Talk:Omidyar Network

message: From a style perspective, is it appropriate to quote a mission statement from a web page in an article? -- Joi 05:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Joi, it is not appropriate.  It's also interesting that you'd bring this up, when nearly four years later, your Creative Commons would receive a $500,000 grant from the very same Omidyar Network.  Good thing you didn't push too hard to keep Wikipedia free of mission statement puffery in this case. -- Thekohser 16:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Style perspective

message: This article sounds as though it was lifted straight out of a press-release, as opposed to an objective, outside perspective of this organization. 64.2.115.228 (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree... AnonMoos (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Paraphrase

message: The evidence seems that a very single-minded editor put forth most of the PR puff found in this "encyclopedia" article.  It really ought to be fixed, but what are we to do, with an Omidyar partner now sitting on the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees?  -- Thekohser 16:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And guess who the IP belongs to ... "Omidyar Network Services, LLC NEXTWEB-207-47-3-96-28 (NET-207-47-3-96-1) 207.47.3.96 - 207.47.3.111" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Likely conflicted editor wrote much of this article 

message: Without exception. As written, this currently reads like a PR piece. This is embarrassing to Omidyar, Wikipedia, editors, and readers. Benefac (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Same Guidelines Apply to Omidyar as to Any Other Wikipedia Article 

message: Hello Wikipedians,
In 2014, Benefac added an “advert” tag to Omidyar Network. In 2018, MarioGom added a “third-party” tag.
Omidyar has hired me to fix these issues in line with Wikipedia’s policies. To that end, I’ve disclosed my COI on the “Talk” pages for both Omidyar and myself, and I’d like to submit a series of suggestions.
Let’s start with the “third-party” tag. As you’ll see, I’ve prepared six requested edits, each of which I’ve paired with an explanation and sources. I’ve tried to organize things clearly and not to overwhelm you with info.
I welcome your thoughts. Thank you kindly for your consideration.
Signed,</br>
BlueRoses13 (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ptrnext (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Thank you very much for implementing these changes, @Ptrnext. Much appreciated. Before I submit the next round of requests, may I ask if it's now possible to remove the “third-party” tag? I believe in light of the changes that were just made, the page no longer relies "excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject." Indeed, the sources now include the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNBC, NBC, and New York. Thank you very much. Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello  I made an update and removed . I've tagged a reference/external-link with a  that could use an independent source or should be removed. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again, @Ptrnext — both for removing the tag and for flagging that problematic sentence. I'll have more to say about the latter in my next request. Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Third-Party Footnotes 

message: Can we change the following sentence, which appears in the “people” section, from this:
 Jeff Alvord is the managing director of The Omidyar Group (TOG).
to this:
 As of 2022, Omidyar Network’s board of directors includes five people, including Jeff Alvord and Pat Christen, both of whom are also managing directors of The Omidyar Group.
Why make this change?
1. The current footnote (for Jeff) is broken; I updated it.
2. I added Pat Christen, who has the same job title as Jeff, and I clarified their roles at the group vs. at the network.
: Ptrnext (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for implementing these changes, @Ptrnext. Much appreciated. Before I submit the next round of requests, may I ask if it's now possible to remove the “third-party” tag? I believe in light of the changes that were just made, the page no longer relies "excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject." Indeed, the sources now include the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNBC, NBC, and New York. Thank you very much. Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello  I made an update and removed . I've tagged a reference/external-link with a  that could use an independent source or should be removed. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again, @Ptrnext — both for removing the tag and for flagging that problematic sentence. I'll have more to say about the latter in my next request. Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  6. Jeff Alvord 

message: Hi all,
 
In 2014, Benefac added an “advert” tag to Omidyar Network. Omidyar has hired me to address this issue in line with Wikipedia’s policies.
To that end, I’ve disclosed my COI on the “Talk” pages for both Omidyar and myself, and I’d like to submit four requested edits, each of which I’ve paired with an explanation and sources. I’ve tried to organize things clearly and not to overwhelm you with info. I’ve also included one request to correct outdated info.
I believe these changes will remove the promotional tone and inappropriate external links.
I welcome your thoughts, including the removal of the tag. Thank you kindly for your consideration.
Signed,</br>
BlueRoses13 (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @BlueRoses13   Mostly done as noted above. Removed the advertising template.  Have a look and submit a new clean request for further edits (note the "citation needed" for the final claim in Investees).  Cheers. Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Thanks so much, @Duke Gilmore! Noted. Best, BlueRoses13 (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the Advertising-Esque Tone 

