This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
My name is Holly, and I am head of PR and Communications for Faculty. Faculty is an AI company, with deep roots in technology, so we naturally have tremendous respect for Wikipedia and its many achievements in automation and content creation. We also respect Wikipedia's vibrant community and the rules that make the community work. As a result, I realise that I have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to the Faculty entry, so am posting my request here for some assistance from the community in making the Faculty entry more balanced.
As it stands, I believe that the entry does not meet Wikipedia's standards for neutral point of view. I am concerned that the edits made in July and August go beyond the facts in the cited sources and that the entry now includes characterisations of Faculty that are overly opinionated.
Specifically, I wanted to draw editors' attention the following issues:
I recognise that Faculty can be seen through the Guardian's coverage as a business with controversial political entanglements. While my colleagues and I would argue that this portrait is unfair, I accept that the articles cited here do create that appearance. I would only suggest that the facts from the sources are presented with better balance and greater precision in order to make the entry as accurate as possible and more consistent with Wikipedia standards.
I'm delighted to answer questions, discuss any of these points, and provide further information in whatever form editors would find most useful.
Thank you for considering my request.
Many thanks,
Hsearle-faculty ( talk) 12:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you.
Hi all,
I wanted to draw editors’ attention to some further developments that particularly clarifies the conflict-of-interest issue in the final paragraph.
The paragraph starting “The same month it was reported Faculty…”, notes a contract Faculty was awarded by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and insinuates that this contract was won due to influence from senior government influence: “Theodore Agnew, the Cabinet Minister with responsibility for promoting the use of technology in public services had a shareholding in the company worth £90,000 as of May 2020 raising questions of potential conflict of interest.”
The National Audit Office recently released a review of 8,600 contracts awarded by the Government between January and July 2020. The NAO found no evidence that Lord Agnew, Minister of State at the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury, was involved in these procurements, which were contracted under delegated authority in different departments, none of them his own. It also found that the minister had disclosed his interests in line with the respective codes. You can find the full report here. Section relating to Faculty can be found on page 36.
In case it is of interest, you can also find the details on the work mentioned in the report with NHSX here:
I have added these to the ‘Additional Information’ section as well along with some more information on our work with the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) to support the Coronavirus response.
Many thanks,
Hsearle-faculty ( talk) 17:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
In order to assist the community with its work on this entry, we have collected some additional materials from sources that we believe meet Wikipedia’s standards for citations. We recognise that the Request Edit standards require specific suggestions, but given the previous discussion, we thought it more useful to offer these sources without additional comment. To underscore, we have no expectation that this entry might ultimately be promotional or positive. We merely make these resources available in the spirit of improving the entry in whatever way editors deem best.
Faculty work with the NHS
The power of data in a pandemic (NHS Blog Post)
Coronavirus: NHS uses tech giants to plan crisis response (BBC)
Faculty builds medical database for AI-powered Covid-19 assessments (New Statesman)
Data can save us from Covid | News (Times)
Coronavirus: New tool will forecast how GP surgeries would cope with a second peak in cases (Sky News)
NHS enlists US tech giants to help manage resources (Telegraph)
Contract following competitive tender (Open Democracy)
Faculty work on identifying deep fakes
Deepfake videos: How they work - and why they are dangerous (Telegraph)
Deepfakes: Should we still trust what we see? (Telegraph - Video)
Fake news: The computers fighting fakes - CBBC Newsround (BBC)
The rise of the deepfake and the threat to democracy (Guardian)
Faculty work on identifying communications from terrorist groups
Isis videos targeted by UK-funded artificial intelligence software (FT)
UK outs extremism blocking tool and could force tech firms to use it (TechCrunch)
Other citations that might be useful
Royal Institution Christmas Lectures (BBC)
Faculty as a top startup: Innovative tech startups in Europe according to VCs (Business Insider)
Faculty Listed on Times Tech Track 100 (2019 & 2020) https://www.fasttrack.co.uk/league-tables/tech-track-100/league-table/ (Sunday Times / Wiki link)
