Talk:Faculty (company)

Edit Request / COI

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:

1. The introductory sentence includes the phrase “…and most notable for its close links to the Conservative Party (UK), Dominic Cummings, Vote Leave, and Cambridge Analytica.” This characterisation is not supported by the citations that follow in the article, nor is it supported by the facts. As the sources themselves make clear, Faculty never worked with Cambridge Analytica. We did have a relationship with its parent company SCL, which was one of hundreds of companies that took part in our Fellowship intern programme. We suggest that this characterisation simply be removed as it is, ultimately, a matter of opinion.
2. The second para includes the phrase "under mysterious circumstances and is no longer mentioned as a founder on any company materials." This is obviously opinionated and relies on a source that does not meet Wikipedia's standards for authoritative third-party sources. Moreover, the cited source itself does not say or even suggest that anything mysterious occurred. I'd again suggest that this phrase is simply removed.
3. The whole fourth paragraph ("Between 2017-18...") is problematic, in my view. The citation doesn't actually present the facts as they are written in the cited article. I would again suggest removing the whole paragraph. As an alternative, I offer a summary that's more consistent with the facts as they are presented in the Guardian story:
   Faculty was previously known as ASI Data Science, and was mentioned in connection with the Vote Leave campaign in Carole Cadwalladr's series of articles about the Brexit campaign. ASI Data Science told the Guardian that they had never worked with Cambridge Analytica. Later, the Guardian reported that the company worked on the Vote Leave campaign and for Dynamic Maps, a private company owned by Dominic Cummings .
4. The fifth paragraph “Following the fallout…” is inaccurate. The decision to rename ASI as Faculty was long-planned. This paragraph cites our news release, which is not normally considered a sufficiently reliable source, and we have not been able to find a third-party source to confirm the timings or reasons behind the name change, so I suggest this paragraph be removed. The mention of the name change and the citation to the Guardian in the previous paragraph should be sufficient to cover the fact and substantiate it. Alternatively, if the news release is deemed sufficiently credible, I suggest changing this paragraph to read, “The company rebranded as Faculty in February 2019.”

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)

@Hsearle-faculty: Thanks for posting here rather than trying to make any of the changes yourself. I've made a start on making some changes, but I need to do some more reading to fully understand the ins and outs of involvement with Vote Leave and Cambridge Analytica. @Crookesmoor and Jwslubbock: in case you didn't see this and have anything to add. SmartSE (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hsearle-faculty: Dear Holly, Wikipedia is not an advertising forum and follows specific guidelines. This does not allow the page to be fairer to your company, in a way that is discordant from the clear press coverage in reliable sources. Your company is most notable for its connections to the Conservative Party, Cambridge Analytica affiliates, and Vote Leave - this is well-documented. The company is not notable for its investors or its projects (other than the controversy already documented), so that is clearly the only reason why the company should even have a Wiki article.

Your claim that you only had a partnership with SCL appears inconsistent with the press coverage. This is not a matter of opinion, but a very clear matter of public record - including journalism by a Pulitzer Prize finalist. From the articles that I have read, Pascal Bugnion - the primary data engineer at Cambridge Analytica - was hired as the primary data engineer at Faculty. While I personally will retain a NPOV, your company does appear to have a reputation for not telling the truth, which is therefore likely to end up being reflected in Wiki articles. I do not believe it helpful that I can quickly, via reliable sources, find your claims on the talk page to also not be fully accurate. Rather than attempt to spin an article to provide a positive reflection of your company, the best approach would be to do something ethical, notable, kind, and decent - and that press coverage could then be reflected.

("Between 2017-18...") is also not problematic. A clear image in the article illustrates the connections between Trump to Faculty/ASI, so again I do feel that your suggested edit is a distortion of the truth as presented in a reliable source.

A founder of a company resigning prior to a major scandal being exposed is clearly a mysterious event. I do appreciate your attempt to spin the article in favour of your company, but you should please stop from attempting to solicit positive reviews by targetting Wiki editors. This is highly unethical. In addition, the Guardian is an *extremely* reliable source, and to imply otherwise is rather consistent with Faculty's documented modus operandi. It is not only this reliable source, but also a vast multitude of others (e.g. the Telegraph - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/08/24/vote-leave-ai-firm-handed-new-government-contract-map-covid/) that depict the controversial political entanglements.

