Talk:Applied Intuition

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Draft status

[edit]

I see that it is noted "no claim to notability, no secondary sources, previously repeatedly created by sockfarm". Where do I put (1)? For (2), the references are secondary sources (WSJ, The Washington Post, etc.). Not sure what is meant by (3). RajeshKumar12 (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post article is not about Applied Intuition, it mentions the company in one paragraph of a 1500-word article about self-driving cars, and that paragraph quotes the CEO, so it is not a secondary source. The WSJ source is based on a press release (the exact same PR as the Venturebeat source), so it is not secondary. That there is no claim to notability is connected to the fact that there are no sources. Please read this information about what is required, and note that Wikipedia is not interested in what the company says about themselves in press releases or interviews, only in what people who are wholly unconnected to the company say about them. That the article has been repeatedly created by multiple accounts used by the same marketing person is not something you can do anything about. --bonadea contributions talk 21:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... The Washington Post comment makes sense, but the Forbes article seems to be notable. Looking at the link you posted and the criteria in the table: significant (> $1 billion valued company, meaning that it is a 'unicorn' company which is considered significant in the software industry, with Toyota as a customer cited), independent (written by a senior editor / staff writer at Forbes), reliable (Forbes is a reliable source), and secondary (the information used from the article in the post is not information that is quoted by their CEO). Please correct me if I'm making a mistake here - this is my first "new" post on Wikipedia. That (Forbes article) is originally the only article I had cited when I saw the missing link on Qasar Younis' page, and added these sources later. RajeshKumar12 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea, what are your thoughts? RajeshKumar12 (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant" has nothing to do with how large a company is or how much money it is good for – it is not "a significant company" but significant coverage, that is, sources that are specifically about the topic and talk about it in depth. The word "significant" is meant to be as opposed to "trivial", which might be a short news notice about a topic, or a brief mention of the topic in a source that's really about something else. (More info here.) The Forbes article is specifically about the company, but since it is in fact a slightly re-written press release is is not independent, so it does not show notability. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. what about these articles here? Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-12/how-self-driving-cars-can-get-past-the-learning-permit-stage-without-any-risk, Nikkei: https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO66441880Z11C20A1TJ1000, and Handelsblatt: https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/mittelstand/familienunternehmer/qasar-younis-dieser-gruender-will-autonomes-fahren-schneller-moeglich-machen/25232612.html?ticket=ST-17162512-fzP0EaC77FGUXMSAAZhx-ap2. All of these sources are significant, independent, reliable, and secondary, and there are multiple. RajeshKumar12 (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access the bloomberg.com source nor the Nikkei source; the Handelsblatt source is an interview with Younis so not secondary. Please do not move this draft to article space yourself – I'll restore it for you so you can submit it for review if you should wish. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 17:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you try opening the pages in an incognito window? They should be accessible. RajeshKumar12 (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question over connection with subject

[edit]

(Adding edit COI template to flag this request for review by uninvolved editors.)


Hello Wikipedia editors:

I see that the Applied Intuition article was recently (April 1, 2025) flagged with a conflict of interest template, and I presume it refers to edits I have made. As a contributor to this article, I want to address this directly and seek your guidance.

I am an employee of Applied Intuition and have been transparent about this connection in all my edits. Each of my contributions includes a disclosure statement, and my user page clearly states my affiliation and commitment to Wikipedia's policies. I understand the concerns that arise with company-affiliated editors and take them seriously.

In contributing to this article, I have always made concerted efforts to:

- Use neutral, fact-based language

- Support all statements with independent, reliable sources

- Avoid promotional content

- Present a balanced view of the company

- Disclose my COI with each edit


I would greatly appreciate it if editors could review the article and provide specific feedback on content that might not meet Wikipedia's neutrality standards or other content policies. If particular sections or statements require revision, please let me know, and I'll either suggest changes here on the talk page or support improvements made by uninvolved editors.

