This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Business This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dasiey1221: I am writing this here with two caveats. 1) I am new to wikipedia so please forgive me if any of this is not laid out correctly and 2) I know the subject so I am not editing the page, just adding my POV to the talk page.

Sorry did not pick up on this until I re-read this just now. Can you please specify how you know the subject? What is your precise relationship with him? I will respond to the substance of your claims, but this is vital context. Do you have any financial connection to Kraft? Do you know him personally as a friend, family member, etc.? You're not just new, this is your first and only edit. DaRonPayne (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dasiey1221: I was just made aware of all this and just read through the history and edits and wanted to share my thoughts the below:

Also, how were you "made aware" of this? Were you contacted by either Kraft or by FeldBum? DaRonPayne (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dasiey1221: 1) There is no way this page can be viewed as objective and the most problematic section is the header / intro line. I have now looked at several other bios on wikipedia and none resemble this one. It currently reads as if the page should be titled "the downfall of doppler labs and some other info on Noah Kraft" instead of a bio of a living person, Noah Kraft. No one is arguing whether the fact that Doppler Labs went out of business should be on this page. Whether Doppler Labs lost $50million and if that information should be on the page based on sources is a worthwhile debate. But there should not be any debate on whether a negative fact about Doppler Labs should be the first thing on Noah Kraft’s bio or in the header. That is totally inconsistent with Wikipedia norms. The header should read some version of: “Noah Kraft is an entrepreneur. He was the CEO and co-founder of Doppler Labs.” The part of the header that reads " a now-defunct audio-technology company that shut down in 2017 after losing over $50 million of investor capital, according to Kraft." is a description about a company, Doppler Labs, not a description of Noah Kraft and you could just as easily change that to “Noah Kraft was the CEO of Doppler Labs, a company that created three products, one of which won the Cannes Lion for product design,” but that would be equally inappropriate.” To use a very prominent figure as example, you would never see Donald Trump's page say he was “the President of the United Stated, a country that is filled with immigrant criminals, according to Trump” or “The President of the Unites States who has an abysmal favorability rating of under 40%,” it would just say he is the president of the United stated. The fact that it is negative and not neutral is almost secondary to its misplacement on the page, but equally problematic. Which brings me to point 2…

We need to distinguish between (1) things that Noah Kraft or his friends, relatives, close personal connections, or PR firm would tell you about him, and (2) the things that actually make Noah Kraft notable enough to warrant having a biography on Wikipedia (this, incidentally, is the very problem with friends and financial associates of Kraft editing the page). Put simply, Kraft is notable to the general public for founding a company that raised a substantial amount of money from investors and then (by his own admission) lost that money. Indeed, this is the mostly widely covered aspect of his life (see Wired’s “The Downfall of Doppler Labs”, etc).

Your Donald Trump analogy is inapt because Trump is the President of the United States, not a former startup founder. A better example of a CEO of a now-defunct company that received wide publicity before shutting down is Elizabeth Holmes:

"Elizabeth Anne Holmes is the founder and former CEO of Theranos, a now-defunct company known for its false claims to have devised revolutionary blood tests that used very small amounts of blood.[3][4] In 2015, Forbes named Holmes as the youngest and wealthiest self-made female billionaire in America due to a $9 billion valuation of Theranos.[5] By the next year, following revelations of potential fraud, Forbes revised her net worth to zero dollars." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes)

Notice how the lede describes Theranos as "now-defunct" and also mentions that all of the money was lost.

The only reason it says "according to Kraft" is to properly cite the first party source according to Wikipedia's policy on "Non-independent sources" as was explained at length in the "appropriateness of including Doppler's Losses" section.

The fact that something is "negative" does not mean that it is not neutral. Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion or paid promotion. Some companies succeed and, unfortunately, others do not. This again highlights the problem with having a parade of someone's friends and paid associates inveighing on "neutrality" in the talk page while lobbying for more favorable coverage of a subject. DaRonPayne (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dasiey1221: 2) DaRonPayne’s history of edits on this page show clear bias starting over a month ago when he added to the header of this page “Doppler Labs imploded losing over $50million of investor capital.” All of his subsequent edits, like changing the career section to lead with the “Founding and collapse of Doppler Labs” shows clear bias. DaRonPayne has cherry picked the worst facts and editorial he can find on Doppler Labs and made the focus of Noah Kraft’s entire bio page about Doppler Labs going out of business instead of a neutral and full account of a person’s life, which is the most fundamental objective of the page for a living person on Wikipedia.

Not all details of a subject's life are equally relevant for the purposes of their biography. Some editorial discretion has to be exercised to decide what details are most relevant to the general public. This is something that personal connections and paid associates of Kraft are not well-positioned to do. "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_who_are_relatively_unknown)

Again, the most notable thing that Kraft has done is found Doppler Labs. He would not have a biography on Wikipedia if not for his involvement with the company that he founded and ran for three years. And again, the most notable thing about Doppler Labs is, unfortunately, that it went out of business after raising a large amount of money. DaRonPayne (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dasiey1221: Making small edits after the fact to try and make the page slightly less negative does not negate the initial intent, which was to add negative content to this page, making it no longer a bio page, but a Doppler Labs takedown page.

It's ironic for Noah Kraft's personal connections or business associates to assign bad faith motives to me, and it again underscores the inappropriateness of having a parade of his connections lobby on his behalf on the Talk Page. Conspiracy theories aside, my subsequent edits were all done in the interest of presenting a neutral and accurate picture of the subject. DaRonPayne (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dasiey1221: Moreover, for every negative fact and reference DaRon Payne has chosen to add – from referencing a CNET article questioning the viability of one of Doppler Lab’s three products to focusing on one line from a single article mentioning unsold units as Doppler Labs wound down operations - there are just as many positive facts about what Doppler Labs achieved that could be included – from their work to destigmatize the hearing aid to selling hundreds of thousands of their first product “the DUBS” to the many accolades the company achieved prior to going out of business - they could be included as well. But NONE of that – no litany of company achievements or issues - is appropriate on a bio page. It should all live on a Doppler Labs company page and what I find most telling is that fact that DaRon Payne is determined to edit this bio page and not the company page at all.

