Talk:MycoWorks

MycoWorks — Serious BLP concerns re: multiple named living persons

The MycoWorks article contains multiple BLP violations involving five named living persons (Matthew Scullin, Sophia Wang, Philip Ross, a person identified as Lahoti, and Daniel Frydenlund):

Issue 1 — Unsourced accusations of deliberate misconduct: The article states that employees claimed four named individuals "deliberately concealed" the company's failing financial situation. This is a grave allegation sourced to what appear to be employee statements or complaint filings — primary sources — not reliable independent secondary sources. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, primary legal documents are insufficient for contentious BLP claims. No independent journalism or court ruling is cited to support these allegations.

Issue 2 — Selective defendant naming: Public lawsuits in this matter name multiple defendants. The article cherry-picks which individuals to name while omitting others, creating a misleading impression that singles out specific living persons. This editorial choice itself is a WP:NPOV violation and damages the named individuals under the BLP "do no harm" principle.

Issue 3 — Legal conclusions presented as fact: The article uses the term "self-dealing" to characterize lawsuits against leadership. Self-dealing is a legal conclusion, not an established fact, and should not be attributed based on unadjudicated complaint allegations.

Issue 4 — Loaded framing of IP acquirer: Daniel Frydenlund is named with his fund characterized as "specializing in distressed assets," creating an implication of opportunistic asset-stripping. This editorial framing goes beyond neutral description.

Issue 5 — Strong evidence of litigation-driven editing: User:Mush-Room-2026 appears to be a single-purpose account responsible for the contentious content. Critically, the editor's own talk page (User talk:Mush-Room-2026) contains posts discussing the prospect of a "class action suit against MycoWorks, Mycoworks Liquidation LLC, Matthew Scullin, Philip Ross, Sophia Wang, et al." — naming the exact same individuals the editor then added BLP-violating allegations about in the article. The editor also solicited off-wiki contact with another user interested in the litigation, and confirmed by reply on 20 March 2026 that they emailed that person. This demonstrates the account is being used for litigation coordination, not neutral encyclopedia-building, and that the editor has a direct interest adverse to the living persons they are writing contentious material about. This raises serious concerns under WP:BLP, WP:COI, and WP:NPOV.

I have removed the most clearly violating content and explained my reasoning on Talk:MycoWorks. Requesting administrator review and monitoring. ~~~~ Curious-Rabbit-65 (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Posting explained that the parties had been, and were, listed in lawsuits, during those years. Posting gave source of legal documents. This is factual, in that these lawsuits do exist. Did not solicit contact-- other party solicited contact. Was interest in responding to contact only for the purpose of discussing possible developments. Am in no way connected to the lawsuits, but am interested in following what happens with various kinds of eco-materials. Mush-Room-2026 (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not consider 'the existence of lawsuits' adequate grounds for inclusion on content in articles. And furthermore, Wikipedia policy expressly forbids the citation of court records in regard to statements concerning living named individuals, except under specific circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to list that the company itself (MycoWorks) (without mentioning the company leadership) was involved in past lawsuits, and is involved in current lawsuits, involving labor laws, tax liens, mechanics liens, and self-dealing? This seems as if it would be sharing information about the company itself, and not a biography of living persons issue. Mush-Room-2026 (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - a tertiary source, which summarises what independent secondary sources have to say about a subject. Absent of such coverage, such content does not belong in articles at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I am interested, in the general, in the trajectory of eco-materials, and the dynamics of how groups will or will not become viable over time, but am much less versed with Wiki protocols. Mush-Room-2026 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)