While this discussion is ongoing, I'll refrain from making substantive edits to the article. I'm committed to ensuring this article meets Wikipedia's standards and am open to constructive feedback.

Thank you for your consideration and assistance in improving this article.


Regards,

Cal-batman Cal-batman (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest. As a general rule, if you have a COI you should not edit the article directly and instead work through edit requests, except for completely trivial edits (reverting blatant vandalism, fixing a typo, wikilinking something, etc). Pinging @Mean as custard:, who left the tag, for more thoughts. Rusalkii (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression from the language used that many of the 'independent, reliable sources' consist of recycling the company's own press releases. . .Mean as custard (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modify potentially promotional language in partnerships section

[edit]

Hello editors,

I have a conflict of interest as an employee of Applied Intuition and am requesting a minor edit to modify potentially promotional language for neutrality.


**Specific text to be changed:**

Current: "Applied Intuition has partnered with leading automotive manufacturers, including Porsche and Audi, to develop next-generation ADAS offerings."


**Proposed revision:**

"Applied Intuition has partnered with automotive manufacturers such as Porsche and Audi to develop next-generation ADAS offerings."


**Reason for the change:**

This revision removes the potentially promotional word "leading" to ensure the article maintains a neutral point of view, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you for your consideration.

~~~~ Cal-batman (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modify potentially promotional language in History section

[edit]

Hello editors,

I have a conflict of interest as an employee of Applied Intuition and am requesting a minor edit to modify potentially promotional language for neutrality.

**Specific text to be changed:**

Current: "The company's primary offerings include a suite of simulation and testing software that enables vehicle manufacturers to create and refine AV systems by analyzing capabilities such as perception systems, vehicle dynamics, and overall software integration."

**Proposed revision:**

"The company's primary offerings include simulation and testing software that enables vehicle manufacturers to create and refine AV systems by analyzing capabilities such as perception systems, vehicle dynamics, and overall software integration."

**Reason for the change:**

This revision removes the potentially promotional word "suite" to ensure the article maintains a neutral point of view, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you for your consideration.

~~~~ Cal-batman (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: Neutral language for Awards and Recognition

[edit]

Hello editors,

I have a conflict of interest as an employee of Applied Intuition and am requesting a minor edit to modify potentially promotional language for neutrality.

**Specific text to be changed:**

Current: "Applied Intuition award recognition includes Bloomberg naming the company to its list of The 10 Defense Tech Startups to Watch in 2025 and Fast Company naming Applied Intuition to its list of The most innovative companies in Transportation for 2025."


**Proposed revision:**

"In 2025, Bloomberg included Applied Intuition in its list of 10 defense tech startups to watch, and Fast Company included the company in its list of the most innovative companies in transportation."


**Reason for the change:**

This revision removes the potentially promotional phrasing and presents the information in a more neutral, factual manner, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. No change to the citations is needed, as the current sources already support the revised text.

Thank you for your consideration.

~~~~ Cal-batman (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revise potentially editorial language in Isuzu partnership section

[edit]

Hello editors,

I have a conflict of interest as an employee of Applied Intuition and am requesting a minor edit to address potentially editorial language for neutrality.

**Specific text to be changed:**

Current: “…solidifying Isuzu's plans to jointly develop self-driving trucks in support of Isuzu's plans for trucks and buses with Level 4 automation…”


**Proposed revision:**

“…to jointly develop self-driving trucks in support of Isuzu’s plans for trucks and buses with Level 4 automation…”

or, more concisely, “…to jointly develop self-driving trucks with Level 4 automation capability…”


**Reason for the change:**

The current phrasing uses “solidifying,” which might be considered editorializing and to imply a positive outcome. The proposed revision removes this language to ensure the article maintains a neutral point of view, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. No change to the source citation is required, as the existing reference still supports the revised text.

Thank you for your consideration.

~~~~ Cal-batman (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]