Talk:Palantir Technologies

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Byang97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Bias

This article is written by people with a vested interest in Palantir. I can tell by the glowing speech about Palantir and the fact that the editors Justineatworld and Bbarley among others have almost no other contributions to their accounts.M4bwav (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Worse than that, it seems to obscure what the company does. The lead is quite circular, saying they "produce platforms"? What kind of platforms? Drill rigs? I think it later mentions computers, so they might be somehow involved. I think it would be described as beltway bandits, a US government contractor? W Nowicki (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It certainly seems they do computer software, not drill rigs. Also noticed this great uncited paragraph of promotional jargon that needs to go (or paraphrased once someone figures out what it really means):

Palantir Metropolis (formerly known as Palantir Finance) is a software platform for data integration, information management and quantitative analysis. The software connects to commercial, proprietary and public data sets and discovers trends, relationships and anomalies. Palantir Metropolis is used to study the markets, and test and refine trading strategies and generate complex signals across asset classes.

Wikileaks Attack Plan?

http://mirror.wikileaks.info/leak/Palantir_WikiLeaks_Attack_Plan_v6.pdf i guess this is notable... Divinity76 (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

DCGS

The Army's program of record is the Distributed Common Ground System and not the Common Ground Station or System as reflected in the Wiki. The existing Wikipedia article should be read with eyes wide open. It's written as a sales and promotional piece and not as an objective and unbiased article. The reader should be aware of the debate raging between the advocates for the near term utility of Palantir versus the longer term utility of DCGS. I don't have a real dog in that fight but either way, the tax payer needs to know they are getting the greatest return on their investment. From my dealings on the Hill, I can tell you Palantir is executing an aggressive marketing campaign. Hopefully someone that knows more about this than me will write an entire Wiki entry on the DCGS program. Neal V (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. There are in fact two articles, Distributed Common Ground System created in November 2011, and DCGS-A created in July 2011. One merged article on those two might be better. The Common Ground Station seems to be the predecessor system of some kind. W Nowicki (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

2016 discrimination lawsuit in lead

@Sleeping is fun: has added information regarding the 2016 discrimination lawsuit to the lead for a third time, after being reverted twice by different editors. My position is that the lawsuit deserves coverage in the article and is already covered somewhat appropriately in the body. The current language constitutes a factual statement of the subject of the lawsuit, but it is at present just an accusation, not an adjudicated result. Until there is such a result, presenting it in the lead, according to my understanding, would be WP:UNDUE.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Given that tech companies are known to have employees monitor their Wikipedia pages, it's not surprising at all to be reverted upon posting the slightest damaging information. Not saying that you in particular have a conflict of interest, but hell, this very talk page has a thread discussing bias from years ago. Any lawsuits (especially one by the United States government) that allege systemic wrongdoing within a company should be placed in the lead, just like doping scandals are placed in the leads of athletes even when they're not conclusive. It is not undue. —Sleeping is fun (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Sleeping is fun: I'm not as experienced a Wikipedia editor as you, so I still struggle to figure out WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues. My reading of these policies is as stated above. I was surprised that you added the material to the lead at Peter Thiel without adding anything to the body and I question the neutrality of the reference name you've used in expanding the cite here. What you're telling me is that the policy on paper is not the policy applied in practice.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not non-neutral to make the ref name "racist" when the source is specifically about racial discrimination. —Sleeping is fun (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:LEAD. The lead should not include what is "newsworthy" since this is not a news site. The lead should only summarize what is in the article, and especially say why the subject is notable. As a personal observation, I can say hiring bias of one kind of another (albeit most often age and sex for example) is quite common in Silicon Valley and the technology industry in general, so except perhaps for a case being public, that does not make them notable. The details like exact numbers and verbatim quotes belong in the body only. Maybe just one sentence summarizing a couple of the controversies would be reasonable in the lead. W Nowicki (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely noteworthy enough to warrant mention in the lead, regardless of its "newsworthy" quality or lack thereof. Just because discrimination is commonplace doesn't mean that mentions of it should be hidden. This case is public, and it's especially notable because it's not simply a lawsuit from a disgruntled employee, it's a lawsuit from the federal government. I will compromise and make the adjustments to condense that part of the lead. —Sleeping is fun (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Being public isn't particularly noteworthy or unusual as far as lawsuits go. Nor is being sued by the federal government. The DoL files many lawsuits of this nature and we don't put all of them in leads, especially not when the defendant was already noteworthy for reasons independent of the lawsuit. Moreover, it's a lawsuit in progress, so there is no conclusion about any noteworthy wrongdoing actually taking place. It's puzzling what aspect of WP:LEAD demands this to be in the header. Neither the content of the lawsuit, nor its public nature nor its origin from the federal government, tell the reader why Palantir is a noteworthy subject or entice the reader to read more of the article. K.Bog 11:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that this should be kept out of the lead. The 2010 lawsuit is not in the lead, nor are similar lawsuits on other pages. I still don't see any actual argument for notability, and complaining about companies monitoring their pages is irrelevant. If there are editors trying to remove information from articles in violation of WP policies, then identify and revert their actions accordingly. Don't use the accusation as a weapon to get your way in edit wars. K.Bog 03:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed per points mentioned above. Denarivs (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted edits by IP User:67.10.167.124 who has continued after a (7-day block) to restore essentially the same material as banned user Sleeping is fun. I'm open to discussing this here, but my position remains that this lawsuit does not belong in the lead as long as it is simply an allegation and not a verdict.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2016

