Jump to content

Talk:Mike Lynch (businessman)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by New hordak from 2018 (talk | contribs) at 12:51, 19 August 2024 (→Untitled: spelling error for Chunnel). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

I've removed this part:

based on the theories of 18th century English mathematician Thomas Bayes

It's silly. Bayesian networks and Bayesian filtering are standard techniques in artificial intelligence. Though there is obviously a connection to the historical work of Bayes, saying that this work is "based on [his] theories" neglects all the intermediate work.

It would be equivalent to saying that the construction of the Channel was "based on the ideas of English mathematician Issac Newton". --Saforrest 21:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I get the ideal but your comment is not very accurate he was actually a research fellow at Cambridge and worked on Bayesian INFERENCE a method that developed extensively in the early nineties well beyond simple Bayesian Filtering and Networks and what was known earlier. To get a PhD you have to do orgignal work . To know more do a literature search on Dr P J Rayner of the University who ran the group at that time, its interesting stuff

Does anyone know what he meant in the CNBC interview that Autonomy could have turned into something more interesting than Google if they had focussed on search in the late 1990s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.199.99.70 (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to make the article a bit more neutral

Someone else has tagged the article as looking like a resume. I agree. No doubt Lynch is successful. I removed some claims about how amazing he is where they could not possibly be backed up. This is not to diminish Lynch's success, but rather, the article is more believable if it reads less like a resume. Here are the claims I removed:

  • He is considered a rare example of a European academic turned technology entrepreneur who has taken a start up through to being a global leader.

Not clear who considers him like this, or why this is important.

  • Unlike most students, he combined mathematics, biological and physical sciences, taking the rare combination of advanced physics, mathematics and biochemistry in the IB Tripos.

How do we know what most students do? Why is his "rare" choice of what he did in his second year at university at all relevant? (is it supposed to be the sign of genius?!)

  • His Cambridge doctoral thesis is reported as one of the most widely read pieces of research at the Cambridge University library.

I really doubt this, and we'd need a proper reference, rather than heresay in a newspaper.

  • Lynch was profiled by the Sunday Times with a favorable comparison to Bill Gates

The article cited says "...said Lynch, the closest thing Britain has to its own Bill Gates." That is not necessarily a "favourable comparison". I read it as meaning that there is no one like Bill Gates in Britain. In any case it's just a throw-away remark, it's only been made once by a journalist, and it doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the first paragraph.

I also don't understand the anecdote in the section "Entrepreneurial career" and propose to delete that bit. ComputScientist (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have again deleted the bit about Bill Gates. As you say the article cited says "...said Lynch, the closest thing Britain has to its own Bill Gates." That is not necessarily a "favourable comparison". Unfortunately there has been a history of unsupported claims about Lynch on Wikipedia. I suspect these edits come from employees of the company. Dormskirk (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You might not like the guy but the Gates comaprison is in multiple of the references and he is probably currently the msot sucessful technology entrepreneur out of the UK (there aren't many) surely the intro should make this point??? After all he went from start up to creating the UK's largest software business.

Dormskirk I put effort into adding other roles and added other bits so please do not just revert, thats just lazy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.33.187 (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now formatted all the references you had added. You may want to read WP:NPA before editing Wikipedia again. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. If a list of "what the papers say" is to be included, surely it should be further down the page (e.g. in "Awards") rather than in the lead. I've done this.
Bill Gates is worth 60 times more the Mike Lynch. I don't think it's a comparison to dwell on.
How does the Guardian and the WSJ know that his thesis is "most widely read in the University library"? Unless the university can verify it, it's just a rumour, and not worth reporting here. (Maybe WSJ and Guardian learnt this "fact" from wikipedia!)
Overall this article must not be about liking or disliking the subject, it is not about praising his achievements, it is about reporting facts. ComputScientist (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the notable thing aboutt he guy is that he probably the most sucessful tech entrepreneur out of the UK. The comparison is 'the nearest thing Britain has to Bill gates' not that he is Bill gates. Are you saying he is not in the top 2 of European software entrepreneurs....all the references seem to say he is execeptionally sucessful? Surely the summary needs to refelct this?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.33.187 (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He successful, I agree. His success can be measured by the fact that he cofounded a company which was sold to HP for a large amount. That's an indisputable fact. That's a much better way of proving his success than quoting some journalist who once said a nice thing about him, or by a vague, unverifiable statement about "probably the most successful in the UK". So that's the thing to put in the lead. ComputScientist (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

