3 ms·

I can understand not wanting to have an ARTICLE on each YC companies... But it seems that any page that is primarily about a VC firm would benefit from an up t

I can understand not wanting to have an ARTICLE on each YC companies... But it seems that any page that is primarily about a VC firm would benefit from an up to date listing of investments (and status of those companies). This list would provide a better understanding of YC. Given that there is no SEO juice with links from Wikipedia and given that being on the list resulted in 2-10 vists per day for RescueTime (when we were on it), I see lots of benefit (in term of being accurate/complete), no harm, and no real significant benefit to the companies lists.

hugh 18y ago
The articles for prominent VC firms don't have a complete list of their investments. There's 20-something listed for Kleiner Perkins, 30-something for Sequoia, and only 3 for DFJ.
- Goladus 18y ago
  Why not include a complete list though, so long as it can be maintained? If the information is public I don't see any good reason why it must be a subset.
  - rbanffy 18y ago
    I think that is what the VC company's site could be used for.
    - webwright 18y ago
      By that logic, ANY entities site could be used for ANY information on Wikipedia. The point is that it's valuable and useful information that isn't readily available (most VCs keep incomplete lists, probably to marginalize the failures). The lists would enhance the knowledge of the reader, which SHOULD be the goal of Wikipedia.
    - Goladus 18y ago
      I don't. Lists are easily maintained on a wiki with a large number of users, which you wouldn't get with a VC company site. Given that the wikipedia article is about a notable company, and the list of funded companies is one of the most important facts about that notable company, it should be included in its entirety. There is almost nothing to be gained by having a partial list. I would think that either you'd include a list that is as complete as possible, or not include it at all. Doing a partial list because you don't WANT it complete is just warped.

hugh 18y ago

The articles for prominent VC firms don't have a complete list of their investments. There's 20-something listed for Kleiner Perkins, 30-something for Sequoia, and only 3 for DFJ.

Goladus 18y ago
Why not include a complete list though, so long as it can be maintained? If the information is public I don't see any good reason why it must be a subset.
- rbanffy 18y ago
  I think that is what the VC company's site could be used for.
  - webwright 18y ago
    By that logic, ANY entities site could be used for ANY information on Wikipedia. The point is that it's valuable and useful information that isn't readily available (most VCs keep incomplete lists, probably to marginalize the failures). The lists would enhance the knowledge of the reader, which SHOULD be the goal of Wikipedia.
  - Goladus 18y ago
    I don't. Lists are easily maintained on a wiki with a large number of users, which you wouldn't get with a VC company site. Given that the wikipedia article is about a notable company, and the list of funded companies is one of the most important facts about that notable company, it should be included in its entirety. There is almost nothing to be gained by having a partial list. I would think that either you'd include a list that is as complete as possible, or not include it at all. Doing a partial list because you don't WANT it complete is just warped.