message: Should we remove the following sentence, which is the last sentence in the lead section?
 According to the OECD, Omidyar Network's financing for 2019 development increased by 10% to US$58.9 million.
Why make this change? It’s unclear what “financing for development” refers to. Also, I’m not sure that citing an old annual amount is noteworthy, especially since the previous sentence cites the network’s total giving.
  Seems fine to me.  Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  1. “2019 Development” 

message: Should we remove the following sentence, which appears in the “activism and accomplishments” section?
 In February 2021, the network hosted a series on whistleblowing, and has provided financial support to Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen and Pinterest whistleblower Ifeoma Ozoma.
Why make this change? First, the whistleblowing series didn’t draw much media attention, so I’m not sure it’s newsworthy. (The footnote in question, from Politico, only says this: “The group also hosted a series on whistleblowing in the tech industry in early February of this year, months before Haugen came forward.”)
Second, and most important, Omidyar Network has not given money to Frances Haughen. To be sure, the Luminate Group (which is another one of Pam and Pierre’s philanthropies within The Omidyar Group) has, but Omidyar Network has not.
Let’s look at the specific language that the media has used. The current sentence on Wikipedia — that Omidyar Network “is now providing financial support” to Haughen — is sourced to Politico, which in 2021 broke the following news: “Omidyar’s global philanthropic organization Luminate is handling Haugen’s press and government relations in Europe.”
Again: Luminate is involved with Haughen; Omidyar Network is not.
Here’s another source that confirms these relationships: The same day the Politico article appeared, so did an article in Insider (“Facebook Whistleblower Frances Haugen Is Reportedly Being Funded by the Billionaire Founder of eBay”). The Insider article quoted a Luminate spokesperson as follows: “We are the only organization from The Omidyar Group that is directly supporting the work of Frances Haugen and her team.”
Third, the entire “activism and accomplishments” consists of one sentence.
  Agreed and deleted. Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2. Frances Haugen 

message: Should we remove the following sentence, which appears in the “investees” section and seems to be 13 years old?
 , Omidyar Network counts the following organizations as partners: Ashoka, Comat Technologies, Creative Commons, Digg, DonorsChoose, Endeavor, Federated Media Publishing, GlobalGiving, Goodmail, GuideStar, Linden Lab (developer of Second Life global virtual community), Media Development Investment Fund, Meetup, Metaweb, ModestNeeds, Open Data Institute, Opportunity International, PRBC, Prosper, Rappler, SeaChange Capital Partners, Seesmic, Socialtext, Sunlight Foundation, Virgin Money, Wikia, World of Good.
 
Why make this change? First, there are no footnotes for any of this. Second, citing 27 organizations is overkill. 
  Agreed and deleted. Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  3. Partners 

message: Should we remove the following sentence, which appears in the “investees” section?
 In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Omidyar Network funded 67 projects under the Rapid Response Funding Initiative, investing a total of . These projects were selected from 2000 applications. The projects funded included RightWalk Foundation, Peepul India and GiveIndia.
Why make this change? First, there are no footnotes for any of this.
Second, all 67 projects come from Omidyar Network India, not Omidyar Network. These are separate entities, with separate websites: https://www.omidyarnetwork.in vs. https://omidyar.com.
Third, media attention for this initiative seems to revolve around a news release.
Fourth, Omidyar Network’s COVID-19 efforts centered around what it called an Economic Response Advocacy Fund. Here’s the announcement.
  Agreed and deleted. Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  4. India 

message: Should we correct the following sentence, which appears in the “people” section, from this:
 The organization has offices in Redwood City, Bengaluru, Johannesburg, London, Mumbai, Nairobi, Singapore, and Washington D.C.
to this:
 As of 2022, the organization has offices in Silicon Valley, Bengaluru, London, Mumbai, Nairobi, and Washington, D.C.
Why make this change? First, the link in the current footnote is broken, so I updated it.
Second, the new link does not include Redwood City, Johannesburg, or Singapore, but it does add Silicon Valley.
Third, we need a comma between “Washington” and “D.C.”
  Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @BlueRoses13   Mostly done as noted above. Removed the advertising template.  Have a look and submit a new clean request for further edits (note the "citation needed" for the final claim in Investees).  Cheers. Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Thanks so much, @Duke Gilmore! Noted. Best, BlueRoses13 (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  5. Offices