now this is getting silly, there are a significant number of references supporting this in the item and many more can be added, its not one journalist's view. Other than a large body of coverage from quality news sources what fact would support that he is to date the msot sucessful UK software entrepreneur...on that basis why are you so sure about any fact...is Bill Gates sucessful, how do we know this is not from a large number of news sources , earnings announcements from microsoft etc.... How many references do you want..please be specific and from which sources will you arbitrarily accept, the UK's premier newspapers and the FT don't seem good enough for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.33.187 (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the page on Bill Gates: the first paragraph contains basic facts about him, not selected quotes from journalists. That's how first paragraphs work. ComputScientist (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear from the short factual lead that I have written that MRL is successful. I do not see any reason to make a comparison with Bill Gates in the lead, nor to include flattering quotes from journalists. Please explain here why these things need to be in the article lead before undoing my edits. I have not deleted them, I have put them further down the page.
Please also explain why it is important or verifiable that his second year of undergraduate studies were unusual, and also how you have verified that his PhD thesis is the most widely read in the university library, before undoing my edits on those parts. Thanks. ComputScientist (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue with this article is that it lacks balance. It makes many superlative statements about Lynch but the short paragrph about the spat with Oracle fails to mention that Ellison believed Lynch was a liar. See [1] and many more. A balanced article would just keep to the facts and contain neither the positive opinions or the negative ones. Dormskirk (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added section about HP writedown due to accounting irregularities NBeddoe (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

good but it needs to be fleshed out more. The HP lawsuit continues now and is quite serious. This part needs to be updated with more recent information. 208.90.214.42 (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute with HP

Although this deserves a mention, I don't think we can carefully document the full details of the case here, nor keep on top of it. So I propose to keep it brief and neutral. ComputScientist (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In particular the bit about "a derivative action to pay them and for them to help HP sue Lynch..." sounds too technical to me. Dormskirk (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dormskirk didn't know the talk page etiquette. But while I'm here are the oracle and cazenove points big enough for the article, especially as Quattrone resolved the oracle controversy?...what are your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.223.163 (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem re the etiquette. Re Cazenove, if Khan was indeed bullied as is alledged, then such actions by Lynch cannot be condoned even if Autonomy denies that Khan was banned from meetings. Re Oracle if you look at this: [2] it appears that Quattrone was acting for Autonomy when he made the offending presentation: so I would have thought Lynch cannot disassociate himself from Quattrone's actions. My view is that these allegations are big enough for the article, because there is a pattern to the three disputes (oracle, cazenove and HP). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My personal preference is not to have much negativity on a biographical page like this. The Oracle and Cazenove points are quite old, and just "he said this, but he said this". People say nasty things for all kinds of reasons, and we cannot do justice without going into the full background, and that would give it all undue weight. The HP issue is ongoing but I would still rather keep it to a minimum because so far between HP and Lynch personally it is again just a battle of words, as far as I can tell. What happens between HP, their shareholders and their lawyers is more substantial, but not really relevant to this page, there are other pages for that.
On the other hand if we are going to have a big he-said-she-said on HP then we perhaps have to also include Cazenove, Oracle etc., as Dormskirk says. ComputScientist (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous editor (will get round to registering! I'm still learning all this stuff). I think all the above are good points and perhaps the oracle thing should or shouldn't be in as it was resolved and is old , however on cazenove there was no dispute with cazenove only khan himself , infact if you search this JPMC (Cazenove) was actually an Autonomy advisor on the HP deal and cazenove/jpmc was one of autonomy's biggest customers

I think one analyst giving a one line quote in an article after the fact does not seem worthy of a section heading or even mention.

