Talk:Nextdoor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Contested deletion

I think there's a good argument to be made here that this meets WP:WEB and WP:CORP. The current draft has references to 7 very reliable sources and there are easily a lot more out there about this. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, arguments for its significance include that it is a notable reflection of A. resentment of the poor privacy/security of Facebook and Craigslist and B. a wave of community focus in the United States. (also meets WP:GNG) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Category "neighborhood networking sites"?

Is there a category "neighborhood networking sites" or something this could be made a part of? It would be useful to gather all such sites, esp. those not restricted to the U.S., together.

Samuel Webster (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point because Nextdoor (and other similar sites such as Streetlife which it took over in the UK) is not a social network site in the normal sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.255.5.91 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Autobiography or institution related to the subject tag

I put the "Autobiography or institution related to the subject tag" at the top of this article. It's plain that Acd27 is related to Nextdoor. He has only edited articles about Nextdoor and his contributions do nothing more than tout the company. Chisme (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Did a little cleanup work here. It needs it. Chisme (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I would contribute a more formal tone to the article as well as more informative and concise information that would contribute to the reader's understanding of Nextdoor. I would also like to delete and revise some of the existing content on the page that may read as biased or superfluous.

bibliography: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/05/nextdoor-social-network-police-seattle/481164/ http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/18/6030393/nextdoor-private-social-network-40000-neighborhoods http://fusion.net/story/340171/how-nextdoor-reduced-racial-profiling/ https://nextdoor.com http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/09/01/nextdoor-when-a-neighborhood-website-turns-unneighborly/ Rachelkramer (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The lack of information about Nextdoor in this article is surprising

I have no problem with reporting the controversies related to a site. But the site has real value, and plays an important role in building community in many neighborhoods. I have heard there are neighborhoods where a few destructive neighbors ruin Nextdoor for everyone else, but from what I have seen it is a really promising tool, and in thousands of neighborhoods it has become a valuable resource.

Facebook has all sorts of issues, concerns, and controversy. I've seen people bully others, express racist ideas, and generally be total jerks on Facebook. But if an article about Facebook said nothing about what it is used for, what value people see in it, and instead only talked about the CEO, competitors, and controversy, would that in any way be an informative article about Facebook? I would say no, and for the same reason I would say this article has almost no worthwhile information about Nextdoor.

I am not affiliated with Nextdoor, I just use the site. I'm not prepared to re-write this article, but I think it should somehow be flagged as very biased and lacking most of the useful facts about what the site is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dqcole (talk • contribs) 05:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it is a poor article. Looking back at the history over the last 6 months, several references and accompanying text has been removed.

The section on 'Privacy concerns' is still unreferenced, yet this is the main concern of ex-Streetlife Nextdoor members in the UK.

EdJogg (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

History vs. Controversy

The second paragraph of the History section has nothing to do with the history of the social networking service. If this paragraph is to be retained, it should be moved to a different section, perhaps on cofounders or controversy. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree and I have moved the paragraph. Tallbobert (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Reference to be added

I found this article. Don't have time to add it to the article, but I'm putting the link here in case someone else does. (My Wikipedia skills are a "work in progress," so it always takes me awhile to figure out the right syntax for references.)

https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/23/12005456/nextdoor-100000-neighborhood-social-network-app-changes-business-plan-expansion

Omc (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

I have re-drafted the article for Nextdoor because it has substantial problems with being out of date, incomplete, inaccurate and several sections violating Wikipedia policy. As referenced in Talk above, the current article is quite poor considering the prominence of the company. I'd like to request an independent editor do a review of the new draft at User:BC1278/sandbox/Nextdoor. While I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, I have a conflict of interest here as a paid consultant to Nextdoor. I always attempt to abide by the Wikipedia five pillars, including providing reliable sourcing and a neutral point of view. If I have fallen short, I am happy to do more work. The article is at "Start Class" and I'd like to see if I can get it to "B" on this draft, then eventually to "GA" given the large volume of reliable sourcing over many years,

I think the additional text and images are largely self-explanatory. But I'd like to address three other significant changes from the current article, all in the "Controversy" section. From bottom to top:

• I have deleted the sub-section entitled "Denial of service to sex offenders and members of their households" since its only source is self-published website. It fails the reliable sourcing requirement WP: Reliable. I checked to see if the letter this sub-section refers received any mentions from news sources and it has not.
• I have deleted the sub-section entitled "Founder." This section violates WP: COATRACK. It is about a misdemeanor traffic no-contest plea by the company co-founder that does not relate to the company in any way. He served community service on weekends -- he did not go to jail, despite the misleading statements in the current article. It did not involve or interfere with his duties at Nextdoor in any way. The Nextdoor Board did not punish him in any way. It has not meaningfully affected the company in any way. There is no WP article about this individual, but if there ever is, it should go in that article, not here. It's irrelevant here.
• I have reworked the sub-section entitled "Racial profiling." This serious topic definitely deserves to be in the article. However, the article is not an essay. It should be summarizing facts, specifically, the content of the criticism. It should not stacking extended quotations from opinion pieces, all similar to one another, with the same viewpoint. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." WP: Undue. Since the accusation were serious, and treated as such by the company, the company response and remediation efforts undertaken also need to be fully described, a per WP: UNDUE A stacking of quotes, rather than a concise factual summation, is de facto adopting a POV. Since the accusation were serious, and treated as such by the company, the remediation efforts undertaken by the company also need to be fully described to satisfy WP:UNDUE. The efforts received extensive media coverage in very high-quality reliable sources. In and of themselves, the remediation process and technology was a news story.
• Finally, as per best practices in Wikipedia, I have simply blended the separate Controversy section into History. "[S]ections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged." WP: CRITS

I am available to help in any way I can. Ed BC1278 (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Your article is too long. Remember: This is an encyclopedia, not a company promotion brochure. Under "Platform," say what it is, not its benefits to police agencies, those who want to have block parties, and the like. Your "History" section is typical of internet company's "History" sections. Way too much detail. You could make a general statement about company growth. The second half should have a heading such as "Complaints," as it deals not with company's history, but with complaints about the company. The founder's run-in with the law was not a "a misdemeanor traffic accident." What made it remarkable is he fled from the scene of the crime. It deserves to stay. "Finances" tells about the money the company raised. It does not belong in a general encyclopedia. That might be of interest to investors, but not the layman. Chisme (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate your feedback and efforts to improve Wikipedia, I think your analysis is entirely contrary to Wikipedia policy and best practices.

• The length of an article does not determine if it is promotional. There are hundreds of reliable sources about this subject (whittled down to a manageable 50 here). If you look at the citations in my new proposed draft, User:BC1278/sandbox/Nextdoor, you'll see that over the course of the past 10 years, this company has had multiple in-depth features in high-quality reliable sources such as The New York Times, Wired, The Atlantic, BuzzFeed News, PBS News Hours, NPR and Newsweek. And it's been written or broadcast about in hundreds of local-media reliable sources, a sample of which are cited here. It warrants a longer, better written and better structured article than it has now. The article summarizes the sources in as neutral a manner as I was able to manage, and I'm always open to put in more work if it falls short.
• The platform, which is for hyperlocal communities, is indeed used to organize local events and for police announcements about emergencies, to use your examples. Describing exactly what the platform does, supported by abundant reliable sourcing, is a critical component to an article about an app in use by tens of millions of people in 170,000 communities. You can look at other articles about other prominent internet platforms and you'll also find detailed descriptions of functionality. e.g. Snapchat#Features, Twitter#Features
• As I have pointed out, sections called "Criticism", "Complaints" or "Controversy" are strongly discouraged in almost all circumstances. WP: CRITS Such sections lean toward NPOV violations because they presume the criticism is the point, rather than the event as a whole (including contrary point of view and responses.)
• I have added neutrally worded topical headings throughout the article to make it easier to read.
• The incident is quite literally a a misdemeanor traffic accident. That is factual, not a matter of dispute. The court accepted his lawyer's assertion that he did not know he had a duty to report the accident, so reduced the charge to a misdemeanor. (Same source). Including this is classic coatracking. It's not about the subject of the article, Nextdoor. It's about a connected individual's personal life. If he had pleaded no contest to misdemeanor trespassing during a nuclear energy protest, or misdemeanor disorderly conduct during a #MeToo protest, it would also be coatracking to include these in this article.
• The amount of money a company has raised, its valuation and investors are routine for articles about companies, especially in the internet sector. Anyone experienced in this subject matter on Wikipedia knows this, such as members of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Business. For some articles about well-known internet companies that include funding rounds, investors and valuations, see Google#Financing,_1998_and_initial_public_offering,_2004,Yelp#Origins_(2004–2009) (this is a WP:GA status); Snap_Inc.#Funding_and_shares

I am going to involve more editors in this discussion, starting with the editors from this Talk page. (Update: I have notified every user who has ever left a comment on Talk.) BC1278 (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I am happy that my concerns have been addressed in the current version of the article. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Any objective reviewer will see that the tenor of your article is promotional. The length, the tone, the inclusion of descriptions of how wonderful Nextdoor is all add up to a promotional article. Tone it down. I note by your admission you are "re as a paid consultant to Nextdoor" (why didn't you admit this before?). Are you in any position to judge whether this article is promotional?

Block parties? Really? Does that belong in an encyclopedia?

I know that Wiki discourages "Criticism", "Complaints" and "Controversy" sections. But that doesn't mean this material should be excluded. Your article has this under a heading called "History." Criticism of the company doesn't have to do with its history -- it has to do with it failures.

It was not "quite literally a a misdemeanor traffic accident." He fled from the scene of the accident -- this from someone who purports to help building communities and community spirit. That's odd, is it not? If a leading pacificist engaged in disorderly conduct during a #MeToo protest it would reflect on his company.

Money! You're absolutely right: "The amount of money a company has raised, its valuation and investors are routine for articles about companies, especially in the internet sector." Internet company articles, often written by people like you in the employ of the companies, like to boast about money. But I ask again: Does that belong in an an encylopedia? Chisme (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I included the disclosure that I am a paid consultant to Nextdoor from the outset of this request, in the very first paragraph. This is my first involvement with this article.BC1278 (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I support Ed/BC1278's revised draft of the article. (Disclosure: I worked with him last year on revising the Phil Griffin article, and found him to be an honest partner.) It makes more sense to me (though its references need to be full citations, with authors and dates added where applicable; see my revisions to the draft of the last few minutes for examples), as do his arguments above. I don't have time to participate fully in this discussion, as I'm getting ready to leave on vacation, but if this is still going when I get back, I'll jump in. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the draft, DocWatson42. I used the automated citation tool, rather than mark up language. The tool is a big time saver, but usually doesn't pull as complete a citation as a manual mark up. I'll go back and fill in some of the missing fields. BC1278 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

You're welcome, and thank you. I'll be able to do more late next week, as a I have been and am on vacation. —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I do hope there is no WP:COI with you, too, DocWatson42. One is more than a handful. -The Gnome (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed the proposal and, compared to the existing article, I find it to be a corporate PR person's wet dream. I would prefer incremental improvements to the existing article to wholesale replacement by a paid editor. ~Kvng (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

As per your suggestion, and that of an admin, I am going to propose incremental improvements, to be discussed individually. Usually, this is preferred, of course, but the article has so many inaccuracies and Wikipedia policy violations, and is so poorly constructed, that I thought a redraft was in order. But I'll go back to the usual method, via proposals here on Talk.BC1278 (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Kvng, Chisme, Mark Arsten, Samuel Webster, Jppcap, Dennis Bratland, Rachelkramer, Dave Braunschweig,Tallbobert,Dqcole,EdJogg,Omc,L3X1, LK,Meatsgains. As per above request and a suggestion by an admin to make incremental changes, below, I have made the a proposal to change section Nextdoor#Racial_profiling to Talk:Nextdoor#Proposed_new_language_for_"Racial_profiling"_section and would encourage you to Discuss as a previous participant in the Nextdoor Talk section. All participants have been notified.BC1278 (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

• Comment Looks generally OK. I would prefer the "Racial profiling misuse and remediation efforts" section to be it's own section rather than in history, and the financing section as a subsection in history or immediately following history. I would disagree with the other commenter who said that the article is too long. Given the availability of sources, the article is of the appropriate length, and can actually be expanded a bit. The lead needs to be expanded to more than a couple of sentences. LK (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

LK Thanks for taking the time to do a review. On the advice of an admin, and in order to make it easier for those with objections to be specific with comments, I'm going to propose these changes in chunks, as separate sections. The first section, below, is Talk:Nextdoor#Proposed_new_language_for_"Racial_profiling"_section. There is a long version at the top, and a much shorter version in the Discussion, created as an alternative after a comment from an editor saying the section could be pared down. I'm going to add another section, soon. Your thoughts would be welcome.BC1278 (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

• Kvng, Chisme, Mark Arsten, Samuel Webster, Jppcap, Dennis Bratland, Rachelkramer, Dave Braunschweig,Tallbobert,Dqcole,EdJogg,Omc,L3X1, LK,Meatsgains (Everyone who has been on Talk)) I have now broken down the redraft into separate sections on this Talk page so they can discussed in more detail individually. This was done at the suggestion of an admin so consensus could be more easily reached. My intent to to bring this article to GA, going through WP:Peer Review and WP:GA when the published article is of sufficient quality to begin the process. It's one of the best sourced articles I've ever worked on and this should be possible.BC1278 (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278
• Point-by-point response to some of BC's claims (his words in green) as stated above, in a response to Chisme:

1. The length of an article does not determine if it is promotional. Not by itself, no, it doesn't. But when promotional intent does exist, as your versions of the article are IMO, not to mention your very status as a paid editor, the length of the text is an important criterion about the level of impropriety. It's one thing to have single promotional word, and quite another to have a ton of bricks. And no matter how many sources support a promotional slant, we are supposed to go for a short, neutral presentation of our subject.

2. The platform...is for hyperlocal communities. Describing exactly what the platform does...amply sourced, supported by abundant reliable sourcing, is a critical component to an article about an app in use. Yes, it is indeed trivially necessary to describe what a piece of software, from the magnificent to the mundane, does. But this must be done without placing undue weight to it! We do not need "abundant" articles about how Nextdoor ostensibly functions; one or two sources, and a brief two-three sentence description, suffice. After all, we're not here to promote Nextdoor's wares, are we?

And that the hell is a "hyperlocal community"?

3. Sections called "Criticism", "Complaints" or "Controversy" are strongly discouraged in almost all circumstances [per] WP: CRITS. Nope, wrong again, BC1278. You're bypassing the fact that WP:CRIT is an essay; it's neither policy nor guideline. Quoting verbatim, an essay

"contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."

Clear? Let me assure you that sections containing and labeled "Criticism" and "Controversies" are, in practice, all over Wikipedia, and rightly so, and that includes WP:BLP articles. So, it's evident that the essay does not represent majority opinion, let alone an obligation.

4. The amount of money a company has raised, its valuation and investors are routine for articles about companies, especially in the internet sector. Yes, and, as we already agreed, so are issues like Revenue, Profitability, Cash flows, and so on. So, we end on a positive note. Aren't we? -The Gnome (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to address what The Gnome says about Wikipedia policy.