I haven't edited the company's page because I don't have unlimited time. This is hardly evidence of bad faith. Doppler's financial fate deserves to be mentioned, even if it may cause slight embarrassment to Kraft (although, for the record, I think there is no shame in having a company fail. See Steve Jobs). Moreover, as you are someone with a personal connection to Kraft, I don't think you're capable of rendering a neutral judgment on this. DaRonPayne (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dasiey1221: Not to mention if you go through DaRon Payne’s edits he has removed whole sections of Noah Kraft’s career – such as his film career - and taken out very credible sources like the New York Time’s review of the film Noah Kraft produced, Bleed For This while removing other credible sources and adding in every source about Doppler Labs shutting down that can be found on the internet, many of which are used several times throughout the page. This seems like a clear effort to paint Noah Kraft in a negative light.

According to Bleed for This's IMDB page (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1620935/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_wr#writers/), Noah was one of 19 producers on the film. It goes without saying why his involvement with it does not deserve the same level of coverage as his involvement with Doppler, a company that raised $50 million and that he ran as CEO for three years. Moreover, I had no problem with the film portion of his career section being expanded to include three other films that Kraft worked on. DaRonPayne (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion, whether or not this is an act of malice at this point is inconsequential. What matters is this bio page is not neutral and the header in particular is flagrantly against Wikipedia standards. I hope someone neutral can come in and clean this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasiey1221 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kraft's personal connections and business associates are uniquely unqualified to determine what constitutes neutrality, and having a parade of acquaintances lobby on a subject's behalf on the Talk Page jeopardizes the integrity of Wikipedia. DaRonPayne (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: some of this information is re-copied from elsewhere on the talk page so I did not also copy/paste the signatures, since I am not aware of what the protocol is for that.) DaRonPayne (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DaRonPayne: Just a quick update, Noah Kraft admits that Doppler Labs lost $60 million in the following presentation that he gave at the 34 minutes and 48 second mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsqm_zfA0TA: "I still have remarkable relationships with all of our investors, which is amazing because we lost $60 million."

FeldBum: I'd be hesitant to use a source like the one above (a video), since it's usually considered first-party and only to be used if you can't find something else.

DaRonPayne: I think it's appropriate to use the first-hand source in this case for a few reasons: (1.) He is admitting to something embarrassing. If he were boasting about an achievement that would be far less credible. Similarly, the fact that he himself is admitting it makes it more credible than a third party source, in my opinion, not less. (2.) it is consistent with a copious array of other articles reporting on the amount that they raised, (3.) Unless their financial statements are somehow made public, there will be no reporting by third party outlets on the total losses. Having an admission from the former CEO is the only way that this information could possibly emerge.

FeldBum: You should follow Wikipedia's guidelines for citations. They say that first-party, or primary, sources are not a good source of information. In other words, you should trust what verified third-party sources say about a topic. Want to say that Doppler closed? They are plenty of sources for that. Want to say they lost all the money? You need to find a source that's not Doppler or Kraft to verify that. First-party sources are inherently untrustworthy; anyone can say or write anything about themselves.

FeldBum: No Original Research, which includes something that implies a conclusion, which is what you're doing when you assume that a Kraft video where he talks about losing money has to be accurate, because, otherwise, why would he do so? Find a source. Or do the research, publish it elsewhere, and make yourself the source. Just don't make Wikipedia the place you publish that article.

DaRonPayne: The page now reads: "Noah Kraft is an American entrepreneur and the former CEO and co-founder of Doppler Labs, a now-defunct audio-technology company that shut down in 2017 after losing over $50 million of investor capital, according to Kraft." This is fully in line with Wikipedia's guidelines on non-independent sources. 'Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. i.e. "The organization X said 10,000 people showed up to protest." is OK when using material published by the organization' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources#Non-independent_sources . The use of a non-independent source here is further warranted by the fact that it is equivalent to a "Statement against the party's interest," that it's consistent with other reporting on how much they raised, and that it is the only way that this information could possibly emerge. DaRonPayne (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE 2/8/2019: It has been brought to my attention that FeldBum is a paid PR professional, and Doppler Labs (the company that Noah Kraft founded and ran) was one of his firm's clients. FeldBum's undisclosed conflict and controversial direct editing blatantly violate Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. "An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship."

NOTE: "If you receive or expect to receive compensation (money, goods or services) for your contributions to Wikipedia:"

-- "you must disclose who is paying you, on whose behalf the edits are made, and any other relevant affiliation;"

-- "you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic;"

-- "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;"

FeldBum should disclose his conflict of interest immediately, both here and on his talk page. He should also disclose other clients of his company whose pages he has edited (e.g. edits on the page for a program produced by Vice Media). He should cease making direct edits on this page immediately. Note that FeldBum has also violated the conflict of interest policy in at least one other case by opposing the deletion of the Doppler Labs page without disclosing his conflict of interest there. I will consider reporting this on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard and compiling other examples of FeldBum's abusive and unethical editing if he continues to airbrush this page. DaRonPayne (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I know Noah Kraft, and previously had Doppler and 300 as marketing clients, I am not editing pages on their behalf. I am, because I care about Noah and Doppler, working to prevent blatant editing violations on those pages, such as the ones you are making. My username is my name and I explain my profession on my user page, so it's clear who I am, and if I have ever done work at a person's or client's behalf, I have disclosed that on Wikipedia as per the disclosure policy. I'm not getting any compensation here (as you have often noted, the company closed long ago); I am protecting you from flagrantly violating policy on these pages. Same with the Slutever TV Series, which I'm assuming is the other entry you're making assumptions and insinuations about, as well Karley Sciortino's page. She was a client ages ago too, and I've made edits to those pages, but not at her or Vice's behest. I'm aiming for neutral content, which is why I have an issue with you calling something "failing" or "imploding" on an entry, or relying on first-party sources and original research, when you know both are not OK. I really don't feel like spending all my time fighting this one edit, but here's the bottom line:

• You should follow Wikipedia's guidelines for citations. They say that first-party, or primary, sources are not a good source of information. In other words, you should trust what verified third-party sources say about a topic. Want to say that Doppler closed? They are plenty of sources for that. Want to say they lost all the money? You need to find a source that's not Doppler or Kraft to verify that. First-party sources are inherently untrustworthy; anyone can say or write anything about themselves.
• No Original Research, which includes something that implies a conclusion, which is what you're doing when you assume that a Kraft video where he talks about losing money has to be accurate, because, otherwise, why would he do so? Find a source. Or do the research, publish it elsewhere, and make yourself the source. Just don't make Wikipedia the place you publish that article.