The claim that the rebranding of Faculty was long-planned is completely unevidenced. Providing a publicly documented timeline and chronology of events is consistent with Wikipedia standards.

The Wired article being summarised in accordance with its title, is also clearly a neutral summary of an article.

I shall continue to update the information here, and see that there is additional information about Faculty's involvement in the additional Coronavirus testing app which is also missing from the page. This shall be added in due course. Fixerupper75 (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Smartse: I am highly concerned that you are continuing to make edits to the page without engaging with this talk page discussion, which is the correct procedure. The edits being made have been done unilaterally to provide edits for a company's PR representative, and which are not suitable for Wiki as they indicate a possible WP:COI, WP:UNDUE, notability issues, and WP:SOURCE. I shall begin a formal RfC if these issues cannot be resolved. Fixerupper75 (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Fixerupper75,

Thanks for your reply and for your interest in this entry.

We engaged here and through the {{Request edit}} template because we sought to do our best to follow Wikipedia’s rules. As we’ve said, we respect Wikipedia and its community of editors, and we understand the entry is not an advertising forum. As you say, the entry should follow specific guidelines, and it is our view that, at the moment, it does not.

To choose one example, Brexit Shambles clearly does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sourcing. We have pointed out others.

To be clear, we did not ask that the entry be made fairer towards our company. We asked only that the community discuss the entry to determine whether it was a fair presentation of the facts as presented in the cited sources. As we have already explained, we do not believe it is. But we are not asking anyone to take our word for that. Only that editors review the materials with an open mind. We have offered our suggestions, but done so openly and transparently without transgressing any rules.

We understand and appreciate that debate and discussion are at the heart of this community. We are happy to participate in that debate and to respect collective decision-making. We trust the community to get to the right result, especially if the debate is conducted according to the rules. Moreover, we respect that you have a different view on many of the substantive points.

We would be very happy to leave subsequent work on this entry to editors with a NPOV. Perhaps it would be best if editors who were new to the topic reviewed the work and debate thus far, and brought a fresh and truly neutral perspective. It was with this in mind that I sought out SmartSE and asked for help. As I’ve said here and elsewhere, we’ve had no engagement with the Wikipedia community in the past, and I’d had none at all until Friday. My aim in asking for help was only to hasten the process a little, as I can see from the Request Edit page that there is something of a backlog. I can’t see anything remotely unethical about that.

Finally, I feel I should point out what I view as a suspicious pattern of activity of this entry. A number of its previous editors have been banned as sockpuppets. We have no explanation for the odd activities relating to this entry, and lack context to make a firm judgment, but I think we can agree that it is unusual. Your own user ID was created on Friday and has only been active on this entry. I think it’s reasonable to wonder whether you yourself are maintaining NPOV. But taken in the round, all of this leads to my suggestion that editors from the community review the materials afresh and decide for themselves the best way to proceed.

Hsearle-faculty (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hsearle-faculty,

To quote yourself, "My aim in asking for help was only to hasten the process a little", however now that we have established that your suggested edits would go against various Wikipedia guidelines, you are still here trying to align the article's spin, regardless. And to hasten which process specifically? The process of finding someone to write non-NPOV on an article, despite your COI?

"we also respect Wikipedia's vibrant community and the rules that make the community work". That is excellent to hear. Please then do familiarise yourself with WP:PERSONALATTACKS, WP:POVRAILROAD, and WP:BULLY - all of which constitute part of your most recent post. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia.

Regarding your accusations and personal attacks, in general, I cannot see any odd activities relating to this entry and to my eyes it is broadly consistent with other Wikipedia entries. Perhaps though you are referring to the suspicious activities of user Acajenka, who made substantial edits to the page on the day your company rebranded - along with lots of positive and non-NPOV - and who was banned as it was a sockpuppet of Banana19208, who created your company's page on Wikipedia. That is indeed highly unusual, and truly unprincipled.

"I can’t see anything remotely unethical about that." - Perhaps a new slogan for Faculty?

Fixerupper75 (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixerupper75,

Per the instructions on the COIN noticeboard, I wanted to let you know that I will be requesting a WP:COIN review of this entry in general and FixerUpper75 username, in particular. It’s clear that you do not have a NPOV as it relates to this entry, and the past activities on this entry are highly suspicious. For avoidance of doubt, Faculty has never engaged any paid editor to create or edit this entry. So the presence of so many sockpuppets suggest some other agenda is at play. As we have said, we ask only that our entry receive attention and review from editors with a truly NPOV.

==Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion==

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.

Hsearle-faculty (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

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:

1. The contract for this work is available on Contracts Finder here.
2. Details on the results so far of the work 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)

Additional information

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)

Some further additional materials

Here’s why pubs reopened in July, and why it’s different now (Wired)

Provision of strategic support to the NHSX AI Lab (Gov.uk website)

NHS Harnesses Coronavirus Forecasting Tech To Help Save Lives (NHS Blog Post)

AI at the forefront of efforts to treat coronavirus patients (Gov.uk website)

Hsearle-faculty (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Edits on 2020-09-22

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/w/index.php?title=Talk:Faculty_(company)&action=edit&section=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)

You reverted five edits at once. Please avoid writing about your feelings regarding the motives and ethics of other editors, and instead specifically address each of the five edits. Thanks. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:17, 23 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)

Edits one two three four and five that you reverted in this edit, currently the last one in the history of the page. The edits. Focus on those five edits please. Ariadacapo (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Ariadacapo that five edits were reverted; the evidence in indisputable. The summaries of those edits were, in order:

1. source makes no mention of nepotism
2. brexitshambles is not a reliable source. rm use of primary source
3. fine to use a press release for rebranding information per #3 Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works#Acceptable use of self-published works. no source links the rebranding to CA fallout
4. these sources do not support that this is what they are "most notable" (and this is unnecessary to explain, regardless) for or that they have "close links"
5. Controversy sections are specifically best avoided. Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies. this makes it a lot easier for the reader

and I would now like to see Fixerupper75 (who says "Let’s go through the edits one-by-one", then does not do so) address each of those points specifically; citing the "community guidelines" which they claim were contravened, in each case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The edits were reverted by SmartSE, through multiple continuous edits - each slowly undoing the previous work without justification. Please review the edit history for clear evidence.

Discussing the start of the article as a starting point, is a fair way to do so, but more than happy to address your five points listed.

Thanks for highlighting these five edits.

1. I have removed the direct mention of nepotism, and added additional reliable sources and discussion of the implications in the Cabinet Office.
2. I have removed BrexitShambles as a source.
3. The article simply describes events in chronological order.
4. As already highlighted above, 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. I have now added a reference from The Guardian, which explicitly states that the company is 'linked' to the Conservative Party, Dominic Cummings, etc.
5. Controversy sections are 'best avoided'. However, see WP:CORG for how this applies to corporations, e.g. Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism. If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then that may justify sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism.

If you object to any of these points, please do provide evidence of the community guidelines that support your perspective. Fixerupper75 (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixerupper75, obviously several editors have objections about those points. The way to handle controversy with other editors is not to revert them in bulk, then pick and choose, and then move on with your further edits. Please immediately stop further editing until some consensus has been obtained here. Ariadacapo (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The edits on behalf of the COI conflicted company spindoctor, implemented without any discussion here, were rightfully removed. They are now being discussed. That's how consensus is formed. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Ariadacapo, only yourself and a likely paid editor that was directly requested to make those edits by a company's PR representative (documented both here and on SmartSE's user page) have so-far expressed any objections. For the *third time*, I did not revert any edits - I only removed non-NPOV added on behalf of a company's PR rep - as per WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTADVERTISING. It was actually them that had reverted NPOV edits (as shown by edit history), that were in line with community guidelines. I note that you have not so far not provided any discussion of the content at all, even when directly requested. The rest of us are forming consensus through polite conversation, as per standard Wiki procedures Fixerupper75 (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out, in case anybody was wondering, that the possibilty that Smartse is a paid editer is rather amusing, and less likely than the possibility of a snowball lasting in hades for very long. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You could be right, I have no evidence, only that they clearly made non-NPOV edits on behalf of a company’s PR representative, which is one of the most concerning COIs that I’ve ever seen. Fixerupper75 (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You reverted five of SmartSE's consecutive edits; as I noted above, the evidence that you did so is incontrovertible and unambiguous. Though you have now partially modified or undone some parts of your revert edit, you have again failed to say what specifically you found objectionable about - nor justified your claim that "community guidelines" were breached by - each of them in the first place. For the avoidance of doubt I object to you making such a revert. I also note that, while you have indeed removed "brexitshambles" as a source, you simply deleted the citation, leaving the material that was cited to it, about named living people (material which you restored to the article, but have yet to give a reason for so doing), with a remaining citation which does not support it.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please focus on the edits only and stop with the "I did not revert" nonsense. Covering them in order:

1. You self-reverted this since
2. You restored the text without any source to support it, including the vague statement about "mysterious circumstances"
3. You restored the unsourced statement about the rebranding following the CA scandal. You deleted the source supporting the rebranding.
4. You restored text without source for the company being "most notable" for its links, nor for the links being "close" (both those terms were explicitly mentioned by SmartSE in his/her edit). You added puffery text around Carole Cadwalladr.

(I don’t have much an objection against edit 5). In reverting those three edits, you fail to address the specific points brought up by SmartSE. This is what makes them controversial, and why we expect more of you on this page. Ariadacapo (talk) 18:26, 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)

You have not demonstrated any CoI on the part of SmartSE; and making such accusations without evidence may lead to you being blocked. To be sure you're aware of this, I'll also leave a notificatuon on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The COI by SmartSE is demonstratable. They received a message from Faculty's PR agent on their talk page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smartse#Faculty_(company) - which precipitated all of their edits on this page. SmartSE did not then comply with WP:COI. In particular, SmartSE violated WP:COIRESPONSE by not complying with WP:WEIGHT, by ghostwriting on the PR agent's behalf, by deleting reliable sources, and by including self-published sources - all of which can be verified via their edit history. Furthermore, each of their edits have not complied with WP:COIATTRIBUTE - including their most recent edit today. I hope you are aware of this, before making such accusations. It seems that the only Wiki 'guideline' that you follow, Pigsonthewing, is WP:ABF. Fixerupper75 (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fixerupper75: Please see this edit to this talk page, where Smartse noted that they had partially implemented the request made on this talk page. The context of talk page message shows that SmartSE is applying independent editorial judgment. They are not using text wholesale from the COI editor, so WP:COIATTRIBUTE does not apply here. Fixerupper75, with all due respect, you are a relatively inexperienced editor, with only 51 edits to your name as I write this. Andy and I have over two decades combined experience on Wikipedia, so I feel comfortable saying that he and I have a far better grasp of the COI policy than you. Neither of us feel that Smartse has a COI. Accordingly, move on from that topic. Focus on improving the article based on substance of the edits and reliability of sources. Those kind of discussions are productive. Continuing to repeat the claim of COI without any substantial evidence disrupts rather than promotes healthy discussion. I implore you as a fellow editor to drop the stick, but I am prepared to end any further discussions on it in my capacity as an administrator. —C.Fred (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Article neutrality and citation quality

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)

Proposed updates to page

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:

• It relies heavily on sources that only briefly mention Faculty, or don't mention Faculty at all.
• It often misrepresents what the sources say or cherry-picks criticisms without including our defenses to those criticisms.
• It omits basic non-controversial information available in the sources.

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 request has been answered, so I am closing the request. Z1720 (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much @Brirush:. I just removed a couple broken links and added a logo image to the infobox. Thanks for catching any errors or other issues in the draft I proposed. Janine Lloyd-Jones (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Smartse:. There is some repetition now between the content I proposed that was adopted in the Conflict of Interest section and the content you restored.

Here is the content you restored: "The Guardian revealed in 2020 that Faculty had received £260,000 from Dominic Cummings's private company, Dynamic Maps in 2018 and 2019." "Faculty were paid £114,000 by Vote Leave for services during the 2016 Brexit referendum.[6][5]"

Here is how that was summarized in the Conflict of Interest section: "His brother also worked with Dominic Cummings on the Vote Leave campaign that Faculty was later hired for."

The main difference is that I didn't include detailed dates, numbers (the money isn't that much), or language like "the Guardian revealed". I only suggest that one version or the other be used or merged, rather than the same information being repeated twice. Janine Lloyd-Jones (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You'd removed the info about Dynamic Maps entirely (note that this is also mentioned by The Telegraph). I don't see the slight duplication as a problem because it is a separate issue detailing the history of what work the company was involved with and discussing conflict of interest concerns. SmartSE (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)