1) There is no Wikipedia policy that says the "intent" of a paid editor creates a different standard for assessing whether content improves the encyclopedia or not. When you declare a COI, WP: COI says proposals should be scrutinized much more carefully. But if the standard for inclusion or deletion of content were different because of "intent" of the proposer, rather than the content itself, no one would ever declare a COI again, thereby undermining the entire system; Of course we want neutrality. But I am aware of no Wikipedia policy that says an article must be short where the sourcing and importance of the topic justifies a somewhat longer article. Nextdoor has been written about over the course of many years by first-tier publications such as the Harvard Business Review, Wired, The New York Times, PBS NewsHour, BBC News, The Financial Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, etc. Citations are in the draft at User:BC1278/sandbox/Nextdoor. I know of no way to judge importance other than the quality and frequency of the reliable sourcing. GA articles, in fact, are generally very long. Given the sourcing, this article should eventually be able to get to WP:GA. If we abbreviated the writing and sourcing as The Gnome recommends, this article will remain Start Class, low importance. The history of this article shows editors have tried to expand this article gradually, over a period of years, and the content is then frequently deleted. So this article has not been allowed to gradually expand organically.

2) This is an article as much about the platform as the company. So I don't think a somewhat detailed description of how the platform works is WP:Undue, especially not when it's backed by abundant reliable sourcing, from the highest quality possible sources, stretching over a decade. For comparison, here are the feature description of a few other social-media platform articles: Kik_Messenger#Features Twitter#Features, Yelp#Features (Good Article), YouTube#Features. The most well-patrolled and/or highest grade articles on this topic have detailed feature descriptions, where justified by sourcing. Nextdoor is not as prominent as these four platforms, but the proposed language for Nextdoor is far shorter than the "feature" sections in these examples; Hyperlocal is a linked article subject. It would be WP: Coatracking (another essay, by the way, but widely followed) to deviate to explain the concept.

3) Essays are useful even when non-binding. Here's what Jimbo Waleshas to say about "Criticism" sections: While they are sometimes needed, "I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.""[dif]BC1278 (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

• Comment I came to this article a year ago because I wanted to know more about the service. I now use the service and I am familiar with it. It surprises me that an introductory sentence and a short paragraph are all that describe the Nextdoor service, while most of the article isn't particularly direct or relevant in assisting users interested in evaluating the service itself. I'm not wild about a paid consultant being the one to fix the article, but it is not currently balanced in its coverage. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, Dave Braunschweig. I'm afraid Wikipedia's insistence on neutrality, a foundational objective, one of its Five Pillars, as a matter of fact, makes it very hard for people to evaluate the worthiness of a product here. For example, a piece of software might turn out to have all sorts of problems; a few techies might be writing worryingly in their blogs. We would not know it, here. And, of course, the same goes for the opposite scenario: about something that turns out to be quite valuable we only learn when what Wikipedia considers as "reliable sources" pick up on it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User BC1278 Canvassing Reviewers to This Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia has rules about NOT canvassng people to comment on articles: "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." You can read more HERE. If this persists I plan to take it to the Notice Board.

Note that BC1278 solicited DocWatson to come to this page and comment. He also solicited L3X1 and Daylen and Xezbeth and Editor 357. Chisme (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

For the RfC vote, below, I notified those who had participated in the article discussion on this Talk page. The RfC was also auto-posted to various projects by bots. I have done no canvasing for the vote. For the redraft of the article, I am following standard procedure. There is no vote taking place. I posted a discussion of the redraft and am soliciting experienced Wikipedia editors to do a review of the redraft. I have posted a request to various projects and am reaching out to other experienced editors, such as admins and Senior Editors. These editors have no personal or professional relationship to me, although because I am very active on Wikipedia, some might have reviewed update requests I made in the past. But I have no idea how they will review this particular redraft -- I only know they have a subject matter interest or a lot of experience. This is how updates are accomplished when you have a COI -- you ask other editors to do an independent review. If I opened an RfC on the entire redraft, where some sort of vote was taking place, then I would only notify editors who had been involved on the Talk page or in related projects. However, RfC is not appropriate for requesting review of extensive updates and redrafts. RfC is for a discrete question, such as whether the Founder section should be removed. In the case of the redraft, I need to find an independent editor to do a thorough review of the entire piece, as per WP: COI. In this case, Chisme, for whatever reasons, has been removing reliable content from the Nextdoor article, and improperly adding COATRACKING and WP: UNDUE for years, which is in part why it is in such poor shape. Chisme is therefore not a good candidate to be a reviewer of the redraft. It should be someone heretofore independent of the article, with a great deal of experience.BC1278 (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

What do you mean "I have done no canvasing." You wrote to each of the people listed above describing what you perceive to be problems in the article. You wrote on their Talk pages. You say I am "not a good candidate to be a reviewer of the redraft." That is a subjective opinion on your part. You are definitely not a good candidate, as you are being paid. Someone has commissioned you to make this article a certain way. Recuse yourself. Chisme (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not doing the review of the proposed updates. Only a very experienced, independent Wikipedia editor should do such a review. Anyone, including Chisme, can make their arguments about the proposal on this page. If you have no COI here, you are free to make direct edits to the article at any time, within the limits of Wikipedia policy. I do not make such direct edits. I do intend to keep seeking a very experienced editor to do a review of the redraft. Chisme should feel free to report this if they'd like; I would expect this will probably result in the difs for Chisme on this article being investigated, as I will request it.BC1278 (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I appreciate that you acknowledged you are paid to be here and have an inherent COI. I appreciate your honesty. I appreciate your pledge that you "do not make such direct edits." Chisme (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• FTR not only was I summoned here by bot, I have a notice at the top of my page inviting such requests for input. BC1278 has no way of knowing what I am going to think of the article. Canvas≠3O ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I came here from the RfC page, and was not canvassed here. This is working the way RfCs are supposed to work. They draw in editors from the wider community. LK (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on Founder section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The section "Founder", about a misdemeanor traffic offense by the CEO, should be removed from Nextdoor as it is a COATRACK to the article about the Nextdoor company and app platform. A fair description of the incident should be moved to an article about this individual if one is ever be written. BC1278 (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

!votes

• remove (Summoned by bot) Doesn't have much to do with the company itself, the irony of the founder being a jackass driver would belong in an article about himself, doesn't really involve the company. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove Doesn't seem relevant to the company. Verifiablility is not sufficient for inclusion. Also, WP:PRIVACY is relevant here. LK (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• keep Nextdoor wants to build and strengthen communities. From the company website: "We created this company because we believe that the neighborhood is one of the most important and useful communities in a person's life. We hope that neighbors everywhere will use the Nextdoor platform to build stronger and safer neighborhoods around the world." Yet the founder of the company split the scene of a violent freeway accident -- not an action that encourages safe neighborhoods and friendly feelings and neighborliness. This article goes into all kinds of detail about the company. Surely it can include this detail, too Chisme (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove Just isn't relevant to the company (the subject of the article) itself. Dbrote (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove - The hit-and-run is not directly related to the company. No reason it should be included. Meatsgains^(talk) 23:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

(I checked [difs] and this is from User: Meatsgains. FYI, have no idea how this editor came to this vote.BC1278 (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278)

Sorry about that! Yes, that was my comment and I've added my signature. Meatsgains^(talk) 23:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Remove the Founder section and leave a one-sentence reference somewhere above that the founder is Nirav Tolia. If Nirav Tolia is notable, the controversy can be mentioned there. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove Coatrack to bring in criticism of a person. The issue has little to do with the company. LK (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Can we wait a little longer? I'm hoping others weigh in. Also, I'm concerned because BC1278 didn't mention his COI in his request for comments at “Economy, Trade, and Companies” and ”Biographies”. I think anyone summoned to this debate by BC1278 from those Request for Comment pages should've known about his COI. It might affect their vote. Chisme (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The RfC postings on Projects were done by "Legabot", not by me personally. Requests for Comments are also sent out at random via a WP:FRS bot. The top of the Talk page and every section I have made on this page, including the Discussion (below, where the procedural comment above should have been placed), includes a COI disclosure. It must be on this Talk page 10 times. Chisme is giving fellow editors very little credit by surmising that instead of just applying the Wikipedia coatracking policy to the article text, they will change their minds because they'd rather to stick it to a COI editor than make the encyclopedia better. I have not and will not vote, by the way.BC1278 (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Chisme I think you intended this comment to be at the end of the Discussion, where it would be in context to the question it answers, not in the middle of the votes. I am fine if you cut and paste all this from here to the Discussion. To answer your question, you're under no obligation to concede the point if you still think your position has merit, even though the vote is now 6-2 against your position (which does not include me, as I'm not voting). But someone new to this Discussion can close it out, rather than voting, if they think the consensus is obvious. Or they can wait.WP: RfCBC1278 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

• Strong Keep the item about the incident. (Remove the whole, unnecessary part about the other party's lawyer and their comments. The "delete" suggestions in this RfC were submitted mainly on account of perceived coatracking, but this reasoning is driven by the existence of the lawyer's comments, which indeed give the impression of an "agenda.")

Resoning: (A) The contested news item is about not just the founder of the company (who could have been retired or withdrawn from the company's affairs, etc) but about the acting CEO. As such, they are very much a concern of the corporation itself. If the person had no longer been with the company, news about their personal life would drop off the radar by definition. What top company-officers, and especially CEO's do in their private lives is quite certainly relevant to the company they run. Examples abound. We cannot imagine, for example, CEO John Doe being accused by a number of women acquaintances for sexual harassment or by the police for illegal drug use, and his company's affairs, to say nothing of its stock price, not being affected by that. Such news are relevant to an article about the company; witness how any serious news service (e.g. a financial analyst's comments) would treat a presentation of the company after such an incident.

(B) The company's ostensible "values" are, by definition, important in a presentation of the company. And herein enters the issue of hypocrisy, as trivially explained by the DA in the trial. A company that's supposed to "promote neighborliness, crime watch," etc, finds its CEO violating its presumed core values. If this were about some violation unrelated to the company's core values, the news might possibly be considered are of minor relevance, although there is always reason 'A' above. As things stand, the chief of DEA doing drugs is uncontestedly relevant news - and information that needs to be reported in an encyclopaedic article. -The Gnome (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Note: I have notified everyone who has left a comment on this Talk page of this RfC, no matter their POV. Otherwise, it has been auto-posted by RfC bots, as is the norm.BC1278 (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I have a WP: COI here as a paid consultant to Nextdoor, so I will not vote, but I will express my thoughts. This is a misdemeanor traffic violation that did not relate to or impact the company in any way. The legal grandstanding over-quoted here was related to a civil lawsuit brought personally against the co-founder, also unrelated to the company or platform. BC1278 (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

That's what this is really about, itsn't it? A paid consultant has been tasked with erasing bad publicity about the founder of Nextdoor. From "Nextdoor CEO Nirav Tolia Convicted of Misdemeanor Hit-and-Run": "Nirav Tolia, the CEO of Nextdoor, a social network designed to help neighbors connect, pleaded no contest to misdemeanor hit-and-run for fleeing a collision on Highway 101 in August 2013. San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Jonathan Karesh sentenced Tolia to 30 days in jail, which he can serve in a weekend sheriff’s work detail program. He will also be under probation for two years. The accident occurred in Brisbane on northbound Highway 101. Nirav Tolia moved his Mercedes SUV into a lane without looking, narrowly missing a Honda coupe driven by Patrice Motley. Motley lost control of her vehicle, spun 180 degrees, and hit the concrete median. She suffered fractures to her hand, neck and back. Tolia did not stop, and Motley’s attorney contended that Tolia “gambled” that no one took down his license plate number." The gamble didn't pay off. This should remain in the article. Chisme (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• What are we voting on? See my notes above. I am delighted that you have acknowledged your COI. You are a "paid consultant to Nextdoor." Why didn't you acknowledge it earlier?

I had already made clear COI disclosure as paid consultant in the first paragraph of the section immediately above, "Request for Review", with the longer proposal just posted. That was the first time I've ever been involved with this article. Please be a more careful reader before hurling accusations. Please leave the vote section clear for votes and the RfC vote proposition clean for the proposition. Here is an example of how you vote on an RfC. Talk:Noah_Oppenheim#!votes BC1278 (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

How much is Nextdoor paying you to white-wash this Wikipedia article? How much would Nextdoor pay me not to write an article about Nirav Tolia? Chisme (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

These are personal attacks, not Wikipedia policy arguments.BC1278 (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Chisme I wonder if you might acknowledge that a consensus has been reached here, and the Founder section can be permanently removed? WP:RfC encourages early resolution if a result is obvious. It helps clear RfC backlog. I can assure you that I did not individually approach any of the editors to vote on this RfC. There was no canvassing. This article has many other issues and it would be good to clear up the settled ones. Thank you. BC1278 (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improve Section on History?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the History section of Nextdoor#History be substantially expanded, as suggested below, so it is up to date and reflects the abundance of high-quality reliable sourcing about the platform? Discussion below.

Note: I am an experienced Wikipedia editor and subject matter expert on internet companies, but as disclosed above, have a COI, as a paid consultant to Nextdoor I am trying to help get this weak, incomplete and inaccurate article up to GA (as is possible given hundreds of sources), but of course everything needs to be carefully reviewed by independent editors. Once the published article gets in better shape, I'll take it through WP:PR and WP:GA.

History

The company started out in 2008 as Fanbase, a social network for sports fans, pivoting to become Nextdoor in the summer of 2010. The Nextdoor founding team was Nirav Tolia, Sarah Leary, Prakash Janakiraman and David Wiesen. Tolia, who became CEO, had previously helped start Epinions.

As of February 2014 Nextdoor had 80 to 100 employees and had hired Dan Clancy (formerly of Google) as VP of engineering.

It introduced advertising in 2017, its first efforts at monetization revenue. Advertising includes posts inside of user's feeds about business services and products. CEO Toila said the company would bring in tens of in several million dollars in ad revenue in 2017, and declined to comment as to whethet the company was profitable. The company said it would be offering targeted advertising based on the verifiable personal data provided by users. But it has refused political advertising, as of 2017.

The platform introduced paid real estate advertising in 2017. Agents and brokers are able to create pages for their business. When a member searches for homes in a neighborhood's real estate section, the agents can pay for their business pages to show up. They can also pay to sponsor a neighborhood section.

Nextdoor has been reported to have been in wide use by neighbors during natural disasters such as Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma, as well as public crisis, such as the string of bombings in Austin, Texas.

The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency has access to the platform to provide emergency alerts about natural disasters, such as flooding, hurricanes and major snowstorms. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also sends out emergency hyperlocal weather alerts via the platform.

Nextdoor started to be used in March 2018 by the state of California to send out election-related information, such as polling station locations.

