Talk:Semafor (website)

Draft with proposed changes
Hello! Meera here, in my role as Head of Global Communications for Semafor, hoping to suggest some helpful updates to the Semafor (website) Wikipedia article. As I've declared on my profile page, I want to acknowledge my conflict of interest and let editors know that I will be proposing updates here on the Talk page instead of changing the page on my own.

I've created an account here because I've identified some issues with the Wikipedia article. Most problematic is the "Ties to the Chinese Communist Party" section, which is not neutral yet takes up half the page. Sources in this section include a TikTok link and an NPR source which does not even mention Semafor. The article also has a tag requesting a "better source". More generally, I can think of many updates and better ways to summarize Semafor.

I have saved an updated draft article at User:SemaforMP/Semafor. Using the current article as a foundation, I've kept text about etymology, history, funding, staff, and the China and Global Business initiative. However, I've balanced the text, based on what independent sources say, and I've added overviews of Semafor's internal structure, early reporting, and content/activities. Editors will also see I've added some subsections for organizational purposes.

I understand this might be a lot for editors to review as a whole, so I will be submitting edit requests to address specific areas. Hopefully this makes the review process more manageable.


 * Hi Meera, thanks for reaching out and being open about your conflict of interest. I fully agree that the style of the "Links to CCP" section is far from neutral, especially in its relative length to the article. I've skimmed through your draft and most of it looks reasonable to me, although it'll inevitably see changes once it's integrated into the article. The China section especially might be controversial — I think there are many who would like to more explicitly counterbalance Semafor's portrayal of the Global Business Initiative as "an alternative to Washington's 'hawkish' consensus on Beijing." But I'm sure the community will work out a wording that's both neutral and accurate. I think taking the edits one section at a time is a good idea.--Tserton (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Description and etymology
First, I'd like to address the "Etymology" section: Semafor (website)

Right now the section has a single sentence. I've drafted an expanded "Description and etymology" section which offers descriptions of Semafor, briefly describes the business model and headquarters location, and explains why the name "Semafor" was selected.

Here you can see I've proposed the following text:

If editors reviewing this request find the expanded summary helpful, I would ask you to copy over the wiki markup on my behalf. As I've mentioned above, I won't be updating the page myself. I'll be back with more requests, but for now, thanks for reviewing and hopefully updating this article. SemaforMP (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've carried out the requested edit. --Tserton (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing this request and updating the article on my behalf. Also, I appreciate your general feedback on the draft as a whole and will continue to propose changes by section as you've recommended. I am submitting a request for the History section if you have a moment to review. SemaforMP (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

History section: First paragraph
Following Tserton's recommendation above, I'd like to address the "History" section next: Semafor_(website). More specifically, I'd like to focus on the section's first paragraph (I'll address the funding and staff content later, as I've included these as subsections at User:SemaforMP/Semafor).

The first paragraph of the "History" section has a "better source needed" tag and could be improved with some tense changes ("would be leaving", "would lead"). The "History" section I've proposed uses past tense prose, provides readers with an overview of Semafor's conception and development, and offers a few milestone's in the organization's early history. The draft text also mentions a couple notable partnerships, office locations, and the equity program. The text is based in reliable news sources.

I propose replacing the first paragraph of the "History" section with the following:

Some of these sources are already used in the article, so copying over markup from User:SemaforMP/Semafor may be easier than copying from the box above.

Again, I plan to address the funding and staff text separately. I welcome feedback from User:Tserton and others. Thanks in advance for help with this section. SemaforMP (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. I left in the Justin Smith memo and (for now) the funding and staff. --Tserton (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for reviewing and updating the article on my behalf. You may have seen that I've proposed subsections for funding and staff. I am including separate edit requests for those below, if you have time to take a look. SemaforMP (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Funding
Thanks to User:Tserton for updating the first half of the "History" section: Semafor_(website). The second half of the section is about staff and funding. Over at User:SemaforMP/Semafor, I've expanded these two paragraphs and converted them into subsections of "History" called "Funding" and "Staff".

As seen here, I've shared text that expands on Semafor's founding launch partners and sponsors, and provides more context about the organization's ownership structure per reliable sources.