Back to me. I edit Wikipedia a lot, because I love it. I know music, Judaism, Google, travel--so I edit those pages. I meet interesting people, so I edit their pages too. I met Jessie Reyez, and went to an amazing show of hers, so I edited her page. I put up her picture. We met, but she didn't compensate me for editing, but editing is something I enjoy (although, obviously not tonight, having to write this). Seeing crazy edits to Kraft's page, on my watchlist, prompted to edit as well, especially when I saw editors with 90%-100% of their edits about him. It reeks of malice. I don't know why, but I do know that you are trying to make edits that don't belong. I'll happily submit a request for intervention (actually, let's just do that; it's the easiest solution here), since I think this is beyond the two of us to solve.

I'll make that request (and let's also clean up this talk page with real sections --FeldBum (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a preference whether we resolve this with Third Opinion or Dispute Resolution? We're just two editors locked in a fight, and while I don't appreciate your accusations, I think a neutral, unrelated editor will solve this best. I will post a request this weekend. --FeldBum (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you to the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard [1]. I am open to adjudicating the substance of Noah Kraft’s page, but first I would like to get preliminary ruling on the propriety of your involvement on this page (and others). Please refrain from any further action related to this page until your reported conflict of interest has been resolved.

On a personal note, I find the fact that you lectured me on "neutral point of view" without divulging this financial relationship astonishing. DaRonPayne (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there, so we don't need to carry on this "conversation" simultaneously in three places. On a personal note, I find your accusations and editing of my User Page instead of Talk page fairly repulsive, but I'm happy, as I've often said, to put emotion aside and let uninvolved, third-party, cooler heads prevail. I say we leave it all to them. --FeldBum (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editing of the User Page was an honest mistake which I corrected by moving it to the Talk page as soon as I noticed it (before you brought it up just now to try to smear me). I do apologize for misplacing it originally. I am fairly new here, and if there's a way for me to delete it from your User Page history, let me know and I gladly will. DaRonPayne (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has been trying to undo edits that mention the fact that Doppler Labs folded.

Obviously this fact may be embarrassing to Noah Kraft, but it is nevertheless the most significant thing that happened to the business, and in his career, and should not be whitewashed. It must be featured saliently in any honest account of this public figure's life. The sources for this claim are three respected publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaRonPayne (talk • contribs) 02:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be noted that Doppler folded, but using language like "imploded," "collapsed" and "failed" fragrantly violates WP:NPOV. And you need to back up assertions with sources. I read your sources and don't see anything about Doppler losing $50M of investor money, just that investors put that much in and then the company folded; you can't assume it was all lost without a real source. Same with "hype dying down" and "never gaining traction." Also, Amazon reviews don't really work as sources, as per Wikipedia:Amazon, and I totally don't get the sources that link back to this Wikipedia page? (We also need to fix formatting issues, like the line break in the Infobox.) Long story short, that information should be there, but needs to follow Wikipedia guidelines: no original research, reliable sources and a neutral point of view. I can work with you on those edits, but they really can't stay as is. --FeldBum (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took out "imploded" a while back and removed all mentions of "collapsing." I disagree that describing the company's shutdown as a failure violates the neutral point of view. To the contrary, a quick Google search turned up at least half a dozen media sources describing the company as a failure or as having failed: (1.) 7 **Failed** Startups and the Lessons Learned (Doppler is listed as #7, https://about.crunchbase.com/blog/failed-startups-and-lessons-learned/), (2.) A startup that raised $50 million to make a smarter version of Apple's AirPods has **failed** and shut down (https://www.businessinsider.com/why-doppler-labs-shut-down-2017-11), (3.) Doppler effect: Why Here One **failed** (https://www.wareable.com/hearables/why-doppler-labs-shut-down-interview-932), (4.) "Now, however, the hardware world is full of cautionary tales.[...] dozens of other hardware companies that have failed" (contextualizing Doppler's failure against other hardware company's failures), (5.) "Doppler Lab Failure to Translate Their Technology Successfully?" (from "Doppler Labs’ Demise; The Randomness Factor, And Why Hardware is Hard" https://fashnerd.com/2017/11/doppler-labs-demise-the-randomness-factor-and-why-hardware-is-hard/) (6.) "Doppler Labs, which hoped to put a computer in everyone’s ear, will shut down next week as it **failed** to raise the required capital to get its latest product to market." (https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyfeldman/2017/11/01/once-a-unicorn-to-be-smart-earbud-startup-doppler-labs-to-shut-down/#542dad1e159a). I changed the wording to note that they raised $50MM, not implying that they lost all of it. Changed the wording of "hype dying down" and "never gaining traction". Removed the Amazon reviews. Unfortunately, I did not create the page and do not know how to fix the formatting issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaRonPayne (talk • contribs) 16:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, DaRonPayne. Couple quick things. First, you can sign your comments here with four tildes (~s). Second, the problem is not sources (although Crunchbase is rarely used a source), but language. Look up any of the companies listed in that CB article. The ledes always read "Company Name was a something company." Wikipedia content should be encyclopedic and historic; even discussing how to "describe" something venture into WP:POV territory. When companies "fail," we usually explain on Wikipedia exactly what happened, using the facts available: they filed for bankruptcy; they suspended sales; they announced that they were shutting down; it was announced they were ceasing operations. I can't find a single example of using failed--and especially not using like you did in the lede. They is certainly much editorial content out there about Doppler or other companies failing, but that language isn't really what goes on Wikipedia, and it's a big stretch (not to mention, likely coatracking) to include all of that on a WP:BLP page. I'm happy to help edit this with you, but we need to edit as per the Wikipedia pillars. --FeldBum (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, wording has been changed. DaRonPayne (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick update, Noah Kraft admits that Doppler Labs lost $60 million in the following presentation that he gave at the 34 minutes and 48 second mark: https://productsthatcount.com/events/doppler-labs-fmr-ceo-on-building-for-your-ears/: "I still have remarkable relationships with all of our investors, which is amazing because we lost $60 million." DaRonPayne (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On another note, please don't remove lines without citations you think are reliable without first tagging them. I'm going to put those back and you can tag them for citation, but blanking like this looks like a vendetta and not helpful editing. Also, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you and the other editor, created a few days ago, who is only editing this page is neither you nor someone with whom you're working. I'd be hesitant to use a source like the one above (a video), since it's usually considered first-party and only to be used if you can't find something else. --FeldBum (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that you would accuse me of having a vendetta, I have no personal connection to the subject of the bio whatsoever, or to the other editor you mentioned. I think it's appropriate to use the first-hand source in this case for a few reasons: (1.) He is admitting to something embarrassing. If he were boasting about an achievement that would be far less credible. Similarly, the fact that he himself is admitting it makes it more credible than a third party source, in my opinion, not less. (2.) it is consistent with a copious array of other articles reporting on the amount that they raised, (3.) Unless their financial statements are somehow made public, there will be no reporting by third party outlets on the total losses. Having an admission from the former CEO is the only way that this information could possibly emerge. DaRonPayne (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update: added back in Noah's stint at Google with "citation needed," per your suggestion as I was unable to find a reliable cite for this claim. DaRonPayne (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am an experienced Wikpedia editor but have a conflict of interest as a paid consultant to Noah Kraft and am therefore only making suggestions for edits on Talk for review by independent editors, in keeping with WP: COI policy and instructions on the official Wikipedia.org "Contact Us" page for subjects of articles. [2] This disclosure follows all the requirements of WP: PAID.