You could take two of these paragraphs and move them into “Finance” where money and monetization should be discussed. I don’t need to know how many employees the company had in 2014. Can you tone down the gee-wiz stuff about Nextdoor in hurricanes and disasters and snowstorms. Again, this level of detail strikes me as promotional. Chisme (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding FEMA and NOAAA, I understand how this can seem at first glance like overkill, but if you reflect a bit, this is potentially life-saving information to have in the article. The general emergency alerts someone might see on the local TV or radio news often don't get down to the neighborhood level (or only as a scroll on the screen), certainly not as a hyperlocal neighborhood alert. So, for example, if the wind changes and a fire or severe storm with flooding unexpectedly moves to threaten a new neighborhood, Nextdoor is now used by FEMA and NOAA to send out a hyperlocal alert targeted to the affected neighborhood. That the platform has this service, backed by the two key federal agencies, might be the most important content in the article for some readers to know about.----BC1278

While I understand the rationale behind moving the monetization information to the financial section, having worked on a lot of similar articles, if the monetization information is substantial enough, it is broken into a section called Business Model. And the Finance section is reserved for investments and valuation. We could break these paragraphs into Business Model now, even though it's not all that much material yet, just to set up a good structure for future of the article. There's no telling if the current Business Model will work. If the real estate listings don't work out and get dropped, for example, a separate section would reflect that. If all the Business Model info is in one place, it will be easier to track. This is all where revenue, once the company starts reporting it, would go. I will wait to hear what other people say, then modify the proposal if they agree.BC1278 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

No, you don't "understand how this can seem at first glance like overkill." It is overkill. The site was not set up to be used in emergency disasters. It was used that way on occasion. You have plucked a few instances of its use during emergencies and tried to make that another wonderful feature of the wonderful company that is paying you to portray it as wonderful. Please cut it out. As for financials, why not put everything related to money into one section? Chisme (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Please take another look at the sources. These are full articles about the FEMA and NOAAA programs. It's not a few instances I plucked. I don't know where you got that. It is being used by these agencies on a national scale. All these emergency alerts from the government are now important features of the platform. As to money, it's done in two ways in good articles: either it's all mixed in with History, in chronological order. Or the investment, investors and valuation is separated into its own section. And the business model/monetization is separate (or in History.) I provided some examples of articles already, in the discussion of the full redraft above, but feel free to look. Can you find good articles that do it the way you suggest?BC1278 (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

• Comment The use of words is, once again, weak: Nextdoor "introduced advertising in 2017, its first efforts at monetization", you write, but surely the right term is "revenue". Take this 2017 article from The Guardian where the word is properly used, i.e. "monetizing" in the sense of transforming the so-far perceived and claimed value of the company into real, monetary value. Sample sentence: "The key to monetizing Nextdoor is its cache of verified personal data."

A sentence that adds another, quite intriguing angle into the services offered by Nextdoor. "Verifiable personal data," the CEO says. We should have more on this. -The Gnome (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me to change "monetization" to "revenue." I read the Guardian article (and the link to Politico article therein) and it says the company is on the cusp of offering targeted advertising based on the verifiable personal data provided by users, more accurately than the targeting done by Facebook and Google. But unlike Google and Facebook, it has refused political advertising to date. I'd be happy to add this if this builds consensus. Chisme wants to reduce this section, though, so I think the change doesn't get us closer to consensus. But still, I will add it if it gets us resolved on this sub-section.BC1278 (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278.

@The Gnome: I have made both of the changes you requested, in the proposed text above. The word "revenue" replaces monetization. And there is a new sentence that explained "verifiable personal data" used in advertising, sourced to the Guardian. I have also added in the most specific references to revenue and profitability that I could find. Anything else here?BC1278 (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

References

U.S. growth

By 2014, about 25% of American neighborhoods were represented on Nextdoor.

About 650 local government agencies has signed up by 2015 to send out alerts on topics such as utility shutdowns, crimes or emergency-preparedness.

By 2017, about 75% of U.S. neighborhoods were signed up on Nextdoor, double from the previous year.

In February 2018, about 165,000 neighborhoods were signed up and each neighborhood has an average of 1,200 households as members. It was active in about 170,000 communities, as of April 2018.

Material like this reads like a promotion. All this data originates with Nextdoor. What constitutes a neighborhood? Where the boundaries of my neighborhood are depends who you talk to. Realtors think it’s very big; the school district’s boundaries are considerably smaller. For these stats Nextdoor decided what a neighborhood is and threw out some figures. This is sloppy, bogus, and unworthy of an encyclopedia. Chisme (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

All the material is reported in reliable, secondary sources. Not primary. It's the job of the reporters and editors working at the reliable source to determine if the information is credible enough to report. If the source is reliable, then it's not the job of the Wikipedia editor to question the veracity of the content or to do their own analysis, unless there is a contradictory reliable source. You can question whether the info improves the article, and therefore should be included or not, but shouldn't do your own analysis as to whether you believe the information from a high-quality reliable source. Do you know why you the sophisticated press knows it can trust user growth stats for a private company that has raised tens or hundreds of millions of dollars? Because if a company misreports material information, it's fraud perpetrated against the investors. And officers can get investigated by SEC and FBI, lose all their money and go to jail. See what happened to Elizabeth_Holmes#Questions_about_Theranos for misrepresenting material facts about her company to investors and the public.

But to address your personal veracity analysis anyway, if you read the section, it explains that the average is 1200 households per community (the citation is in the section above), so by my analysis (I have absolutely no inside information from the company - just the public sources, so I may be misinterpreting), that suggests 204 million households around the world, at present. However the neighborhoods are aligned, we know their average size, and Wikipedia readers can judge for themselves if 1200 households as Nextdoor members within a geo-area (on average) sounds like a real neighborhood to them. (I didn't put the 204 million household math in the article, because that's not how it's reported by the secondary sources and I want to stick to that exact secondary source representation - I'm using it here to counter your personal analysis. But I don't represent this number is anything but me doing some personal summarizing.) It's probably too much detail for the article, but the users set up the neighborhoods, not the company. If someone's address is within an existing neighborhood, they are automatically put in that neighborhood. To set up a new neighborhood, which must be outside existing geographic boundaries, a member needs to sign up at least 10 other households. The usual stat in an article about an internet company would be how many users it has over time, but Nextdoor chooses to report it this way instead (by neighborhood and average households.) Wikipedia articles said how many users Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat had, long before they went public, based on self-reporting to reliable secondary sources.BC1278 (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

"It's the job of the reporters and editors working at the reliable source to determine if the information is credible enough to report." It's also your job. To say "By 2017, about 75% of U.S. neighborhoods were signed up on Nextdoor" is just repeating company advertising. I remind you again, this is an encyclopedia regardless of who pays you to edit here. Chisme (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that editors summarize sources, not report or judge the truth of facts, as you state. "Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say." WP:Verify. That's binding policy. I also point you to the non-binding essay linked from the Verify policy: WP: NOTTRUTH, which is all about this subject. If the sources are reliable, and not contradicted elsewhere, we need to assume it's true, under Wikipedia policy. Assuming all this is true, then, do you still consider it advertising? We can certainly add "The company said.." to make it clearer that the reporters relied on the company. I will also add more sources, so you can see multiple reliable sources chose to report the information.BC1278 (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

• Comment A single phrase about market share is sufficient; add a tea spoon about competitors and sprinkle with sources. Serve cold. Anything more and we're turning Wikipedia into a brochure. The sources that are/will be cited will certainly offer more background to whose who are interested in a detailed history of market share. -The Gnome (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Scrap this section. It's just company promotion stuff. Chisme (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The Gnome Below is a shorter alternative of this sub-section with additional sourcing and "the company said" added, in an attempt to assuage Chisme. Is this acceptable? We have to show some semblance of historical growth. This isn't a newspaper article. I could have shown the rise by 5,000 neighborhoods up, each with its own source. But I didn't. Chisme (talk · contribs), in light of WP:Verify and the essay WP:NOTTRUTH (please read my comment above), do you perhaps want to reconsider? You can't dismiss as untrue all information provided by companies to reliable sources if the reliable sources publishes it - that's contrary to Wikipedia policy WP: VERIFY.BC1278 (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

References

U.S. growth

By 2014, the company said about 25% of American neighborhoods were represented on Nextdoor. By 2017, the company said that about 75% of U.S. neighborhoods were signed up on Nextdoor. It was active in about 170,000 communities, as of April 2018. and each neighborhood had an average of 1,200 households as members.BC1278 (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Again I remind you -- there is no standard definition of what constitutes a "neighborhood." Therefore the percentage of neighborhood statistics do not belong here. Chisme (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Me, I'm still waiting for the definition of the term "hyperlocal." Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not the job of the editor to do more than summarize the reliable source. WP: VERIFIABLE I have triple sourced the 75% of neighborhoods stat. Reporters do the original research to determine if they are going to print information or not. If a reliable source challenges the information, then you can summarize the challenge. We are not supposed to be the ones chasing primary sources.BC1278 (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I'd like to know what hyperlocal means, too. It doesn't matter how many times you "source" the stat. The term "neighborhood" as it used in this context was devised by Nextdoor. It's not the commonly understood meaning of the word "neighborhood." Therefore a mention of what percentage of neighborhoods have Nextdoor participants can't appear in this article. Period. Chisme (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The word hyperlocal does not appear in the section under discussion here. In any case, there is a Wikipedia article about it, and if it appears elsewhere, a link is sufficient.BC1278 (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

References

International expansion

The service became available in the Netherlands in February 2016, in Germany in June 2017, and France in February 2018.

In February 2017, Nextdoor acquired the UK local social network service Streetlife, in a "multimillion pound deal." Streetlife was discontinued with users encouraged to join Nextdoor. Unlike Streetlife, Nextdoor required that members verify their identity and address. Nextdoor's use of full name and address directories within neighborhood sites led to anger amongst some former Streetlife users, accustomed to having only their first names revealed. Streetlife data had been searchable by Google and Nextdoor does not allow search engines to index the platform.

The opening paragraph of the article can list the countries where Nextdoor operates. The operatic saga of the company’s expansion isn’t necessary. Nor is the comparison between Nextdoor and the inferior Streetlife. Chisme (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The Streetlife incident is a controversy that some UK users want in the article. They put it there and have discussed in on Talk. There was a bunch of press about it. Privacy concerns in Europe are a bigger deal - so publishing full name and address is seen as a problem by many there, not a positive, explaining the anger of some. The PR people working at Nextdoor (I am an outside consultant) would probably be fine if this issue wasn't included and just mention that the service is in the UK. But as an experienced editor who read the U.K. reporting, and is also trying to respect what editors have placed in the current article, I think it should stay in History. As to the rest international expansion, so long as the dates and countries are given, it can just be in the lead at present. That said, there is ongoing local reporting about Nextdoor in each of these countries and it would be good for future expansion of the article to have a section where local developments by country (like the UK stuff) can be speedily located. I didn't have time to translate and read all the international reporting. Just the English language U.K. stuff. But the structure reminds me of the article about OLX, the largest online classified service in much of the world -- I believe the country-by-county breakdown is one reason why the article got up to a "B" grade.BC1278 (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

"The Streetlife incident is a controversy that some UK users want in the article." One editor -- just one -- mentioned it in Talk above. It is not important and does not belong here. I just don't see how the saga of Nextdoor's expansion is of interest to anybody except people who want to promote the company. Can't you see that? Chisme (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's wait for consensus. One editor commented in Talk but I believe other editors added in the content to the existing article. The U.K. reception started with some criticism by privacy advocates who didn't like use of full name and real address in the app. If Nextdoor had asked me not to mention this in the article, I would have refused because I don't omit relevant criticism about a subject that appears in reliable sources.BC1278 (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

By now, everyone and their grandmother know that you're "experienced," BC1278. How many more times are you going to proffer your credentials? Give it a rest, please, will you? People might get ideas that you're promoting yourself in Wikipedia more than anything else, and that your work here, such as in "Nextdoor," is a showcase of how good your services are. -The Gnome (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• The only things truly notable about Nextdoor's "international expansion" are (a) it expanded in countries X,Y, & Z, and (b) Streetlife. Anything more than that, at this moment, would be corporate fodder (quite adequate for the brochure, though). -The Gnome (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

There will be no "International Expansion" section. There will be no mention of Streetlife in this article. Chisme (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Chisme (talk · contribs) I've already conceded that as long as we have the countries and dates in the lead, we don't need this section now. I'll translate the country specific articles some other time. But the Streetlife acquistion was widely reported in the highest quality available sources, from the BBC to the Financial Times. User: The Gnome also supports having the Streetlife acquisition in the article History section in some form. We're just deciding what the language will be. Between the editors who have put that content in in the past, and the editors who have weighed in over the past week, I think you are outnumbered about 6 to 1. There are already two well-sourced sentences in the article about Streetlife and the objection to privacy policy. You need to abide by consensus, when it's this overwhelming. I'm going to assume good faith, but this, taken together with lots of personal attacks herein, is verging on disruptive editing.WP: Disruptive. I won't assume good faith hereafter.BC1278 (talk)BC1278

Are you perhaps getting ahead of yourself by deciding that the matter of an "Int'l Expansion" is closed and "we're just deciding what the language will be"?! How are you counting those six (6) votes in favor of having an "Int'l Expansion," please? Please note that editors who've put up stuff in the past do not count. What counts is the here and now! Can you imagine having an AfD where the article's creator invokes the number of all the editors who contributed something to it in the past as "Keep" votes? Truly stupid, wouldn't that be? -The Gnome (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. You might be getting paid to "improve" this article (up to "GA", they were promised) but you sure do not own it. So. I'd suggest you tone down a bit the repartee. For instance, it doesn't get you very far threatening a regular, non-paid editor about their supposedly "bad faith" stance. If you're getting frustrated from having opposition to your suggestions/intentions, too bad. -The Gnome (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. I said including the acquisition of "Streetlife" in History was running abut 6 to 1. I said I had already agreed we don't have to have an "International Expansion" section as of now if all the country's and dates are in the article lead. I think we should account for those who contributed to the the acquisition and policy disagreement because those sentences are still in the article, right now, and no one has proposed deleting them. If someone did, especially given the Talk comment mentioning Streetlife, those contributing editors should at least be notified. That said, editors since the discussion began who have said the proposed draft and/or Streetlife acquisition should be included are: The Gnome, EdJogg (he says in the current discussion that his "main concern has been dealt with", which he explains in another discussion is the Privacy issue regarding ex-StreetLife members), DocWatson42, LK. So that's 4 to 1 in the current discussions to keep some mention of Streetlife, at least as in the existing article. I see I missed another editor in general opposition to the expanded draft, Kvng, although they didn't say anything about removing the Streetlife acquisition already in the existing article. So I don't know how to count them in regards to the inclusion of Streetlife. Probably neither way. I'm also not sure how or whether to count Dave Braunschweig, who doesn't mention Streetlife, but is lukewarm supportive of the article expansion. Probably neither way. L3X1 (talk · contribs) has been active herein but not weighed in. I'm not sure what we are discussing here, though, other than language about the StreetLife acquisition. Does Chisme seriously want to propose to delete even the existing language from the current article? As I said, if so, he would be the only one, as of now.BC1278 (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

You do enjoy writing long text, don't you? Sorry but it's my second nature to "read carefully". And I do try to be honest, to the point of often displeasing people. Your attempt to use the number of past contributors in a "keep"-vote count is, I'll say it again, disingenuous. I pointed out the silliness of using such a deviant logic in AfDs. I hope I won't have to waste more time on this nonsense. Votes are counted when they are explicitly submitted; not implicitly. Move on, I recommend. -The Gnome (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not think we are having a "keep" vote on Streetlife in the existing article. If we are, I think someone should explicitly create a new section saying that the sentences in the existing article should be removed and explain why. Those who created or commented on Streetlife material should be notified, as well as everyone else on the Talk page and most likely, a separate RfC should be started given that several others have just said they think Streetlife should be in the article. Instead, I think we are having a discussion on proposed expanded new language for Streetlife. There is no consensus with that as of yet.BC1278 (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

That's right, we aren't having a "keep" vote here about Streetlife. Which is why it was extremely disingenuous from your part to claim that Chisme is "outnumbered about 6 to 1" (your words, quoted from above, verbatim) about the Streetlife acquisition. And I repeat, you based that numbers game on the fantastic assumption that editors who had been contributing in the past vote "keep" by default! Forgot what you wrote only hours ago? What is this, Memento time? -The Gnome (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Discussion

The current History section is out-of-date, incomplete, poorly structured and in some places, inaccurate. As I have mentioned, I wish to bring this article to GA, and will go through WP:PR, then WP:GA when the published version is in better shape. The complete redraft I have in mind, subject to comments and revisions, is at User:BC1278/sandbox/Nextdoor.

