Talk:Sharecare

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi editors, SCbhaynes here again. I noticed the Subsidiaries list in the infobox seems long considering its lack of sourcing and that the details are not fleshed out more within the article content. What do reviewing editors suggest as the best approach for improving the list? I've included some thoughts below in hopes that editors will provide guidance and apply appropriate changes. Again, I'll continue to avoid editing the article directly due to my conflict of interest. Some thoughts I had that might make sense here:

• a) remove subsidiaries that do not have their own Wikipedia article entries and therefore might not be considered notable enough for mention
• b) As sourcing allows, remove any brands operating under Sharecare's control that are not true "subsidiaries" by its definition.
  • NOTE: I understand appropriate sourcing should be provided to verify changes like this. However, journalistic coverage of such details may be limited, given such changes are not always announced or put on record. For what it's worth, none of these entities are "subsidiaries" of our company; they’ve been fully absorbed into the Sharecare brand and do not exist today as unique entities, subsidiaries, or divisions. Can editors advise what sort of sources are appropriate for verifying changes like this to infobox details, if not journalistic ones?

I welcome guidance and feedback from reviewing editors and will defer to the consensus of the community. Thanks in advance for any assistance.SCbhaynes (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, after learning about the "edit request" template, I'm adding it to my request above, hopefully to capture the attention of any interested editors. I will continue to avoid making direct edits to the article myself, in-line with the site's terms of use, given my conflict of interest. Thank you for any assistance. SCbhaynes (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m not experienced in articles about businesses, so am reluctant to make the change myself, but I wonder if {{Infobox company}} would be more applicable now than {{Infobox website}}?

SCbhaynes, with regards to the acquisitions that aren’t "subsidiaries" or "divisions", would they be best described as "brands" or not really? The company infobox has a slot for listing its brands.

Pelagic ( messages ) – (13:19 Sun 17, AEDT) 02:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I'll take care of this--we usually do not include a full list; if it's extensive it generally goes in the article--the infobox is just a quick summary of highlights. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Great question, and thanks for taking care to ask, Pelagic. No, these acquired companies do not exist as brands, divisions, or subsidiaries – they are wholly absorbed into Sharecare’s existing operations. So I very much agree with your point, the company infobox is more in-line with our business. I've mocked up my proposed version of {{Infobox company}} below. If reviewing editors agree that this version makes sense, would someone please replace the current infobox on my behalf? As previously mentioned, given my conflict of interest, I’m continuing to avoid direct edits to the page. And DGG, noted on your comment about the quick summary above, and know you've graciously planned to look at various elements in the weeks ahead. Very grateful for everyone's thoughtful feedback and collaboration to date!

Proposed infobox company -

Thanks again, SCbhaynes (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support with modification: In general, the conflict of interest with the infobox is non-existent. Both the company and Wikipedia want the most up-to-date information and are fine using official company materials like annual reports. The infobox is data-points with few NPOV type issues. In fact, most infobox updates are "non-controversial edits" that could probably be done without permission. The only common exceptions are the key people and product parameters, where the company often wants to list more than Wikipedia does. For example, the Key People parameter is essentially reserved for the CEO; it sometimes list the President or Chairman of the board on really large companies. Since it would only take a moment to do, I propose a volunteer remove the extra executives listed and implement the proposed infobox. CorporateM (Talk) 12:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi CorporateM. Thanks for weighing in. I made the edit to remove the other executives, as you suggested. And actually, since my last message was posted, I was able to pull a source that explicitly states our three company divisions. So I’ve added them here within the template, as well. Included source material as well (divisions shown on p.7), but realize that may not be needed, to your point.

I prefer to continue to avoid making direct edits, so agree that if a volunteer editor is willing to make edits, that would be ideal. I also noticed the edit request was marked as complete, but since it was not completed, I’m reopening it. And for good measure, tagging DGG since he mentioned his intent to revisit this relatively soon.