Hsearle-faculty ( talk) 16:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Fixerupper75, you reverted a bunch of edits by Smartse in this edit, but I feel that each of those edits was well-justified. May you please discuss them point-by-point here? I agree with SmartSE that the text and statements he removed were not supported by reliable sources. The edit summary "Edits made to improve page, and remove WP:UNDUE and notability issues" hardly helps. Thanks. Ariadacapo ( talk) 15:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, More than happy to engage in a discussion about the merits of the edits. The company has clearly paid an external company to create the Wikipedia page. This is a clear whitewash to try and cover over the mass-reported condemnation of their company’s practises. In the mean time, there have been edits by gwillis (Google shows that this is a staff member at Faculty - Gary Willis). Smartse then appeared on the scene to edit the page at the direct request of the company’s PR agent - with the first paragraph alone clearly not NPOV and edited to focus on the company’s prominent and laudable investors. Let’s discuss that edit first. This is clearly WP:UNDUE given the international prominence of the scandal surrounding the company - which is its only notable reason to even have a page. You say that you feel that the edit was not well-justified or supported by reliable sources - but that seems challenging to reconcile with the more-reliable abundance of sources that support the current edit from internationally-renowned journalists in well-trodden media (including a Pulitzer Prize winner). Anyway, more than happy to discuss further. I retain a NPOV on the issue, but it is fahttps://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Faculty_(company)&action=edit§ion=3ir to say that I am displeased by the lack of ethics and repeated disruption of Wikipedia’s community guidelines. In my opinion, SmartSE and Faculty’s PR agent have already both done enough to justify a ban. Fixerupper75 ( talk) 21:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
To summarise, the discussion of the numerous involved controversies at the start of the article is WP:DUE and supported by extremely reliable sources. The discussion of the company’s investors - as the intro to the company - is at best WP:UNDUE and at worst an obvious paid edit to advertise and build the company’s reputation on behalf of the company’s PR agent. Fixerupper75 ( talk) 21:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I didn’t revert any edits.
Let’s go through the edits one-by-one. Do you have any reason to substantiate why the current edit should be changed, given Wiki community guidelines? I am discussing the edits specifically, so hope you will begin to do the same.
We need to make sure each point is addressed properly, given the COI associated with editors on the page. Fixerupper75 ( talk) 07:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, as the page history shows, the reverted edits to the page were made by SmartSE, which were against community guidelines (and which you are refusing to discuss) Fixerupper75 ( talk) 07:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I have fixed two edits to the page, which were not consistent with the wording of reliable sources and another where a reliable source was deleted and replaced with ‘citation needed’. This is unacceptable editing, particularly from SmartSE who has a demonstrated COI from his association with Faculty’s PR agent. Fixerupper75 ( talk) 11:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the "disputed neutrality" claims and "citation needed" claims throughout the article. e.g. "intricate web", "considerable hype", "widely criticised" are not particularly encyclopaedic. I say this as someone who is not engaged in UK politics/Brexit and has not worked for or with any of the relevant organisations.
Moreover, some of the citations that are present do not seem to actually support the claims they pertain to. For example, the Wired article does not actually indicate AFAICT that Faculty was involved with Vote Leave, but rather that Ben Warner did, who formerly worked at the company. So I've deleted this claim, although it would be fine to reintroduce it, if a suitable cite is available. I've also implemented a couple of other minor languages changes.
I think people should go further in terms of making the article more neutral and better cited, but I've tried to keep my changes minimal and relatively unobjectionable. I'd also lean toward deleting "Marc Warner has spoken publicly about the benefits of Brexit and the advantages to the AI industry." RyanCarey1 ( talk) 13:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello, my name is Janine and I work for Faculty. I believe the current page still has substantial neutrality and emphasis issues; other comments here on Talk seem to echo that concern (e.g. see comments above by @ RyanCarey1:). A few examples of ongoing issues:
In accordance with proper procedure for handling a conflict of interest on Wikipedia, I have prepared a draft here, in hopes of prompting discussion and seeing if editors find all or some of the content useful. This draft includes those criticisms in the current page that are properly sourced, but balances them with our defenses to those criticisms, and includes more general information. Janine Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 16:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I looked over your proposed changes. I've implemented them with some changes, and of course other users can make changes as well. My thoughts: A google search shows slightly more pages and news articles about investment opportunities than connections with Brexit. So I think shortening the lede is appropriate. The 'connections with Steve Bannon' etc. was a gross misrepresentation of the content of the cited article, which merely pointed out that ASI and Cambridge had a lot of employees that left one to work for another.
The monetary figures you provided were different than those in the source articles. Even if the articles are incorrect, we have to use the published numbers, unless you can get the accurate numbers into a news article (by holding a press conference, etc.).
The 'software and services' section read a bit like advertising copy, so I looked at other company pages such as Texas Instruments to find comparable material. I made some slight edits to have it read as more neutral.
I added a direct quote to the controversy section instead of an inference, and changed the wording of a few points to add a more neutral view.