Note: In the general discussion if the redraft before I broke the discussion into sections, two editors said they had reservations about the redraft and two editors supported it. Please read Talk:Nextdoor#Request_for_Review. The redraft is broken down, at the suggestion of an admin and another editor, to allow for more detailed discussion.BC1278 (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

We're keeping the discussion honest, which means keeping it one place. Which is here. I have not visited your draft page yet and I do not intend to do so any time soon. Let's wait for all this avalanche of busy posts to calm down and then we might venture over there, galoshes on. -The Gnome (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support expansion. However, the US Growth subsection needs to rewritten as prose rather than in point form. LK (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll work on this after there's more discussion and can get the drift of consensus.BC1278 (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

LK Done in suggested revised language above.~~BC1278

• Here we go again: The only things truly notable about Nextdoor's "international expansion" are (a) it expanded in countries X,Y, & Z, and (b) Streetlife. Anything more than that, at this moment, would be unnecessary fodder. -The Gnome (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BC1278's response to the proposed topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

First, I have never made any direct edits on this article, as per WP: COI. I originally proposed on Talk just one re-draft, in one place, for discussion, which would have been much cleaner. But an an admin, User: Vanamonde93 said I should break it up: "My suggestion would be for you to put forward alternative versions for each section on the talk page (one at a time) and if folks raise objections, to open an RFC, because that could legitimately be construed as a dispute." [1] I also cannot selectively notify some people on the Talk page about new discussions. I needed to notify everyone, or I would be accused of cherrypicking supporters, something I need to be very careful about with a COI. WP:CANVAS. I do apologize if any users who did not wish to be involved received notifications, but I was trying to be fair.

This article has been subject to NPOV attacks for years, which is why Nextdoor asked for my help. So, for example, there was an inflammatory quote from a plaintiff's lawyer suing the CEO that was removed multiple times by various editors, and kept getting putting back in, despite Talk:Nextdoor#CEO. This was only resolved with finality, in favor of removing the section, because I brought an RfC as part of this discussion. Talk:Nextdoor#RfC_on_Founder_section. There are many other examples, stretching back years, of editors removing or adding content to advance an agenda.

The most problematic part of this article at present is Nextdoor#Controversy, as explained in Talk:Nextdoor#Proposed_new_language_for_"Racial_profiling"_section. The consensus, at present, is to replace it, and the length of the discussion is from trying to work out the replacement language. This discussion seems close to resolution. This will improve the encyclopedia, which is the end goal. For all the reasons above, a topic ban in inappropriate.BC1278 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Yet another wall of text that proves my point. I do not get paid to read all that. You are not here to improve Wikipedia, you are here to make money. The kind of people who look at a noble initiative to spread free knowledge written by volunteers and think "how can I make money off of their work?" are not the kind of people who are care about NPOV. Edward Mordake (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

When you said First, I have never made any direct edits on this article, as per WP: COI. you may have had a momentry absence because this seems to prove the contrary. What you could have done is tagged it as needing citations and someone could have added this "The service also involves a number of trust and safety buffers like preventing people who live at the last known addresses of registered sex offenders from joining.". You are paid to make this page as positive as possible but you WP:BLUDGEON the point. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. I had a momentary absence of recollection since situations where a COI editor can do direct editing are rare and I almost never do it. In this case, there was a new section added to the "Controversy" about Nextdoor's policy of barring the households of sex offenders from having member accounts, sourced only to a letter of complaint on the website of the sex offender advocacy group. dif I looked to see if anyone in the press had covered this primary source letter or complaint from the sex offender advocacy group - and as it had not been covered anywhere, I removed it, noting my COI and rationale in the explanatory text. I have been through this exact situation before with experienced editors reviewing my work, who have told me repeatedly that when a statement is unsourced, it should simply be removed, COI or not.BC1278 (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: topic ban for user BC1278

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

BC1278 has posted walls of text in an attempt to whitewash this article (because BC1278 is getting paid to do that). I think it is time to topic-ban BC1278 from this article and let uninvolved, unpaid volunteers sort out the mess. Edward Mordake (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

!votes

• Support as proposer. Edward Mordake (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:IDHT, WP:BLUDGEON. Needs a reasonable expiration date, like 8 months or so. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support it is an exhausting read...I just hope that he is getting paid by the word! Also there has been some COI editing notably the section about sex offenders which he removed saying that is was not supported by a RS. It din't take me very long to find this. This is why paid editing is polluting the project to a point where we are wasting an inordinate amount of time dealing with WP:BLUDGEONING like this. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

First, I have never made any direct edits on this article, as per WP: COI. Correction: I very rarely make direct COI edits, since the allowable circumstances are so limited, but I did make one here. In this case, there was a separate section added as a "Controversy" about the Nextdoor policy of barring the households of sex offenders from having member accounts, sourced only to a letter of complaint on the website on a Florida sex offender advocacy group trying to reverse the ban. I looked to see if anyone in the press had covered this primary source letter or complaint as a "Controversy" - and as it had not been covered anywhere, I removed it, noting my COI and rationale in the explanatory text. dif I have been through this exact situation before with experienced editors reviewing my work, who have told me repeatedly that when a statement is unsourced, it can simply be removed.)

I originally proposed on Talk just one re-draft, in one place, for discussion, which would have been much cleaner. But an an admin, User: Vanamonde93 said I should break it up: "My suggestion would be for you to put forward alternative versions for each section on the talk page (one at a time) and if folks raise objections, to open an RFC, because that could legitimately be construed as a dispute." [2] I also cannot selectively notify some people on the Talk page about new discussions. I needed to notify everyone, or I would be accused of cherrypicking supporters, something I need to be very careful about with a COI. WP:CANVAS. I do apologize if any users who did not wish to be involved received notifications, but I was trying to be fair.

This article has been subject to NPOV attacks for years, which is why Nextdoor asked for my help. So, for example, there was an inflammatory quote from a plaintiff's lawyer suing the CEO that was removed multiple times by various editors, and kept getting putting back in, despite Talk:Nextdoor#CEO. This was only resolved with finality, in favor of removing the section, because I brought an RfC as part of this discussion. Talk:Nextdoor#RfC_on_Founder_section. There are many other examples, stretching back years, of editors removing or adding content to advance an agenda.

The most problematic part of this article at present is Nextdoor#Controversy, as explained in Talk:Nextdoor#Proposed_new_language_for_"Racial_profiling"_section. The consensus, at present, is to replace it, and the length of the discussion is from trying to work out the replacement language. This discussion seems close to resolution. This will improve the encyclopedia, which is the end goal. For all the reasons above, a topic ban in inappropriate.BC1278 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Please stop removing my response to this topic ban. It is a direct violation of WP:TPO.BC1278 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

See the section above this one. Edward Mordake (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Edward Mordake: You may not remove or move the original comment on Talk to make it less visible, to alter the discussion.WP:TPO This is the original, not the duplicate placement.BC1278 (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Please stop pinging me, BC1278. I only offered you a way to take this forward that allowed you some possibility of success; but nobody has a fundamental right to edit anything on Wikipedia, and if the community feels you shouldn't be on this talk page, I'm not going to try to stop that. I won't support a ban either, but I can't lend you any support here, and I have no wish to get further involved. Vanamonde (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Please note that the account Edward Mordake was set up April 28, 2018. This editor has just made a change to a subject in this article despite an active RfC nearing consensus; and they have expressed the opinion above that high-quality reliable sources (such as the Harvard Business Review, New York Times, NPR and Wired), that have lengthy articles explaining the response and remediation to racial profiling problems should be disregarded because they are PR. "The only reason notable sources have written about Nextdoor is because of these concerns." BC1278 (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Ad hominems are a really good PR strategy. Maybe I should contact the CEO of Nextdoor and ask them if they are aware that you are acting like this while representing their brand. If you act this unprofessional then it is clear that you should be blocked, not just topic-banned. I am going to ask you to apologize and retract your statements now (which is very kind of me considering the circumstances). I am smart and I have a lot of spare time. This year I haven't done any paid work so far; thats like a 6 month holiday. Edward Mordake (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with BC1278 that at first view EM looks like a sock puppet until you dig a little into his contributions. He is still making a few mistakes that only relative newcomers would make and has probably to curb his natural enthusiasm and learn a bit of patience! He is on a mission to remove vandalism and promotional content, I don't know what his motivations are but I couldn't find many edits that I didn't agree with outside of him not being a big fan of WP:BRD. I would suggest that if you have a doubt you open an WP:SPI and let the experts work it out. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC) p.s. I really wish he would stop rewriting his comments!!!!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improve description of platform features

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Nextdoor#Functions be replaced with the more comprehensive description of the Nextdoor platform, suggested below, and placed above History? Discussion below.

Note: I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, but as disclosed above, have a COI, as a paid consultant to Nextdoor. I am trying to get this weak article up to GA, but of course everything needs to be carefully reviewed by independent editors. There are hundreds of sources. You can see a full version of everything I plan to propose here: User:BC1278/sandbox/Nextdoor and a general discussion here: Talk:Nextdoor#Request_for_Review. I plan to take this article through WP:PR and WP:GA when the published version is better shape.

Platform

Nextdoor is organized into separate sites for different neighborhoods. A map for each community enables members to see which of their neighbors have joined. Users can also find neighbors in a resident directory.

To join Nextdoor, an individual must use their real name and verify their home addresses. Neighborhood conversations are accessible only to verified neighbors. Each neighborhood site is accessible only to residents of that neighborhood are password protected and neighborhood posts content and member information is excluded from Google and other search engines for privacy reasons.

Members can post messages about their neighborhood, such as local service provider recommendations, real estate issues, and crime and safety updates. Local police departments are allowed to post notices in neighborhoods, such as closed roads, a spike in burglaries, warnings about a suspect or requests for help solving a crime. Officers who are not verified residents of a neighborhood can only see response to their crime and safety posts.

Platform features include tools for organizing events; official city government pages to make announcements and answer questions; and real estate listings.

The Nextdoor City Platform allows transit systems and other public agencies to send real-time alerts to specific neighborhoods. Neighborhood sites are also organized by interests.

Nextdoor is free for members.

References

Discussion

The current section, labelled "Functions", is out of date and inadequate, given the available sourcing. This service is used by 170,000 communities with an average of 1,000 people per community (170 million users worldwide The sources don't state the number of total users and I shouldn't have extrapolated.) and has generated substantial reliable sourcing as a result. A detailed explanation of the platform features is in line with other Good Article-graded articles for internet companies, such as Yelp and I can't imagine this article getting to GA unless it has such a section. Getting this to GA would improve the encyclopedia.BC1278 (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Please note that in the discussion of the complete redraft above at Talk:Nextdoor#Request_for_Review, User: Chrism said he considered the tone promotional and proposal too long. He specifically objected to the reference to the feature for organizing block parties and benefits to police agencies. I removed the reference to block parties. However, the use of this platform by the police, to receive complaints of suspicious activity and to send out urgent alerts, such as robber in the neighborhood, is a core feature of the platform and has been the subject of multiple feature articles in source such as The New York Times. So I left that in. BC1278 (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

• Looks good to me. LK (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Needs to be shorter and not spread across six paragraphs. It isn’t necessary to say that it’s password protected – what isn’t? Why is exclusion from Google worth mentioning? Try to look at this objectively. This one’s better (2 paragraphs):
  • Nextdoor is free to members. To join, individuals must submit their real names and verify their home addresses. Nextdoor provides maps and directories by which members can learn who in their neighborhood is also a member.
  • Nextdoor members can post messages concerning their neighborhood. For example, they can discuss real estate, crime, and safety issues. They can organize events. Nextdoor permits police to post notices, for example, about criminal activity to neighborhood forums. Transit authorities and other public agencies can send real-time alerts to specific neighborhoods.

Perhaps my writing isn't specific enough and I need to change some of the language. (I have now changed the language.) PW protection is very relevant. Each neighborhood has its own password. If you don't have a verified name and address within the neighborhood, you don't get the PW for that neighborhood (eve if you live one neighborhood over). It's not an open social network - it's a closed social network. Similarly, exclusion from Google makes it very different from Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and most other social networks. People leave their full name and home address and post about their daily neighborhood plans, such as local events they will attend. None of this is searchable on Google, an important privacy protection that makes it different. These closed social network features are a core part of the platform identity. As to the rest, your input is appreciated. Another editor suggested it be even longer considering the abundant available sourcing. Let's see what consensus is (and you can exclude my opinion when tallying the consensus) and go with that. A lot of people want to know how this app works because it gets reported about all the time but it's a closed network -- you can't figure it out except by joining or reading/watching about it.BC1278 (talk)BC1278

Just about everything on the internet has password -- including Wikipedia. What's the big deal about passwords? I also think exclusion from Google isn't that big a deal. I agree that there should be a sentence or two describing how the app works, but keep it brief. This is an encyclopedia, not a user manual. Chisme (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

More discussion needed on this section to reach consensus. Notifying everyone from Talk who hasn't participated here. Kvng, Mark Arsten, Samuel Webster, Jppcap, Dennis Bratland, Rachelkramer, DocWatson42, Dave Braunschweig,Tallbobert,Dqcole,EdJogg,Omc,L3X1,Meatsgains, The Gnome

User:BC1278 Per Wikipedia:Canvassing, you are hereby notified that I do not wish to be contacted further regarding discussions on this page. Your heavy-handed approach has exceeded my good faith. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: of course, I'm happy to exclude you now that you've asked. Sorry if I tried your patience but I can't make selective notifications for participation of consensus discussions on Talk and I can't do RfCs to ask people outside of Talk until it's clear there's disagreement that can't be resolved with those people who have already participated. I've been over this specific situation carefully with an admin. I am pretty rule-bound in how I can proceed because of COI policies.BC1278 (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

This proposal is yet another attempt to whitewash an article by a paid PR agent. Edward Mordake (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Improve description of Finances

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should a new section that consolidates and updates the financial story of Nextdoor be added to this article, removing the duplicative content from History, and making a new section at the bottom of the article? BC1278 (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC) The proposed language is below. Voting and discussion sections below.

