This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Neuroscience This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

As a contributor to Wiki, it is concerning how easy it is for anyone to add or edit biographical information. I think that additions of this nature should be kept in draft form, and only viewable to logged-in users for review and comment. In addition, before being published, I think the individual should have an opportunity to validate, correct, or deny it. As it is, the current process opens up Wiki to be used as a vehicle of political and ideological mis-information, as well as personal vendettas. Henris Mom (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henris Mom - without commenting on the substance of your suggestions, they are not anything we can implement just on this article. However, you can raise your ideas at WP:VILLAGEPUMP for adoption by the community across the entire project. Chetsford (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That said, if you notice any misinformation, please do correct it directly in the article. If in doubt, you can open a discussion about it here. Chetsford (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An extraordinary claim keeps being inserted into this article, that the subject's company is the "world's most valuable neurotech company". [1] This is cited to an article on Benzinga [2]. We haven't thoroughly discussed Benzinga before, however, there appears to be an initial line of thought that it is not WP:RS. [3] The specific article in question cites for this claim the company's press release which appears to use a self-valuation.

While we can't use WP:OR in the article, we can use it to evaluate the reality of source claims and I just find it hard to believe a 17 year-old company with a website that looks like it was made by a high school keyboarding student and whose address is a co-working space in San Mateo, [4] is the kind of company that we can claim in WP:WIKIVOICE to be "the world's most valuable" anything. Note that, 13 years ago it was claiming it was twice as valuable as Google at launch [5] -- all this time later it's still doing business out of a PO box. While I don't doubt the company's claims, I think valuations are often interpreted by the lay public to mean something more than they are and we should treat this as a WP:PROMOTIONAL claim and omit it from the article. Chetsford (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear your points. Some of them speak perhaps to a lack of familiarity with the business model, wherein the value is primarily in the data and the algorithm: it doesn't need tons of people or premises. The business has contracts with pharma companies to monitor drug trials, and potential future markets include Alzheimer's treatment.

The claim was 'twice as valuable at launch as Google was at launch'. Google's exponential rise in value has moved the goalposts for the value of data-based services. Thus. *temporally-later* companies like Neurovigil can receive a much higher valuation relative to biz size/stage, precisely because of the prior valuation-history of companies like Google and Facebook.

I'm curious about 'not doubting the company's claims' - the tone appears very skeptical, from a good-faith read it seems exactly that you *do* doubt them! (I'm not arguing you shouldn't. I'm just saying there seems a disconnect in your commentary.)

How about something speaking to 'Series B valuation of around 6 billion USD'? That removes 'most valuable', which does seem to appeal to knowledge-not-in-scope. Reality-theorist-007 (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reality-theorist-007: If this - "The business has contracts with pharma companies to monitor drug trials, and potential future markets include Alzheimer's treatment." - is correct, you're speaking with a level of familiarity of the company's sales agreements that would be known only by someone closely affiliated with the company, as I can find no public reporting of this. If this is true, you should read our WP:PAID policy. In any case, Benzinga is being discussed at WP:RSN right now and appears it will be determined an unreliable source anyway. Chetsford (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually their business model is common knowledge to anyone even vaguely familiar with the neurotech space. The Alzheimer's *potential* can be inferred e.g. from 2012 press releases; I just mentioned it as the size of those sorts of markets may be familiar to outsiders, and go some way towards grounding the $6bn tag you seem to be both not doubting and doubting,

It does seem that your inference that I'm paid by NeuroVigil may have lead to a death threat. (Temporal order does not imply causality. Still ...'Who do you work for? I'd like to drive a metal bar through your head' does seem to relate to query.) I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy that falls under. But just a heads up.

For the avoidance of doubt: I have no commercial relationship with Low or NeuroVigil. Reality-theorist-007 (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or any inside knowledge of actual contracts. Reality-theorist-007 (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To your first point, inference based on common knowledge, unfortunately, doesn't pass our WP:VERIFY policy.

"It does seem that your inference that I'm paid by NeuroVigil may have lead to a death threat." To your second point, if I (or anyone) is instigating death threats against you, it's important you report this at WP:ANI. If you are on the receiving end of an actual death threat, this should additionally be reported as per WP:EMERGENCY. Chetsford (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear about your appeal to WP:VERIFY. Do you mean the data I refer to doesn't qualify as evidence for the $6bn valuation? I'm not suggesting it does. I'm just rebutting your claim that my info was 'not public domain'.