As always, I welcome edits by other editors. Brirush ( talk) 18:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
My name is Holly, and I am head of PR and Communications for Faculty. Faculty is an AI company, with deep roots in technology, so we naturally have tremendous respect for Wikipedia and its many achievements in automation and content creation. We also respect Wikipedia's vibrant community and the rules that make the community work. As a result, I realise that I have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to the Faculty entry, so am posting my request here for some assistance from the community in making the Faculty entry more balanced.
As it stands, I believe that the entry does not meet Wikipedia's standards for neutral point of view. I am concerned that the edits made in July and August go beyond the facts in the cited sources and that the entry now includes characterisations of Faculty that are overly opinionated.
Specifically, I wanted to draw editors' attention the following issues:
I recognise that Faculty can be seen through the Guardian's coverage as a business with controversial political entanglements. While my colleagues and I would argue that this portrait is unfair, I accept that the articles cited here do create that appearance. I would only suggest that the facts from the sources are presented with better balance and greater precision in order to make the entry as accurate as possible and more consistent with Wikipedia standards.
I'm delighted to answer questions, discuss any of these points, and provide further information in whatever form editors would find most useful.
Thank you for considering my request.
Many thanks,
Hsearle-faculty ( talk) 12:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you.
Hi all,
I wanted to draw editors’ attention to some further developments that particularly clarifies the conflict-of-interest issue in the final paragraph.
The paragraph starting “The same month it was reported Faculty…”, notes a contract Faculty was awarded by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and insinuates that this contract was won due to influence from senior government influence: “Theodore Agnew, the Cabinet Minister with responsibility for promoting the use of technology in public services had a shareholding in the company worth £90,000 as of May 2020 raising questions of potential conflict of interest.”
The National Audit Office recently released a review of 8,600 contracts awarded by the Government between January and July 2020. The NAO found no evidence that Lord Agnew, Minister of State at the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury, was involved in these procurements, which were contracted under delegated authority in different departments, none of them his own. It also found that the minister had disclosed his interests in line with the respective codes. You can find the full report here. Section relating to Faculty can be found on page 36.
In case it is of interest, you can also find the details on the work mentioned in the report with NHSX here:
I have added these to the ‘Additional Information’ section as well along with some more information on our work with the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) to support the Coronavirus response.
Many thanks,
Hsearle-faculty ( talk) 17:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
In order to assist the community with its work on this entry, we have collected some additional materials from sources that we believe meet Wikipedia’s standards for citations. We recognise that the Request Edit standards require specific suggestions, but given the previous discussion, we thought it more useful to offer these sources without additional comment. To underscore, we have no expectation that this entry might ultimately be promotional or positive. We merely make these resources available in the spirit of improving the entry in whatever way editors deem best.
Faculty work with the NHS
The power of data in a pandemic (NHS Blog Post)
Coronavirus: NHS uses tech giants to plan crisis response (BBC)
Faculty builds medical database for AI-powered Covid-19 assessments (New Statesman)
Data can save us from Covid | News (Times)
Coronavirus: New tool will forecast how GP surgeries would cope with a second peak in cases (Sky News)
NHS enlists US tech giants to help manage resources (Telegraph)
Contract following competitive tender (Open Democracy)
Faculty work on identifying deep fakes
Deepfake videos: How they work - and why they are dangerous (Telegraph)
Deepfakes: Should we still trust what we see? (Telegraph - Video)
Fake news: The computers fighting fakes - CBBC Newsround (BBC)
The rise of the deepfake and the threat to democracy (Guardian)
Faculty work on identifying communications from terrorist groups
Isis videos targeted by UK-funded artificial intelligence software (FT)
UK outs extremism blocking tool and could force tech firms to use it (TechCrunch)
Other citations that might be useful
Royal Institution Christmas Lectures (BBC)
Faculty as a top startup: Innovative tech startups in Europe according to VCs (Business Insider)
Faculty Listed on Times Tech Track 100 (2019 & 2020) https://www.fasttrack.co.uk/league-tables/tech-track-100/league-table/ (Sunday Times / Wiki link)
