Talk:Viridos (company)

Evidence this is real?

A google search shows no web presence for this company. I can't find any mention of it at all. Can anybody confirm this is a bona fide company? If not, we should VfD it. Tobycat 1 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)

Um, maybe you misspelled it?[1][2][3] Niteowlneils 2 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)

Rename to Synthetic_Genomics_(company)?

I got to this page looking for more information about the Mycoplasma laboratorium creation/experiment/"Regenisis"/whatever.. So I added a {About} template redirecting to the generic page Synthetic genomics about the nascent field of biology. Any comments on the appropriateness - that is, if the question of whether the company Synthetic Genomics actually exists or not has been settled. (I don't know) Jimw338 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Major Changes to Site Content to Reflect Business as Of 2016

Hi, my name is Tei and I am currently an employee of Synthetic Genomics. As a two year employee of Synthetic Genomics, I have watched the company change considerably since I joined. As a long time Wikipedia supporter and part-time editor, I have kept close tabs on the main page for quite some time and have been growing more and more eager to change it as the business has evolved from a startup company into a mature corporation with a large portfolio of goods and services that cater to a far-reaching industry.

As an employee of the company, I most definitely fall into the conflict of interest category, but I also have a very clear understanding of the business and would like to somehow convey this to the public in an accurate and objective manner. As such, I have made a draft in my user space here that proposes updates to the infobox, the history as well as the vision, mission and goals of the organization as a whole.

As this is my first time editing an article with such a background, I would very much enjoy any advice/feedback from the administrators on how to improve the draft article linked to in the user space above.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to help with these relevant modifications

Issues With Current Article

Extended content

Out of Date Information The article was created in 2005 and mentions the first set of products that the company was set up to produce including ethanol and hydrogen. As of 2016, this is very much outdated as this is far from the companies core set of offerings The article makes it appear that the company is focusing on making genetically engineered algae to produce biofuel. While this is partially accurate, it is definitely not the main focus of the company (ie it is not a biofuels company)

Proposed Changes

Extended content

Layout (Major Changes) Changed layout by adding the "Target Markets" section that outlines the division of the company similar to Boeing and "Products Section" similar to Shire Summary Information (Update) Changed the summary content at the top to reflect the current vision and mission of the company which is to focus on using state of the art tools in the field of synthetic biology to make relevant biological products in a wide range of industries Company Infobox (Update) Added up to date information to the company info box reflecting the current board members, products, services and subsidiaries (several were created since the articles original creation in 2005) Information Regarding Divisions (Addition) Added information about the target markets. Synthetic Genomics is a company that applies its core technology to a wide variety of industries and has created relationships with several "movers and shakers" in the industry that will give the many novel benefits of synthetic biology a much better chance of making their way into the mainstream Current Product Line (Addition) Added a few example products produced by the company taking examples from other biologically relevant companies such as Pfizer has done Timeline (Update) Added a little bit more information with references to the timeline of the company

Teilhardo (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tei. I think your proposed draft could definitely be an improvement from the current state of the article. But there are some issues, mainly complying with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy, and keeping the tone of the article as unbiased as possible. The most obvious red flags are phrases that are frequently used in press releases, but are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. These promotional terms include phrases such as "foundational know-how", "leveraging", and "expertise." Just as importantly, watch out for sentences that sound vaguely positive, but don't actually tell the reader anything specific. They should be condensed and written more tersely. Don't list off too many products, but describe just the most important ones. Remove all trademark symbols; they are discouraged by our Manual of Style. Avoid overlinking terms. And this last one is very important: try to rely more upon independent sources, i.e ones that have no connection to SGI.

I have made some edits to your draft. It is in your userspace, so you are welcome to revert my edits if you see fit. However, the chances of your draft being accepted into the article mainspace will be much higher if you reduce the promotional tone of the page. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

And another thing: you must somehow address the controversy behind bioengineering DNA and synthetic cells in this article. From my news searches, it seems like Mr. Venter is is very heavily involved in this area; I don't know how much this extends to the company he founded, but there should be some explanation of the controversy. Part of writing a neutral article is acknowledging and addressing the detractors of a subject. Altamel (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Altamel. Thank you very much for taking a look at the draft and aligning the wording to something that is more Wikipedia-friendly. I think that you're edits definitely reflect the company far better than what is currently on the page and I don't think that there is much more editing that is required. Do you think that your version could replace the version that is currently on the mainspace?

As for Mr. Venter... While he was an active part of the company during its founding and mid-stages, he was replaced as CEO about 1.5yrs ago and no longer plays a directly active role in the company. Regarding the contraversy with "bioengineering and synthetic cells", Synthetic Genomics was never (as far as I'm aware) involved in any type notoriety in this area short of the anti-GMO movement that pertains to ALL companies in the field. What specifically would we need to mention?

Thanks, Teilhardo (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to acknowledge the general controversy behind engineering synthetic lifeforms. The New York Times wrote in an article, "many environmental groups worry that synthetic bugs could become the ultimate invasive species", so that's just one example. It's been difficult finding details of what specific work SGI is performing, but as I assume it has to do with engineering synthetic lifeforms, the controversy seems relevant. Additionally, you still have to follow through with my advice about removing the trademark symbols. I fixed some promotional sentences in the draft for you as an example, but not all of them, so you should fix the rest. After all, there are currently 170+ edit requests in the backlog to be dealt with. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Altamel, thank you for the comments. I will work to update the pages with your suggestions. I aim to have them completed sans trademark symbols and promotional sentences. As I am fairly new to these waters, would you be able to point out specific phrases that are blatant examples of excessive promotion?

Thanks, Teilhardo (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

A few examples: "world leader in algae platform", that definitely fits into the "red-flag" phrases I mentioned above and has to go. "Solutions to three end markets": what is a solution? In my opinion, it is a vaguely positive phrase because it doesn't tell the reader what SG actually does, it only implies the positive connotation of the word "solution." Same thing with "builds biological systems to solve global sustainability problems"; how do the systems help solve the problems? With the sentence "Synthetic Genomics uses...to design and build biological systems", pick a few of the most important techniques and summarize the sentence. This gives you a few more suggestions for fixing the draft. If you want to get a feel for what is promotional and what is not, read more Wikipedia articles, and notice how the well-written ones try to be as dispassionate as possible with their topic. Altamel (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Altamel, thank you for the comments. I gave my draft one more go around after reading a few more articles that might breach similar conflict of interest territory. I went ahead and tried to remove all the "vaguely positive" wording by replacing them with more objective terminology (eg from "solves" to "operates" and removed terminology like "high quality"). Would you mind seeing if this updated version is more up to the proper standards. I am happy to continue working on it as you see fit. At this point, we really think that it is factually wrong in its present state and would give any member of the public a false perception of of our company (whether or not it is viewed in a positive or negative light...)

Thanks,

Teilhardo (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Factual Update Request

Full disclosure, I am currently an employee of the company and would like to to readdress the factual inaccuracy of the page that was originally brought up in the Major Changes to Site Content to Reflect Business as Of 2016 section.

The concerns raised in this section elaborated on the information portrayed on the original page reflecting Synthetic Genomics as being in the Ethanol and Hydrogen businesses which it is not involved in as of 2016. Factual inaccuracies were fixed in the version on my USER SPACE PAGE and it was requested that an administrator with no conflict of interest verify it before updating the original page.

As a current company employee, I can verify that this version is factually accurate and I did my best to remain objective and impartial but it is important that we nevertheless publish accurate information about our company. I am more than happy to answer any questions about this. Thanks, Teilhardo (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)