Talk:Luminoso/Archives/2015

Luminoso Notability
Re WP:NOTE, Luminoso has received "significant coverage" from multiple reliable secondary sources, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Wired, PCWorld, TechCrunch, Mashable, GigaOm, Boston Business Journal, and Re/code.

All sources about the company are neutral and the information in the article is entirely derived from these neutral sources.

Catherine Havasi
The Talk page for Luminoso is attached to the Draft: Catherine Havasi article.

I want to note that I have a WP:COI because I consult for Luminoso. However I am committed to all policies on disclosure, notability, a neutral point of view WP:NPOV, no advocacy, no marketing or PR WP:NOT, verifiability, independent reliable sources, etc.

With the Catherine Havasi article, I am lucky enough to be writing about a very interesting and important person in the world of artificial intelligence, with great sourcing.

My user page has more details about me, my WP:COI, and my pledge to attempt to stringently abide by all Wikipedia policies.Edsussman (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Edsussman

AfC discussion
From AfC discussion:


 * Hi  The third sentence of [12], in the Editor's introduction in italics, says: "Catherine also directs the Open Mind Common Sense Project, one of the largest common sense knowledge bases in the world, which she co-founded alongside Marvin Minsky and Push Singh in 1999."  I included [2] in both because it notes she co-founded OMCS, without the other details, so it's only supporting. [5] is superfluous in supporting when OMCS was founded and should be omitted. I don't know what I was thinking. I probably lost track. Thanks for your efforts. Edsussman (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)EdSussman


 * Edsussman - I don't find any reference that says that she directs the OMCS, much less that she co-founded it with Minsky and Singh. The article also doesn't mention that it was a web site or maybe a project, which it was acc. to the reference. The Wired article about Singh should be deleted, because she isn't mentioned in it.The info about Minsky that isn't related to her should also go -- OK, I just deleted that. The VentureFizz is not really a reliable source, so you need to emphasize sources like the first 3. The NYT article is about Luminoso and simply quotes her -- this is considered just a part of an executive's job, so it doesn't confer notability. Articles about Luminoso but not about her do not confer notability. The PC magazine article doesn't mention her, so it is not a source for this article. Articles 6,7, 8 do not mention her -- they have to go. Anything not about her as found in a reliable source will be considered original research, which is not allowed. You have to find sources that talk about her. If there are not (yet) enough sources about her, then you have to wait until there are. Meanwhile, you can only include in the article information that you find in sources about her. No making things up! Others will check your references, as I did (well, the first half of them, at least).  LaMona (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing is made up. Everything is well supported.. Please see sentence three of source 12 which is the Editor's Note in TechCrunch, in ital: "Catherine also directs the Open Mind Common Sense Project, one of the largest common sense knowledge bases in the world, which she co-founded alongside Marvin Minsky and Push Singh in 1999." Also, please note this sentence in the second to last paragraph of the profile of her in Boston Business Journal: "She also co-founded the Open Mind Common Sense project, which uses information about the world to understand natural language text and make computers easier to use.   The Fast Company profile naming her one of the "100 most creative people in business in 2015" and the Boston Business Journal profile naming her to its "40 under 40" list confer WP:Notability. Other sources that support facts in the article do not need to themselves be primarily about her. Please see WP:Notability, section entitled: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." So, for example, the PC Magazine article supports the fact about the intelligence of the program she created at MIT Media Labs. It's used to support the intelligence of the program, which is a related but salient fact, and not her WP:Notability.  In short, you're making a a very serious error under WP:Notability deleting sources that support facts in the article, even if they aren't about her.  The Push Singh Wired profile, for example, gives background about OMCS, such as its founding, which is relevant because she is the co-founder and director of the project. It doesn't matter that she isn't in that particular article. In addition to general notability, she also qualifies for WP:Academic, specifically WP:NACADEMICS "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." She is the director and co-founder of an academic project at MIT Media Lab called OMCS recognized by multiple relaiable sources as one of the leading programs, or the leading program in the field of artificial intelligence.   .  Please also note criteria 7 of WP:NACADEMICS. "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." In this case, using her work at MIT Media Labs to co-found a notable venture-capital backed company, Luminoso Please also see for partial academic citations.Edsussman (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)EdSussman
 * You also have an incorrect understanding of WP:OR. Facts cited from a reliable source are not original research. "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." When the sources are reliable they may be used to support facts in an article even if they are not in sources that are primarily about the subject of the article. The sources themselves need not confer WP:Notability. "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."  With regard to the source Venture Fizz, it is certainly a reliable source under WP:Reliable "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It's a professionally edited, third-party website, not a personal blog or a self-published source. http://www.venturefizz.com/about Even if it's not used to convey WP:Notability as a first-tier source (like Fast Company and Boston Business Journal), it can be used to support other facts in the article.