Talk:Omidyar Network

Style perspective

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)

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)

ACCESS

Regarding "The Omidyar Network includes ACCESS (reporting on non-profits for philanthropic investors)":

Can Dystopos or anyone else cite a source for that? I don't see any mention of ACCESS (this access?) on the Omidyar Network's site. --164.76.162.246 4 July 2005 10:45 (UTC)

• Here's the page. The name has apparently changed to "Keystone." It doesn't sound like it was related to that access. Dystopos 4 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)

Paraphrase

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)

Agree... AnonMoos (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Likely conflicted editor wrote much of this article

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)

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)

The Same Guidelines Apply to Omidyar as to Any Other Wikipedia Article

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)

Adding Third-Party Footnotes

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,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

1. Founding

In the lead sentence, the following sentence does not have any footnotes:

Established in 2004 by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife Pam...

Here are footnotes from third parties:

1. A profile in New York (magazine), “The Pierre Omidyar Insurgency” (2014), confirms that the network was “founded in 2004.”

2. An article in Barron’s (newspaper), “Lessons Learned by the Omidyar Network” (2018), confirms that the network was “set up by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife Pam.”

3. An article in CNBC, “EBay Founder Pierre Omidyar’s Philanthropic Investment Group Calls for a New Version of Capitalism” (2020), confirms that “Pam co-founded the Omidyar Network.”

Here’s a revised sentence, with the footnotes:

Established in 2004 by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife Pam...

2. The "Group" vs. the "Network"

The following sentence appears in the “structure” section:

It is "a Part of the Omidyar Group".

First, here’s a third-party news article that confirms the network is part of the group:

In “Billionaire eBay Founder’s Philanthropy Calls for Re-Imagination of Capitalism” (2020), the Silicon Valley Business Journal confirms that “the 16-year-old Omidyar Network ... is a venture of the Omidyar Group.”

Second, let’s remove the quotation marks. They’re unnecessary.

Third, let’s uncapitalize “part.” That too is unnecessary.

Fourth, any chance we can capitalize “the”? (https://www.omidyargroup.com confirms that “the” is part of the group’s name.)

Here’s a revised sentence:

It is a part of The Omidyar Group.

3. Mike Kubzansky

The following sentence, which appears in the “people” section, is sourced to a self-published website (omidyar.com):

The managing partner of Omidyar Network is Mike Kubzansky, a former partner at Monitor Group (now Monitor Deloitte).

First, here’s a third-party news article for Kubzansky’s current title: In “EBay Founder Pierre Omidyar’s Philanthropic Investment Group Calls for a New Version of Capitalism” (2020), CNBC refers to Kubzansky as the “CEO of the organization.”

Second, neither the current footnote nor the new one mentions Monitor or Deloitte, so should we remove these?

Here’s a revised sentence:

As of 2022, the CEO of Omidyar Network is Mike Kubzansky.

4. Better Than Cash

The following sentence, which appears in the “investees” section, does not have a source:

From 2012, Omidyar Network has been a partner of Better Than Cash Alliance.

Here are two, third-party news articles:

1. In “Philanthropy in Silicon Valley: Big Bets on Big Ideas” (2016), the New York Times reported that “Omidyar participates in the Better Than Cash Alliance, an advocacy group that partners with governments and others to encourage the distribution of money digitally instead of through cash handouts.

2. In “How the Modi Government Wrecked India’s Small Businesses” (2021), Quartz reported that “the Better Than Cash Alliance [is] funded by United States Agency for International Development, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Citi Foundation, Ford Foundation, Mastercard, Omidyar Network and Visa Inc.”

Here’s a revised sentence:

Since 2012, Omidyar Network has been a partner of Better Than Cash Alliance.

5. Wikimedia

The following sentence, which appears in the “investees” section, is sourced to a press release, whose link is broken:

In 2009, the Omidyar Network donated $2 million over two years to the Wikimedia Foundation, and at the same time, Matt Halprin of Omidyar Network was appointed to Wikimedia's board of directors.

Here are two better sources (both of them third-party news articles):

1. In “Wikipedia Gets $2M From Omidyar Network” (2009), VentureBeat reported the following: “Omidyar Network just announced that it’s making a $2 million grant to the Wikimedia Foundation … Matt Halprin, a partner at [Omidyar], is also joining Wikimedia’s board of trustees.”

2. In “$2 Million Buys eBay Founder a Wikipedia Seat” (2009), NBC Bay Area reported: “The Omidyar Network, a fund established by eBay billionaire Pierre Omidyar, has pledged $2 million over two years to support the site, and in return landed fund partner Matt Halprin a seat on a shaken-up board of trustees.”

Here’s a revised sentence:

In 2009, the Omidyar Network donated $2 million over two years to the Wikimedia Foundation, and at the same time, Matt Halprin of Omidyar Network was appointed to Wikimedia's board of directors.

6. Jeff Alvord

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.

 Done Ptrnext (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

Hello @BlueRoses13: I made an update and removed {{third-party}}. I've tagged a reference/external-link with a {{primary source inline}} that could use an independent source or should be removed. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

Removing the Advertising-Esque Tone

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,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

1. “2019 Development”

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.

 Not done Seems fine to me. Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

2. Frances Haugen

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.

 Done Agreed and deleted. Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

3. Partners

Should we remove the following sentence, which appears in the “investees” section and seems to be 13 years old?

As of April 2009, 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.

 Done Agreed and deleted. Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

4. India

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 ₹10.75 crores. 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.

 Done Agreed and deleted. Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

5. Offices

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.”

 Done Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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