I have noticed that a former vendor for Mr. Kraft's company declared he made edits to this article. I have no connection to this editor and am in no way collaborating with them. I have also noticed that allegations of sock puppetry have been made in the past. This is my first time having anything to do with this article. I do not use socks and have no association with any user or user accounts related to this article. I would urge that no one who has a previous or current connection to Mr. Kraft participate in the review of the following Request Edit, as only independent editors may participate in reviewing a request by someone with a COI as per WP:COI

I am notifying DaRonPayne, who has recently been involved in Talk discussions.

Request Edit

1. I propose this lead be re-edited as follows. Change:

Noah Kraft (born 1987/1988) is an American entrepreneur, and the co-founder and former CEO of Doppler Labs^[1], an audio-technology company that closed in 2017 after losing over $50 million of investor capital, according to Kraft.^{[2][3][4][5][6][7]}

to:

Noah Kraft (born 1987/1988) is an American entrepreneur, and the co-founder and former CEO of Doppler Labs, an audio-technology company that closed in 2017.^[4]

Summary:

A) Removes Crunchbase as a source because it is largely self-generated material so not suitable as a reliable source WP:RS, especially when RS are available for the same information.

This change has been accepted. DaRonPayne (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B) Chooses just one highly reliable source for this information (Wired Magazine). Multiple sources with the same information are not needed for the same citation, and string citations are not a best practice. So far as I know, there's no ban on the practice, but you won't find it on FA-rated articles used as best practice models.

This change has been accepted. DaRonPayne (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C) Deletes "after losing over $50 million of investor capital, according to Kraft." I have carefully read the cited sources and none of them say Doppler Labs lost $50 million, or that Kraft said this. Discussion above in Talk indicates that an editor said Kraft made such a statement in a speech for a trade group called "Products that Count." I take the editor at their word that this page contained such a speech, but I cannot find it or a transcript on the page at present. A perennial problem with UGC-primary sources such as blog posts is that they are very often impermanent. By the description in Talk, it sounds as if it might have been a tongue-in-cheek or hyperbolic remark. To the extent very different interpretations of the primary source are possible, it shouldn't be used in any case. "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source." WP: NOR.

This change has been rejected. It looks like the video was indeed taken down from the "Products that Count" webpage, but fortunately it was not difficult to locate other links to the video online. In deference to BC1278's point (B) above, I've updated the source to a single link of a video that contains the relevant excerpt from Kraft's speech (Link). I've also included a transcript of the excerpt for reference below. From the context of the video, it is abundantly clear that the remark was matter-of-fact and plainspoken. Shortly after he mentions having to lay off 100 employees.

The wording of the heading "Noah Kraft[...] is an American entrepreneur, and the co-founder and former CEO of Doppler Labs, an audio-technology company that closed in 2017 after losing over $50 million of investor capital, according to Kraft" also makes it abundantly clear that Kraft is the source for the figure, in line with Wikipedia's policy on non-independent sources. 'Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. i.e. "The organization X said 10,000 people showed up to protest." is OK when using material published by the organization' [Source]

It's appropriate to use a first-hand source in this case for several reasons: (1.) He is admitting to something embarrassing. If he were boasting about an achievement that would be far less credible. Similarly, the fact that he himself is admitting it makes it more credible than a third party source, not less. (2.) it is consistent with a copious array of other articles reporting on the amount that they raised. DaRonPayne (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will anticipate the argument that it is still acceptable to state that the company lost $50 million, even without the attribution to Kraft, because sources state that the company raised $50 million. But, without a third-party, RS stating the loss, Wikipedia should not conclude that the amount of the announced raise is the same as the loss. This would be contrary to Wikipedia policy prohibiting original research or synthesis of source. WP: SYNTH. Since there is no acceptable reliable source for this claim, it's not required to refute any Wikipedia original analysis. But just to demonstrate why the NOR and SYNTH policies are a such a good idea, here is the refutation:

Moot in light of the attribution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsqm_zfA0TA DaRonPayne (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i) when it is announced that a company raised money, that does always mean all the money was transferred to the company. Venture capital financing is often doled out in tranches. Money is sometimes scheduled to be released over a period of months or years, but only if the company hits certain milestones. If the company closes, the unrewarded money is never released.

