Talk:Neil Seeman

There is also an alternative photo on Commons. Polygnotus (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I am Neil Seeman, the subject of this article. I am writing to request corrections in accordance with Wikipedia's BLP policy. I have a Conflict of Interest as the subject and will not edit the article directly; I am requesting these changes on the Talk page as required. 1. "Undisclosed Payments" Tag - Factually False and Defamatory I have never paid anyone to edit this article, nor have I been paid to edit it. The "Undisclosed Payments" tag is factually false and defamatory. I request its immediate removal under WP:BLP. 2. Patent Information - Factual Error and BLP Violation The current text incorrectly refers to a patent application (US20080201200A1). This is factually wrong. The Fact: I am the named inventor on US Patent 8,069,078 B2, an issued and approved patent granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on November 29, 2011. This is a matter of verifiable public legal record. Correct Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8069078B2/en I request the sentence be removed entirely per WP:BLP. The current text is factually inaccurate (citing an application rather than the issued patent) and uses pejorative characterization ("typosquatting") without any high-quality, neutral third-party source (WP:RS). This violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I respectfully request these corrections be made to ensure accuracy and compliance with Wikipedia's standards for biographies of living persons. Thank you, Neil Seeman Neil Seeman WP subject (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Neil Seeman WP subject Hi Neil! Which photo do you prefer?

We got number 1 and number 2. It looks like number 1 is slightly newer (from 2023 instead of 2022).

The {{undisclosed }} tag does not mean that the article subject paid the editor, just that a paid editor showed up on the article. Note also that being paid to edit articles is allowed, as long as it is disclosed. For more information see WP:PAID.

Defamation is a legal term, and we try not to use such terms here (for example because of a potential hypothetical chilling effect), see WP:LEGAL. It also makes communication more difficult because people who post legal threats get blocked.

According to https://patents.google.com/patent/US20080201200A1/en someone called Neil Laurence Seeman has that patent which was then assigned to RIWI CORP (which, if I understand it correctly, is your company).

Looking at https://patents.google.com/patent/US8069078B2/en that mentions the same name and again says the patent was assigned to RIWI CORP.

The difference appears to be that US20080201200A1 was filed by an individual while US8069078B2 was filed by RIWI CORP. I changed the number because I don't really see much of a difference other than that.

I tried to search for them over at https://ppubs.uspto.gov/basic/ but I couldn't find em.

The current text is factually inaccurate (citing an application rather than the issued patent) It looks like the patent was granted on 2011年11月29日.

The article says In 2007, Seeman applied for a patent to use typosquatting for polling. This led Seeman to found the Big Data firm RIWI in 2009 which makes more sense chronologically than to say that a patent was granted in 2011 which led to the creation of a company in 2009, years earlier.

I don't think typosquatting is a pejorative, it is just the standard industry term for what is in the patent. It has a bad reputation because people find it annoying, but the term itself is descriptive.

Do you know of any reliable sources about yourself that we can use to improve the article? Polygnotus (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Polygnotus,

Thank you for the thoughtful response and for updating the patent number to the issued patent (US8069078B2). I appreciate your engagement.

Regarding the photo: I prefer the newer one (2023)—it's my current professional headshot.

Regarding the

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.See our advice if the article is about you and read our scam warning in case someone asks for money to edit this article.

tag: I understand the distinction you've made. I was not aware of any paid editor involvement with this article and have never hired or paid anyone to edit it. If the tag refers to someone else's edits, I have no knowledge of who that might be.

Regarding the patent and chronology: I need to clarify the timeline. I invented the technology in 2006 and filed the patent application with the US Patent Office in 2007. The company (RIWI) was formed legally in 2009. I became CEO in 2011, the same year the patent was issued. The patent was later assigned to RIWI. So the chronology actually works: invention/filing (2007) → company formation (2009) → patent issuance and my appointment as CEO (2011). I haven't been involved in management since September 2021.

Regarding "typosquatting": This term does not appear anywhere in the patent itself. The approved patent describes "a method of recruiting respondents for online polling using traffic landing on randomly visited domains." The term "typosquatting" carries strong negative connotations and suggests deceptive or malicious practices, which is not what the patent describes, and certainly not what the company does. The technology has been used in peer-reviewed papers by researchers at universities across the world, including very recently by me in collaboration with other researchers, here in a Government of Canada publication, where my invention of the sampling technology is disclosed:

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/canada-communicable-disease-report-ccdr/monthly-issue/2025-51/issue-10-11-12-october-november-december-2025/trust-community-predictor-public-health-measure-adherence.html

Using the term "typosquatting" without a reliable third-party source that specifically characterizes the patent this way violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. If the patent is to be mentioned, it should use the neutral language from the patent itself, not a pejorative industry term.

Regarding reliable sources: The Government of Canada publication I linked above is one example. I've also been quoted or featured in major outlets over the years, including the Globe and Mail, National Post, and Toronto Star. Here is one recent profile that may be useful: https://magazica.com/from-dopamine-and-brain-chemistry-to-business-strategy-that-drives-entrepreneurs-a-deep-dive-with-neil-seeman-on-what-makes-us-tick/

I don't have a comprehensive list at hand, but I'm happy to clarify any factual questions if that's helpful.

Thank you again for your professionalism and promptness and for educating me on this.