I propose replacing the current funding text with the following:

Again, some of these sources are already used in the article, so copying over markup from User:SemaforMP/Semafor may be easier than copying from the box above. I welcome feedback from Tserton and other editors. Thanks! SemaforMP (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. I've kept a few bits of the old paragraph and reworded the quote and attributed it to Justin Smith instead of The Financial Times. --Tserton (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Staff
Related to the above request, I have shared expanded and updated text about Semafor's staff at User:SemaforMP/Semafor to expand on the staff content at Semafor_(website).

The article currently mentions Reed Albergotti, Liz Hoffmann, and David Weigel, as well as Justin B. Smith, Ben Smith, and Gina Chua, though she is mentioned higher up in the "History" section. I've kept mention of these individuals, and expanded the text further to mention other notable journalists, the CRO and head of product, and bureau chiefs. I think this gives more insight into how Semafor is organized.

I propose replacing the current staff text with the following:

As I've said previously, some of these sources are already used in the article, so copying markup from User:SemaforMP/Semafor may be easier than copying from the box above. I welcome feedback from Tserton and others, and appreciate your continued help to update Semafor's Wikipedia article.

Thanks again! SemaforMP (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done. --Tserton (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for assessing these requests and updating the article. I've submitted a request for the section about China, if you have a chance to review. SemaforMP (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Meera, I just did a Google Image search for a better photo of Gina Chua with a Creative Commons license and found nothing. The present photo of her looks like it was taken a second after she banged her shin against a coffee table or something. In commercially licensed photos elsewhere she doesn't look like that.
 * Maybe you have a suggestion. Dgndenver (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

China
Hello again. I'd like to address the "Ties to the Chinese Communist Party" section: Semafor_(website)

The text in this section is problematic and not representative of what the sources actually say. I see User:WhinyTheYounger removed some of the problematic text last month, but some neutrality issues remain. This section is largely based on the Washington Free Beacon. Whether or not Wikipedia editors consider the Washington Free Beacon a reliable source, the article's text is biased and written in a way which is not supported by the citations. The section also uses an NPR source which does not even mention Semafor. I propose changing the section's name to "China and Global Business initiative" and replacing the current text with the following:

I'm not sure this much detail is necessary, but if Wikipedia is going to cover the China and Global Business initiative in some form, then I'd like for editors to consider a more accurate and neutral summary. Markup for the replacement text can also be found at User:SemaforMP/Semafor. You'll see the draft I've published has some surrounding content about Semafor's other content and activities, but for now I'd like to focus specifically on the text about China. Again, I welcome help from User:Tserton and others. Thanks in advance for assistance with this section. SemaforMP (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because these revisions are a lot more sensitive (especially given the combination of COI edits – even though it's been completely aboveboard – and a controversial topic), I'm going to tread more carefully than with the previous non-controversial sections.


 * I'm going to start by taking out the parts of the current section (i.e., the one currently in the article) that are straightforwardly non-neutral or not pertinent.
 * I'll then copy in your text and integrate it into whatever's left.
 * I'll also post on the Journalism project talk page asking for editors to review the edits.
 * --Tserton (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Since most of the new content already covered what was in the article before, I ended merging very little. As you said, it's a bit long, so I'll take a look tomorrow at how it might be made more succinct. I'd also like to take a closer look at the statements sourced by the Washington Free Beacon, since as a partisan source we should be using it with care. (I'm not criticizing you for leaving those citations in; it was a good idea on your part retain the sources that were in there previously.) --Tserton (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent deletions
@ SwireME, it's perfectly fine for you to disagree with the wording of a section, but when you edit a potentially controversial section like this one – especially if you're going to make mass deletions like you just did – you really should justify it on the talk page. Wikipedia works by consensus, and mass deletions followed by controversial additions is likely to just start an edit war. I agree that Semafor's handling of China – and the ties of some of its associates to the Chinese government / ruling party – need to be covered, but the way you've gone about it goes against several of Wikipedia's policies. The section is one-sided, far too long in relation to the rest of the article, contains barely relevant information (like events in the 2000s) and relies on a lot of unsourced synthesis. I'm going to revert most of your edits. To avoid edit-warring and allow for discussion, I'm going to refrain from reinstating my (SemaforMP's) additions for now. Tserton (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * same story. Don't edit-war, discuss. --Tserton (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Tserton, it seems you are the one engaging in mass deletions and rewrites, some at the request of Semafor staff. You do not provide sound reasons for your deletions, text contributed by multiple wikipedia users, which provides information and context on Semafor's ties to the CCP. You also dismiss an important source of news the "Washington Free Beacon." If you want to add information to the Wikipedia entry, fine, but your deletions are censorship. IN2Editor (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for responding. I'll take your points one-by-one.
 * "some at the request of Semafor staff": as I just wrote on your talk page, while paid editing is tricky and has to be handled with great care and a healthy skepticism, Wikipedia has rules for it, and SemaforMP has abided by them. It's okay to disagree with (and modify) the edits, but the mere fact that she's been paid by the Semafor to edit the page (or in this case, propose the edits) is not enough to discredit her additions.
 * "information and context on Semafor's ties to the CCP": nothing is being censored. The text I was reverting definitely included those ties, it was just worded differently (and much more succinct). There may be a better way to word them. But the text as it stands is simply not neutral - it's absurd to include events that happened decades before the company was founded.
 * "Washington Free Beacon": this is a source with the stated purpose of opposing the Chinese government. It also contains a lot of commentary on US politics from a clearly Republican bent. Do you see how it might be a less-than-ideal source for providing objective perspectives about China?
 * I'd also like to point out that if your goal is to make people aware of Semafor's ties to China (which I share), your heavy-handed way of describing them is more likely to have the opposite effect.
 * --Tserton (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My most recent reversions: . There is simply no justification for including things that happened long before Semafor was founded, and there's especially no justification to include Jerry Yang's investment in the company under the section called "China" - he is not even from China. --Tserton (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and  for socking.--  Ponyo bons mots 20:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! --Tserton (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

