Talk:Balaji Srinivasan

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 May 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

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

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: Genetics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Cryptocurrency Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency 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.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Promotional text

This article had some promotional text and non-notable details like the online classes taught, concepts/idea they shared publicly, and questionable claims about being the first to raise alarm about Coronavirus. I went ahead and removed them to keep focus on the notible controbutions this person had made. Ew3234 (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for your comments. I removed any non-neutral language, added more citations, and included criticism of his earlier talks as well as a section on Srinivasan's failed bitcoin mining startup, 21.co, which pivoted to become Earn.com.

However, as you know, WP:BLP sets a high standard for including content on living people and, in particular, "zero information is preferred to misleading or false information." Many factual claims in the Metz article were publicly disputed at the time by figures like Jesse Singal, Scott Alexander, Scott Aaronson, and Reason Magazine, so it's not a reliable source and thus does not meet the high bar for WP:BLP. See this: https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1361524592188272648

In addition, this particular episode is not of enduring notability per WP:NOTNEWS (and WP:BLP). For example, events like being considered for FDA commissioner and former CTO of a $50bn co are not disputed and are enduringly notable. Kristyuhorton (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kristyuhorton, The New York Times and Biz Insider did not retract the story or issue a correction. Yes, some people might disagree with this unfavorable coverage but that does not make it not a reliable source. If that were true, there would be no coverage of the Me Too movement. If others dispute this and you have a reliable source (something better that a tweet so that it meet reliable source standards) you can add it to the article to give readers a better picture but shouldn't just remove a controversal detail because others dispute it when its back by sources that include the NYT. Ew3234 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the FDA nomination is notible and I agree that it should remain. I don't think I removed that. But other details are questionable like the MOOCs and publishing those articles don't appear notible. I don't think they belong in this article Ew3234 (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Ew3234:. The subject's suggestion to dox journalists, unfortunate though it was, is well-sourced and should remain. I also agree with Ew3234 that this article is stuffed with "promotional text and non-notable details." Do we need the laundry list of companies the subject invested in or need to know he invested early in crypto-currencies? Do we need to know he organized a relief effort for Covid sufferers in India or he advocates the use of crypto-currencies in that country? None of this is particularly remarkable. As it stands today this article reads like a vanity bio you see on a company's website -- you know, the page where you're told how great the people who work for the company are. Chisme (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to delete

Hello! I'm pretty new to wikipedia. This article seems like it's a puff piece + the subject is not so notable? Was given this by the copy editing suggestions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haji_Mohammad_Idris and found this notability page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_technology_officer#Notable_CTOs (It looks like there is no established notability criterion for technology as with music: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles but don't think this page's subject really compares to the ones in CTO notability page. I'm going to nominate this for deletion. Quicklibrary (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Balaji Srinivasan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Balaji Srinivasan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balaji Srinivasan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Quicklibrary (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

I removed or tagged all the sources that link to Twitter posts, Crunchbase, and text written by Srinivasan or the product or company in question. These don't meet Wiki standards. Ew3234 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of investments

The article currently says Srinivasan invested in OpenGov. The cited source does not say this explicitly, but mentions that he is a partner at Andreessen Horowitz, a firm that did invest. Does this count as Srinivasan acting as an angel investor? Or is the bar for inclusion higher?

I'm inclined to say that this is insufficient, so I'm going ahead and removing OpenGov. Jlevi (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link to archived NPOVN discussion

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 110#Garry Tan and Balaji Srinivasan. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correctly cite relevant source without editorializing content

The article currently says that Srinivasan suggested "bribing the police" which takes a referenced quote from a New Republic article and adds subjective opinion. This is misleading the readers.

Given Wikipedia's stance on neutrality, the information should be objective and say something like "He suggested funding weekly policemen’s banquets and helping their relatives get a job" to pull directly from the referenced New Republic article. So readers can form their perspectives based on reported facts. Brightfuture11 (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Search for kinder euphemisms all you like, but the correct word is "bribing"? Srinivasan's vision of a new San Francisco is just plain daft in so many ways. This Wikipedia article could go into it in much more detail. From the New Republic article:

Simply put, there is a ton of fascist-chic cosplay involved. Once a (police) officer joins the Grays (Srinivasan's tech cult), they get a special uniform designed by their tech overlords. The Grays will also donate heavily to police charities and "merge the Gray and police social networks." Then, in a show of force, they’ll march through the city together. “A huge win would be a Gray Pride parade with 50,000 Grays,” said Srinivasan. “That would start to say: ‘Whose streets? Our streets!’ You have the A.I. Flying Spaghetti Monster. You have the Bitcoin parade. You have the drones flying overhead in formation...”

Weird proto-fascist stuff! He also says, “Just as Blues (liberals) ethnically cleansed me out of San Francisco, like, push out all Blues." Ethnically cleansed him? Does he know what this term means? Chisme (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes are objective. Isn't it better to add more quotes instead of compressing a bunch of things someone said into "bribing"? Maybe I don't have enough context but I think readers come to Wikipedia for neutral, fact-based information. To be clear, I'm not trying to pass judgement pro or against any particular ideas — I was just completing an assignment from school to find a Wikipedia article and suggest edits. Maybe I'm hitting some nerve amongst a set of Wiki users that I'm not aware of. Anyway, "bribing" feels like editorializing content which is why I thought it was worth editing to just share actual quotes instead. Brightfuture11 (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in general, I'm curious how consensus building works. Because I've just had my edit reverted (which I was bummed about) instead of someone doing another positive sum edit. But that's ok, I'm here to learn and see how I can actually make valuable contributions. Brightfuture11 (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]