Talk:Mo Koyfman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infobox occupation updates?[edit]

Anyone have objections to changing his Occupation from the very vague "Business executive" to "Venture capitalist" ? I'm not sure what best practices are for the Occupation field in Infoboxes, but looking at his LinkedIn, for the past 12+ years he's been doing VC... seems a more apt description. He hasn't been in a C-level role (like COO at CV) since May 2008 (again according to his LinkedIn -- https://www.linkedin.com/in/mokoyfman/ -- which I'm not sure if we're allowed to cite? maybe not cite but use... anyhow... still learning here and open to all feedback!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickgray (talk • contribs) 15:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure[edit]

While I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, I am a paid consultant to the subject of the article. I always try my best to abide by WP: Five Pillars, improving the encyclopedia. If you feel I've fallen short, I'm always willing to discuss!BC1278 (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Notability[edit]

In many sources, Koyfman is primarily quoted or mentioned as an investor or board member. I'm relying on WP: BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." BC1278 (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

media appearances[edit]

Not encyclopedic; moved here in case any of these refs can be used for encyclopedic content.

He has been a frequent guest on Bloomberg Television, speaking on topics such as Facebook,[1] [2] Bitcoin,[3] politics,[4] Apple,[5] and Uber.[6] He also appeared on CNBC discussing social media,[7] and as a judge on Power Pitch.[8]

References

  1. ^ Bloomberg (2012-05-17), Koyfman Says Facebook Faces Risks with Revenue, retrieved 2018-05-08
  2. ^ "Sift Science Lands $18M Series B From Spark Capital To Stop Credit Card Fraud – TechCrunch". techcrunch.com. Retrieved 2018-05-10.
  3. ^ "Why You Should Be Bullish on Bitcoin: Mo Koyfman: Video". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2018-05-10.
  4. ^ "Is Vladimir Putin Just Another in a Long Line of Despots?". www.bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2018-05-08.
  5. ^ "Who Are the New Leaders in the World of Tech?". www.bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2018-05-08.
  6. ^ "Uber Is a Magical Customer Experience: Mo Koyfman: Video". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2018-05-08.
  7. ^ "Hot StartUp: Niche Social Media Sites". CNBC. Retrieved 2018-05-10.
  8. ^ "Symcat CEO: Symptoms to Solutions". CNBC. Retrieved 2018-05-10.

-- Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Creator had said here and here that this was ready for review. I reviewed it. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropy[edit]

Reliable sources have to be given to show the importance of these organisations and his role in them (when to when) to show that this is not just pr trivia to improve his image. Dom from Paris (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: You indicated in your edit explanation that you couldn't find the website for ArtWorks to establish its bona fides. Here it is: http://awnyc.org/ To show the importance of the other three organizations, I added internal links to their Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure if I can get the 'when to when' dates for each, but I will look.BC1278 (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
Looks like Jytdog also found the internal link for Artworks Wikipedia article and he added that.BC1278 (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
more like i just wrote it. :) It is kind of marginal but it seemed worth doing. Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Oh wow. That's nice of you.BC1278 (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Art in article[edit]

Dom from Paris removed a section about the subject's art collecting. [dif]

I had two sources but I can add more sourcing about this subject if the section is added back. Or I can do the proposed edit with more sources here, first, if you prefer.

Since Jytdog just did the review, alerting them to see what they think. BC1278 (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

I think the edit note is kind of pushing the limits of logic. How else do we know what is important to people outside of what they say? That said, if he is an important collector then there should be indendepent refs talking about that... I thought it was kind of interesting. There has been lots of buzz in the entrepreneurship world about how diverse cities with vibrant culture like NYC draw the kind of people who innovate -- who want to live in that kind of environment (see for example pthis report from MIT). Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will do a proposed modification with more sources and propose the new language and sourcing here. I thought it was one of the most interesting things about him, which I learned about entirely through secondary source research. I didn't want to overdo the length or over source, but I'll push it a but further.BC1278 (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
When someone wants to give an image of being interested in the arts and a collectionner they will say "I'm interested in the arts and a collectionner". We all know Rockefeller was a collectionner of art because of his collection of art. These sources say nothing about how many pieces he bought how much he invested. It is primary sourcing and anecdotal Dom from Paris (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will re-post here with more secondary sources. In a day or two. It's not going to show how much he invested, though. That info is never going to be public except perhaps with a high-profile art auction where an investigative reporter unearths the winning bidder. The primary reason people have written about him in connection to the arts is because of the nexus of art and tech investing. I will try to make that clearer in the writing and with secondary sources.BC1278 (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
If he is recognised by independent reliable sources as being a patron of the arts and being influential then it would be worth adding otherwise if it is PR bumpf of the sort that was in there originally it is simply trivia and not significant, good for his image but of no interest to an encyclopedia. I understand your job is to make him look as good as possible but this kind of stuff has to be reliably sourced. Negative information is removed if the sources are not strong enough and we should require the same level of sourcing for positive information on paid editing I believe. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dom from Paris, Jytdog Revised proposed art section below, with additional sourcing and context, as requested.