Finances

Nextdoor had raised $285 million in financing, as of December, 2017. A $75 million round announced that month put its valuation at $1.5 billion. The investor was not disclosed by the company. A German magazine said German media conglomerate Axel Springer SE became an investor in October 2017.

A previous round of $110 million in funding in 2015 valued Nextdoor at $1.1 billion. Benchmark, Greylock Partners, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Insight Venture Partners are among the company's investors. The company raised $60 million in 2013 and $18.6 million in 2012.

BC1278 (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

References

!votes

Discussion

Note: There is significant disagreement in the Discussion below, which opened before the RfC. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor (and have run three internet companies, so I am a subject matter expert on this topic), but as disclosed above, have a COI, as a paid consultant to Nextdoor I am trying to help get this weak, incomplete and inaccurate article up to GA (as is possible given hundreds of sources) with this as a starting point, User:BC1278/sandbox/Nextdoor, but of course everything needs to be carefully reviewed by independent editors. All the proposed section changes are broken down on the Talk page. Once the published article gets in better shape, I'll take it through WP:PR and WP:GA. BC1278 (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. Having "run three internet companies" might make you an "expert on this topic [of internet companies]" but not necessarily an expert in creating or contributing to an encylopaedic article about an internet company. Wikipedia is based on source based verifiability; not on your own, original work, however valuable that might be in another context. Good luck, though, with that GA. -The Gnome (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

An editor in the general discussion for the redraft at Talk:Nextdoor#Request_for_Review opposed the inclusion of the company's valuation and amount of money raised, asserting that this information should not appear in the Wikipedia article about any internet company, as it is not encyclopedic. So some perspective as to what might be of interest to people who work in the industry might be useful, at least to this editor. e.g. The $1.5 billion valuation. There's no original research in what I propose.BC1278 (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I strongly object to having this vote now. I didn't get a chance to write my proposed paragraph. My activity on Wikipedia is all voluntary. BLK is paid. I simply don't have as much time as him to engage in Wikipedia activities. Postpone this vote. Chisme (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the RfC for now, as requested. But please read the comment below about reaching consensus and proceed in good faith. As The Gnome said, this is elementary content for a company article. Let's quickly proceed on getting consensus on perhaps the easiest section.BC1278 (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I have reinstated the RfC since there is still strong disagreement, discussed below. I have moved the objection and thread from the "!vote" section to the Discussion area because it is otherwise obstructing the layout for voting, as per "Fixing Layout Errors" WP:TPO, but if anyone feels it properly should moved back into "!votes", and does not obstruct the voting layout, please explain and move it back.BC1278 (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

The paltry information about financial matters related to the company is not organized in a coherent manner in the existing History section: Nextdoor#History. For example, the existing article does not say the company has raised $285 million, to date, at a $1.5 billion valuation. Information about the financial stability (of lack thereof) of a company is of general interest. A company can have a massive drop off in valuation or fail to raise a round, and then that becomes important to its history too. There was discussion of this matter above at: Talk:Nextdoor#Request_for_Review, when I originally proposed a comprehensive redraft be considered all at once. I said: The amount of money a company has raised, its valuation and investors are routine for articles about companies, especially in the internet sector. This has been affirmed by GA articles such as Yelp#Origins_(2004–2009). Indeed, I think it would be impossible for us to get this article to GA if we ignored dozens of articles from reliable sources about financing. For other very well-patrolled articles, with substantial admin input, that include financial information, investors and valuations, see Google#Financing,_1998_and_initial_public_offering,Snap_Inc.#Funding_and_shares

Please note that one user has already weighed in above in the general discussion of the entire redraft. User:Chisme, has specifically opposed including financial information about this company" "Internet company articles, often written by people like you in the employ of the companies, like to boast about money. But I ask again: Does that belong in an an encylopedia?" is the exact quote from User:Chisme.BC1278 (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

If we must discuss financials, why spread it across three paragraphs? Brevity is not just the soul of wit. Using this article as a source you could write, "Nextdoor has raised at least $210 million from investors in four financing rounds since July 2012." Also, since finances is to be a subject, this article needs to say something about how the company earns revenue and/or proposes to earn revenue; its website says something about that . You could take this from your “History” section (“its first efforts at monetization...”). The company is ten years old and it has not turned a profit. Something needs to be said about that, too. Chisme (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources cited in the current article do not say that that the company is not earning a profit. The citations are a 2013 Wall Street Journal article that says the company is not yet trying to generate any revenue (as is the usual case with large-scale VC-funded social networks, like Twitter and Facebook, during their growth stage); and a link to the company website (which shouldn't even be used as a citation as per WP: RS), which says the platform had been entirely been supported by VC funding until 2016, after which they introduced very select sponsored content. Neither the proper nor the improper sources say they aren't earning a profit, which is an accounting determination dependent on how they keep their books. The sources do not say how they treat their business expenses on their taxes (which are fully deductible) or if they were generating interest income from their large VC investments. It's easy to imagine a hypothetical where after they fully deducted their operating expenses from their taxes, they reported a profit based on interest income. Since the sources don't discuss profit, we shouldn't draw conclusions, as the article now does. Whereas, there is already a well-sourced statement in the proposed History section (see Talk section immediately below) that covers when the company started running ads for the first time to generate revenue.BC1278 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

• Suggest it be incorporated as a subsection in the History section, titled "Financing". LK (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. Will do it this way when discussion is concluded, unless consensus is otherwise.

• Comment The article certainly needs a (separate) section titled "Finances." But not with the verbiage recommended by BC1278 that focuses exclusively on funding and valuation; that'd look like a brochure on a road show. How about citing articles like this one from Fortune where the word "hype" is used to describe how the company has been presenting itself to analysts early on? Sample sentence: "[Nextdoor is] hoping to live up to its huge valuation and early hype that enticed investors to plow in more than $200 million in funding." And another sample: "Over the past year, Nextdoor has collected millions of dollars in revenue through advertising ([CEO Nirav] Tolia won’t say exactly how much). He projects ad revenue in the 'tens of millions' this year, but he did not comment about whether the company is profitable." Balance, gentlemen, balance!

So, yes, I fully support the inclusion of a section on the company's financials. It'll be most informative and besides, it promises to be a lot of fun, too. -The Gnome (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The inclusion of those two direct quotes from Fortune, or an accurate paraphrase, would be fine with me, though I think others might object that the section or sub-section was becoming too long. Let's see what the consensus is and if anyone else wants to add these quotes.BC1278 (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

No "consensus" is needed to include in the "Finances" section of a company information about its valuation, profitability, revenue, and so on. This is truly elementary stuff. Trying to delay the posting of such basic info would be disingenuous. I'm hoping your thinking is clear of such objectives. -The Gnome (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I am the one requesting this information be added to the article. As I explained, Chisme initially opposed the inclusion of any financial information in the article. They have since revised their position to consent to a single sentence with the amount of money raised (though the sentence they wrote is out of date. The current capital raised to day is $285 million, as per the source), but without valuation or investors. This editor also asked for business model/revenue to be added to this section, instead of History. The Gnome then asked for two additional sentences from Fortune. LK said the passage was fine as proposed but as a sub-section of History, and above, DocWatson42 said he supported the redraft as a whole. So we are not at clear consensus, especially not if the idea if to get each of these sections as good as possible now, so the article can be improved to a B, then GA. I guess I will open it up to an RfC.BC1278 (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Chisme I'd be happy to withdraw the RfC on Financing, as you requested, if we can reach some sort of consensus here. As The Gnome wrote, this finance stuff is elementary. There are other sections much more worthy of discussion. If you'd like, we can kill that sentence with the list of VC investors. It's of interest to many in the internet sector, but you seem to want brevity, so that's something. Maybe you can talk The Gnome out of wanting to expand it further with the info from Fortune, since you want brevity (I'm fine with or without those quotes or fair summations) and instead, we can agree that revenue and profitability will be discussed in the History section. Everyone else who has weighed in on the section supports it.A vote to include funding rounds, investment to date, valuation would be lopsided in favor, I think, if we have to have it. There's been some inconsistency I've seen between good articles about whether or not to include VCs, but that's about it.BC1278 (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Nope, wrong again, BC1278 . I did not claim "this finance stuff is elementary" in the sense that it is not worthy of inclusion here. What happened was my announcement that I intend to add to the article all the pertinent info abt finances, and not allow only weaselly, quasi-promotional stuff. If we're going to have Nextdoor's "valuation" and "monetization," we shall also have revenues, cash flows, and profits. So, you then backtracked, saying the addition of "Finances" should actually be a "matter of consensus."

Well, I hereby repeat, no consensus is needed to have such basic, elementary, and obvious info in a section about a company's finances. Invoking Chisme's initial objection to a "Finance" section is a disingenuous argument: It's obvious Chisme was weary of yet another ululating text about Nextdoor's many successes. But let's ask Chisme again, now that I promise the truth, nothing but the truth, and the whole truth. -The Gnome (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

If there is disagreement as to any proposed edits from me, COI policy says the proposed addition is automatically controversial and I must get consensus to move forward. Chisme objected to any financial information being added to the article. And you have now asked for "revenues, cash flows, and profits." So I must get consensus to make any changes. I have now read more than one hundred articles about this private company, and there is are no specifics I found about revenue, cashflow or profits. The closest thing is the sentence from Fortune you requested and which I already said was fine as a quote or fair paraphrase. I obviously didn't state you said finance shouldn't be included. You said "information about its valuation, profitability, revenue, and so on" was "elementary" and should be included. You also asked for two sentences from Fortune and I said including them or a fair paraphrase was fine by me if that's what's needed to get consensus, although business model/ad revenue is more appropriate to History or its own sub-section than a sub-section on Financing. I can't understand how you can read my proposed straightforward summary of cash raised, valuation and investors as some "ululating text about Nextdoor's many successes" -- how would you more neutrally phrase for example, "Nextdoor had raised $285 million in financing, as of December, 2017." or "The company raised $60 million in 2013 and $18.6 million in 2012." You say you want to include the information about investment rounds, but somehow you find this specific language promotional? We have multiple other editors who have said my proposed language is acceptable. So I have no way to move forward except an RfC, since I have to get a consensus and even when I say 'lets add the new sentences you proposed', you still raise objections to this proposed new section.BC1278 (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

You, BC1278, tried to use my supposed agreement with you in your argument with Chisme. There was no agreement. You wrote, "as The Gnome said, this [a Finance section] is elementary content for a company article." But what I described as "elementary, basic stuff" is the inclusion of info abt Revenues, Profitability, and Cash flows, as is standard practice in every report or article about a company's finances. That is what is "elementary." Quit obfuscating, that's enough of that.

On the substance: Yes, by all means, let's have a section titled "Finances." With short, descriptive sentences that paraphrase sources. No need to go to RfC on this; in fact, I might go ahead and create the section myself in the next few days. Lots of very informative stuff lying around. No pun intended. -The Gnome (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• I attempted to make a compromise above. I said a simple statement would suffice: ""Nextdoor has raised at least $210 million from investors in four financing rounds since July 2012." That would do it. Again, I ask, Why all the verbiage about rounds of funding, etc? This is an encyclopedia, not financial report card. Let's end this nonsense. It's clear that BC1278 is trying to stall myself and The Gnome in the interests of the people who pay him. I'm going to start rewriting the article on my own if BC1278 doesn't start working in good faith toward a compromise. Chisme (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The aggregate amount is $285 million, not $210 million. You also have to state the date of the total as it will continue to go up. That's why lots of stories just name each round one at a time, so the article doesn't become inaccurate (like your $210 million figure), as will happen if you just give a total with no stated date. As a minimum, you also need the valuations, at the dates they are known, so the reader can see whether they go up or down. Any valuations above $1 billion become dramatically more interesting for people interested in business. And, while the VC investors might not be of interest, the Axel Springer investment is very interesting -- it's a media company, not a financial investor, and thus it helps explain what's going on with the company.BC1278 (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

• DGaF. Please don't open RfCs with diffuse, pointed questions. It wastes other editors' time. RfC is a tool for resolving a conflict that seems unresolveable without broad community input. This is a very routine article structuring and flow matter that can be resolved by continued editing and discussion here without turning it into a site-wide referendum.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: This was the approach suggested by an admin, User:Vanamonde93, given the highly contentious nature of the discussion: "My suggestion would be for you to put forward alternative versions for each section on the talk page (one at a time) and if folks raise objections, to open an RFC, because that could legitimately be construed as a dispute." With each section, I'm trying my best to reach consensus without the need for RfC. [diff] BC1278 (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Hi -- trying to resolve this, so requesting here all users who have participated in Talk on this article, but have not weighed in on this discussion, to please weigh in here. Is the proposed language at the top of this discussion acceptable or not acceptable for a new Finance section? If you don't support, can you say whether or not include cumulative investment to date, investments by round, valuation and investors? (Other sections need feedback as well.) @Kvng:,@Mark Arsten:, @Samuel Webster:, @Jppcap:, @Dennis Bratland:, @Rachelkramer:, @Dave Braunschweig:,@Tallbobert:,@Dqcole:,@EdJogg:,@Omc:,@Meatsgains:, @DocWatson42: BC1278 (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Let's stick with a simple declarative sentence about how much has been invested in the company. The reader you mention ("so the reader can see whether they [valuations] go up or down" is the reader of an encyclopedia, not an investor news sheet. The reader doesn't need this information. You are right, "Any valuations above $1 billion become dramatically more interesting for people interested in business." But the Wikimedia reader isn't necessarily interested in business. Please remember your COI requires you to take care not to do anything that would appear to promote Nextdoor. Your suggestions for the "Finance" section appear to do that. Chisme (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:COI that requires edit proposals from connected contributors to do anything more than comply with the same Wikipedia policies and standards as any other edit. WP: COI. The policies for suitability of new content for an article is always the same on every article, no matter who the editor is. It just needs to be decided if the proposed content makes the article better or not. Appearance of impropriety is a legal standard having nothing to do with Wikipedia. BC1278 (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I'm willing to spend some time on this, but I have a lot of other interests on Wikipedia, so it could be a year before I get around to it. You have to be willing to wait that long if you want me to give it the attention this needs.

I think the problem is it's not so easy to negotiate wording that is acceptable to both a paid editor who is trying to cast Nextdoor.com in the best light, and to general-interest Wikipedia volunteer editors who want a neutral article, and who are instinctively suspicious of a COI editor. In that sense, it's controversial. But most wikipedians don't care that much about Nextdoor.com. There's many more editors who are willing to spend a lot of time debating an article like National Rifle Association. The issues are the same, in the abstract, but the stakes are much higher on one than the other. The attitude of most editors is that they don't want to let a COI editor have a free hand to fill the Nextdoor article with whatever they like, but they don't want to spend much of their time poring over hundreds of words and checking numerous sources for a relatively unimportant article, compared to say Cancer or Russia. There isn't significant amounts of press coverage about this website because the media isn't that fascinated with it except when there are big problem like charges of racism or violations of open meetings laws. If you only write article content based on what has had the most coverage, most of the content about Nexdoor.com is doing to have a negative, highly-charged slant.

