Talk:Ken Xie

COI edit requests
Hi, Fortinet has hired me to work on some requests for this page. Here's what I suggest:
 * Update lead (moved some information into expanded body of article, updated source link):
 * Add new sections with info moved from lead and additional details:


 * Update Awards section to incorporate information moved from lead, remove unsourced info, and add National Academy of Engineering membership:

Due to my COI, I won't be editing the page directly and would appreciate any help or feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply quotebox with inserted reviewer decisions and feedback 31-JAN-2018
Below you will see where text from your request has been quoted and individual decisions, either accepting or declining the proposals, along with feedback related comments, have been inserted underneath each major proposal. 

Ken Xie is an American entrepreneur of Chinese descent and founder of Fortinet and NetScreen. He serves as CEO of Fortinet and was previously the CEO of NetScreen, which was acquired by Juniper Networks for $4 billion in 2004. Xie was born and raised in China. Already included. ___________ He graduated from Tsinghua University with a B.S. and M.S. in electrical engineering, and from Stanford University with an M.S. and doctorate in electrical engineering.


 * Here we go:

___________ In 1993, he founded his first network security company, SIS, while at Stanford.

___________ As a tinkerer in his garage in Palo Alto, California, he built the first ASIC-based firewall/VPN appliance in 1996. This would be the basis of his newly formed company, NetScreen, the next year. ___________ Juniper Networks would later acquire NetScreen for $4 billion in 2004. ❌ Declined This matter is ultimately unrelated to the topic. ___________ In 2000, Xie and his brother Michael Xie created Fortinet to sell additional security tools modeling both content and applications.

___________ At Fortinet, Xie led the development of unified threat management, and Fortinet had an initial public offering in 2009.


 * Revised:

___________ Xie was awarded a slot among the top five entrepreneurs of the year by Entrepreneur Magazine in 2005 and Northern California Entrepreneur of the Year by Ernst & Young in 2006. ❌ Declined as promotional content. ___________ He is also a member of the National Academy of Engineering. Implemented Confirmation provided by the NAE. ✅ For more information about your request, please see the individual comments and replies in the quotebox above. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   03:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! I've provided one additional source and a rewording inline. It's a little trickier to track down contemporary sources for events in the 1990s online, so I'll have to circle back on those. Thanks again, I know you've been devoting a ton of time lately to keeping the edit request backlog down and I really appreciate it (as I'm sure do other COI editors). Mary Gaulke (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi! Have you had a chance to take a look at my inline replies above? If you're not interested no worries; I'll repost the remaining requests and open a new edit request. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Remaining COI edit requests
Hi again! As noted above, I'm here as a representative of Fortinet to request some updates to this article. Since some of my requests were responded to previously, I'm reposting the remaining ones below:


 * Cut down lead, with some information moved to body of article:


 * Add new sections with info moved from lead and additional details:

Again, I'll be avoiding direct edits due to my COI. I really appreciate any help or feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply quotebox with inserted reviewer decisions and feedback 14-MAR-2018
Below you will see where text from your request has been quoted and individual advisory messages – either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposals – have been inserted underneath each major proposal. Please see the Notes section at the bottom of the quotebox for additional information about each request.      Spintendo       17:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi! A few points of clarification:
 * I know the lead is already in the article; what I'm proposing is shortening it to the version detailed above and moving more information into organized sections in the body of the article.
 * Added a Stanford source for Xie's education there and slightly tweaked the wording around that.
 * All the information from 20 years ago is already in the article; I'm simply suggesting moving it to be in a more organized location. If nothing else, I think the year of the founding of Fortinet should be retained. Startups don't usually get media coverage right as they're created. It's later, when they've found success, that the story of their founding appears in the media.
 * I partially edited the section on Fortinet down. I'd argue that what remains speaks specifically to Xie's work at Fortinet, and thus is germane to the article.
 * Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply

 * 1) I dont see stanford.edu listed in any of the references.
 * 2) The way your request is written it appears as if text is being created:"'Add new sections with info moved from lead and additional details'"What stands out in the sentence above I've just quoted is three words: Add, new, and additional. All three of those words used in the sentence all indicate something new and additional is being added. The fact that only headings are to be moved is not something I see anywhere in the request.
 * 3) The story of a company's founding may indeed come about as the result of that company's later success, but perfect memories and spotless recollections will likely not accompany them per WP:AGEMATTERS. This states that older reports closer to the event tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. Newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job if they remain free of bias that might affect the memories created and recalled upon, such as those very same recollections of the subject himself discussing the past in these references, which because they undoubtedly took place as interviews with the subject at his behest, (or in the very least, used him and his records as the major source) hold the potential for bias. Regards,      Spintendo       23:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to answer.
 * Stanford is reference #5 above. If you search "ken xie site:stanford.edu" you will find many sources; I chose one.
 * It's not simply moving headings in that it's reorganizing the info into a logical categorization. But I would think that creating an organized, scannable article is a net improvement.
 * I'm not sure how the year of a company's founding is considered biased information, but if omitting it is what it takes to make progress here, so be it.
 * I can tell you're frustrated, and for that I apologize. I assure you I am trying to make this a simple and transparent process. Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would help to get someone else's eyes on this? I'll reopen the edit request if you're alright with that. Mary Gaulke (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Organization is a wonderful endeavor, being an activity full of potential for reinvigoration and renewal. But it is important to discuss what exactly is being organized with your edit partner, in this case, me. Letting me know in no uncertain terms that information is being moved, added, or deleted is your responsibility as COI edit request-maker.
 * The Stanford document is 14 pages long, and you failed to provide me with a page number. I would venture to guess that you might feel frustrated too, or at least misunderstood, if you were expected to read 14 entire pages in order to locate two words (a person's name). The time which you save not having to look up that page number is time spent by someone else. It's not my job to perform searches for information that you wish to add to the article. The assistance that you provide to those performing the work that you get paid for, such as locating references, is not only appreciated — but expected.
 * It's not the year that is biased, rather, it is the person recalling the events of that year which may be biased. The potential for inherent bias in a person's own memories of their past increases over time, and is well-documented.
 * Perhaps it is time for someone else's eyes on this project. I look forward to working with whomever replaces you. But I must say, it would be a loss for us, as many editors have expressed pleasure working with you. For what it's worth, I hope you'll change your mind and decide to continue.
 * Regards,      Spintendo       04:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Let me color code what's new and circle back.
 * I was out of the country for most of the AN/I discussion, but let me be clear: I never asked you to Google it yourself or claimed to be too "busy" to do my own job. You used quotation marks there for words that I simply never stated, and I found that offensive. I also don't understand why on Earth anyone would read 14 pages instead of using ctrl+F. And of course I didn't exclude the page parameter to be difficult; it's simply not a standard parameter and it didn't happen to occur to me.
 * I think this is clear at this juncture (and should have been clear initially), but I wasn't threatening to quit Wikipedia. I was simply offering you the chance to walk away from this discussion that you seem to disliking.
 * For the record: This isn't my primary job or source of income. I'm not in the business of pushing edits that I don't think are encyclopedic. I reject far more client requests than I take to the community. I'm not here as a spammer or with any malicious intent. And while I understand COI editors are a nuisance, I would think it's preferable to have someone with experience trying to make the process painless, rather than standing aside as people clueless about how Wikipedia works attempt to sneak direct edits in under the radar (and often succeed). I do this work because I believe in it. I hope you do too. Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You should not use Forbes contributor articles in a BLP. They are clearly marked as not being vetted by Forbes and are the opinion of whoever wrote it alone. You are also using a Q and A with Xie to put claims in wikipeidas voice. You should make it clear when it is Xie making claims about himself. What are your sources for saying he personally led the development for "Unified threat managment". It doesnt' seem to be in the source you provided as I can not find him mentioned. Also the content on the cyber threat alliance seems like source misrepresentation to me. 2601:644:8502:1FB0:EC00:5A4D:9083:30FA (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback; I'll incorporate it in my next revision. Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit request round 3: Updated sources and color coding
Here we go:


 * Cut down lead, with some information moved to body of article. Everything below is currently in the article:


 * Add new sections with info moved from lead and additional details. New information and sources are highlighted in yellow.


 * I recommend removing the "External links" section, since neither of the links are standard fare for sections like this.

A few things that have been updated: Took out the Forbes contributor source, added the pages parameter to the Stanford source, replaced a dead CRN source (already in the article) with a working archive link, added a 1998 Network World source, clarified where information should be in Xie's voice rather than Wikipedia's, revised wording around UTM (as the old wording leaned on the Forbes contributor piece), and added a second source on the Cyber Threat Alliance.

If I can do anything else to make this request easier for you to review, and if you think it falls short of encyclopedic standards in any way, please let me know. If you'd rather not work on this page anymore, let me know that too and I'll open an edit request. Thanks, Mary Gaulke (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply
I've posted the additional text that you've suggested here, and removed the information which the changes superseded (I had to guess on what was to be removed, as that wasn't color coded). I hope this brings the article in line with how you've asked for it to be. Let me know if I've missed anything. Thank you! 0.82em 19:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

small edit request
Hi! As noted above, I have a COI: I have been paid by Fortinet to post here. I have a quick edit request for this article: In the "Fortinet" section, updating  to   The current wording is inaccurate; this edit would address that.

Thank you for your time/help! Mary Gaulke (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply 19-SEP-2019

 * Hi Mary. I see where the Market Realist source makes the claim of 797%, but I don't see where CRN makes the same assertion. If you could provide the verbatim text from the CRN source which confirms the claim, that would help. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo  19:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! The CRN source is from the time of the IPO, so I left it in as a sort of auxiliary source for the IPO itself, but it doesn't have info about increases over time. Maybe it makes more sense to take it out? Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, additionally I wasn't sure about the math that the claim makes... it says that the increase was 797% — but according to the sentence above, the stock went from US$17.00 (IPO price) to US$86.79 (the "as of 2019" price) which would only be a 411% increase. Spintendo  23:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, got a little clarification on this! Apparently the original stat –  – is inaccurate, as the stock was split in 2009 but the $17 is the pre-split price. Ideally the stat should be deleted or replaced. One alternative:  Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * As these claims ultimately concern Fortinet, their presence here is not really warranted. The touting of large percentage increases from companies that the subject runs himself is not a WP:BALANCINGASPECT. Regards, Spintendo  09:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)