Art[edit]

Artnet News named Koyfman one of the 200 top collectors of the art in the world in 2015.[1] Koyfman primarily collects New York-based young, emerging artists,[2] especially mixed media art.[3] Koyfman told the New York Times that technology entrepreneurs have difficulty participating in the art world because it is highly structured and hierarchical, whereas technologists are accustomed to "leveling the playing field."[2] He has said that since startups at the intersection of the creative and tech world had emerged in New York, such as Kickstarter, Etsy and Tumblr, technologists in New York are more comfortable in the art world than those on West Coast.[3][2] At a panel at the Whitney Museum, he said the internet was becoming an influential method for democratizing art collecting.[4]

@Domdeparis:, @Jytdog: Does the additional information above justify returning this section to the story, in your opinion? The "top 200 collectors in the world" reference would seem to give the scale of his collecting context. Thanks, Ed-BC1278 (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Template on homepage[edit]

Regarding the template on the homepage, if the article seems somewhat like a resume, it is because editors removed the section above, about Art; quotations about some of the companies he works with, like Sefaria; and comments about what he looks for in investments. In short, more humanizing content that separates a resume from an article.

Even so, there remains some content about why start ups became popular in NYC and his investment focus. So it's not all jobs.

It's difficult to write an article so it will have some flavor, then after that flavor is removed by others, have a tag complain that the article is flavorless. Quite a bind.

I'd suggest however that the article has been well-vetted by experienced reviewers, and it is unfair to tag it as not neutral or encyclopedic. So, even without the flavor package of the Art section, quotes and investment philosophy, the tag from the homepage should be removed.-BC1278 (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278.[reply]

Request Edit[edit]

Hi,

Please add the following section after Career. See above for discussion.

Art[edit]

Artnet News named Koyfman one of the 200 top collectors of the art in the world in 2015.[5] Koyfman primarily collects New York-based young, emerging artists,[2] especially mixed media art.[3] Koyfman told the New York Times that technology entrepreneurs have difficulty participating in the art world because it is highly structured and hierarchical, whereas technologists are accustomed to "leveling the playing field."[2] He has said that since startups at the intersection of the creative and tech world had emerged in New York, such as Kickstarter, Etsy and Tumblr, technologists in New York are more comfortable in the art world than those on West Coast.[3][2] At a panel at the Whitney Museum, he said the internet was becoming an influential method for democratizing art collecting.[6]

BC1278 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]


Comment: Since his name is among those listed only as "Collectors to Watch", it isn't a significant mention and should be used at all, even qualified as such. It is just a listing of the name., with no other information provided DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: The publication's naming terminology is confusing. But if you can, please take a look at their stated methodology (excerpted below in ital). All the "Collectors to Watch" are on their list of the top 200 art collector's worldwide. They just don't get a mini-profile profile in the story. But "Collectors to Watch" does not mean they are not part of the list of the top 200 art collectors worldwide. Easy enough to confirm this by counting that the list adds up to 200 only with the "Collectors to Watch." The research process they describe to compile the list of 200 is intensive and they are one of 2 or 3 art world publications with the expertise to do such a list, which is written for art world insiders.
"Some collectors are profiled in depth, while others, our “Collectors to Watch”—including emerging connoisseurs, those who are operating under the radar, and those who were once very active even if they’ve been quieter in recent years—are incorporated by name only."
"Organized alphabetically, the index is the culmination of a three-month process that began with a poll of experts in the industry—including dealers, art advisers, and other insiders—and involved the efforts of staff and freelance writer Emily Nathan."BC1278 (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
I made my comment after having read the full description, and because I've read the full description. Their position amounts to what we call Not Yet Notable. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "artnet News Top 200 Art Collectors Worldwide for 2015, Part Two". Artnet. 30 April 2015. Retrieved 30 May 2018.("Some collectors are profiled in depth, while others, our “Collectors to Watch”—including emerging connoisseurs, those who are operating under the radar, and those who were once very active even if they’ve been quieter in recent years—are incorporated by name only." '... the index is the culmination of a three-month process that began with a poll of experts in the industry—including dealers, art advisers, and other insiders...))
  2. ^ a b c d e f Gregory, Alice (2013-04-03). "Art and Techology: a Clash of Cultures". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-05-10.
  3. ^ a b c d "Venture Capitalist Mo Koyfman on Why the Tech Industry Will Come Around to Art". Artspace. Retrieved 2018-05-07.
  4. ^ Black, Stephanie (23 March 2016). "How Young Collectors Can Build A Killer Art Collection". Art Zealous. Retrieved 30 May 2018.
  5. ^ "artnet News Top 200 Art Collectors Worldwide for 2015, Part Two". Artnet. 30 April 2015. Retrieved 30 May 2018.("Some collectors are profiled in depth, while others, our “Collectors to Watch”—including emerging connoisseurs, those who are operating under the radar, and those who were once very active even if they’ve been quieter in recent years—are incorporated by name only." '... the index is the culmination of a three-month process that began with a poll of experts in the industry—including dealers, art advisers, and other insiders...))
  6. ^ Black, Stephanie (23 March 2016). "How Young Collectors Can Build A Killer Art Collection". Art Zealous. Retrieved 30 May 2018.

