Talk:The Data Incubator

Neutrality
removed non-neutral language. +1 remove npov tag. 166.184.175.194 (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

+1 remove NPOV tag. No specific complaints and the article seems OK to me 23brinslow (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The neutrality problem is pervasive through the article, as MOST of the references are written by the owner of the company. I can't support removing the neutrality tag with that content still there unless it is supported instead by reliable independent sources.  You would like specifics?


 * Guidelines for infoboxes are generally that only the most prominent items are to go there, not comprehensive lists. Extensive lists like this look like marketing fluff.
 * "Private" is also the correct information for the 'Type' field for a school, not "Free Big Data Fellowship".
 * "Selectivity" has serious undue weight in the article. Presumably there is more important things about this school to talk about?  The first two sentences are redundant and the third is supported by a primary source.  Put the Venture Beat sentence in the lede, and drop the selectivity section altogether.
 * "The Data Incubator was founded in 2014 in New York City by Michael Li, a former data scientist at JPMorgan Chase, Hedge Fund D. E. Shaw & Co., VC firm Andreessen Horowitz, and..." is not supported by the source.
 * "The Data Incubator is regularly invited to comment about big data, hiring, and training in the business and technology press, including..." is only supported by primary sources, and as the page author noted, it is a simple thing to submit an article for consideration..this does NOT equal "regularly 'invited' to comment" (emphasis added). It is purely promotional and needs to go.
 * "...ranked second by Data Economy for Data Science..." The external link to Data Economy should be removed. Chrisw80 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding with specific comments Chrisw80. I really appreciate your taking the time.
 * I have removed "The Data Incubator is regularly invited to comment about big data" that only you seem to object to for now as I don't think it adds that much to the article.
 * "Guidelines for infoboxes ... only the most prominent items are to go there, not comprehensive lists."> I'm not in a position to say what is most prominent (but I encourage you to take a stab at it).
 * "Selectivity has serious undue weight in the article" > the title of the two cited articles (""NY Gets New Bootcamp for Data Scientists: It's free but Harder to get into than Harvard" and "15-things-that-are-harder-to-get-into-than-harvard-2015-11") basically say the school is selective. As such, it appears that this is the most salient point.
 * "The first two sentences are redundant" > The first two sentences explain "selectivity": they are actually different facts and hence not redundant. But I swapped the order and removed the section heading for the sake of compromise.
 * I have changed to private (I guess this is a convention, and sorry if I'm ignorant of these).
 * "The Data Incubator was founded in 2014 in New York City by Michael Li" > added the original source I found (sorry about this one, I forgot it).
 * "The external link to Data Economy should be removed" > I personally find links useful (saves a roundtrip to Google) but if you insist ...

I would kindly ask Chrisw80 to make your proposed edits on the Main Page rather than ordering others to fix things on this Talk Page. Many of your proposed changes are simple two line edits. It would really save everyone a lot of time. Like I said, it's easy to destroy, hard to build.

Afghan3948 (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I would like to apologize for my tone. I need to keep that in check.  I have been making what should be suggestions here on the talk page, rather than changing the article as if I make my changes to the article, they may be more drastic, and it is considered good form to discuss what might be considered major changes on the talk page before doing so. If I may ask, what is your association with The Data Incubator? Chrisw80 (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Additional Verification
Page is well referenced. User:Chrisw80: can you be more specific? If not, +1 for removal of sources template. 23brinslow (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the page is poorly referenced. The sheer quantity of references does NOT make it well referenced.  Only 4 out of the 17 references I looked at yesterday (up to 6 out of 21) now, I think) were written by someone OTHER than the company owner, were simply near verbatim interviews of him, or were short-lists of related companies.  Primary sourced content should only be used to verify trivial information (like locations of campuses), not to make up the bulk of the article. Chrisw80 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Chrisw80: I made some edits and there are now 6 sources:
 * Venture Beat
 * Computer World
 * Business Insider
 * Data Economy
 * The Next Web
 * HertzFoundation,

At this point, every sentence has a supporting reference. I agree that it is not about the number of references (this is a short article) but when almost every sentence is referenced, it is hard to say it needs additional verification. But if you have specifics, please list them below. I am happy to make reasonable changes as I did above. +1 for remove of sources template (if I get a vote).

Afghan3948 (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * At a quick glance it shows remarkable improvement. I'll admit I was wrong with the CSD, CSDs are for articles that show no promise of being salvageable without a complete rewrite.  Everyone gets a vote on Wikipedia, but your vote is only as good as your reasoning behind it.  I'll read it more carefully later, but I will likely remove the tags when I do, at the same time making a few edits to clarify things a bit. If you're not happy with my edits, we can discuss further here. I am still curious about your affiliation with The Data Incubator.  If you are associated with them, you need to declare your association. Chrisw80 (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: I've made a variety of edits to improve the quality of the article. I recommend you go through fill out the citations with the author, date, and access date tags also. I've removed the issue tags also. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * :: I will have to look up how to do these in a bit. Thank you also for explaining the discussion policy and making these edit suggestions.  The only change I would suggest is replacing Computational number theory with  Machine Learning and Statistics in the info box (they really have nothing in common).  Afghan3948 (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was following the source in the article the best I could. Feel free to swap it if you think that will work better, but the key is to stick to what the reliable sources say. Chrisw80 (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)