Talk:Vecna Robotics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

  • Comment: No, in my opinion neither the Styleintelligence (pg 24) report nor that book meet the criteria for establishing notability. The report repeats public information on the company with no indications of independent analysis/opinion/etc and the book provides some information on one of their robots but nothing on the company itself. HighKing++ 20:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: HighKing - I'm searching for an additional reference. Will follow-up. Thanks. E-Stylus (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @E-Stylus: For me, because the reference has no attributed author/journalist (only attribution is "RBR Staff"), it fails as a reliable reference. I mention "For me" because you may find other editors with a different viewpoint, who may allow it. HighKing++ 16:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: HighKing - Thanks for your help. I'm new to WP:ORGIND, but I think I have a better understanding now. Please see this Robotics Business Review reference and let me know your thoughts on whether it meets the criteria to be the second reference. E-Stylus (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @E-Stylus:, it is clear that the WBUR relies on a quotation from Daniel Theobald, the founder. As such it is not intellectually independent since the information is directly attributable to a company source and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. Similarly the Xconomy reference is directly quoting the new CEO, fails ORGIND for the same reason. But nice one on this The Robot Report reference. In my opinion, this meets the criteria as it is independent and in-depth. We need one more reference of this quality to meet the criteria for notability. Perhaps an analyst report exists that discusses the company in depth? HighKing++ 19:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: HighKing - Thanks for your response. Noted for SBIR and the Boston Business Journal. For WBUR and Xconomy, would the below excerpts constitute original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject?
    WBUR: https://www.wbur.org/bostonomix/2017/12/22/warehouse-robots
    As warehouses experience constant turnover, people like, Daniel Theobald, founder of Vecna in Cambridge, see a growing appetite for robots. "I think everybody’s realizing that in order to compete in today’s global economy, automation is the key to success," he said. Data suggests he's right about automation. The market research firm Tractica sees logistics as one of the fastest growing markets for robots. It's expected to quadruple and reach nearly a million by 2022.
    Xconomy: https://xconomy.com/boston/2018/01/17/from-darpa-to-vecna-new-ceo-on-how-automation-can-elevate-humans/
    Patt sees his new role as an opportunity to “help shape the future of automation, as it’s really applied to industrial operations,” he says in a phone interview. “It’s going to be really disruptive in logistics, material handling, and e-commerce.” A wave of logistics robotics startups has risen in the six years since Amazon acquired Kiva Systems for $775 million, and venture capitalists are placing sizable bets on some of these newer players. For example, Fetch Robotics picked up $25 million in December, Locus Robotics nabbed $25 million in November, and 6 River Systems scooped up $15 million in July. Other companies competing in this broad sector include RightHand Robotics, Soft Robotics, and NextShift Robotics. “It is a crowded space,” admits Patt, whose company hasn’t raised any venture capital. Who becomes the ultimate winner is “going to come down to who can deliver a seamless, value-adding product or service to a customer.” E-Stylus (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: E-Stylus, please include links to the articles themselves, not links to the Wikipedia articles on the publisher, so that we can be sure we're looking at the same references. I've looked at The references you point to as including "independent data" all rely on either company announcements or interviews/quotes from company sources or customers. This is "Dependent coverage" - see WP:ORGIND. The WBUR-FM reference interviews the CEO. The Boston Business Journal relies on an interview with the owners. The Small Business Innovation Research is not independent since they provided funding. The Xconomy reference also relies on interviewing the CEO. None of those reference provide original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing++ 13:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: HighKing - Thanks for the clarification on "intellectually independent". I've added the below references to the article. Would these references establish notability?
    1 - WBUR-FM radio broadcast/article by an independent staff journalist. The journalist includes independent data to verify the Vecna Robotics CIO's comment on the economic impact of automation. The reference also provides significant coverage of Vecna's business model and research relative to competitors.
    7 - Boston Business Journal article by an independent staff editor. The editor includes independent investigation of Vecna's federal grants and commentary from the Office of Naval Research on the company's robotics research. The reference also provides significant coverage of the company's history, funding and community service initiatives.
    9 - Small Business Innovation Research award listing by an independent federal program. The listing includes independent data on Vecna's research grant funding by program, year and agency. The reference also provides significant coverage of the company's research abstracts and award amounts.
    14 - Xconomy article by an independent staff reporter. The reporter includes independent data to verify the Vecna Robotics CEO's comment on the disruptive impact of automation on the industrial market as well as competitive analysis. The reference also provides significant coverage of Vecna's CEO, reorganization, funding status, products and company culture. E-Stylus (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: E-Stylus, not only must the reference be "functionally independent", the references must also be "intellectually independent". Check out the guidelines at WP:ORGIND. WP:NCORP also states Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Looking through the references you've mentioned, the MIT reference and the Boston Globe reference rely on information provided during an interview with the company. The Fox News reference discusses the Bear robot in depth but has no in-depth information on the company. The BBC reference also discusses the Bear but also has no in-depth information on the company and relies on information provided by their CTO. Finally, the Fedex reference discusses more robots and the impact on the workforce but barely mentions Vecna and provides no information on the company. HighKing++ 16:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thank you for reviewing. Would the below existing references establish notability per WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH?
    4 - MIT Alumni Association article by independent staff editor. Article provides significant coverage of company history.
    6 - Boston Globe article by independent staff writer. Article provides significant coverage of company history, market positioning and products.
    7 - Fox News article by independent staff columnist. Article provides significant coverage of company's product development.
    8 - BBC article by independent writer. Article provides significant coverage of company product. Writer includes commentary on company's shift in market strategy as "not as glamorous".
    14 - The New York Times article by independent staff correspondent. Article provides significant coverage of company's products. Correspondent includes unbiased evaluation of products' impact on displacement of human labor at FedEx.
    If these references meet the guidelines, may the remaining trade publication references be used to verify some of the article's content per WP:ORGIND? E-Stylus (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Despite the many references added, many are Dependent coverage. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, failing WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 16:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


12:16:08, 9 February 2019 review of submission by E-Stylus[edit]


Thank you for reviewing the above draft. I'm responsible for 1 of the 4 draft submissions and added my COI disclosure to the talk page before editing. Per the stop sign icon, I'm requesting a re-review of the references in relation to WP:NCORP guidelines. Specifically, please see The Robot Report, Robotics Business Review, Styleintelligence Report and Technology and the Virtues. These articles, report and book seem to have significant coverage of the subject and appear to "include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". If these references establish notability, there is also coverage of the subject in multiple RS to verify some of the article's content. Please see The Boston Globe, Boston Business Journal, MIT, Bridgewater State University Undergraduate Review, WBUR, Washington Post, The New York Times and NASA Spinoff. Any feedback you can offer would be appreciated. Thanks. E-Stylus (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the RS coverage is more than sufficent for WP:NCORP. If this legel of coverage is not enough we should change NCORP to ban all pages about all organizations. Legacypac (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vecna_Robotics&oldid=1198379770"