Proposed infobox company -

Thanks again for all the feedback and assistance here! SCbhaynes (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Ferkijel (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi Wikipedians! SCbhaynes here again with a request to improve the article by adding some relevant content and sourcing to support it. As I have a paid conflict of interest, I'll continue to avoid updating the article myself. I noticed that the current article doesn't include any coverage of Sharecare's Blue Zones Project or its related Community Well-Being Index. If I understand Wikipedia's guidelines correctly, it seems these are among contributions to the brand's notability, and it would serve the encyclopedic entry to include them. I have drafted my suggestion for new sections about both with sources to verify details, which I posted below. I welcome reviewing editors to adjust this draft as they see fit. Are any editors willing to check my work and integrate some version of this suggested content within the current article? Thanks ahead for any thoughts or assistance you might provide. SCbhaynes (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

PROPOSED DRAFT:

Blue Zones Project

Sharecare expanded into population health management in 2016 as the company acquired Healthways’ Total Population Health Services and Blue Zones Project.^[1][2] The Blue Zones Project is an initiative toward improving community well-being through the development of lifestyle interventions patterned after Blue Zones, places identified worldwide as having "natural health and longevity". Some of the project's discoveries about these identified Blue Zones is that they generally have lower rates of common diseases associated with increased diabetes risk factors such as obesity, smoking, heart disease and associated symptoms.^[3] As of July 2019, the Blue Zones Project had reached 48 cities in 11 states.^[4]

Community Well-Being Index

Sharecare partnered with Gallup for a 10-year period to survey Americans and measure physical, financial, and social factors; during which time rising trends were noted in rates of diabetes and obesity as well as community and workplace cultures that hindered immediate improvement.^[4][5] In July 2019 a five-year partnership was announced between Sharecare and The Boston University School of Public Health with the stated intent to "mine social determinants of health data and enhance patient outcomes across the country." The organizations collaborated to create a Community Well-Being Index that would begin to analyze the environmental factors affecting patient health.^[4][6] The new index takes more than 60 variables into account, including the built environment, education, and community context such as weather and crime.^[4] Analysts reviewed data measuring individual risk factors in five health domains including purpose, social, financial, community, and physical; they then combined the original well-being index with new key social determinants of health, including healthcare access, food access, resource access, housing, and transportation. The combined results comprise the Sharecare Community Well-Being Index, which ranks states and communities from "healthiest" to "unhealthiest" annually.^[7][8]

Just adding the edit request template to this new request, as I did above. SCbhaynes (talk) 12:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, SCbhaynes here. In addition to the edit request template above, I posted to a few relevant WikiProjects in hopes of finding interested editors to collaborate with. Since my request remains unanswered, I wonder if User:Rathfelder, you would have any interest in offering thoughts or assistance, based on previous correspondence? Thanks in advance. SCbhaynes (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. Some of the refs in the proposed addition are not Reliable sources. City Business Journals are primarily a vehicle for publishing press releases. American Journal of Managed Care {AJMC) is a peer-revieed publication, but that doesn't apply to the article in its news section. I do not consider US News reliable for medicine. DGG ( talk ) 11:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Blue Zones, I see from Tivity Health that Blue Zones LLC and Healthways "teamed up" in 2010 . If the Blue Zones article can’t easily be tidied up, perhaps some of the history prior to Sharecare's acquisition could be mentioned briefly in this one? See also AARP/Blue Zones Vitality Project. — Pelagic ( messages ) – (15:16 Sun 17, AEDT) 04:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies and feedback! DGG I appreciate you helping me understand your view of available sourcing in this case. I've updated my proposed draft, removing details associated with the sourcing concerns you presented (e.g., City Business Journals, US News, and AJMC). Please see my updated proposed draft below. You'll notice this leaves far less detail explaining what the Blue Zones Project is and its significance to readers. Perhaps this can be revisited later as better sourcing becomes available. To Pelagic's point, would it make sense to add AARP/Blue Zones Vitality Project and Tivity Health to the See also section of the current article for added context? If my updated draft is acceptable, would either of you be willing to incorporate it into the article on my behalf? I'll continue to discuss changes here while remaining hands-off of the live entry due to my COI.

