was that bad, so a complete revert was appropriate. Do you mind pointing out the actual problems to help me improve my draft? If you do so, please, mark specific parts of the text with templates to help me see the issue. An unspecified advice is also welcomed, but can be confusing. --Birulik (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BOGOF - it's not our job to subsidise paid bias. Have you considered finding a less odious line of work? - David Gerard (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are basically denying good faith and treat my humble request for advice as an arrogant demand to rework my suggestion. 🤷‍♀️ I want to discuss the contribution, but you focus on the contributor. I don’t see how ‘’this’’ discussion can help, so I’d rather ask others to guide me through the process of improving the article.--Birulik (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Paid commercial editing is inherently bad faith editing, so I didn't need to assume anything - David Gerard (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Guidelines for paid editing are to propose changes to the article here at Talk, so that editors not affiliated with Insilico can either accept and implement or deny those changes. David notMD (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Rewritten draft
, thank you for advice at WP:DRN and the Teahouse. I took it into account and reworked the text. I uploaded the new draft to my userspace, and going to suggest the edits here on the talk page. I will appreciate it if you’ll take a look. I tried to approach the text like it was written by someone else. I shortened it and removed the sources that may be considered not so reliable.

At first, I want to suggest edits to the History and the Recognition sections of the article. Here’s the text:

What’s gone:
 * An article by Forbes contributor (it wasn’t necessary, as the section was covered in other sources)
 * Mentions of Nvidia competitions (Nvidia is the major company in the field of GPGPU and I consider reaching finals a notable achievement, but I understand the other editors’ concern)
 * Inclusions into CB Insights’ ratings (they are based on data analysis, not the expert opinions, so being listed may not be considered important by other editors)

What’s left:
 * Major steps in the history of the company: use of machine learning to mine existing databases (Forbes staff), pioneering role in applying GANs for drug discovery (Pharmaforum’s Deep Dive), development of GENTRL (Forbes staff), investments.
 * Most promising company award (the source has a ‘’review’’ and an ‘’interview’’ sections, and I used the review)
 * Frost and Sullivan award (the link was indeed broken, but I found the copy of the document at Slideshare).
 * Fierce 15 list (FierceBiotech is an influential niche media, and it’s annual lists of most notable biotech companies are important)
 * MIT Tech Review’s list of breakthrough technologies (same thing here: it’s an important annual publication, Insilico’s listed as one of the top companies in its field, and Insilico’s research is the only one highlighted in the generative molecules section).

What do you think, can I publish this? --Birulik (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Birulik - I haven't reviewed the History section. The Recognition section may be true, but it is hopelessly non-neutral, and was clearly written as advertising.  Robert McClenon (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I will review the remainder of the draft soon. Maybe User:David notMD may have more comments.  Robert McClenon (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you explain in more detail what exactly is not-neutral?--Birulik (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Birulik - No. If you want me to explain what is non-neutral, you are asking me to help you write a version of the article that both satisfies me and satisfies you.  I do not know if such an article can exist.  I do know that I do not plan to help you develop it, because there already is a version of the article that satisfies neutral point of view, the existing version.  No.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * first, there seems to be a misunderstanding in the first place, as I referred to your comment about the Recognition section. It technically can't be non-neutral, because it contains facts, not opinions (the company was actually awarded and listed among top ones). Second, I don't request you to bother rewriting something, but ask to elaborate your opinion instead. Graham's hierarchy of disagreement illustrates WP:DR for a reason. Its unsettles me to see mere references to the rules in responce to my attempts to improve and elaborate my point. Birulik (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Birulik - First, see undue weight as to why a lengthy listing of awards, even if factually accurate, may be non-neutral. So there is no misunderstanding.  Second, you asked for my opinion.  My opinion is that the problem with your rewrite is that it places undue weight on one set of facts, and that this cannot be fixed by tweaking your draft.  Third, I agree that you are complying with the rules about paid editing, and that the rules put you in a difficult position, but that is because your client has put you in a difficult position trying to write an article that is, at the same time, neutral, and promotes your company.  I am not sure that it can be done, and I do not intend to help do it.  If you think that your rewrite of the article is better than the current article, then, as a conflict of interest editor, you do have the right to submit a Request for Comments, which solicits the opinions and consensus of the community.  I do not intend to help you any further.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Many wikipedians, and you too, have a misunderstanding of the interaction of paid authors with customers. Wikipedia rules are more important than customer opinions on the content. Anyway thanks for your time and advice. --Birulik (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Still highly promotional
Article as it exists on 19 April 2021 is still highly promotional in tone and content. Naming a list investment companies does not contribute to notability. David notMD (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with a properly sourced list of investors. It would be problematic if it was presented in some exaggerated format such as a table, or had flowery language suggesting that the list indicated qualities of the company. BD2412  T 22:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Reason for removal of advert tag
I'm not sure what exactly was the deflowering referred to by @BD2412 justifying the removal of the advert tag since it had been added by @MrOllie, see diff. AncientWalrus (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you specify what content remaining in the article you believe is advertorial, rather than factual? BD2412  T 22:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not the person who placed it - I just thought it was worth pointing out that the edit summary wasn't quite accurate and thought I ask whether this was a mistake. I think MrOllie is best placed to say why they tagged the article in the first place.
 * Upon a quick scan, here are a few potentially overly positive or buzzwordy phrases:
 * "The company combines genomics, big data analysis, and deep learning for in silico drug discovery." in lead and sourced to not very reliable sources.
 * "Through its Pharma.AI division, the company provides machine learning services to different pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and skin care companies. Insilico is known for hiring mainly through hackathons such as their own MolHack online hackathon." Again, extremely poorly sourced
 * "To demonstrate the capacity of their proprietary AI platforms, the company published two projects on identifying therapeutic targets for ageing and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in 29 March and 28 June 2022, respectively." -> only source are the publications of the company (non-independent, primary)
 * "For ALS, the company worked with researchers from Answer ALS, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Mayo Clinic, Tsinghua University, and 4B Technologies Limited." -> unencyclopedic name dropping
 * There are many more examples like this. AncientWalrus (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Poor sourcing is not the same as advertising, though. Assuming that the propositions at issue can be reliably sourced, or that the sources in the article are determined to be sufficiently reliable, how would you change the wording to avoid sounding "overly positive or buzzwordy"? BD2412  T 22:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As I've said, my main point was the in my view potentially misleading edit summary in the edit removing the tag. Non-neutral statements and those not backed up by reliable sources should simply be removed not rewored - especially in an article that has a history of paid editing. It's safer to prune and rebuild than to maintain bias. AncientWalrus (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am asking for specifics, however. Obviously there is a degree of subjectivity as to whether an article sounds like an advertisement. I am confident that my substantial editing resolved everything that was egregious. BD2412  T 23:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about the same thing? I'm not sure how your edits between the addition of the tag by @MrOllie and your removal amount to substantial editing. Yes you added a bit of content, but that doesn't address promotional tone which would require removal or rewording, little of which appears to be visible in this diff which I link again here . AncientWalrus (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't rewrite for the sake of rewriting. Addition of an "assertedly" or "claimed to have" before a claim is sufficient to inform the reader that this is the subject's assertion, and placing quotation marks around quotes from sources is sufficient to inform the reader that this is the source's assertion. BD2412  T 23:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)