Jump to content

Talk:Index Ventures

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Dahawk04 in topic Headquarters update
[edit]
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Index Ventures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

History section edit request

[edit]

Hi Wikipedia editors, this is Kelsey from Index Ventures. I've read up on the rules for Wikipedia and disclosed my COI on my user page here: Kelsey at Index. I've also added my COI template to this talk page.

I'm here on this page because the article has had a tag on it for quite some time and I'd like to make an honest effort to try and clean up the page with better sourcing. I understand that this new content must be reviewed and approved by the editor community. Below is a draft I've put together which would ideally replace the History section.

In this draft, I've made a handful of updates:

  • Added a new Canadian Jewish News article to cite the company was founded in 1996.
  • Used a Private Equity International article to cite that Index closed a third round of funding for $300 million in 2001.
  • Cited a Wired article that noted Neil Rimer's brother Danny joined the company in 2002 and expanded Index globally, opening an office in London, then later in San Francisco. (the SF fact is cited to a TechCrunch piece.)
  • Cited a different TechCrunch article that reveals info on Index Seed. Also cited a separate TC piece that noted Index launched an early-stage fund $550 million.
  • Added the news from 2016 that Index's biotech companies were spun off into a new business named Medixci Ventures.
  • Added news of Index's latest dedicated seed fund named Index Origin, which initially started with $200 million. Also added that Origin II launched with $300 million, bringing the total Index has raised to over $12 billion as of 2022, cited to a CNET piece.
  • Finally, added that Index opened an NYC office in 2022, cited to a Bloomberg piece.

Please read below:

With this draft, I tried to focus on the rounds of funding Index has raised and the company's expansion while employing a neutral tone and citing high-quality sources. If any editors have questions about this draft, please ping me and I'm happy to answer. Thank you so much! Kelsey at Index (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi everyone, jumping back into this post to drop a ping to a few editors who have been active on this page in the past, hoping somebody has the interest or time to evaluate this request: User:MarioGom, User:Salsakesh, User:Certes, and User:Explicit. Again, if there are any questions about this request please let me know because I'll be around to reply. Thank you!Kelsey at Index (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for making the effort to collaborate and to be neutral. Unfortunately I'm not a private equity expert; I just fixed a typo here. Certes (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi user:Certes, thank you so much for that typo fix and for the response. I'm still seeking out editor feedback on this History request, and the Partners request I've just posted. Are you aware of any Wiki Projects or places where I can find editors who would be interested in providing feedback on this request? If you could point me in a direction, that would be very helpful. I see that you are not active as much on Wikipedia these days so if you don't respond I completely understand. Thank you again. Kelsey at Index (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
All I can suggest is the talk pages of the projects and task forces linked at the top of this talk page: California, San Francisco Bay Area, Companies and Private Equity (probably in ascending order of relevance). Certes (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello user:Certes, this is Rachel hopping in here for Kelsey. I've added my COI disclosure to this Talk page to maintain transparency. Thank you for the guidance here; we've posted to both the WikiProjects for California/SF Bay Area as well as Companies, and so far, zero traction.
I'll also drop a ping to user:Onel5969 who I see minorly edited the article recently to see if there's any interest there in evaluating this request. Rachel at Index (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Jumping back on this edit request to ping an editor that's been very active over on WikiProject: Companies, user:CNMall41. On this Talk page, you'll see two highly detailed edit requests that I've drafted and posted, both of which use only the best sourcing available. It would be fantastic if you could carve out the time to evaluate these and potentially implement them into the article. @Rachel at Index and I have had a tough time getting any editor traction on this Talk page, and any feedback at all would be appreciated. Kelsey at Index (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Kelsey at Index:, thanks for the ping. I can only speak from my point of view but the lack of traction likely comes from the page needing cleanup and removal of some of the content prior to the addition of more. I would be more than happy to do the cleanup and remove the tag but it needs quite a bit of trimming. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Rachel at Index you have a reference to "Neil's brother" later would only make sense with Neil being introduced earlier, which happens in the existing article but not your draft section. Otherwise this looks okay. I don't love the long list of funding rounds but that's in the existing article as well so it's not a barrier to my accepting it. Rusalkii (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Being that there is a large number of edit requests and given the tone of the current page, I copied the page to draftspace here. I will work on some of the cleanup and also attempt to work in anything proposed here if it meets requirements. Anyone is free to work on the draft as well. This may help move the edit requests along. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much for taking a look @CNMall41! Kelsey at Index (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I'm currently going through old edit requests - can this be closed or is it still being sorted? Thanks! Encoded  Talk 💬 08:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Encoded - yes, thanks for checking in! This can be closed. Appreciate your help. Kelsey at Index (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kelsey at Index: I was looking at this too and am confused. It's not just adding info and sources. There's some info that's being removed without explanation, such as the info about Israeli investments. Also, why do we need another source for the 1996 foundation of Index Ventures when there's already a source there? And I also noticed that the version moved to the sandbox hasn't been touched in months. Are you sure you want to close this? STEMinfo (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Partners section edit request