Proposed content, UPDATED

Sharecare expanded into population health in 2016 when the company acquired a division of business from Healthways including its Blue Zones Project. Part of the deal also included the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index.^[1] In July 2019, a five-year partnership was announced between Sharecare and The Boston University School of Public Health with the stated intent to "mine social determinants of health data and enhance patient outcomes across the country." The organizations collaborated to create a Community Well-Being Index that would begin to analyze the environmental factors affecting patient health.^[2] Analysts reviewed data measuring individual risk factors in five health domains including purpose, social, financial, community, and physical; they then combined the original well-being index with new social determinants of health, including healthcare access, food access, resource access, housing, and transportation. The combined results comprise the Sharecare Community Well-Being Index, which ranks states and communities from "healthiest" to "unhealthiest" annually.^[3][4]

Thanks again for your feedback and willingness to collaborate! SCbhaynes (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

am I correct that the " Sharecare Community Well-Being Index" measures 10 domains, the 5 original ones plus the 5 new ones? It should be possible to say this in a clearer manner. "including" could otherwise be taken to imply there were others as well. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi DGG, you are correct, and that's a great point. Appreciate the thoughtful input and diligence here, again. I've clarified this in the updated draft below – deleting "including" and just using a semicolon to keep it concise and clear. Let me know if you think this works here and if you think this is a suitable update to implement.

Proposed content, UPDATED

Sharecare expanded into population health in 2016 when the company acquired a division of business from Healthways including its Blue Zones Project. Part of the deal also included the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index.^[1] In July 2019, a five-year partnership was announced between Sharecare and The Boston University School of Public Health with the stated intent to "mine social determinants of health data and enhance patient outcomes across the country." The organizations collaborated to create a Community Well-Being Index that would begin to analyze the environmental factors affecting patient health.^[2] Analysts reviewed data measuring individual risk factors in five health domains: purpose, social, financial, community, and physical; they then combined the original well-being index with new social determinants of health: healthcare access, food access, resource access, housing, and transportation. The combined results comprise the Sharecare Community Well-Being Index, which ranks states and communities from "healthiest" to "unhealthiest" annually.^[3][4]

Thanks again for the collaboration on this. SCbhaynes (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

the simplest thing I can do at this point is to say replace the paragraph, and I will look at it and the entire the entire article. IEven tho it's the usual practice, I find it difficult to work by a back and forth of individual changes. You do your best, and I will revise as I think best. If in the end I think the entire article is unjustified, I'll proceed accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi DGG, just to be clear: You’re telling me to make this edit to the article directly, correct? And that you’ll be reviewing once I do? Sounds like you’re saying it’ll be easier for you to review this way, which makes sense, but I want to be extra clear on my understanding and that I don't run afoul of Wikipedia's rules, especially, knowing it prefers editors with a conflict of interest not edit articles directly. I otherwise prefer not to edit the page myself, since I'm hoping that by collaborating with Wikipedia editors on this Talk page, the "close connection" banner can be removed from the article someday. However, I’m willing to take this path with your guidance and review, if I’ve understood your instructions correctly.

Your time and feedback on this is so much appreciated. Thanks again. SCbhaynes (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It was so simple to put in the paragraph that I did it myself, which solves your problem. (though you would never be blamed for following my directions in editing--if anyone here doesn't like how I do it, it's me they have to discuss it with, and nobody ever has.)

I will now be edit the article further. I have 3 questions, two simple and one not so simple.

1) is the Visualize Health sentence in the right place?

2) can you find a better source for ref 16 ( the acquisition from Healthways) than a regional newspaper?

3) this is not in the current section so I didn't notice it, but it's crucial to npov -- the role of dr.oz. (I shall add his involvement in this firm to the article on him. )Our article describes him , in my opinion correctly, as a pseudoscience promotor. I see in section 3.2 the American Dental Association questioned his involvement in the firm in 2013. How did the firm respond to the ADA's withdrawal? If they did, surely other scientific organizations might have done so also. Have there been other such objections? Is he still a joint owner of the firm? How much is his share? Have there been any comments anywhere about WebMD, working with him? Is this their only collaboration? I will need to add it to the WebMD article, The Bloomberg link in ref 4 is not accessible to me--can it be put on Internet Archive--if not, it needs at least clarification whether it has an author or is just a note--some of Bloomberg is PR based.. (of course, some of this may be beyond your remit, and if so, I will query it elsewhere and do some checking myself. In any case, just as Arnold is characterized in the lede para, I shall have to characterize Oz. I suggest "surgeon, talkshow host and pseudoscience promoter".