For the record, I didn't say you were instigating death threats. The 'heads up' is simply to be aware of the level of IRL activity around this topic. and perhaps do a little more research before stating ungrounded 'ifs' that have IRL consequences. Thanks. Reality-theorist-007 (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you mean the data I refer to doesn't qualify as evidence for the $6bn valuation?" Yes, that's what I mean. Chetsford (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a decent RS to cite - it is a fintech website (meh) and the article is from one of their contributors rather than being a Press release or Guest cotnribution. I would agree with Reality-theorist-007 to state the market value (and to say a specific date), as well as saying 'most valuable', since that would clarify that value refers to stock market valuation and would avoid the edit becoming outdated if the stock rises or falls. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects, I'm going to drop "A member of Low's review committee recalled a longer submission. The entire document, including appendices, is 346 pages long as published at UCSD , and contains a single-page 'Chapter 1' as the only non-preface, non-appendix, material." into a Footnotes section.
I think it's important we clarify the submitted product was 346 pages long as our readers are likely to presume he literally turned-in one sheet of paper in the way it's presented. At the same time, it feels like including this in the body of the article infers dishonesty by the subject, which no one has suggested. (While the unique structure of the dissertation -- with its pages upon pages of narrative text labeled as "appendices" -- does to me, seem like it was built in such a way to support a later subliminal connection to John Nash-style genius [who famously turned-in a 26-page dissertation] that's merely my own opinion unarticulated by any fact or source.) Chetsford (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me, what's important is that we clarify the 'one page Chapter 1', if we're going to acknowledge the 346-page length. I think having the latter without the former in fact did imply dishonesty. Implication is exactly a way to suggest something without saying it, so it's hard to know if 'anyone' is suggesting it or not. It definitely suggested it in my mind, which is why I downloaded the primary source and evaluated it.

But footnote is fine, better even: it did rather stick out when in the main-body. Reality-theorist-007 (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that much of the current interest in Low has arisen from his public criticism of Elon Musk, would it be worth moving the current mention under "In popular culture" to its own section? The external YT link to their joint interview could then be moved there, as well as additional background? Blouwildebees (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without staking a position on this one way or the other, I'd just note that this appears to have been a single social media post that existed in the news cycle for about 2-3 days so, before doing that, we should ask if it was such a significant moment in Low's life story that it would be WP:DUE and "not" WP:NOTNEWS to take-up 10-20% of the article about him. That is, if we were to read this article 20 years from now would it make sense for that level of attention to be focused on one social media post he made two decades ago? If so, then it may be worthwhile doing this, otherwise, it may not. Chetsford (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you and fair comment. Time will tell, I guess? I was just going on the fact that Low kept a low (!) profile until now, but chose to go public at this time, so this could in time represent a significant part of his story (at least outside scientific circles). Happy to leave as is, just noting the Musk criticism. Blouwildebees (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I take no position on this question one way or the other, I'm merely thinking out loud about possibilities. Trust your judgment! Chetsford (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This whole page reads as if Mr. Low or someone close to him created this article and all the content. His company doesn’t even have its own page on Wikipedia. Why does he? 195.133.129.29 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's a public figure:

• https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/podcast/total-miserable-self-loathing-poser-the-neuroscientist-taking-elon-musk interviewed by a major national publication in Australia
• having intimate knowledge of the world's richest man, Musk, somewhat contradictory to Musk's controversial public image
• Spending non trivial monies on auditing free speech in the USA, $250m, after himself being suppressed by a number of social media companies when he posted his missive about Musk in 2025

Ncr100 (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I created the original page and I've never met Low and didn't even know who he was until a couple months ago. Chetsford (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point to weigh, yes, and it's wise to defend "why a public figure".

First, I would like to go back to 'first principles', definitionally, where I understand a "public figure" is someone of note and fame. To argue in "pro", I think Low is a public figure by the fact he's talked about by The Saturday Paper article (mentioned @ end of this Talk section, currently) and its reporter author. I assert the worth inferred by both the Paper and Reporter being entities who historically, from my own web searches and review, appear to involve themselves with fact-based and socially relevant topics, some of which include: the broader world of humanity outside of Wikipedia, Musk, Social Media bias, actions of reputable businesses, social trends, and notable people. Therefore, I believe with that list including involvement with topics both of notoriety and fame, and Low being reported on by both, Low is a public figure.

Second, more directly addressing the initial "con" side to keeping this page, posed by user 195.133.129.29, "His company doesn’t even have its own page on Wikipedia" .. it seems to me like a weak argument because it's tautological. NeuroVigil does have a web page https://neurovigil.com/index.php/about-us/leadership, and a legitimate business + media history. While it does not have a wikipedia page currently .. i could click "+" and make that happen right now .. which I don't want to do -- not inclined to. It's nearly zero effort, and I'd argue that doesn't represent notoriety of NeuroVigil nor Low. So I see crediting the weight of Low's 'public figure' status on the basis of a self-reinforcing quality localized to Wikipedia itself is a low quality metric. And we could instead seek a higher quality metric, better derived from the world outside of Wikipedia. Ncr100 (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Low claims to be spending $250 million to audit US State's freedom of speech protection, according to https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/law-crime/2025/05/31/the-neuroscientist-taking-elon-musk:

He further claims LinkedIn and Facebook appeared to censor his modestly famous critique of Musk based upon his first-hand experience with Musk.

“They’re in an ocean of trouble and I’ve put $250 million aside to go after them ... When Mark Zuckerberg told everyone he was dispensing with fact checkers, going to community notes and that Facebook was going back to free speech, that was a complete lie. Again, these social media platforms do not owe anybody free speech, but when they say that that’s what they’re providing and they’re not, that is false advertising, and that’s when they’re liable.”

Whether factually accurate or not, is one consideration. Ncr100 (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little suspicious that Low has $250MM to spend. But I don't know. Either way, this seems like an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that will require more than a single reference. Chetsford (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]