Hsearle-faculty ( talk) 16:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Fixerupper75, you reverted a bunch of edits by Smartse in this edit, but I feel that each of those edits was well-justified. May you please discuss them point-by-point here? I agree with SmartSE that the text and statements he removed were not supported by reliable sources. The edit summary "Edits made to improve page, and remove WP:UNDUE and notability issues" hardly helps. Thanks. Ariadacapo ( talk) 15:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, More than happy to engage in a discussion about the merits of the edits. The company has clearly paid an external company to create the Wikipedia page. This is a clear whitewash to try and cover over the mass-reported condemnation of their company’s practises. In the mean time, there have been edits by gwillis (Google shows that this is a staff member at Faculty - Gary Willis). Smartse then appeared on the scene to edit the page at the direct request of the company’s PR agent - with the first paragraph alone clearly not NPOV and edited to focus on the company’s prominent and laudable investors. Let’s discuss that edit first. This is clearly WP:UNDUE given the international prominence of the scandal surrounding the company - which is its only notable reason to even have a page. You say that you feel that the edit was not well-justified or supported by reliable sources - but that seems challenging to reconcile with the more-reliable abundance of sources that support the current edit from internationally-renowned journalists in well-trodden media (including a Pulitzer Prize winner). Anyway, more than happy to discuss further. I retain a NPOV on the issue, but it is fahttps://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Faculty_(company)&action=edit§ion=3ir to say that I am displeased by the lack of ethics and repeated disruption of Wikipedia’s community guidelines. In my opinion, SmartSE and Faculty’s PR agent have already both done enough to justify a ban. Fixerupper75 ( talk) 21:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
To summarise, the discussion of the numerous involved controversies at the start of the article is WP:DUE and supported by extremely reliable sources. The discussion of the company’s investors - as the intro to the company - is at best WP:UNDUE and at worst an obvious paid edit to advertise and build the company’s reputation on behalf of the company’s PR agent. Fixerupper75 ( talk) 21:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I didn’t revert any edits.
Let’s go through the edits one-by-one. Do you have any reason to substantiate why the current edit should be changed, given Wiki community guidelines? I am discussing the edits specifically, so hope you will begin to do the same.
We need to make sure each point is addressed properly, given the COI associated with editors on the page. Fixerupper75 ( talk) 07:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, as the page history shows, the reverted edits to the page were made by SmartSE, which were against community guidelines (and which you are refusing to discuss) Fixerupper75 ( talk) 07:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I have fixed two edits to the page, which were not consistent with the wording of reliable sources and another where a reliable source was deleted and replaced with ‘citation needed’. This is unacceptable editing, particularly from SmartSE who has a demonstrated COI from his association with Faculty’s PR agent. Fixerupper75 ( talk) 11:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the "disputed neutrality" claims and "citation needed" claims throughout the article. e.g. "intricate web", "considerable hype", "widely criticised" are not particularly encyclopaedic. I say this as someone who is not engaged in UK politics/Brexit and has not worked for or with any of the relevant organisations.
Moreover, some of the citations that are present do not seem to actually support the claims they pertain to. For example, the Wired article does not actually indicate AFAICT that Faculty was involved with Vote Leave, but rather that Ben Warner did, who formerly worked at the company. So I've deleted this claim, although it would be fine to reintroduce it, if a suitable cite is available. I've also implemented a couple of other minor languages changes.
I think people should go further in terms of making the article more neutral and better cited, but I've tried to keep my changes minimal and relatively unobjectionable. I'd also lean toward deleting "Marc Warner has spoken publicly about the benefits of Brexit and the advantages to the AI industry." RyanCarey1 ( talk) 13:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello, my name is Janine and I work for Faculty. I believe the current page still has substantial neutrality and emphasis issues; other comments here on Talk seem to echo that concern (e.g. see comments above by @ RyanCarey1:). A few examples of ongoing issues:
In accordance with proper procedure for handling a conflict of interest on Wikipedia, I have prepared a draft here, in hopes of prompting discussion and seeing if editors find all or some of the content useful. This draft includes those criticisms in the current page that are properly sourced, but balances them with our defenses to those criticisms, and includes more general information. Janine Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 16:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I looked over your proposed changes. I've implemented them with some changes, and of course other users can make changes as well. My thoughts: A google search shows slightly more pages and news articles about investment opportunities than connections with Brexit. So I think shortening the lede is appropriate. The 'connections with Steve Bannon' etc. was a gross misrepresentation of the content of the cited article, which merely pointed out that ASI and Cambridge had a lot of employees that left one to work for another.
The monetary figures you provided were different than those in the source articles. Even if the articles are incorrect, we have to use the published numbers, unless you can get the accurate numbers into a news article (by holding a press conference, etc.).
The 'software and services' section read a bit like advertising copy, so I looked at other company pages such as Texas Instruments to find comparable material. I made some slight edits to have it read as more neutral.
I added a direct quote to the controversy section instead of an inference, and changed the wording of a few points to add a more neutral view.
As always, I welcome edits by other editors. Brirush ( talk) 18:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)