My suggestion is to propose much smaller additions. There isn't an easy way to create a very large, fully detailed article about a topic that few neutral editors wish to spend time on. This isn't exactly fair to Nextdoor, but Wikipedia is not compulsory. You can't demand that volunteers show up to work out the details of low-interest topics to achieve perfect neutrality.

If that's not acceptable, then I'd suggest BC1278 spend significant amounts of time editing articles not remotely related to Nextdoor.com to develop a strong sense how to write a neutral article. Then you could go ahead and expand the article yourself without waiting for sign-off from others.

Conflict-of-interest editing is a really difficult, thankless task. Your boss will always think the article is too critical, and editors here will always think it's too promotional. Nobody will ever be quite happy with you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland and Dennis Bratland: no need for you to spend time on an article you aren't interested in! I only included you because you had left comments here before and to be fair, I contacted everyone, no matter what they said. But, just to clarify the record: there are hundreds of articles in reliable sources about Nextdoor, some 50 of which I have cited at the redraft: User:BC1278/sandbox/Nextdoor. These include articles from the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Harvard Business Review, Wired, BBC News, PBS Newshour, USA Today, etc. When I looked at History, I saw Wikipedia editors have been adding to this article for years, but there are editors consistently removing legitimate content about Nextdoor, unless it's negative. So this article has become distorted. The clear POV writing in the current "Racial Profiling" section is a good example of the Wikipedia violations here. Or you can look above at discussion of the "Founder" section, already removed by consensus following an RFC. I have been pretty active on Wikipedia for several years and I know how to spot and correct blatant Wikipedia violations and to proposed neutral language for new sections. But that doesn't mean I can edit directly here -- under WP:COI I must have my proposed edits independently reviewed and approved pre-publication, regardless of my experience or the severity of the violations I see. There were multiple editors who would have done the entire review of the proposed updates, but once any editor objects, no matter their rationale, then WP:COI requires a discussion for the proposal to move forward. The matter automatically becomes controversial. So that's why this is happening, even for very simple updates I propose. Theres no need for you to participate, but I hope this explains things better.BC1278 (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

The hit-and-run felony the CEO pleaded no contest to was reported by the business press, such as Forbes, Fortune, Business Insider, CNBC, etc, because it affects the confidence of investors and the financing of the company. You want to add details about the funding of the company, yet omit certain facts related to the funding that Nextdoor would prefer were no longer discussed. Reliable sources say it is relevant. Your comments about the racism controversy paint a similar picture. There is very good reason why your edits need to be reviewed and have consensus before going live. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: I wasn't complaining. I was simply pointing out that your comment that I could do these changes myself, under any circumstance, was not accurate. But please keep in mind that their are also people on Wikipedia with agendas, who don't declare they have a COI, and are more interested in getting across a POV than following Wikipedia policy.BC1278 (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC on Sex Offender Letter on Nextdoor

Should the following passages about legality of denying sex offender households' account on Nextdoor be removed from the article's "Controversy" section? Nextdoor#Registered_sex_offender_exclusion -BC1278 (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

"Nextdoor’s member agreement says “Registered sex offenders and their households are not eligible for Nextdoor accounts".Nextdoor said that this policy is a condition of partnering with law enforcement and municipal governments. A Harvard Law Review editorial said similar bans by other social media platforms could be unconstitutional, because of a decision by the US Supreme Court that ruled a North Carolina state statute prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing "commercial social networking Web site[s]" unconstitutional."

References

!votes

Discussion

Comment: Note, I have a COI, disclosed above. The second source is a self-published letter on the website of a Florida advocacy group for sex offenders. It fails the test for use of primary sources because it is not "reputably published." WP: Primary. Furthermore, the conclusion of this primary source, that the Nextdoor TOS could be unconstitutional, would "likely be challenged and must be supported by a secondary source." WP:RS. Nextdoor is likely to challenge that its TOS are unconstitutional, therefore there must be a secondary source. The third source cited here does not mention Nextdoor and is therefore not usable as a reliable source to support the primary source in this context. It requires sophisticated interpretation to conclude whether this secondary source, which does not mentioned Nextdoor, is applicable to the facts of the Nextdoor TOS, which require the real name and read addresses of members whose households include children and sex crime victims, therefore creating an entirely different fact pattern than the Supreme Court case discussed. This interpretation therefore violates WP: NOR. I think the first sentence, by itself, would be allowable in "Functions" or "History" sections (since by itself it is not a "Controversy"), cited just a primary source, if a better secondary source were not available (that gives more information), which is is. "The service also involves a number of trust and safety buffers like preventing people who live at the last known addresses of registered sex offenders from joining." The secondary source could therefore be used, if someone thinks this is worth putting in the article, in a section other than "Controversy." But the first setence should be removed as used in this sub-section.-20:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

• Please withdraw this. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I withdrew the RfC. I don't know how to archive the section, which I suggest if this is now resolved.BC1278 (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Proposed new language for "Racial profiling" section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the "Racial profiling" section be changed as follows, so it is more encyclopedic rather than reading like a POV essay? Nextdoor#Racial_profiling Please see detailed discussion bullet points below the proposal. Note: while I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, a have a COI as a paid consultant to Nextdoor. I try my best to abide my all Wikipedia policy when making proposals for article changes, such as neutral language, no promo, verifiability, etc.

Racial profiling misuse and remediation efforts

Nextdoor Individual Description Error

In 2016, there were multiple complaints that some Nextdoor members were misusing the platform's neighborhood watch pages for racial profiling. One critic said that the platform made it too easy for members to express racist views. Another user complained that users were writing posts that expressed "insidious" bias and that being in an online community made expressing such biased thoughts more acceptable. Complaints in Oakland, California, were particularly vehement following a report that included examples of racially-motivated posts about minorities walking dogs, driving cars or delivering mail.

The company said racially-biased posts were a small number of the several hundred thousands daily posts, and that they were typically flagged for deletion by site users. But in response to the complaints, Nextdoor worked with community organizations, such as One Hundred Black Men, in Oakland, to address the problem. It also met with Oakland city officials.

Nextdoor adopted algorithms to identify racially biased language. And it said in August 2016 that it would further curb profiling by requiring suspicious activity reports to have substantially more information than race. The suspicious incident and description of the suspect must first be described in a multi-stage process, without mention of race (e.g. clothing, hair color), or it is blocked by the software. The feature was introduced on desktop browsers in 2016 and on mobile in May 2017. Some critics said the platform changes represented substantial progress and the company reported posts with racial profiling were reduced by 75%. Oakland city officials and the Oakland chapter of One Hundred Black Men officially lauded the efforts. But Nextdoor acknowledged that the changes would not entirely eliminate profiling in the app, so the platform would rely on local neighborhood leads (group moderators) to identify and report uncaught instances of profiling.

BC1278 (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Discussion 1

The proposed section covers all the criticism (in fact, it gives specific examples, unlike the current version),includes all the current sourcing and more, and adds the the company response and remediation with a visual. I have tried to address the following problems with the existing section:

• The current section at Nextdoor#Racial_profiling reads like an essay with a POV condemning the company, not an encyclopedia article. The section has a framing POV introduction with just a citation to an unreliable source (the company website); then extended quotations and repetitions of the legitimate criticism are presented, which by their length and repetitiveness, give the section a POV essay format, rather than conveying a summary of the criticism, in encyclopedia format. This is all contrary to WP:NPOV policy:

"A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."

• It provides numerous attributions to the commentary and source, instead of summarizing in WIkipedia's voice, a WP: NPOV problem:

"Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability." No one is contesting that there was a problem with some users using the platform in a racially biased manner. There's no disagreement here.

• It is weighted by length of the criticism compared to response/remediation, thereby creating a POV and misleading impression that the company did not expend substantial efforts to address the problem. The company response and remediation effort, not just the problem, was covered by numerous high-quality reliable sources. Given the seriousness of the criticism - enough to topple a start-up that did not respond as aggressively as Nextdoor - a detailed accounting of the response is required so as not to trigger WP:UNDUE.
• It includes a sentence and quote whose source is not in any way addressing racial profiling: "Nick Wingfield of The New York Times worried that the site may "be used to publicly shame" neighbors or lead to "snarky messages" between residents."
• It contains a factual error. The remediation was launched in August 2016, not May 2017.
• The section title, "Racial Profiling", for all its simplicity, does not fully reflect the content. Everyone acknowledge this was a misuse of the platform by users. No one is suggesting that the company is engaging in racial profiling. The section header subtly suggests otherwise because this is a story about the company. The section header also does not reflect that the story developed into a significant response and remediation effort. The current title signals this is just a criticism section. Give the seriousness of this topic, the section header needs to not misleading or convey a subtle POV, as per WP: NPOV.

BC1278 (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

• I agree that racial profiling section is too long and needs to be pared down. However, I must state that I am not a wordy write and feel that most everything could be pared down. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

L3X1 That's a good suggestion. If we pare down the criticism, we can pare down the details on the response and remediation. How about this:

In 2016, there were multiple complaints that some Nextdoor members were misusing the platform's neighborhood watch pages for racial profiling. Complaints in Oakland, California were particularly vehement following a report that included examples of racially-motivated posts about minorities walking dogs, driving cars or delivering mail. In response, Nextdoor adopted algorithms to identify racially biased language. And it said in August 2016 that it would further curb profiling by requiring suspicious activity reports to have substantially more information than race. The company reported posts with racial profiling were reduced by 75%. But Nextdoor said that the platform changes would not entirely eliminate profiling in the app, so the platform would rely on local neighborhood leads (group moderators) to identify and report uncaught instances of profiling. BC1278 (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

• The section as it stands is badly written. I support the changes proposed by BC1278 in the draft on his user space. LK (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

LK: L3X1 supported paring this section down even more so I wrote an abbreviated version directly above, in the Discussion. For the purpose of trying to discern consensus and to possibly narrow the discussion more, do you prefer the abbreviated version or do you prefer the original proposal (in my user space and also at the top of this discussion)?BC1278 (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Either is fine. LK (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

This makes it sound like the complaints were made starting in 2016. They are ongoing. Chisme (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Chisme, this is plainly stated in the section. The language in both the long an short version states: "But Nextdoor acknowledged that the changes would not entirely eliminate profiling in the app, so the platform would rely on local neighborhood leads (group moderators) to identify and report uncaught instances of profiling." According to a Harvard Business Review article published today, May 11, 2018, and a Splinter article from 2016, the incidents of racial profiling posts were reduced 75% since the platform changes (not counting the posts then removed by manual review by moderators). We can add the %, if you'd like. This is a social network with more than 200 million members (if you multiple 170,000 communities by an average of 1200 households per community). 200 million (I shouldn't have made my own extrapolation as to the number of members. Only communities and households is in the sources.) people can still post freely, but the automated monitoring and structured design to reduce racist posts is now pretty intense. The HBR article and a management book written by its author cite Nextdoor as a textbook example of how a company can best respond to a crisis with a rapid solution that iterates. BC1278 (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

• Disagree with the proposed text, mainly because it offers a non-neutral point of view. Here's a sample of weaselly wording: "The company said racially-biased posts were a small number of the several hundred thousands daily posts, and that they were typically flagged for deletion by site users." Nope, we're not in a position to state that this is what actually happened. We only have the company's claims as reported in sources. The correct phrasing, therefore, is something like this: "The company claimed that racially-biased posts were a small number of the several hundred thousands daily posts, and also that they were typically flagged for deletion by site users."

The rest of the text is similarly slanted. It has a small section about the accusations and the shortcomings of Nextdoor, while it dedicates a much greater amount of space to claim that they almost fixed everything. -The Gnome (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Happy to change "the company said" to "the company claimed", though in journalism, in which I was trained and practiced for 20 years, "said" is neutral phrasing and "claimed" inserts the writer's POV that there is reason to doubt the entity being quoted. So pretty much the opposite of your position on how language effects slant. The source here, the New York Times, just straight up quotes the CEO, without introducing any doubt with a word like "claimed." However, the whole discussion of this specific phrasing could be moot - the sentence is eliminated in a much shorter version of everything, I wrote, above, at the behest of an editor who wanted the whole thing pared down. I made it slightly longer by adding a the sentence with the about 75% because another editor wanted clarity that the problem was ongoing. I don't think it's needed but I put it in for that editor. The Gnome Do you find that shorter version acceptable? I would like to attempt some consensus. BC1278 (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I agree with Lawrencekhoo and The Gnome. It’s weaselly and badly written. Let’s stop chewing on kumquats and state things plainly. How about this:

Nextdoor has been criticized because it members occasionally engage in racial profiling. Wrote the New York Times, “…as Nextdoor has grown, users have complained that it has become a magnet for racial profiling, leading African-American and Latino residents to be seen as suspects in their own neighborhoods.” To curb racial profiling, the company made changes to its software by which racially biased language was flagged and race could not be the sole criterion for reporting suspicious activity. Acknowledging that it couldn't rely on its software alone to limit racial profiling, the company began encouraging so-called neighborhood leads (Nextdoor members who can remove messages) to identify and report instances of racial profiling. According to Nextdoor, instances of racial profiling were reduced by 75 percent. Chisme (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't repeat the lie about reducing racist posts by 75%. Edward Mordake (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC) ( striking SOCK comments Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC))

Lawrencekhoo clearly said above that he supported my proposed changes: "The section as it stands is badly written. I support the changes proposed by BC1278 in the draft on his user space." Lawrence (LK) also wrote the shorter version, with the RfC below, was good. "Either is fine."BC1278 (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

This article is obviously being whitewashed by some PR agent. The only reason notable sources have written about Nextdoor is because of these concerns. Edward Mordake (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC) ( striking SOCK comments Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC))

@Edward Mordale: Sources just on the topic of the remediation efforts include extensive stories in The New York Times, Harvard Business Review, NPR, Wired. Under what Wikipedia policy are you saying these first-tier, highly reliable sources, and the information in the articles therein, should be disregarded?BC1278 (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Please scroll down to the bottom of this talk page. Edward Mordake (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC) ( striking SOCK comments Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC))

References

Discussion 2

RfC Consensus Attempt

Is the passage below satisfactory to to replace the current "Racial Profiling" section at Nextdoor#Racial_profiling? Significant disagreement above. COI disclosure above. BC1278 (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Racial profiling misuse and remediation efforts (2)

In 2016, there were multiple complaints that some Nextdoor members were misusing the platform's neighborhood watch pages for racial profiling. Complaints in Oakland, California were particularly vehement following a report that included examples of racially-motivated posts about minorities walking dogs, driving cars or delivering mail. In response, Nextdoor adopted algorithms to identify racially biased language. And it said in August 2016 that it would further curb profiling by requiring suspicious activity reports to have substantially more information than race. The company reported posts with racial profiling were reduced by 75%. But in 2017, Nextdoor said that the platform changes would not entirely eliminate profiling in the app, so the platform would rely on local neighborhood leads (group moderators) to identify and report uncaught instances of profiling. BC1278 (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I think it fine. It lays out how people would attach racism to the company and how it isn't the companies' fault per se. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's awful. I agree with Lawrencekhoo and The Gnome. It’s weaselly and badly written. Let’s stop chewing on kumquats and state things plainly. How about this:

Nextdoor has been criticized because it members occasionally engage in racial profiling. Wrote the New York Times, “…as Nextdoor has grown, users have complained that it has become a magnet for racial profiling, leading African-American and Latino residents to be seen as suspects in their own neighborhoods.” To curb racial profiling, the company made changes to its software by which racially biased language was flagged and race could not be the sole criterion for reporting suspicious activity. Acknowledging that it couldn't rely on its software alone to limit racial profiling, the company began encouraging so-called neighborhood leads (Nextdoor members who can remove messages) to identify and report instances of racial profiling. According to Nextdoor, instances of racial profiling were reduced by 75 percent. Chisme (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Lawrencekhoo clearly said above that he supported my proposed changes: "The section as it stands is badly written. I support the changes proposed by BC1278 in the draft on his user space." LK also wrote that the shorter version, being discussed by this RfC, was good. "Either is fine."