Refuted by Kraft's candid statement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsqm_zfA0TA DaRonPayne (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ii) before a company closes, it sells its assets, such as intellectual property. The proceeds from these assets are distributed to the stakeholders and might substantially reduces the amount of any losses. As this company spent a fortune on R&D, I would assume their IP sold for a substantial sum, but I can't find it reported.

Refuted by Kraft's candid statement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsqm_zfA0TA DaRonPayne (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

iii) companies, particularly venture backed companies, often close with substantial cash still on hand. That cash is then returned to investors, which reduces loses.

Refuted by Kraft's candid statement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsqm_zfA0TA DaRonPayne (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For these and other reasons, a RS would normally check with a company and/or its board or investors before reporting total losses. Absent a RS, WP shouldn't draw a conclusion that the amount of the raise is the same as the amount of the loss. WP:NOR

Refuted by Kraft's candid statement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsqm_zfA0TA DaRonPayne (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

D) Removes WP: NPOV bias. The current phrasing is a subjective and selective interpretation ("lost $50 million) designed to reflect poorly on the subject. It could just as easily be phrased as "a company he raised $50 million in funding for" in an attempt to make the subject look good. I would suggest that neither approach is a good idea for POV reasons. It was the business that raised and lost the money - it has a board of directors, officers, multiple officers. Attributing raising and losing money solely to the subject of the article is not supported by RS or common sense. BC1278 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

I regret having to repeat myself, but I have no other option because BC1278 decided to ignore the preceding, extensive discussion on the Talk page and start from scratch. We need to distinguish between (1) things that Noah Kraft's PR firm or paid advocates would tell you about him, and (2) the things that actually make Noah Kraft notable enough to warrant having a biography on Wikipedia (this, incidentally, is the very problem with having Kraft's paid advocate control the direction of the page). Put simply, Kraft is notable to the general public for founding a company that raised a substantial amount of money from investors and then (by his own admission) lost that money. Indeed, this is the mostly widely covered aspect of his life (see Wired’s “The Downfall of Doppler Labs”, etc).

Not all details of a subject's life are equally relevant for the purposes of their biography. Some editorial discretion has to be exercised to decide what details are most relevant to the general public. This is something that Kraft's paid advocate is uniquely not suited to do. "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability" (BLP)

It is BC1278's job to ensure that this article does not contain anything that "reflect[s] poorly on" his client Noah Kraft, regardless of its relevance to Wikipedia's readers. "The kind of paid editing of most concern to the community involves using Wikipedia for public relations and marketing purposes. Sometimes called 'paid advocacy', this is problematic because it invariably reflects the interests of the client or employer." (COI) Moreover: "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted." (COI).

The fact that BC1278 discloses his conflict of interest does not shield him from scrutiny regarding that conflict. It sets a bad precedent for Wikipedia when a parade of a subject's paid advocates, friends, family, or business associates mob the Talk Page to allege bias and lobby for more favorable coverage. This is not the first, second, third, or even fourth attempt by parties with apparent or actual conflicts to influence the tone and content of this article (Context).

For a paid professional Wikipedia editor, I believe that BC1278 has transgressed the norms governing Wikipedia and paid editing. Instead of engaging with the lengthy, substantive, preceding discussion on this Talk Page that addressed most of the arguments he raised, he ignored it entirely and immediately flagged the page for a requested revision. When that request was denied, he again decided not to engage with the page's editors and instead to immediately appeal to outside editors. It's clear that he is trying to jam through significant, controversial changes on behalf of his client as quickly as possible.

BC1278 argues that the sentence "could just as easily be phrased as 'a company he raised $50 million in funding for.'" That is true grammatically, but not logically. The first four media-related Google results for "Doppler Labs," are: "The Downfall of Doppler Labs" (Wired), "Why Doppler Labs shut down" (Business Insider), "Ambitious augmented reality earbud startup Doppler Labs shuts down" (Verge), and "Smart earbuds startup Doppler Labs shuts down after raising $50 million" (TechCrunch). NOT stories about the company raising money, or thriving, because that's not what is notable about Doppler. The fact that something is "negative" does not mean that it is not neutral. Some companies succeed and, unfortunately, others do not.