I shall also do some ref cleanup--we have an easy technique for multiple refs to the same source. And some of the refs have Internet Archive links, which I shall add

.

This is a good illustration of why it is necessary to work with whole articles, not isolated sentences: it is not possible to judge NPOV out of context. I will use it in discussing how we handle connected contributors. I really appreciate your cooperation--as you work with us from your end, I know you see the problem also. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course. Appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Wanted to acknowledge receipt of your questions, but that I'll be away for a few days for a small break. In the meantime, will see what answers I can offer here, and I'm committing to responding as soon as possible. Thanks again, DGG! SCbhaynes (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi DGG, thank you for your patience as I looked into these. I'm back with some suggestions and points of clarification that I hope will be helpful:

1) is the Visualize Health sentence in the right place?

If you think this info should move, I might suggest the History section as an alternative that makes sense. Similarly, the last paragraph of Services probably fits better in History as well.

2) can you find a better source for ref 16 ( the acquisition from Healthways) than a regional newspaper?

I only have coverage from another regional paper (Nashville Business Journal) and a trade media source (MobiHealthNews). However, since the current source, The Tennessean, is a part of the USA Today network, I think that's the best source we can point to, to my knowledge.

3) this is not in the current section so I didn't notice it, but it's crucial to npov -- the role of dr.oz. (I shall add his involvement in this firm to the article on him. )Our article describes him , in my opinion correctly, as a pseudoscience promotor. I see in section 3.2 the American Dental Association questioned his involvement in the firm in 2013. How did the firm respond to the ADA's withdrawal? If they did, surely other scientific organizations might have done so also. Have there been other such objections? Is he still a joint owner of the firm? How much is his share? Have there been any comments anywhere about WebMD, working with him? Is this their only collaboration? I will need to add it to the WebMD article, The Bloomberg link in ref 4 is not accessible to me--can it be put on Internet Archive--if not, it needs at least clarification whether it has an author or is just a note--some of Bloomberg is PR based.. (of course, some of this may be beyond your remit, and if so, I will query it elsewhere and do some checking myself. In any case, just as Arnold is characterized in the lede para, I shall have to characterize Oz. I suggest "surgeon, talkshow host and pseudoscience promoter"

Re: Relationship to Dr. Oz: Dr. Oz is a co-founder, investor, and a board member of Sharecare, but as far as Sharecare's operations and his business operations, there is no other link. Because Sharecare is a private company, information on Dr. Oz's share in Sharecare is not public or accessible to employees like me. We have no current involvement with his other business engagements, and Sharecare has never had a say in his show's programming or content. A small Sharecare team previously ran Dr. Oz's digital presence (social media and website) until last year, but this arrangement has ended contractually. That is now operated out of his own company, ZoCo Productions, which is fully separate from Sharecare. There is not likely to be any sourcing online explaining this degree of delineation, but that’s the full context FYI.

Re: American Dental Association: The reference used in the existing article contains a dead link, but I found a fresh link here. The source makes it clear that the American Dental Association took issue with a segment on The Doctor Oz Show, which was the issue that ultimately caused the ADA's reaction and decision. And although Sharecare is not and has never been responsible for the content of Dr. Oz's television show and vice versa, ADA announced they were ending their relationship with Sharecare in 2013 citing his connection to our company. It was an anomaly and is confirmed as the only case in which a healthcare organization ended a content partnership with Sharecare.

Re: WebMD: There may be some confusion here. Sharecare is not affiliated with WebMD. Our business has no connections to WebMD (aside from that company previously being founded by our CEO 23 years ago). I honestly do not know whether Dr. Oz has any engagements with WebMD, or if there are any other Wikipedia-approved sources that would state such, since WebMD is not within Sharecare’s purview, and we have no association with Dr. Oz's business operations.

Re: The Bloomberg link in ref 4: It appears you're right about this having been based on a press release; I found this archived link. As this source only appears in the introduction, rather than elsewhere in the body, I wonder if it should just be removed altogether, then editing the content as needed to rely on the other sources used for verification.