The link in Note-46 does not work anymore because the post has been moved here: http://www.thetechherald.com/articles/Data-intelligence-firms-proposed-a-systematic-attack-against-WikiLeaks/12751/ Postoditacco (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Done - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2017

In December 2014, Forbes reported the Palantir was looking to raise $400 million in an additional round of financing, after the company filed paperwork with the Securities and Exchange Commission the month before. Change "the Palantir" to "that Palantir". Smetti (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Zuckerberg not aware

April 10 2018, Zuckerberg pleads ignorance to senate as to influence company might have had on Cambridge Analytic. Wikipietime (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

There are a few other DBs with versioning baked in...

But I can't remember the names! Can anyone help? --Dan Bolser (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: Palantir Technologies developed HHS Protect, the database the Donald Trump administration mandated in July 2020 be sent hospital coronavirus data, rather than sending it to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, as had been done previously. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

On the plus side, that's been done. It doesn't yet have the CDC mentioned so that's something to easily add. I do have concerns with the draftsmanship / POV of that section -- particularly the Culture Digitally article which kept cropping up, which is from a year back and doesn't even mention Palantir by name. User:Princetongirl630, please correct me if I misapprehend. Frankly, I don't much like Palantir as a company, but it's important that the article be accurate and backed by reliable sources. RexSueciae (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Project Maven Section

Project Maven is completely uncited, fails to go into anything about Project Maven's significance, and the second sentence is completely irrelevant. It's not as much factual information as it is an unintelligent opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.77.136.54 (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"Palantir" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Palantir. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 7#Palantir until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 162 etc. (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Ordering/Sorting criticism by year

Right now we see this, from top to down:

"British Parliament inquiry (2018)" "ICE Partnership (since 2014)"

This is confusing to me, because why is 2018 shown before 2014? IMO it should be strictly linear based on time-sorted. Right now we have a criticism from 2018, and then one from 2014, which is ... confusing. 2014 should be grouped BEFORE 2018, IMO. 2A02:8388:1604:F600:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Total Information Awareness

Was Palantir Technologies created for the express purpose of replacing the Total Information Awareness program? If so, why not mention this fact in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Richard Perle

If Richard Perle was involved in the creation of Palantir Technologies, why don't we add a mention of this to this article (in order to help make it more properly encyclopedic)? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)