China section
The editor who was edit-warring over the China section has been blocked, but I'm going to justify my next few edits here anyway, since it is a somewhat contentious topic. So if you do feel the need to make significant changes to the text, please do engage here on the talk page. We'll hammer out a consensus wording in the same way that has been done for thousands of other controversial topics on Wikipedia. Tserton (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * about a video Semafor released about a potential TikTok ban by the US government. If reliable sources stated that Semafor had made the video because of it ties to China, that would be one thing, but it is WP:SYNTH to imply it on our own here. --Tserton (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * on Ali Baba's involvement in developing facial recognition systems. I don't want to minimize the repression of Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in China – it is real and reprehensible. It's covered extensively on Wikipedia, and is also mentioned at Alibaba Group. But this article is about Semafor, not about those things. I can't find any reliable sources linking the two. --Tserton (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * on the advisory board of the China and Global Business initiative, originally written as part of a COI edit request by . I modified SemaforMP's text a bit to integrate it into the existing text. I think it's fairly uncontroversial – it basically just lists and describes the board members. If anything it might be a bit too detailed. --Tserton (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Wow! I see a lot has happened over the holiday weekend. User:Tserton, thanks for your work here. One thing I noticed: You added mention of Alibaba to the "Chinese companies" sub-section, but Alibaba is already referenced as a sponsor in the "Funding" section. I should note, Alibaba was not a major launch sponsor, if you're interested in trimming this redundancy. SemaforMP (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

First two paragraphs
Continuing with my series of requests, I'd like for editors to start reviewing the "Content and activities" overview I've published here: User:SemaforMP/Semafor.

Currently, the article has a "China" section, which I've proposed be called "China and Global Business initiative". I propose making this section a sub-section of a larger section outlining Semafor's content and activities. Since this is a lot to review at once, I'd like to first focus on just the first two paragraphs, leaving the "Newsletters and video programming" and "Events" sub-sections for subsequent requests. I suggest adding the following text:

The purpose of this content is to give readers a summary of content created by Semafor, as documented in news coverage. Many sources describe the "Semaform" and mention some examples of the organization's initial reporting. I will be posting additional requests specific to Semafor's newsletters, video programming, and events. I welcome help from User:Tserton and other editors. Thanks in advance. SemaforMP (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hi again! I've partially carried out your edit requests. I shortened the paragraph about "Semaform" – after reading through some of Semafor's current articles, I get the impression that the format has evolved a bit since those sources were published. Most articles don't use the five subsections as consistently as your proposed text suggested. I've reworded it – please let me know if any of it is inaccurate.
 * Semafor's articles and newsletters are structured into short sections, each with a separate subtitle. The first section generally consists of a short summary of the relevant facts, followed by a section containing analysis or an editorial by the writer of the article. Other common sections include "The View From," which describes perspectives from countries or parties involved in the story, and a section exploring why the writer's analysis may be wrong. The structure, which Semafor calls "Semaform", is intended to clearly separate fact from opinion. To allow journalists to cultivate direct relationships with their readers, bylines are displayed prominently.
 * As for the second paragraph, to be honest, I don't really think a list of Semafor's early articles is notable enough to be in the article. A lot of the news reports on Semafor's launch might at the time have included these examples, but I don't think it'll be interesting to anyone months or years later. I'm open to other editors (including you, of course) disagreeing, though. --Tserton (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Newsletters and video programming
Related to the above request, I have shared text about Semafor's newsletters and video programming at User:SemaforMP/Semafor.

Same as before, some of these sources are already used in the article, so copying over markup from User:SemaforMP/Semafor may be easier than copying from the box above. I welcome feedback from Tserton and others, and appreciate your continued assistance. SemaforMP (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've partially carried out your edit request. As above, I reworded it a bit and took out a few things (see below for my explanation):
 * Semafor publishes a daily newsletter covering world news called Flagship,[10] as well as distinct newsletters focusing on Africa, U.S. politics and policy, business and finance, climate, international security, media, and technology. Each newsletter contains a regular feature called "One Good Text", in which journalists conduct one-question interviews of politicians, business executives or other influential people via text message.[25]
 * I took out the parts about "10 minute texts" and "Witness," because I can't find any information – on Semafor's website or elsewhere – that these features were actually ever fully rolled out, much less that they're still active. I can't find the "10 minute texts" series in any of the newsletters (a Google search only returns two from the series), and there doesn't seem to have been a video from the Witness series since the very first one last October. Please let me know if there's something I missed, but based on that I don't think those features are notable enough to be mentioned in the article. --Tserton (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Events
Related to the above request, I have shared text about Semafor's events at User:SemaforMP/Semafor. I propose adding the following text:

I'd like to think these "content and activities" are not controversial, at least not nearly as much as the problematic China text discussed above. Thanks again to Tserton and other editors for reviewing and improving this article. SemaforMP (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've mostly implemented your suggestions for an "Events" section. I added some context took out a few details and mentions of individual events; if this page mentions every major event Semafor holds it'll just degenerate into a list. --Tserton (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Funding update
First, thanks to User:Tserton for helping with the "Funding" section above. There's one sentence I'd like to address, which may have stuck from last week's activity on this page. Right now the end of the first paragraph says, "In May 2023, Semafor announced Jerry Yang, the co-founder and former CEO of Yahoo! Inc., had become a significant investor in the company. "

I'd argue this is not how the source can best be used within the Wikipedia article. To me, the takeaway of the news article is that Semafor raised $19m from several investors to replace money received from Sam Bankman-Fried. Therefore, I propose removing the last sentence of the first paragraph and replacing with the following as the last sentence of the second paragraph :


 * In May 2023, Semafor raised $19 million in additional funding from investors to replace money received from Bankman-Fried.

I ask editors to update the article appropriately. Thanks again! SemaforMP (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think this is reasonable, since the article mentions Jerry Yang as just one of a number of investors. --Tserton (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Semafor coverage on The China Project
Hi there, I do not work with Semafor and have no conflict of interest. I was trying to add a paragraph about Semafor's controversial converage quoting a former employee of The China Project, previously SupChina, accusing the latter of under Chinese government influence. The coverage triggered a strong response from The China Project, a news outlet with significant following in people interested in China-U.S. relations. Most importantly, since Semafor's event "China and Global Business Summit" has already been extensively recorded in this page, I find its controversial coverage of The China Project highly relevant and should not be subject to the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" rule erroenously enforced by @Tserton. That Semafor's activities in China-U.S. relations should be covered in full here, not just its "China and Global Business Summit". Reluctantbeijinger (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for reaching out. I'm not against covering The China Project's spat with Semafor on principle. The reason I think your contribution fell under WP:NOTNEWS was because the only sources it was based on were Semafor and The China Project themselves. If no reliable secondary sources (meaning sources not connected to either party) have reported on the conflict, it's probably not relevant for Wikipedia's purposes. But if other reliable sources start covering it, it can definitely go in the article. --Tserton (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)