Talk:FiscalNote

Pretty clear that KWT referenced in the most recent editors name is KWT Global, easily findable as FiscalNote's agency. Baguettelover (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Rolled back KWT changes and removed any editorial. Thanks. Jarleditorus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

quotes from Entreprenuer

Entrepeneur isn't saying this, it's from an interview, as such trimming it down makes sense.

According to Entrepreneur magazine, the GRM "aggregates legislation, regulations and government filings from thousands of federal, state and local agencies, uses artificial intelligence to structure it and normalize it, and delivers personalized data feeds to companies to show how government may be impacting their businesses." It is primarily used by Congressional offices, law firms, trade associations, lobbyists, corporations, embassies, federal contractors, and public affairs professionals.[9] Baguettelover (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed the quote - it does not belong in the first section of a Wikipedia article. JSFarman (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Advice for Bibliography?

1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markminevich/2020/11/02/7-ways-ai-could-solve-all-of-our-election-woes-out-with-the-polls-in-with-the-ai-models/?sh=557af5db622c
2. https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/08/13/2207/tim-hwangs-fiscalnote-is-revolutionizing-washington-lobbying-with-big-data/ Critic
3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/dc-based-tech-startup-fiscalnote-to-buy-cq-roll-call/2018/07/25/37939b6e-8fd4-11e8-8322-b5482bf5e0f5_story.html
4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/can-big-data-predict-which-bills-will-pass-congress/2018/01/31/ffe6c162-f7c3-11e7-b34a-b85626af34ef_story.html
5. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/25/economist-cq-fiscal-note-740421
6. https://entrepreneurs.princeton.edu/news/using-artificial-intelligence-better-policymaking-fiscalnote
7. https://www.rieti.go.jp/en/events/bbl/16022601.html?ref=rss
8. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/tndl93&id=1050&men_tab=srchresults pg 1009-1010
9. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170502005925/en/FiscalNote-Accelerates-Global-Expansion-Plans-Adds-Australia-New-Zealand-To-Industry%E2%80%99s-Only-GRM-Platform
10. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220914006063/en/FiscalNote%E2%80%99s-Curate-Wins-Global-Award-for-%E2%80%9CBest-Data-Innovation-in-a-SaaS-Product%E2%80%9D

Gobears18 (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Civic Technology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 30 November 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gobears18 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SealSquared, DrPronoun, Wafflehouse777, Malak8462000.

— Assignment last updated by DrPronoun (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Delete?

I would like to delete the following sections because I believe they are unnecessary and read as an Ad please give me feedback!

"Corporate Culture", "Advisors and board", and "Events" sections as they are irrelevant and read as if it is intended to attract employees.

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, FiscalNote laid off 6% of the company, with one source telling AdWeek that the layoffs included the entire team of investigative reporters, and all but one staff member from the print magazine team" - Irrelevant to the recognition and impact section. Gobears18 (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

The content that is being added is relevant to the topic since there are sections added like its relation to civic technology, the awards it has received, an overview and it's history. All of the work added is cited correctly. The citations all seem to be from neutral sources that aren't opinionated such as a link from the MIT Technology Review. I really enjoyed how there was a section called delete where the writer explored what already existed on the topic on wikipedia and realized that some of the sections are irrelevant and meant to attract people to the platform. One thing that didn't seem neutral was the conspiracy heading and the information present within. It didn't seem like the author was trying to sway us in any way, but it seemed when you say something like 'leave them at a disadvantage' it seems like there is an opinion there. Maybe to make it more neutral the author could forgo the disadvantage part and stick to facts on how it is unaffordable. Overall. the edits the author intendeds to add are very insightful and would add a lot to the already existing article. (for Gobears18) Malak8462000 (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)