BC1278 further argues that "It was the business that raised and lost the money" (and not Kraft). This would be a persuasive argument if the text of the article said: "Doppler Labs closed in 2017 after losing over $50 million of investor capital, and it was all Kraft's fault." or "Doppler Labs closed in 2017 after Kraft lost over $50 million of investor capital." But the article doesn't say that. Rather it says: "Noah Kraft (born 1987/1988) is an American entrepreneur, and the co-founder and former CEO of Doppler Labs[2], an audio-technology company that closed in 2017 after losing over $50 million of investor capital, according to Kraft." The company that Noah founded did indeed lose the money, according to Kraft, and that is all that the heading says. DaRonPayne (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The full transcript of Kraft's remarks here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsqm_zfA0TA) for reference, or for any hearing-impaired editors: "One of the things I'm most proud of at the end is we dismounted about as gracefully as possible. We went to our investors who we had been very close with along the whole process and said "here is the situation: without essentially $30 million plus we just can't build the next iteration of this product, like Here One didn't work on a consumer level but because of that like... one of the ironies, and I'm going to call Michael out as just the representative of big company Microsoft people. Umm... I got to sit with his friend Brian who would be like "You don't understand like... at any big company like this would have been a success because you would have learned a lot from it. But when you're a small company, you get one shot. We actually kind of got three shots, but like, when the product we had been building towards over four years didn't work, it's really hard to turn around to investors and be like "but we now understand why it didn't work. Give us more..." Like, that's a... I'm a good salesman but I'm not that good. Like... That's hard. So at the very end we actually had really good data. At that point we were much more rigorous a lot because of Brian this guy who came in. We really had a good idea of how to make Here Two, which was the working name, something that would fit the criteria of what we thought would be more consumer-friendly, of course take out some of the fat etcetera. But we really realized that if we took in anything less than $30 million we'd just be limping. We couldn't get the next product out. And so I think one of the most mature decisions we said is "if we can't raise a $30 million plus Series C at this point, we shouldn't waste any more time or money and we should try and wind this down in the right way." So we made that call when we couldn't raise a Series C. We gave obviously the investors the opportunity to invest, but in a very open way. Essentially I sat down with all my investors and we had ten billionaires in our cap table so these are guys who could have written $30 million checks and said "Look, if you thought it was Hail Mary before, this is a Hail Mary with a blindfold on. Like, let's be really honest. If you want to do that we'll keep working as hard as we've been working. And I think that's a core point like. I still have remarkable relationships with all of our investors. Which is amazing because we lost $60 million. But it's because we did exactly what we said we were going to do and every first meeting we ever took was: "we know this is a Moon Shot, it probably won't work. If you're investing in us, you're investing in something that is really bold and I think if you're that upfront and transparent with people, it's not like we showed up... we never showed numbers to anyone. And that's not because we were being shady it's because we said "there are no numbers for this. This category doesn't exist. We think we can create something new and bold. Do you want to come along for this ride?" So yes, I would say we definitely wound it down gracefully. It still was awful. I had 100 employees at that point. That's not fun." DaRonPayne (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Request for Revision[edit]

• Note: The above request for revision leaves out some vital context, and I would ask that any editor reserve judgment until I have the opportunity to reply. I should have a response by Monday. Given the extensive history of sock puppets, single-purpose accounts, edits by people with admitted connections to Kraft, and edits by people with undisclosed financial connections to Kraft, (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Noah_Kraft#History_of_sockpuppeting,_contributions_by_people_with_financial_ties_to_Kraft,_and_contributions_by_brand_new_editors_with_disclosed_but_unspecified_personal_ties_to_Kraft) I think it's critical that BC1278 disclose the nature of his financial interest in this page, including the actual amount that he has been paid, or the hourly rate he is charging, as well as any incentive-based payments he may receive if the page is edited in accordance with his request for revision. DaRonPayne (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DaRonPayne, I've moved your note to the bottom of this request, where it should have gone. Your insertions of text above my comment interferes with a clean and efficient review of the request by other editors. Please refrain from editing or moving Talk comments, as per WP:TPO. "The basic rule—with exceptions outlined below—is to not edit or delete other posts without their permission." Re: disclosure, please review WP: PAID for the full disclosure requirements, which I have abided by. Also, please stick to substance: The formal policy at WP:TPNO is to not use article Talk to attack the authority of other editors. If you have COI questions or issues, please raise them on the COI noticeboard, or feel free to discuss them directly with me on my own Talk page. BC1278 (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the initial note belongs below the initial comment. The inline comments that I have included above are the easiest way for other editors to parse the relevant arguments, so I am leaving them as is. Moreover, it's not an attack to point out that you are a paid advocate editing on behalf of your client Noah Kraft on an article about him. It's a statement of objective fact. I understand that you may want to downplay it, but it is salient context in light of the general policy that "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia" because "[i]t undermines public confidence" in the site. (COI) DaRonPayne (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the Request Edit is now marked as answered, in order to avoid confusion among editors coming upon this section for the first time, I will replicate it as a new section. Further, in order to encourage more discussion, I will make a post a neutrally-phrased request for input at the following pages: Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, WikiProject Business, WikiProject Finance & Investment. I will wait one day before doing this in case anyone wishes to suggest other projects or pages, which I will add upon request. BC1278 (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BC1278: I understand that you are acting on behalf of your client Noah Kraft who apparently wants this page to be changed, perhaps urgently. But since your initial complaint was denied pending further discussion with subject-area editors on this page and given that I have not yet responded, I would ask that you exercise patience and hold off on taking any action until we've had the opportunity to discuss this here and see if your concerns aren't addressed. I am just a volunteer editor so I can't monitor Wikipedia full-time, but this page has remained virtually unchanged since February, so I don't think it's too much to ask that you wait three more days for a response from me. You are not a neutral party, but rather a paid advocate acting on behalf of your client Noah Kraft, the subject of this page. So your ability to craft a "neutrally-phased request" is inherently suspect and I would ask that you clear any such request by me before bothering at least three other boards with it. DaRonPayne (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DaRonPayne, as I said I would do, just above, I am posting a new section (as an RfC) for this matter because the Request Edit format of this section makes it difficult for a new editor to follow the discussion. This has become even more so the case because you responded by making changes to the article sourcing before a consensus could be reached (thereby mooting the original request) and because you have violated WP:TPO with your multiple interwoven responses into my request edit: "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. In your own posts you may wish to use the {{Talk quotation}} or {{Talkquote}} templates to quote others' posts." If you have not participated in an RfC before, please familiarize yourself at WP:RfC. Generally !vote is above, discussion below. Discussions should be threaded, and others comments should not be broken apart by another editor. Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BC1278 RfC Request[edit]

• (Note: I am working for the subject of the article. See COI disclosure above.) At 2:38 seconds, the subject of the article, Noah Kraft, apparently says in a short YouTube video of a talk that Doppler Labs, the company he co-founded, lost either $60 million or $16 million dollars - I can't tell for sure from the audio, except there is an "s" sound. [3] He definitely does not say the company lost over $50 million (with an "f" sound), as the Wikipedia lead now attributes to him. All reliable secondary sources indicate that the company had only raised $50 million at the time it closed. e.g. [4], [5]

In a long feature article, Fast Company magazine reported that Apple and Amazon both bid to acquire Doppler, but instead of selling the company outright, Kraft "sold Doppler’s intellectual property to Dolby." [6] Additionally, Wired Magazine reports Doppler "even had $4 million in the bank" at the time it was decided to close it. [7] Given the proceeds of the sale to Dolby and reported $4 million in the bank, it makes much more sense that the company lost a lot less than the $50 million it raised, although none of these possible numbers are reliable (60, 16 or 50), even if the audio was clear, given the nature of the primary source.