Request Edit Feb. 13, 2020[edit]

I work with Mo Koyfman, so have a COI. I am requesting an independent editor please consider the following updates:

  • As the new last paragraph of “Career” - following the sentence “He left Spark in 2016, and founded and became the CEO of MOKO Brands, an investment company focused on consumer brands.” please add:

In 2019, Koyfman and Josh Mohrer launched Shine Capital, a new early stage venture capital firm.[1]

  • In the fourth paragraph of “Career”, after the fourth sentence, which reads: “Koyfman's exits for Spark include EBay buying Svvply, AOL buying gdgt, and Adobe Systems buying Aviary.”, please insert:

In January 2020, Mastercard bought Plaid for $5.3 billion. While at Spark, Koyfman had led the seed round for Plaid at a $10 million valuation.[2]

Thank you for your consideration. Joshmohrer (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 13-FEB-2020[edit]

  Edit request declined  

  1. The WSJ reference for claim number one is based on a press release from the subject of the article, and thus, is not an independent, WP:SECONDARY source ("...according to people familiar with the situation..."[1]).
  2. The WSJ reference for claim number two speaks to the purchase of Plaid as a future expected action ("...the deal is expected to generate...."[2]). This item should be mentioned after the deal is completed, per WP:FUTURE. Additionally, it is not known what is meant by the term led.

Regards,  Spintendo  03:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Chernova, Yuliya (2019-09-23). "Investors Mo Koyfman, Josh Mohrer to Launch Venture Firm Shine Capital". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2020-02-12.
  2. ^ a b Roof, Katie; Chernova, Yuliya (2020-01-14). "Plaid Sale Rewards Venture Capital Bets on Fintech Plumbing". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2020-02-12.

Reply to Feb. 13, 2020[edit]

The reviewer above, without access to the full article behind a paywall, draws the incorrect conclusion that the article was based on a press release. The article, excerpted below, makes clear that the reporter relied on ‘ ‘multiple’ ‘ “people” -- no press release is mentioned and the subjects of the article, in fact, declined to speak to the reporter. Here is the top of the article:

“Two prominent New York investors, Mo Koyfman and Josh Mohrer, are teaming up to launch a new venture-capital firm, according to people familiar with the situation.

Mr. Koyfman, previously with Spark Capitak, and Mr. Mohrer, formerly with Tusk Ventures and Uber Technologies, Inc., are looking to raise about $150 million for Shine Capital, the people said. The New York-based firm will focus on Series A rounds, they said.

Mr. Koyfman declined to comment for this article. Mr. Mohrer didn’t respond to a request for comment.”

The article then continues with more background and information about these inidivduals for another few hundred words.

I’d therefore renew my request that the article be updated to include, at the end of the Career section:

In 2019, Koyfman and Josh Mohrer launched Shine Capital, a new early stage venture capital firm.[1]

Thank you. Joshmohrer (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Chernova, Yuliya (2019-09-23). "Investors Mo Koyfman, Josh Mohrer to Launch Venture Firm Shine Capital". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2020-02-12.
  1. I'm not paywalled with regards to the WSJ. The article makes it clear that the information came from those individuals who are close to the subject. It is essentially a press release.
  2. Mr. Koyfman, previously with Spark Capitak, and Mr. Mohrer, formerly with Tusk Ventures and Uber Technologies, Inc., are looking to raise about $150 million for Shine Capital, the people said. The New York-based firm will focus on Series A rounds, they said The bolded italic text demonstrates that this claim is regarding future events.
  3. Shine Capital is not notable, and therefore the urgency to have this claim included is not evident.

Regards,  Spintendo  18:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mo_Koyfman&oldid=1200283109"