My bad. Only The Gnome thought it was awful. Mine is the better. Chisme (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

!votes

See above. I didn't get the chance to write my version of the paragraph. I vote yes on mine and no on BLK's.Chisme (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Generally support either approach. The issue is that the older wording does read like someone's personal essay. I think as an RfC this is a dead stick, because it's turned into a sprawling, diffuse discussion about lots of wordsmithing tidbits. Please continue trying to hammer out a compromise version, with the readership in mind. If any controversy remains after the most-involved parties work out something they can all live with, then do another RfC if it seems necessary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it is time to topic-ban BC1278 from that article and its talkpage and let uninvolved, unpaid volunteers sort out the mess. These walls of text need to stop. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal:_topic_ban_for_user_BC1278 Edward Mordake (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC) (comment redacted, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Mordake (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC); redaction markup added and unsigned redaction signed by me in this diff Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)) (striking !vote by sock Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC))

Discussion of RfC

Chisme (talk · contribs), The Gnome (talk · contribs), L3X1 (talk · contribs). LK has already said the passage is fine.BC1278 (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Please see extended discussion at Talk:Nextdoor#Proposed_new_language_for_"Racial_profiling"_sectionBC1278 (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Re: the proposed paragraph by Chisme. The first two sentences create a POV and appearance of an agenda. The first sentence is unsourced misinterpretation of the sources and can be read as though all or most of Nextdoor's members "occasionally engage in racial profiling." Not only does no one claim this, the company has specifically said there are "racially-biased posts were a small number of the several hundred thousands daily posts, and that they were typically flagged for deletion by site users. So this Chisme misinterpretation is contested and if it were sourced (and not a straw man argument), the contrary information would need to be included. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints..." WP: Due That is why my double sourced proposed statement is more appropriate: "In 2016, there were multiple complaints that some Nextdoor members were misusing the platform's neighborhood watch pages for racial profiling." The second sentence, a long direct quote with a source attribution, creates an argumentative, essay tone (in part to support the inaccurate, non-neutral POV of the first sentence), instead of a summarization/paraphrase in Wikipedia's neutral voice. "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone." and "Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability." WP:NPOV No one is contesting that there was a problem with a small number of users using the platform in a racially biased manner. But sources should be summarized in an impartial manner, not quoted to create a POV, even if the reliable source itself has a POV. For example, could impartially summarize the paragraph from which that quote came (removing the POV source conclusion) as: "In 2016, users complained that some members were using reports of suspected crimes for racial profiling." But I think my proposed language for the first two sentences is more specific, gives more information and is non-repetitive, thereby preferable.BC1278 (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

We could change "occasionally" to "some members." Your sentence is awkward and doesn't convey what happened. Notice that my paragraph clearly says what Nextdoor did in its software and in its policy regarding human oversight. Mine gets right to the point. We'll use mine. Chisme (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chisme: Maybe we're close on this. If you also add "In 2016," then your first sentence edit with "some members" would be fair. It's a History section - we have to think about how this will be read in 10 years or 20 years. Placing a date on the onset of the complaints is useful historically. And it avoids the present tense because we can't know what is happening in the future. The company says the reduction was only 75% (we could also give that date), so it's ongoing as of the date they made that statement. Maybe in 5 years it will get to 100% with artificial intelligence. Or maybe there will be some new wave of complaints in the future that suggest the problem is getting worse again. We can't know either way. So the solution is to document what happens at a fixed point in time.

Regarding the second sentence, it or similar sources or combination of sources need to paraphrased to avoid a POV or formulation like an essay. You shouldn't use a direct quote of the language of a reliable source just for emphasis. In this case, you've also dropped the info that this is happening on the "neighborhood watch" pages, made this a more serious problem. So I'd suggest something like: "Users complained the neighborhood watch pages were being used to raise suspicions about African American and Latino residents." You don't need to name a source inside the article text unless there is disagreement between sources. WP:NPOV In the third sentence, there's a simple problem but I notice the footnote goes to a blank source, so you couldn't check. I've added in the source. The company added algorithms to detect racially-biased language. Not flags, which are manual - it already had flags before these reports. Perhaps we can wrap this section up?BC1278 (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Below is the latest version, based largely on the latest version from User:Chisme. Is this acceptable to everyone who has participated on this Talk page? @Chisme:, @Kvng:,@Mark Arsten:, @Samuel Webster:, @Jppcap:, @Dennis Bratland:, @Rachelkramer:, @Dave Braunschweig:,@Tallbobert:,@Dqcole:,@EdJogg:,@Omc:,@L3X1:, @Lawrencekhoo:,@Meatsgains:, @DocWatson42:, @The Gnome: @SMcCandlish:

• Nextdoor was criticized in 2016 and 2017 because some members engaged in racial profiling on the neighborhood watch pages. Some complained that that suspected crime reports were being used to raise unjustified suspicions about African American and Latino residents." To curb racial profiling, the company created algorithms to identify and remove racially-biased posts and it changed suspicious activity reports to require several identifying traits other than race.According to Nextdoor, instances of racial profiling posts were reduced by 75 percent by the changes. But the company said it could not depend on software alone to eliminate these posts, so it was also relying on neighborhood group moderators to identify and report instances of racial profiling.

@Chisme: can you please respond as to whether the above paragraph, which I think is close to your proposal, is acceptable and if not, what the remaining issues are?BC1278 (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Discussion 3 (Resolved sub-issue)

As an added wrinkle to this RfC, an editor today added this statement to the lead: "Nextdoor users have stated that Nextdoor has become a "magnet for racial profiling". Since making this post, this editor has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. User:Edward_Mordake. The editor sent a threatening letter to the CEO of Nextdoor (reported to the Arb Committe), highlighting this edit (literally, with an image and arrow) as part of a "PR Nightmare for Nextdoor" - that he created. I can't link to the arb complaint and response since it contained confidential real names and e-mails. I think this edit should be removed pending the outcome of the RfC: "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved." WP: RFC. If it's not removed (at least until the RfC is resolved), then I'll need to open a new discussion separate from this RfC. In short, this is inappropriate for the lead. It's not what a company with tens of millions of users and a $1.5 billion valuation, is primarily known for, based on hundreds of stories in reliable sources, that have nothing to do with this. The statement has a strong POV, featuring editorializing prose in a quote from another writer's analysis. It doesn't include the company response that there were actually relatively few posts compared to the hundreds of thousands of other daily posts (now millions.) Bringing a controversy into a company lead is very rare. This problem is far worse at Twitter and Facebook and while there are discussions of misuse of these platform Twitter#Issues_and_controversies, Facebook#Criticisms_and_controversies, it's certainly not on the lead of either of these articles.

In order to handle the description of the issue properly were it in the lead, there would need to be more space devoted to the very vigorous platform response, which the company says reduced such posts 75%, with most of the rest removed by moderators. There have been many stories in highly respected publications (Harvard Business Review, Wired, NPR, The New York Times) about how Nextdoor responded and remediated the problems very aggressively -- there's even a chapter in a management textbook about the success of the response. [3]. It's had way more success and acted far more aggressively against this behavior than any other social media platform. Please Talk:Nextdoor#Proposed_new_language_for_"Racial_profiling"_section for all the sourcing and details.BC1278 (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

You may want to read again WP:PAIDTALK and try and be more concise and avoid copying chunks of policy. You are giving the POV of the company. Really you should step back a bit I think. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis and Dom from Paris: I will try to be more concise. That's a writing style problem of mine because of my training. I will work on it. But I just spent the day dealing with a now permanently blocked sockpuppet of User:The Quixotic Potato aka User:Edward_Mordake, trying to topic ban me, while also sending threatening and disturbing letters to the personal e-mail account of te CEO of Nextdoor - literally highlighting (with a screenshot and arrow) the change in the lead above as something done to damage the company and create a "PR Nightmare." He told the CEO I made this specific edit and should be fired immediately for damaging the company reputation for edits that he (not me) made. It seems pretty obvious to me that this user's edits today should be deleted. The Arb committee has the full threatening letter. You can confirm with User: BU Rob13 Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a device to blatantly damage reputations, in this instance, spelled out in explicit detail in an personal e-mail to the Nextdoor CEO. So I think that's a more pressing concern than my writing style, which I know is too lengthy. But I've been dealing with this unnerving off-Wiki extreme personal and professional attack most of the day, so I'm writing quickly. BC1278 (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

@BC1278:. Good grief...I was obviously too concise myself...what I meant was in the future not rewrite your wall of text. This has nothing to do with the editing of this section and should be on your talk page or elsewhere. We get it, you've been wronged and you want to defend yourself but please not here. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The statement in the lead has now been removed by an ArbCom admin who reviewed the complaint (because it contained confidential personal information) that led to the permanent sock puppet ban of the editor who inserted it in the midst of the RfC.BC1278 (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Please STOP. We get it. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I was summarizing the resolution of the situation so no one would waste more time discussing the matter.BC1278 (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

References

close and relaunch?

Anybody summoned by the various RfC broadcasting services is going to be daunted by this humongous thread. And it appears that in discussion the proposal has changed in any case. I think it would be useful to close this and re-launch a clean one. Only the proposer can pull an ongoing RfC. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh please let's do that!!!! Would it possible to start it with User:BC1278 promising to respect WP:PAIDTALK and to resist the temptation to reply to every single comment with a WP:BLUDGEON so that we can have a normal discussion? Dom from Paris (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis:I've reviewed the discussion for this issue, from top to bottom, regarding your complaint. Other than this latest extended recounting of the unfortunate sock puppet events, my contributions seem not only normal, but productive. As I responded to comments, making adjustments to the proposed update along the way, it has moved much closer to consensus. I wasn't just making noise - I was engaging in dialogue and revisions to try to bring together disparate opinions. Progress seems to have been made.BC1278 (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

@Jytdog:I think perhaps I should pull the RfC, for the reasons you cited, but not launch a new one at present. Rather, we could let this discussion go on for awhile and if there seems to be rough consensus, a neutral admin could be called in to summarize the discussion and consensus. My understanding is this can be done outside of RfC. My concern with a new RfC is that some users have already complained they were contacted too much (because there were too many discussion going on at once); nonetheless several have already made their opinions clear. Asking them to weigh in again could be a serious imposition at this point. Those with the most impassioned opinions are most likely to participate again, possibly skewing a new RfC.

I thought this last proposed version, at the bottom of the discussion, had arrived at a point where there were only a few words to be ironed out. Viewed outside of the context of this consensus discussion, I believe new editors coming to the proposal for an up or down vote with an RfC might think the latest wording is now too short and vote no for that reason. And I wouldn't personally disagree. I suggested more. Further nuanced discussion is needed perhaps, at present, rather than a vote. Without the RfC, though, I'm not sure how to get new people to weigh in. Discussion with the current group seem to have stalled. There is already notice on the NPOV discussion board saying this section could use more eyeballs. Thoughts?BC1278 (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I have removed the RfC but I am not going to re-list at present, for the reasons cited above.BC1278 (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

That is not unreasonable. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's give the whole darn thing a rest. I'm going on vacation for a week till June 2. You can bludgeon me some more when I return. Chisme (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I adopted your language, with pretty small modifications, in the latest version proposed, just to correct a mistake and strike a more stylistically NPOV, but without losing any of the substantive criticism. Could you spend a few minutes reviewing this so we can finally wrap something up?BC1278 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

As more comments were not coming in, I re-listed RfC, as suggested. Any help in keeping the format of the discussion in tact would be appreciated - with the proposal, votes and discussion kept separate, as appropriate.BC1278 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC about possible NPOV issue in Nextdoor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the following replace the section Nextdoor#Racial_profiling? Extended discussion above on the same subject. BC1278 (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Proposed content

Starting in 2015, Nextdoor faced criticism because some user posts on the platform's neighborhood watch pages included racial profiling. One person said that the platform made it too easy for members to express racist views. Another user complained that users were writing posts that expressed "insidious" bias and that being in an online community made expressing such biased thoughts more acceptable. Complaints in Oakland, California, were particularly vehement following an article that included examples of racially-motivated "suspicious activity" reports about minorities walking dogs, driving cars or delivering mail. The company said racially biased posts were a small number of the hundreds of thousands of daily posts and that they were typically flagged for deletion by site users. In 2016, Nextdoor adopted new algorithms to identify racially biased language. After meeting with Oakland city officials and leaders, it said it further curbed racial profiling with educational awareness programs for users and by re-structuring suspicious activity reports to require substantially more information than race. The company reported an internal review showing that the platform changes reduced posts with racial profiling by 75%. But Nextdoor acknowledged that their efforts have not entirely eliminated profiling in the app, and that the platform would continue to rely on local neighborhood leads (group moderators) to identify and report uncaught instances.

References

Comments

• Oppose. Too many quotes from the company, to the point where it reads like a press release; additionally, many of the things quoted are trivial, especially the vague statements about new algorithms, meetings or the "small percentage" wording aren't worth devoting text to directly. Nearly everything after "The company said..." strikes me as unusable - one sentence summarizing their position is sufficient, something along the lines of Nextdoor acknowledged the problem, though it said that it was caused by a small percentage of its users, and said that it was taking ongoing steps to address the issue summarizes everything relevant about their position without the press-release tone. I would replace "The company said..." and everything after that with that sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose in this form, per Aquillion. This is not encyclopedic prose. I've done a WP:MOS pass on it to fix grammar and punctuation errors and such, but the material as-written doesn't pass muster, per WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX policies. It's not WP's job to serve as a conduit through which companies can make criticism-deflection statements and CYA maneuvers.
  However, a compressed version may suffice, as the overall issue is worthy of encyclopedic coverage (also per WP:NPOV: WP is not an app-promotion platform and should not hide well-sourced public criticism – nor dwell on it as if fixed in time and impossible for the company to address; a concise balance is needed). The material is just generally too long and dense per WP:UNDUE, consuming too much of our readers' attention on this side material. So squeezing it by 30–60% is liable to fix both problems at once: the verbiage to eliminate first is that which is also leading to the PoV objections. I think this points out why not to "run to RfC" before exhausting the ability of a page's regular contributors to hammer out compromise. What needed to happen here was to agree that this profiling stuff should be covered, then outline the important points of that coverage, then either RfC the outline if people are fighting about it, or craft much narrower wording in stages and RfC what seems to be a good final-results candidate, if there's still a dispute about that. RfC shouldn't be invoked 1/3 of the way through the process.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Note through discussion below content was proposed and implemented in these diffs; the proposal above is not really "live" anymore. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I have re-listed as an RfC on the advice of multiple editors. While there seems to be consensus that the current section should be replaced and shortened, there was no agreement on the exact wording and that discussion became too lengthy disjointed for a previous RfC. I have a COI as a paid consultant to Nextdoor, though I am experienced on Wikipedia and try to abide by the five pillars to the best of my abilities. I know this is particularly important here.

