User talk:Keganator

Welcome!

Hello, Keganator, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page User:Keganator, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorials
Article wizard for creating new articles
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Blue Riband► 17:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's @Blue Riband I appreciate all of the different tools and resources. I definitely don't intend for my page to be an advertisement, I will edit it right away. I do however, think Agility Robotics has enough 3rd party validation to warrant enough notoriety for a page. And being an employee I don't feel like I can be an unbiased author. I also don't want to try and hide my affiliation or push a page through covertly. Below are samples of the media coverage we have received. Any suggestions on how to proceed?

Sample of 3rd party validation

[1]https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/21/agilitys-next-digit-robot-will-have-a-face-and-hands/

[2]https://www.geekwire.com/2022/agility-robotics-raises-150m-from-amazon-and-others-to-build-robots-used-in-the-workplace/

[3]https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/amazon-invests-in-robots-that-work-alongside-humans/

[4]https://www.therobotreport.com/fords-package-delivery-tests-combine-autonomous-vehicles-bipedal-robots/

[5]https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/inno/stories/profiles/2022/04/25/agility-robotics-factory.html

[6]https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/01/agility-robotics-building-two-legged-cassie-robot-and-delivery-robots.html

[7]https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyfeldman/2022/04/22/meet-the-startups-that-amazons-new-1-billion-industrial-innovation-fund-is-backing/?sh=6cd00ae025a4 Keganator (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources, I concur that this company seems to have enough significant coverage from reliable and independent sources to merit an article. And we also appreciate your up-front disclosure of your employment, as you have complied with the paid editing disclosure policy.

I'm not sure what the preferred way to proceed is for a good-faith, disclosed editor these days. Perhaps asking for some advice at the Wikipedia:Teahouse would be helpful. Be sure to mention this discussion in your post (refer to it as the discussion on your "user talk page"). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is super useful and I appreciate your assessment. I think if I was able to find a good-faith/disclosed editor who has a passion and interest for the subject matter it would be a natural fit. Keganator (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Drm310's opinion, expressed above. I can't check source 6 as I'm not an IEEE member; but the other seven sources are all based on what the CEO of Agility has said, and so not independent. You'll need to find some independent sources. I also disagree that an "editor who has a passion" would be a suitable collaborator − passion is incompatible with impartiality. Maproom (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that's really helpful insight. I definitely see your point about passion/impartiality, you are totally correct. I'd push back slightly on your point about independence. All of those sources are written by independent journalists, none of which are under any influence by the CEO/company. They did use a number of quotes, but that seems relevant to providing context. I will continue my research and see if there is any media coverage that is more independent and impartial in tone/style. Apologies on source 6, I didn't realize it was behind a paywall. I will remove it. Keganator (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, paywalls aren't a deal-breaker - but they do make verification more difficult for the average person. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]