Kraft is speaking informally to a small group, without prepared notes. The video is fuzzy and the sparse attendance suggests he was making off-the-cuff remarks without the care for accuracy he'd give in a press interview, essay or broadcast interview. It's impossible to tell from this YouTube page if Kraft knew he was being taped for broadcast. The YouTuber that posted this has only ever published this one video [8] and I can find no website for them. The original poster took this video down, probably because it was problematic. The uncertainty and contradictions around the information makes the primary source unsuitable for use as per WP: Primary. Wired, an actual RS, did an exhaustive investigation of Doppler's closing, including the finances, and neither it, or any other RS, reported the company lost over $50 million. [9]

Furthermore, using the Wikipedia lead to emphasize the losses of the company Kraft co-founded seems to be a WP: NPOV problem. One could just as easily say in the lead that the company raised $50 million or, that it sold its patents to Dolby after declining bids from Apple and Amazon, or that its technology was recognized by Fast Company for its "outsized influence."[10] In any case, all of these characterizations are about the company, not Kraft, and belong in the body of the Career section. Choosing the loss from among all these possibilities for the lead, with only a weak primary source as support, rather than placing it in the chronology of the Career, suggests axe grinding.BC1278 (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

BC1278: Just for context I am including a link to this article which (although you have argued it is sensationalistic) links to controversies you have been involved with with other editors and describes some controversial tactics you have allegedly employed around votes ( https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-facebook-nbc-axios_n_5c63321be4b03de942967225 ). I would also ask that if we do put this to a vote, that you abstain from contacting any outside editors to contribute a vote, given this controversy. DaRonPayne (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DaRonPayne, you appear to have removed an entire RfC from Talk. It is highly improper to remove another editor's Talk comments, let alone an entire section. WP: Talk. There was no earlier RfC. This section is a "Request Edit." Request Edits are for independent review of non-controversial requests by COI editors. When I made the Request Edit, it was simple because I was only asking for removal of an unsourced statement. Since you objected, it automatically became "controversial", so this Request Edit has been closed. You have also added a new primary source to the article, so most the Request Edit is moot. The remaining issues about NPOV and brand new issues about this new primary source should be discussed in a new section, not tacked on to a closed Request Edit, where, directly contrary to WP:TPO, there has already been extensive "interleaving of your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent." The direction of the Request Edit review to have a discussion among many editors is exactly what an RfC accomplishes. Since this question about the lead has bounced around for months, input from a cross-section of editors via an RfC, which automatically pings editors in related projects, is warranted. I do not need your permission to open an RfC and you do not have the authority of an uninvolved Admin to decide to remove it. As you have said above, you are a relatively new editor and you should not take such extreme actions on Talk.

As to your other point about me, Wikipedia investigated HuffPo's claims against me on the Administrative Noticeboard starting almost immediately after the HuffPo article appeared. [11] After the extended discussion at AN, an Administrator uninvolved in the discussion summarized the consensus for the Administrative Closure Noticeboard as: “the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU. [Terms of Use.]." [12]An investigating Administrator, “Swarm”, who did a thorough review of the article, summarized the findings as follows: "Eight admins have replied to the thread. All eight appear to be on the same page that the article is exaggerated sensationalism, and that the editor has not actually has done anything wrong..." [13] WP:COIN also investigated and took no action. The HuffPo article was simply slander by a tabloid journalist who among many other things, hid from her readers how "proper notice" works under WP:Canvass. If you feel I violate any Wikipedia policy, feel free to report it on COIN or elsewhere. Article Talk should be reserved for substantive content discussions. BC1278 (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BC1278, as the article notes, there are numerous other Wikipedia editors who have admonished you for your conduct in the past. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BC1278&diff=845217397&oldid=844990979#Canvassing and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BC1278&diff=843020422&oldid=842973545#Choice_of_editors_to_move_your_draft_articles

The article points out that you have a history of controversial tactics around votes, and as far as I can tell you haven't denied the claims the article raises, but rather have argued that it is "sensationalistic" and that these tactics are not a big deal. Regardless of whether it's technically within the rules, your tactics may reflect poorly on Wikipedia. If the article is accurate, then I think it is extremely appropriate to mention your history of controversial vote tactics.

Also, you raised a number of new objections to a video that I linked to as documentary evidence that Kraft said something, and then you attempted to start a vote before I had an opportunity to respond. The article has remained in roughly the same form since February. Can the poll really not wait for a few days for a full-fledged discussion of the points that you made? DaRonPayne (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you're a paid editor advocating on behalf of your client Noah Kraft, I'd ask that we approach this gingerly. You were previously advise to engage in discussion with the page's editors before trying to force through controversial changes. DaRonPayne (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The focus seems to be on justifying the phrase "lost $50M". Video or not, I don't see the justification for the phrasing. They obtained $50M, some of it may have been paid in wages, rentals, expendables, etc. Calling such spending a "loss" is simply a misunderstanding of how businesses run. Let's focus on what we have clear evidence of:

Noah Kraft (born 1987/1988) is an American entrepreneur, and the co-founder and former CEO of Doppler Labs,<source(s)> an audio-technology company best known for its Here One Wireless Smart Earbuds. Despite over $50 million in investments,<source(s)> a lack of sales, manufacturing shortcomings, and inability to raise the necessary capital to continue operations<source(s)> led the company to closure in 2017.<source(s)>

Would this be better/to everyone's liking? Buffs (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like that first sentence, but I'd prefer not to inline cite the lede paragraph if we can help it. The second sentence is a bit of a run-on. Perhaps something like:

Noah Kraft (born 1987/1988) is an American entrepreneur, and the co-founder and former CEO of Doppler Labs, an audio-technology company best known for its Here One Wireless Smart Earbuds. Their flagship product had manufacturing and battery life problems, selling far fewer units than expected. After an unsuccessful attempt to raise additional capital, Doppler One ceased operations in December 2017.