The main argument for replacement is that the current section reads like an essay with a strong point of view, rather than summarizing the events and criticism. The second argument is that there the article does not sufficiently reflect the extensive tier-one, in-depth press and book coverage of the very aggressive response and remediation efforts by the company (e.g. Harvard Business Review, Wired, NPR, San Francico Chronicle). I think my suggested language provides more specific details about the problem than is there now, while doing a better job maintaining NPOV.BC1278 (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

• It reaches back to 2015, not just 2016 and 2017. At the Mercury News and East Bay Express appeared in 2015, when the problem first gained national prominence. Also Sacremento News. And WaPO If the CEO is making a public response, it is significant. It's weird that all these stories are missing.

  The implication that this ended in 2017 is misleading. There were complaints in Texas in 2018 of using Nextdodor as a tool to aid in profiling. It seems to be that the idea of Nextdoor as a kind of mecca for paranoids has become something taken for granted, and is fodder for comedy. The LA Times mocked what passes for normal on today's Nexdtoor. ReCode highlighed the Best of Nextdoor Twitter account that uses the everyday paranoia as comedy gold.

  A related issue is public disclosure laws, which allow police to hold essentially private meetings with neighborhood activists, many of whom racially profiling and calling the police on "suspicious types". Nextdoor's fundamental model makes these online discussions accessible only to neighborhood residents, but open meetings laws require meetings with police officials to be accessible to anyone. Whether police are encouraging or discouraging profiling is difficult to determine if anyone who reports what was aid in a meeting with police on Nextdoor has their account blocked for violating Nextdoor's privacy rules. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Dennis

a) the content does not come even close to suggesting that the racial profiling is completely gone. It explictly stays that such posts can and do still happen.

b) about the sources your brought --

the LMT source reports a rumor that undocumented people use NextDoor to communicate about ICE agents. Why are you describing that as a) fact and b) a use as "a tool to aid in profiling"?

The LA Times piece is opinion, and a funny story. The only mention about "racial profiling" is from a commentor, and that is USERGENERATED and not an RS anyway.

Recode again is about humor, about an app that tweets ridiculous NextDoor post. It actually says "As with every social network, Nextdoor’s users sometimes say stuff that is actually problematic; the site has long struggled with how to police racism. But Best of Nextdoor skips past that troubling facet "

The Seattle Times piece is from 2016, so before the efforts to corral the profiling were done. But it is interesting - about the Seattle Police having a virtual town hall on the site, and a reporter who copied posts into an article about the meeting and was banned by the site for violating its terms of use (privacy provisions). There is a mention of children being profiled, but that is passing. The issues here are larger and would be interesting to develop. But not really about this issue.

So you are mischaracterizing both the proposal and what sources actually say. This isn't helpful. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It should say the problem began in 2015, and continues. It also needs to say that racial profiling happened, not qualify it by saying “there were complaints”, as if we don’t know if the complaints were true. Nextdoor officials admitted profiling happened, and they instituted aggressive changes to try to combat it.

The fact that this problem has gone from tragedy to farce doesn’t make it unencyclopedic. It’s like the difference between a negative movie review and winning a Razzie. Comedy is a legitimate form of criticism. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I made the correction for 2015, and didn't specify other years so as not to imply the problem completely stopped. I put the word "multiple" in, too, to better emphasize that it was not isolated. The word "complaints" adds info -- the problems were brought to the attention of the company. We could say "reports", instead, if people like that better."BC1278 (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I think the content would be better and more clear if the intermediate step of "complaints" wasn't there. I agree with Dennis on that. It was used for racial profiling; nobody contests this. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Dennis, what source do you have, that racial profiling has not significantly decreased? This is not a small thing to just hop over. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I have made an edit that rewrites the first sentence without "complaints."BC1278 (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

That is an improvement. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• The tone still underplays the issue. The phrase "Nextdoor faced criticism because some user posts on the platform's neighborhood watch pages included racial profiling" could be applied to any public forum. Of course some users will violate the rules. It also implies that the website is being unfairly blamed for the actions of its users, which is an incorrect characterization of what Nextdoor was being criticized for.

  The critics said that the problem was Nextdoor's platform design and inadequate enforcement of it's TOS. It should say "Since 2015, there have been news reports of racial profiling by Nextdoor users leading to real world discrimination, and critics said the Nextdoor platform design and policy enforcement were part of the problem."

  If this issue has risen to such prominence as to merit a story in the New York Times, it is hardly fair describe that as "One person said..." The NYT does't write a news article every times "one person" complains. Nirav Toila himself said to the Times, "this is a bigger issue than one guy sniping at his neighbor". The NYT reporter wrote "The complaints about Nextdoor have come from across the country but have been loudest here in Oakland, where nearly a third of all households use the platform, according to the company." Complains have come in from across the country. That is not in any way the same as "One person said...".

  A more accurate way of saying this is: "Nextdoor said complaints about racial profiling have come from across the country, and that they needed to make changes to deal with the problem. Law enforcement officials, who had generally embraced the forum as a means to connect with local residents, were wary of being seen as endorsing or associating with a website that enables racial profiling. Nextdoor said it is a social problem found on any public platform, but could be particular acute due to Nextoor's broad reach."

  It doesn't need to be my exact words here, but we need to make sure we're grounded in facts and basic logic. There's no logic to these two sentences in juxtaposition: "The company said racially-biased posts were a small number of the hundreds of thousands of daily posts and that they were typically flagged for deletion by site users. In 2016, Nextdoor adopted new algorithms to identify racially biased language." The first sentence asserts the problem is small, implying it is merely "a few bad apples". The next sentence says Nextdoor has to change its operations in response. If it's merely "bad apples" and small in number, why rework your algorithm?

  I'd also try to stick to the advice at WP:SAID. "Another user complained that..." should say "Another user said that ...". Characterizing complaints as "vehement" is editorializing. The reason there was a large, organized opposition to racial profiling on Nextdoor in Oakland is because, as the NYT reported, the service began in the Bay Area and has the deepest penetration there, and because Nextdoor has been in use there longer than anywhere else, it has had the most time for the problems to get out of hand. Choosing to call Oakland critics of Nextdoor "vehement" implies it is due to some oddity about the critics, when in fact the reason for the large and organized protest is the greater size and impact of the problem in Oakland. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: Your proposed language isn't sourced. Please add citations and I can respond, although I do not believe muchsome of it is accurate. But I will withhold further comment until I see citations. In any case, I'd suggest we have just an up or down vote on the proposed language up top, or just end this RfC as futile and bring in a mediator to try to work with all involved editors, including from the previous RfC. I believe we were already within a sentence and a few words of agreeing in the previous RfC, but the lengthy discussion stalled. I started a new RfC the suggestion of User:Jytdog because the previous discussion became so sprawling and unfocused. No point in repeating that again here with this discussion.BC1278 (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

"I'd suggest we have just an up or down vote on the proposed language up top..." What "up top" would that be? There is a lot of "up top" here to wade through. Chisme (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Chisme:Just the question in this one section: "Should the following replace the section Nextdoor#Racial_profiling?" That said, this task as an RfC is starting to seem like it might not work. User:Chisme made some very good suggestions and we were perhaps close to resolution, I thought, with three additional editors also supporting one of two shorter versions from the previous RfC (one from me and one from Chisme), but that discussion stalled out. Perhaps mediation is the only way forward, unless people want to try a bit longer for consensus. The discussion seemed productive at the very end of the previous RfC but then nothing happened and this new RfC was supposed to simplify things. It hasn't.BC1278 (talk)BC1278

• This cannot really be a debate, because a coi editor is committed to their position, and the rest of us are trying to reach a NPOV article. The role of the COI editors is to put forward their suggestions, and then let the community do with them whatever the consensus decides. As far as the NPOV goes, when the large number of sources are divided into two groups, one saying that the firm encourages racism, and the other group says that the firm is taking steps to reduce racism, it is inherently contradictory to say that the firm never really promoted or allowed racism. (It's also trye that the racism is not proven to be that of the firm directly, but is more likely that of the communities that the websites cover. But the question is whether they were insensitive to it in the past, and the very existence of the exculpatory sources proposed by the coi editor implies that they were insensitive. ) Just as we should include the statements of how they are meeting the charges, we should include the charges. As I understand it, that's what NPOV means. DGG ( talk ) 11:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, an editor who is paid to promote the company will never change his point of view and as per WP:PAIDTALK we should avoid engaging in long discussions with them and look for consensus with other volunteer editors once the paid editor has given his and his client's POV. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland:@DGG: To answer your question, as I understand it, for this minority-led company, any profiling posts at all were unacceptable. So they set out to use technology, design, education and community outreach to see if they could solve the problem of racist posts that has plagued all UGC-social media companies. They didn't want to be the same as everyone else. I don't know of any other social media companies that make users go through multiple steps to force them to consider potentially profiling or racist language before posting - and then rejecting and removing many offending posts automatically. The unusual aggressiveness of their response to a problem that other social media companies ignore is the reason why Wired, Harvard Business Review, NPR and a management textbook, among others, wrote about their efforts at great length. Citations above. Give a read and you'll see. They opened up the kimono to show the press and community leaders exactly what they were doing to resolve as much of the problem as they could, while still admitting there was no perfect solution yet.-BC1278 (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Per several of the above articles, the problem was rooted in Neexdoor's unique structure: that it's neighborhood local, giving posts visibility only to your closest neighbors, and some of your somewhat close neighbors, and none outside that. This made it ideal as a neighborhood watch forum, but neighborhood watches can become hothouses for xenophobia. The power given to leads is also cited as an issue: they are essentially made what Wikipedia would call an Admin merely because they showed up first, or hung around the longest. Thus the prejudices of the lead were reflected in the entire group, forcing out dissent. As with all social media, it's simply cost-prohibitive to pay professionals to moderate all posts. AI can do a little, but humans can easily game an AI. With human overseers swamped with posts, they relied almost entirely on leads.

There's no evidence that anyone at Nextdoor wanted any of this -- obviously, it's bad for business. But nonetheless, the platformed served to focus and amplify pre-existing prejudice in neighborhoods, and documented harm did happen. It's not so much a question of whether or not Nextdoor did it right or wrong, as a question of whether Nextdoor should exist at all, given the limitations. Sources for the above summary are already cited, will specify as needed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Since I was asked to comment, I think Dennis Bratland's proposed wording is the best one suggested so far. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Controversy section incorporated into body, here with attribution to Dennis Bratland's proposed language above, with added bit cited to the Harvard Business Review -- and in the next diff I removed the Controversies section; incorporating the racial profiling in the history was proposed by Dennis below, here and i agree with that. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the work. I thought I'd point out that the NYTimes article section about wary law enforcement officials is introducing a quote from an Oakland police official. Since no one else is quoted about law enforcement attitudes and the story is mainly about Oakland, I am pretty sure the intro paragraph is just referring to law enforcement in Oakland, not all over the country. Take a look and let me know what you think. Just to close the loop, that exact same guy, Lt. Bolton, who told the NY Times that the Oakland PD was wary, was interviewed again, by NPR, after the design and technology changes, and he said "the changes make Nextdoor more, not less, helpful for real police work." (second to last paragraph). Law enforcement all over the country is still working with Nextdoor. [4]. Instances of racial profiling persist, a 2017 story said, though the company said "the vast majority of instances" of racial profiling have been eliminated." [5]BC1278 (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Outside of Oakland, we have the example here in Seattle: [6][7]. The Seattle Police had been increasing their engagement with Nextdoor.com, until the problems with Washington's open meetings laws were raised by a journalist who was booted from Nextdoor for reporting on an online discussion between police and Nextdoor users, and because of what Seattle Mayor Ed Murray called an atmosphere of "paranoid hysteria". The Mayor responded by ordering a review of the city's relationship with Nextdoor. Murray told a public radio interviewer that Nextdoor was amplifying the complaints of minor issues in low-crime white neighborhoods, at the expense of areas, typically communities of color, where more serious crime problems should have brought more police resources. Murray said he did not want the police's social media presence "creating a sense of paranoia or if it's about stigmatizing folks in our city that are struggling, then I have to think about why we’re in that kind of partnership".[8].

We might not put all of the above details in the article right now, but it does serve as one case study showing that this is not isolated to Oakland.

This also raises, as I said in previous comments, that the articles at The Atlantic, Seattle Times, and KUOW are sufficient reason to mention the problems with open meetings laws inherent in Nextdoor's model. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not mean to suggest that the general problem was not national in scope. Only that I think the one source cited was referring to law enforcement officials in Oakland, who did later change their minds after the new design and technology changes. Open meeting laws are interesting but to keep the discussion organized, maybe start another section when you're ready?BC1278 (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I don't think we really need to start another discussion to expand the coverage of the open meetings topic. It's pretty obvious the topic is well sourced and there's no reason to delay adding it, whenever someone is ready to take a stab at it.

Keep in mind that this is not a WP:BLP article, so content that is not perfectly sourced is not an urgent problem. We know its verifiable that this was a problem at more than one location. Ideally we would want to have a good source in the article to support that generalization, rather than only having links here on the talk page. If we wanted to get this listed as a WP:Good Article we'd have to take care of things like that first. But per editing policy, it's OK if the article is WP:IMPERFECT; it's a work in progress, and having flawed but basically decent content is a stepping stone towards a better article. Also see WP:NPOVHOW. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I meant if you wanted a discussion, since you started getting into details on the topic. If you don't want have a discussion, of course you are right.BC1278 (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I'm wrong pretty often too, but I try. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• i've added a sentence on the open meeting laws thing in this diff. Are we done here? If so, the RfC can be withdrawn. Jytdog (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jytdog:. Thanks. The new sentence on open meetings looks good to me. But I think moving the previous sentence about "wary" law enforcement officials to precede it, now takes the events out of sequence and causes a misleading impression that law enforcement officials remained wary of racial profiling issues after the design and tech changes. I'd suggest moving it back to where it was. The reference to wary law enforcement officials (referring to the Oakland's police department, specifically, as I'd suggest be said in the article, to not generalize from one police department to all others) came before the design changes; after design and tech changes, the exact same officer who expressed wariness on behalf of Oakland police department said the design and app changes had now made the app helpful for real police work, specifically because of how it dealt with descriptions of race in context. (second to last paragraph). And since law enforcement all over the country are working with Nextdoor,(here), the impression shouldn't be given that the design changes weren't effective in abating hesitation of law enforcement officials to use Nextdoor because of racial profiling concerns.BC1278 (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Fine, flipped those 2 sentences Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Are we done here? Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• note: RfC was withdrawn by the proposer in this diff on 13 June. My query above has done unanswered which I will take as a "yes". So I am going to close this, then archive it. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.