On Quattrone if you read the articles Quattrone was not acting for Lynch when he sent the presentation to oracle but he was trying to suggest an idea to them. He only starts acting for Autonomy months later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.223.163 (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Khan see [3]. This also suggests that Khan did work for JP Morgan Cazenove at the time and therefore it was a Cazenove employee that was subsequently banned from meetings. I think the key points for the article are (i) Khan, working for Cazenove, tried to warn as early as 2008 that there were problems and (ii) Lynch banned him from meetings. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intro paragraph

An anonymous editor wants to put that Lynch is first and foremost a scientist. Lynch does not describe himself in this way in his bio at his website, http://autonomyaccounts.org/biography/ . I would say that Lynch has made substantial contributions to science but I cannot find evidence that he is an active scientist, according to the definition at scientist. The Royal Society criteria for fellows does not use the word scientist (https://royalsociety.org/about-us/fellowship/election/). ComputScientist (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC) The citation at the FRS is about his work in machine learning and pattern recognition, he is also published so I think this is now a good compromise.TO be an FRS you have to be a royal or an eminent scientist, he is not a royal. For the disputes section I am not sure if the Oracle thing deserves mention so I was going to delete it but for now I just stopped it being a section in its own right...thoughts? should it go completely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.239.30 (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Oracle piece gained quite a bit of media attention at the time and certainly should be retained. In any case properly sourced information really should not be removed from Wikipedia. Dormskirk (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "scientist": Sorry but I cannot find a reference for your claim "TO be an FRS you have to be a royal or an eminent scientist". That is not what is written at the Royal Society pages nor on wikipedia at FRS. Nor can I find a place where anyone describes Lynch as a scientist; he does not describe himself in this way on his bio pages at autonomy accounts or invoke. His page at the Royal Society does not mention science. I cannot find any recent published papers by Lynch (please point me to them). It is important that wikipedia does not attribute new things to people, especially in the first sentence on a page. I have a lot of respect for Lynch but I don't understand why you are so determined to portray him as an active scientist. ComputScientist (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael Richard Lynch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Richard Lynch. 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) 02:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Michael Richard Lynch. 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) 21:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael Richard Lynch. 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) 12:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Richard Lynch. 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) 09:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and Honors Section

This section contains numerous immaterial or poorly sourced accolades.

The BIMA Hall of Fame does not list Mike Lynch as a member having been inducted in 2012. [1]

There is no source for the statement "He was named Entrepreneur of the Year in 1999 by the Confederation of British Industry." The linked source indicates that a "Dr M Lynch" received an achievement award (not an outstanding achievement award) from the IIE in 1996, but makes no mention of any awards being granted by the Confederation of British Industry in 1999.

The link to the time magazine source is dead, but an archived page indicates that "Time Digital Europe" included Mike Lynch as one the "Digital 25," an "A-List [featuring] 25 people who will change the way you work, phone and play." While notable, this is not quite the same as saying "Time magazine named Lynch in their 25 most influential technology people in Europe in 2000" because Time Digital Europe is a subdivision of Time Magazine and the article does not explicitly state that the names listed are the most influential technology people.

The linked source for The World Economic Forum is dead. An archive of the linked source does not seem to support this claim. The World Economic Forum does not describe this program as an award, but rather as a "global community of start-up and growth-stage companies with the potential to significantly impact business and society through the design, development and deployment of new technologies." [2]

The "Lady Margaret Beaufort fellows" are "elected by [Christ's College] Governing Body in recognition of their commitment to the College." This does not seem to be particularly noteworthy achievement to a general public audience.[3]

The "European Technology Forum" appears to be a trade show. Again, This does not seem to be particularly noteworthy achievement to a general public audience.

Runner-up for Best investor relations by a CEO at a non-FTSE 100 company for IR Magazine UK seems to be an extremely niche accomplishment. This might be noteworthy if the subject received the accolade, but he did not.

Wikipedia's BLP policy states BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. This section contains poorly sourced and overstated claims seems prone to overstatement.

References

  1. ^ https://bima.co.uk/bima-programmes/hall-of-fame/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://www.weforum.org/pages/technology-pioneers-programme-faq. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ https://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/fellows. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Title Change

Should not the title be changed to "Mike Lynch" as that is the name he is most recognised by?

"Mike Lynch" currently redirects to a disambiguation page with list of some 22 people named Michael / Mike Lynch. But "Mike Lynch (businessman)" would work. Dormskirk (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Lynch_(businessman)&oldid=1241121386"