[edit]

Hi, this is Kelsey back to post my next edit request. While I'm still seeking feedback on my previous edit request for the History section, I've gone ahead and drafted up a new edit request here to update the Partners section. Specifically, the list of partners is out-of-date, and with this draft, I've aimed to update it with proper notable sourcing. Here are the changes I've made to the draft:

  • Added a new Wired citation for Danny Rimer
  • Cited a new TechCrunch piece for both Martin Mignot and Shardul Shah
  • Added Jan Hammer as a partner cited to a Business Insider article
  • Added Nina Achadijan as a partner cited to a TechCrunch article
  • Added Carlos Gonzalez-Cadenas as a partner cited to a TechCrunch article
  • Vlad Loktev added to the list of partners, cited to a Fortune article
  • Removed the following people as they are no longer partners: Neil Rimer, Mike Volpi, Mark Goldberg, Dominique Vidal, and Bernard Dalle.

If editors have any questions about this draft, please ping me and I will be ready to respond. Thank you! Kelsey at Index (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kelsey at Index, you mention seven partners and then list six. Is the seventh unknown? Is there a known reason for this or could you just not find a good source for them? Rusalkii (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Rusalkii! Thank you for the response and question. Our seventh is an operations partner, Adrianna Ma. Unfortunately we weren't able to find a good source to reference her here. I'm open to recommendations on how to reframe this section if we can provide more clarity! Thanks so much. Kelsey at Index (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay, looking at this again, I can see the support for each of them joining the team, but I don't see anything saying that's there's 7 partners or that the other partners are no longer on the team. If we can't find a source for that I think we may want to just cut this section, especially since it seems that it changes quickly. Rusalkii (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Kelsey at Index:, is there a link on the company website that shows the current list of partners? Although primary, it can be used as a reference for such information. This would be easier than trying to figure out who is who from the references that expand almost 10 years. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you both for those call outs! @CNMall41 unfortunately we don't have one sole piece identifying all partners in the clear way you're looking for, even on our website, just given the way our Team page is structured. The website has partner titles on each of their bio pages, but that's the extent it goes.
Typically our team won't have massive personnel changes which is why it may span decades. Our hope is the past few years' team changes will be the last for a while. Thank you again for your time looking at this and definitely let me know if there are other avenues we might consider exploring for this section (or others). Kelsey at Index (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not work in the manner you requested. We have a reference saying the names you want removed are partners. There should be a reference saying they are no longer partners in order to remove them. Or, a primary source from your website listing current partners would also suffice. I am removing for sake of argument but if someone decides to add them back I will not object. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looking at both requests, there is a lot that shouldn't be done. No need to add different references when there is already a reliable source supporting such information. It is over referencing (WP:REFBOMB) and not necessary. Listing all of its funds can get into promotional territory so did not add the new fund. I would clean up the page to what I have here which would also remove the paid editing notice from the top since it has been checked for WP:NPOV. If there are any recommendations to that draft let me know. Otherwise I can go ahead and implement the content. Not sure how to incorporate all of the investments as WP:INDISCRIMINATE may apply. I would be happy to add them back as-is, but if removed by another editor I would not object. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you user:CNMall41 for whipping up that draft of the article. I just have some questions (as well as a suggestion for Investments) about that before it is implemented into the article: (1) Could we keep the last sentence from my History draft about Index opening up an NYC office (just the Bloomberg citation will do; no need for both like you've stated)? (2) Do you see any awards from the Awards section that could be implemented into the History section? I'm okay with the section being removed, but perhaps there is room for some of those to be integrated into History, and (3) Do you see a way the latest fund could be added that doesn't read as promotional? Maybe trimming mentions of previous funds could help in that aspect, but I'll leave it up to you of course.
You'd mentioned not being sure about how to deal with the investments, so I will post an updated Investments section that proposes the addition of good sourcing and provides a clear reasoning for which investments to include, so please keep an eye out for that. Kelsey at Index (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have done everything I am willing to do at the moment as it took a lot of work. For the requests made in the next section, these can be addressed once the proposed draft is implemented. It would also make it easier for an editor who reviews the request as the cruft and promo information would be gone at that point. Do you have any comments about what is currently in that draft? Let me know and I can implement it. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just to ensure we're aligned, are you asking only for comments on details included in the draft, and are you not willing to consider adding anything right now? The only questions or comments are the ones I had in my previous note, so if it would be best to implement the draft as is and return to those later that works for me. Thank you again; this draft is a great idea for moving things forward. Kelsey at Index (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi user:CNMall41, I'm pinging this thread to make sure you saw my previous reply and the new edit request I dropped below. Once again, thank you for all the attention you've given here. Kelsey at Index (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am asking about the draft specifically. I am just focusing directly on the draft at the moment and want to give you an opportunity to opine prior to implementing. The point of the draft is to clean up the page more inline with guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think the best course of action is to implement your draft the way it is now. In the future, if I have smaller edit requests, I can make them in line with what I’ve done with the Investments section posted below. Kelsey at Index (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I'm currently going through old edit requests - can this be closed or is it still being sorted? Thanks! Encoded  Talk 💬 08:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Encoded-- thanks again for checking! We are sorted for now on this section. Appreciate your reply. Kelsey at Index (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Brilliant thank you! Encoded  Talk 💬 21:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Investments update