Thoughts? --Noren (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See COI disclosure above. I agree the first sentence is well done. The latter sentences in both proposals above are factually accurate, but seem better suited to the Career section, where context is possible. The reason Doppler's closing received significant attention is because "Here One" was seen as such a highly innovative, influential product, an early entrant into wearable technology, as explained in Wired, Fast Company and Inc. Magazine. "Doppler's core idea—that in-ear computers are the next frontier—has permeated the industry. Apple's promoting AirPods, Google's touting Pixel Buds," Wired said in its in-depth feature about the company closing.^[1] Doppler's failure to raise additional capital to correct hardware issues was directly related to the fact that "Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook—are all pouring billions into developing their own gadgets."^[1] A company that raises $50 million and then shuts down is a pretty ordinary occurrence in Silicon Valley - but when the company's product is seen as highly inventive and yet it fails anyway, it becomes noteworthy. That's a lot of context to explain in a lead, which is why I'd suggest the lead simply stating that Doppler Labs shut down in 2017, then improving the Career section for the rest. It's also worth noting that Kraft has executive produced three feature films, including one with Martin Scorsese^[2] and this article is about him, not Doppler Labs. So maybe the lead should reference that he's also film producer. BC1278 (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What BC1278 is suggesting is pure PR spin by a paid editor advocating on behalf of Noah Kraft. Noren's wording mentions that Doppler was notable for its flagship product, but BC1278 argues that a proper contextualization would include more flattering statements about how innovative and revolutionary the product was (which is a weird argument given its commercial failure). And that the lead should therefore... remove all unflattering statements? Kraft's limited involvement as one of eighteen co-producers on a Scorsese film and two straight-to-video, low-budget horror flicks does not deserve to be prominently mentioned *in place of* Noren's suggested wording. More broadly, it's inappropriate for Noah Kraft's hired PR gun to be directing how the lead should be written. This is the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name and attracts negative press coverage. DaRonPayne (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, all I've suggested (for discussion) is that the lead read: Noah Kraft (born 1987/1988) is an American entrepreneur and film producer, and the co-founder and former CEO of Doppler Labs, an audio-technology company best known for its Here One Wireless Smart Earbuds. The company ceased operations in 2017." Then the other information suggested be incorporated into the "Career" section. BC1278 (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DaRonPayne:, yes, BC1278 can make suggestions and voice concerns even if he's involved and policy says he can. If you don't like that, you need to change the policy. The rest of us fully recognize that he's a paid person and we're allowed to agree or disagree with him as independent voices. Regardless of what he wants, neither Kraft nor BC1278 nor you nor I nor anyone else gets to author this lead, period! It's a group effort. We're aware he's PR for the subject. That doesn't mean he's automatically wrong. His opinion is not automatically discounted nor automatically opposed. You need to drop it. This is not civil behavior and it needs to end.

@Noren: Personally I don't care whether the references are in the lead or not; WP:LEAD allows for both, so that's not make/break for me. I don't particularly care about the $50M bit; I offered it as an attempt to meet the middle ground. I offer another suggestion bold changes noted from yours:

Noah Kraft (born 1987/1988) is an American entrepreneur, and the co-founder and former CEO of Doppler Labs, an audio-technology company best known for its Here One Wireless Smart Earbuds. Despite a promising start, their flagship product had manufacturing and battery life issues, selling <omit "far"...> fewer units than expected. After an unsuccessful attempt to raise additional capital, Doppler Labs <correction on name> ceased operations in December 2017.

Your thoughts? Buffs (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs: understood, and for what it's worth, this wording also looks very reasonable to me. DaRonPayne (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noren, I think this is a fair and objective summary for the lead, and exactly the right length. I would be open to dropping the RfCs altogether and adopting this as a compromise instead (on the one hand, we remove the $50 million claim. On the other hand, Kraft doesn't get to author his own lead through BC1278. The lead becomes an objective summary of the most widely covered and noteworthy aspect of Kraft's life, and not a PR piece). DaRonPayne (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I think discussing the language of a new lead is a good idea, the original RfC is still necessary to get a definitive decision as to whether it is permissible for the primary source (the YouTube video) in question can be used to support a factual claims of a specific loss (in the lead or the body.) Without this definitive decision, DaRonPayne, who has been severely disrupting discussion on this page in order to maintain use of the source (see ANI) will be free to continue to use the primary source.BC1278 (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BC1278 is now actively misrepresenting what I said and should be reprimanded for his blatant dishonesty. I flat out said that I am willing to have the $50 million claim removed entirely from the article as a compromise if BC1278 is willing to stop trying to micro-manage and write the lead for the article for his client. In fact, I'm willing to completely abstain from any further editing on the article/Talk page if BC1278 agrees to do the same (and if Kraft does not retain other paid editors to influence the article going forward), and I think that would be the best course of action for all parties involved here. DaRonPayne (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DaRonPayne, the discussion needs to focus on the wording of the lead. You can't demand that no paid editor can participate on articles as a condition of you agreeing to wording. If you want the Wikipedia policy on paid editing changed, you'll have to take that up elsewhere. Schazjmd (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just closed my RfC as a show of good faith and to highlight that this is about BC1278 trying to turn the lead into a PR piece for his client. DaRonPayne (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer either of the two options offered for the lead in this section over anything on offer in the RfC above. I think they represent the sourcing better better. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Summoned by bot: I have no knowledge of this topic and no connection to the article or anyone involved. However, if this were to go to the reliable sources board, I am confident that the consensus would be, as it always is, that YouTube is not a reliable source for anything. The only exception I have ever seen allowed was as doctor mentation for the former existence of certain Latin American punk bands, and even that is not ideal. In an article that seems to have issues with COI the sources need to be particularly good. If the video is really all that material, perhaps an External links section might work Elinruby (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]