Thank you, Neil Neil Seeman WP subject (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Neil Seeman WP subject Hi again! Thanks! I swapped out the {{undisclosed }} template for a {{rewrite }} template. They basically both have the same meaning "someone should take a look at this".

I hope that helps. We got hundreds of maintenance templates and they all fundamentally have the same meaning "someone should take a look at this and I am too lazy or busy to do it right now".

I'll suggest the easiest solution first. Just spitballing, you may strongly disagree (I am not much of a mindreader, my wife will confirm that) or agree.

Bit of a look behind the scenes: on Wikipedia we (mis-)use the word "notability" when talking about if something meets the requirements to have an article written about it. As you can probably imagine the rules here are vague and contradictory and don't really make sense. Usually what we do (as a rule of thumb) is to look at the best three sources that establish notability. These sources should be independent of the subject, provide significant coverage and be reliable.

So for example, I wouldn't count a bio on a university website if you work there, because the uni is not independent.

I had a quick look on Google, but I haven't really found enough that I would argue meets the requirements, which may or may not mean that the article should be deleted. That is usually a good thing, because it sucks having no control over an article written about you.

There are 2 canvasrebel sources:

https://canvasrebel.com/meet-neil-seeman/

https://canvasrebel.com/inspiring-conversations-with-neil-seeman-of-sutherland-house-experts-corporation/

Since Google loves Wikipedia so much a Wikipedia article will often rank higher than, for example, a personal website.

Since there is no clear line in the sand we may be able to argue that this is insufficient. Or maybe there is a treasure trove of information I haven't discovered yet?

What do you think? Would you like to have a Wikipedia article about you? If you disagree feel free to say so of course! I haven't done an in-depth investigation so I may just be wrong. Polygnotus (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Polygnotus,

Thank you for the thoughtful reply and for changing the tag to

icon

This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. You can help. The talk page may contain suggestions.

—I appreciate that.

Regarding notability: I'd like very much to keep the article. More importantly, the article already passed Wikipedia's notability review through the Articles for Creation process.

Looking at the Talk page history:

December 16, 2023: Draft created by Slowisfastwithcoffee

December 17, 2023: Accepted and published by Lopifalko with the edit summary "Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission"

This means a Wikipedia editor already reviewed the article for notability, sourcing, and BLP compliance and determined it met Wikipedia's standards for publication. The AfC process evaluates whether sources meet WP:GNG requirements.

Current credentials already in the article:

Awards and Honors:

2025 Lifetime Mental Health Advocacy Award (Reach Out Together Foundation)

Fields Institute Fellow (2022) - Fields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences

Donner Prize shortlist finalist (2011) for XXL: Obesity and the Limits of Shame

Current Academic Positions:

Associate Professor, Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto

Senior Fellow, University of Toronto (various research units)

Current Media Roles:

Current columnist, Toronto Star (a major newspaper)

Founding editorial board member, National Post (1998)

Major Media Coverage (already cited in article):

Toronto Star (current columnist - ongoing significant coverage)

Globe and Mail (Canada's national newspaper of record)

Maclean's (Canada's major national magazine)

Wall Street Journal

National Post (founding editorial board member)

Policy Options (multiple articles)

Additional Institutional Affiliations:

Fraser Institute (former Adjunct Research Fellow and founding director of CANSTATS)

Canadian Who's Who (biographical reference)

Founder and former CEO of RIWI Corp. (publicly listed on TSX Venture Exchange, 2020)

Seems the CanvasRebel sources look promotional and shouldn't be used for notability. However, given that:

The article already passed AfC notability review by editor Lopifalko

Three major awards/honors (Lifetime Mental Health Advocacy Award, Fields Institute Lifetime Fellow, Donner Prize shortlist)

Current columnist at Toronto Star + founding editorial board member of National Post

Current academic appointment at University of Toronto (Senior Fellow and Associate Professor)

Founder of a publicly listed company (RIWI Corp., TSX Venture Exchange)

Multiple major newspaper articles and academic sources

...the article clearly meets WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC, and WP:CREATIVE.

Regarding the typosquatting issue: My remaining concern is that the patent (US8069078B2) and all cited sources describe the method neutrally as "recruiting respondents using traffic to randomly visited domains," but the article uses the term "typosquatting," which:

Carries negative connotations (trademark infringement, deceptive practices)

Does not appear in the patent or any reliable cited source I've ever seen

Violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP by using a pejorative term without sourcing

Would you be willing to rephrase that sentence to reflect what the sources actually say? For example:

"In 2007, Seeman filed a patent for a method of recruiting survey respondents using traffic to randomly visited domains."

This is neutral, sourced, and accurate. The other option is to just delete the sentence?

I'm happy, and very much wish, to have the article exist as long as it's accurate and properly sourced. I'm not looking for promotion—just factual accuracy and BLP compliance on this.

Thanks again for your time and professionalism.

Thanks, Neil Neil Seeman WP subject (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Biography articles of living people
• Start-Class AfC articles
• AfC submissions by date/17 December 2023
• Accepted AfC submissions
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Writing articles
• Low-importance Writing articles
• WikiProject Writing articles
• Start-Class psychology articles
• Low-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Start-Class Canada-related articles
• Low-importance Canada-related articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages

• Noindexed pages