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Further to CNMall41's feedback above, I'm back with a request for the Investments section, which is currently outdated, full of bad or broken sourcing, and generally a bit of a mess. To improve it, I've written a draft with a lot of changes and focuses on companies Index has invested in that have their own Wikipedia article themselves. (The only company I added that didn't have their own article is Dream Games because it had a solid source, so feel free to remove that one if it doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria).

Read all the changes here:

  • Added a paragraph noting specifically how Index is structured noting that investors are given the title of partners, cited to a Sifted article.
  • Also noted that all Index partners invest out of the same pool of funds regardless of where they're located, cited to Business Insider.
  • Added a final sentence to the paragraph noting specifically who Index's investors are: non-profit foundations, pension funds, healthcare, education and research endowments, cited to Sifted.
  • Since I proposed removing mentions of Israeli investment in my previous drafts, I've added a new sentence here that includes specific financial figures showing Index's presence in Israel. I also added that Juriaan Duizendstraal is based in Tel Aviv, all cited to CTECH.
  • I've removed the following companies from the section because I couldn't source a good reference: Codeacademy, Bird Company, Betfair, Duo Security, Supercell, Trello, Zendesk, Zuora, SCM Microsystems, Tines, Abacus AI, Citymapper, Weaviate, Intercom, Notion, Ubiquity6, and Motorway
  • Added a new chart that organizes companies by the decade which Index invested into them and added the following companies into each. For each company I avoided press releases and only used the highest quality sourcing I could find: ApplyBoard, Mistral AI, 1stdibs, Adallom, Adzuna, Algolia, Anine Bing, Arist Networks, Boku Inc., CockroachDB, Discord, Hortonworks, Just Eat, onefinestay, Ozon, Squarespace, Wiz, Scale AI, Datadog, Dream Games, Figma, Revolut, Slack, Patreon. Notion, ClickHouse, and Wise.

Please read below:

Partly done: Added all except Scale AI due to it using a deprecated source. Also reworded the opening paragraphs a bit. Encoded  Talk 💬 08:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If editors have feedback, please reply below, and I'll respond quickly. I'm going to tag both user:Rusalkii and user:CNMall41 here because they've shown a clear and helpful interest in improving the article. Thank you again. Kelsey at Index (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is getting a bit convoluted. I added the opening of the NY office to the draft on CNMall41's page. I see that Kelsey later acknowledged removing the Israel info. My recommendation would be to move the draft live, close these requests, and then rewrite any new requests. Every editor is different, but I've found it's useful if the requests are put into a textdiff template, so we can see what the changes are without having to put the text into the draft and compare versions ourselves. I wrote some info that you might find useful for future requests. User:STEMinfo/COI_edit_requests_for_novices. If you make the requests short, simple and gradual, it may not take nearly 6 months the next time. STEMinfo (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@STEMinfo:, the purpose of the draft was to clean up the page to Wikipedia standards. There were so many edit requests that I felt it easier to just do a cleanup instead of waiting for all of the future ones. The draft was moved to mainspace as a way to get a good base for a neutral page, allowing COI editors to make any additional requests thereafter. This appears to be the first edit request since then so the previous requests can likely be closed out. As far as listing all of the investments, it would promotional to simply list all of them in this manner unless there is some type of encyclopedic value. I have done this in the past I know but see it as promotional at this point per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Of course, if there is consensus to do so then let it be but I don't support it. Just my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Encoded:@CNMall41: Pinging you both so we can wrap this up. Encoded's edits adding the long list of investments were reverted by CNMall41. The question is whether including so many investments is encyclopedic. While I can see the argument that an investment is the firm's product, and it does get media coverage, perhaps we can find a middle ground. Not listing every investment that is made, but rather the ones that are exited in a notable way? In other words, only when the investment either is flagged as successful or unsuccessful? After all, the company hasn't made any money until they exit, right? STEMinfo (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@STEMinfo: I'm happy with the idea of adding those that exited in a notable way, I see how adding them all can be problematic and hopefully this works for all. Thanks, Encoded  Talk 💬 16:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think it would be a slippery slope to classify something as "successful" or "unsuccessful." I think we could include any where their work was somehow significant, not just that they worked on it. By significant, I mean their work on the project was covered in more detail rather than just mentioning they worked on. Let me know if that makes sense. If not, I am sure I can find a few examples. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think we're making progress towards consensus. I don't think we have to qualify an exit as successful or not, but just report it if it gets coverage. We could call the section Notable investment exits. Here's a source that could be used as a starting point. []. Once we see where this goes, we could consider additional criteria for other investments that got coverage for being more than just a run of the mill investment. A criteria that comes to mind might be a company that shoots to a multi-billion unicorn paper valuation after additional larger funding rounds, but I'm open to suggestions here as well. STEMinfo (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
That reference is paywalled so I cannot see it. The heading should be "select projects" in my opinion as "notable" is subjective. If the project itself was notable, there would be a Wikipedia page about the project (e.g., Construction of the World Trade Center). I also think it needs more than just "get[ting] coverage." Their role in the construction should be discussed, not just a mention of them being involved in the work. Otherwise we could just list all of their projects which would fail WP:NOT. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Headquarters update

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello again, I'm back on this Talk page to post a new edit request to correct some information in the article about the company's headquarters. Since it's been a while, I'll reintroduce myself: I'm Kelsey from Index Ventures. Per discussion above, now that the page has been cleaned up by editors, I want to approach some corrections through smaller specific requests, starting with the headquarters.

Throughout the article, there is mention of two headquarters and dual headquarters, however this is not correct and I'd like to offer some edits and sources to clear this up. I believe that the information in the introduction and infobox is based on this line within the History: "Index Ventures' dual headquarters in San Francisco and London were opened in 2011 and 2002, respectively." Neither of the references for this sentence use the wording "dual headquarters", and other later sources that I've found that do use this type of wording seem to be basing it off the details here on Wikipedia. On the Index Ventures website we list all our locations simply as offices. If Wikipedia needs to keep one location listed as a headquarters, per the website, London is the registered office and would be the most appropriate to list as the headquarters. To clear things up, I've put together a few edits to the current article as follows:

  • Added mention of the founding location in Geneva in the History using the existing reference
  • Separated out the mentions of the San Francisco and London offices in the History as follows:
    • Added a sentence noting the establishment of the London office in 2002 to appear chronologically in the text, sourced to the existing TechCrunch reference
    • Amended the sentence about the San Francisco office, to focus on that one office and explain its opening represented the firm's expansion to the US, sourced to the existing TechCrunch reference
  • Added a sentence in the History to note the opening of the NYC office in 2022 and that the firm continued to operate two other offices in Jersey and Geneva, sourced to TechCrunch and the Financial Times
  • Updated the introduction to note that the firm's headquarters is in London and that it has offices in SF, NYC, Jersey and Geneva

I'd also like to ask that the infobox be updated to note London, United Kingdom as the only headquarters and to add that the firm's area served is "Worldwide".

Let me know if you have any feedback by replying below, and I'll respond as quickly as possible. Thank you again. Kelsey at Index (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. Dahawk04 (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Dahawk04, thanks so much for the review. I'll go ahead and make those edits. Thanks again! Kelsey at Index (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Done Done by requestor: The requested changes have been implemented. Dahawk04 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Index_Ventures&oldid=1300028510"