Re: Characterizing Dr. Oz: From a Wikipedia perspective, I understand aligning his characterization to the Mehmet Oz article, and I will defer to you on that. With him being removed from our day-to-day operations, I also would be perfectly fine if his (and even Jeff's) mention was confined to our infobox, but trust your best judgment in how to present the information relative to Wikipedia standards.

I hope this answers your questions. If you need additional background, I will see what I can provide. Thanks again! SCbhaynes (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the difficulty about private companies--it has always concerned me that we can often not cover adequately organizations that hide key information, unless someone manages to publish something reliable elsewhere (and I regard the basic financial status of a firm to be key information) The Dr Oz connection with WebMD will have to be discussed elsewhere. The guideline for infoboxes says not to include information in the infobox that's not in the article, except for special cases. but that point is widely ignored. I do see how putting this in the lede may be overweight, I'll try to figure something out, maybes to omit the qualifier for both of them and just give the names. It may be a week or so until I get to this. Thanks once more for doing things the right way. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You definitely get it. And that sounds good to me, DGG. Thanks for bearing with me (and helping) as I try to do this right. SCbhaynes (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

 DoneThis request has been open way too long, so I went ahead and, after reading the whole Talk, I implemented the latest proposed content, which seems to be acceptable by everyone involved. Let me know if I misunderstood. If you still believe there’s room for correction, we can start a new request, with a more holistic approach, rather than sentece by sentence. Ferkijel (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate your help with this edit, Ferkjl, and the thoughtful advice. When making this change, it looks like the 4th paragraph under Services accidentally got pasted twice, so the whole paragraph repeats what's above, starting with the 2nd sentence. Flagging in case you'd be open to removing the duplicated text? Again, I'm just avoiding touching the article directly given my stated conflict of interest. Otherwise, I think the loop is fully closed here. Thanks again! SCbhaynes (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yikes…thank you for the heads-up ! Ferkjl (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello editors (and hi Timtempleton, figured to share this with you directly since this section concerns your recent language contribution).

The most recent addition to the article states:

In January 2021, the company announced plans to go public by merging with a special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC).[5]

And then in section 2.0:

In January 2021, the company announced plans to go public by acquiring artificial intelligence startup Doc.ai, and then merging with special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC) Falcon Capital Acquisition Corp., created by investment banker Alan Mnuchin, brother of former treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin.[5]

However, this information is incorrect since this was not "announced" by the company, and as stated in the source, this is speculation that is unverified and that has received no comment from Sharecare.

Is an editor willing to update this to more accurately reflect what is stated in the source material?

As I’ve mentioned before, I have a "paid conflict of interest" as an employee of Sharecare and am intent on following Wikipedia's rules for COI editors, so I’m requesting editor assistance with this correction instead of editing it directly. Again, I appreciate everyone’s collaboration in improving the article and its accuracy! (Also DGG & Pelagic, since you both have contributed to the article and Talk page, and there are a couple of other improvements and discussions in progress based on your feedback, figured this may interest you as well.) SCbhaynes (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@SCbhaynes: Thanks for pointing out the nuance with the reporting. I modified the verbiage accordingly. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'm Arty and I work for Sharecare, as I've disclosed on my profile and at Talk:Jeff Arnold (Internet entrepreneur). I use my account to share ideas for improving articles related to the company. I've submitted a few edit requests for Jeff Arnold's article using the edit request template but I've not received any feedback since December.

Are any editors watching this page willing to take a look? SharecareAD (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello again! As I've mentioned previously, I work for Sharecare and use this account to share ideas for improving our company articles and to address concerns raised on this page.

Currently, Sharecare’s page is flagged for promotional content, and I’ll be submitting a series of edit requests to improve the article. The first of the edits I’d like to propose are to the infobox, which has been outdated since Sharecare’s acquisition by Altaris, which has already been updated and cited in the body copy of the webpage.

Are any editors watching this page willing to take a look and make these changes so we can maintain compliance with the guidelines for Wikipedia?

Because I have a "paid conflict of interest" I refrain from making changes directly.

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.