Talk:Lumosity

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marenaw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion to move article to Lumosity
The article Lumosity has been deleted several times in the past, but over two years ago. I'd say that right now the website is big and significant enough to warrant an article, which should simply be named Lumosity. Gap9551 (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel the website is significant enought to warrant an article. 70.39.176.68 (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Confirm: 25 millions claimed users, energic marketing, notability is here. 83.156.44.121 (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note above post by WP:SPA In ictu oculi (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 17:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Lumosity (company) → Lumosity – Primary topic article does not exist (and has been subject to various deletions), which makes the (company) addendum unnecessary. MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A bit to close to luminosity. I would rather not see typos go to a company of dubious notability and practices. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral. no such word ... understand the reservation above, the disamb is actually helpful. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. It's the only use of this word.  WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  --Born2cycle (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Best to use the simplest title available. Gap9551 (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

There are 39 games today. 39 not over 40
THere are 39 games today. 39 not over 40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.137.227 (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Concur. An anonymous IP changed this to "nearly 45". I reduced it to a simple "39". "Nearly 40" is puffery, 45 is unsupported. Please cite a source if you want to bump the number up. Bn (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Concern about anonymous POV editing
I'm concerned about an anonymous large edit made January 18th ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lumosity&diff=533673093&oldid=533073704 ), from an IP which has made no other edits. This edit completely reversed the overall tone of the research and criticism sections, including deleting without explanation multiple critical papers, and padding the Criticism section with unjustified anti-criticism. This smacks of corporate P.R. I am tempted to simply revert the change, since I find it hard to believe that this edit is Good Faith. :\ (Obviously better still would be to carefully read all the ADDED research from that edit, keeping any that are valid sources, but that would be actual work.)  Opinions requested. --jholman (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Also with no actual work, I see the Feb 18 material has mostly remained in place. I agree that it is highly suspicious, and feel it should probably be reverted at first glance, on POV grounds.  Seems like there ought to be a crew of "WikiCops" to investigate things like this, as many of us notice worrisome material, but without having the time to investigate it thoroughly, we hesitate to revert.  I have noticed that simply posting a worry on the talk page does not usually accomplish much, which I take to mean not very many editors have the time and resources free to do more than express concern.  Wwheaton (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This entire article reads like a huge advertisement. If you guys have the background to know what to revert, please BE BOLD and do it. Don't let this company's PR department ruin wikipedia. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think there need be concern about that Hamster, if it were a lower profile scam your concern would be justified, but as it is their own marketing will drive enough critical editors here to see that that result doesn't prevail, at least not for long. 198.255.198.157 (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, am I chopped liver?
I have Asperger's syndrome, and I am thinking of signing up for Lumosity, hoping it will help me with my difficulties. How has it helped people with that? So far, this article tells me it won't help.

Largerthanlife147 (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I was unable to find anything on Lumosity's own page regarding benefits to users with Asperger's. A quick Google Scholar search also turned up nothing.  Granted, this doesn't mean that no research is being done in this area, just that no results have been published.

Psychojosh13 (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

That depends on how your ASD presents itself. If processing speed and working memory are a problem, then I'd say it could help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.181.136 (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Biz Model?
I'd like to see a few words about how the site is sponsored; advertizing, fee for service, or what?

(IMHO providing this kind of info should be routine for articles on online services.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.92.84 (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

New study on effectiveness
A native speaker please see http://myweb.fsu.edu/vshute/pdf/portal1.pdf to possibly include in the article. -92.231.217.39 (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.


 * Viewpoint by (name here): ....


 * Viewpoint by (name here): ....

I am trying to add similar products to this page and am being threatened of a site being blacklisted ? why is it not appropriate to add similar products to the company page ?.
 * Third opinion by palguay: ....

Fined by the FTC for false advertising.
FTC Gizmodo Wired SciencemagFusionLord (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I moved the paragraph about this to the top of effectiveness section. This fine (actually as described 50Million, suspended based on verification of limits of wealth- but could be reinstated without further legal challenge) resulted from a study of all research, so the specifics that constitute the remainder of the section are now subordinated to the conclusions of the FTC. While the fine was for false advertising, the efficacy of the product is what made it false. The conclusion of the FTC is that the efficacy, in the totality of all research, had no valid scientific correspondence with the advertising claims.Arodb (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree it should be at the top of the section. Sundayclose (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Auto charging
Can someone please write about the auto charging.



 .@Photnart. (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC).
 * Consumer review sites are not reliable sources, thus unacceptable on Wikipedia. Please see WP:RS. Sundayclose (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead section confusion
Lead section states that “Lumosity is an online brain training and neuroscience research company” but Lumos Labs is the company and Lumosity is their product.Unconventional2 (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)