 | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Gavin Wood, along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
If he's only notable for Etherium, and with the current sourcing, the BLP seems borderline WP:N. If so, a merge to Ethereum may be justified. Widefox; talk 21:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
-
User:Uhooep There's one or two independent, non-primary sources here (three if counting the IBT which is an announcement and quotes him), so is still borderline based on
WP:GNG, let alone N:B. Please stop removing the tag just because more sources are added, we need quality secondaries, not more primaries.
Widefox;
talk
17:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi
User:Widefox. Apologies. To my mind Wood is a key figure in this space and easily passes GNG, but I recognise that needs to be substantiated by reliable sources and not based on the opinion of one editor. I shall try to find more appropriate sourcing when I get a chance. Regards
Uhooep (
talk)
19:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- No problem, you're still building the house so it's unreasonable to demolish it, and although WP:NOTINHERITED from Ethereum applies, two bio sources would be good start. Widefox; talk 20:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi
User:Widefox. Apologies. To my mind Wood is a key figure in this space and easily passes GNG, but I recognise that needs to be substantiated by reliable sources and not based on the opinion of one editor. I shall try to find more appropriate sourcing when I get a chance. Regards
Uhooep (
talk)
19:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
In 2017-18, the publications of "Insights Into a Modern World" from Wood sparked significant controversy within both the media and the cryptocurrency community. While the Controversy section currently outlines the general uproar, it does not specify that Wood's fantasies involving the fictional character Elizabeth occurred approximately 11-12 years prior, according to his blog post and other sources. Furthermore, the blog post describes the character as having AIDS and expresses Wood's desire for penetration, content deemed by many as excessively explicit and unsuitable for a general audience.
To provide a more comprehensive overview of the controversy, it may be beneficial to include specific details about the nature of the blog post from 2013|2017, such as those outlined above - but without violating the Wikipedia guidelines. Additionally, considering alternative phrasings for the more explicit details. Lustigermutiger21 ( talk) 08:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- User @ Bilby seems to have a COI by removing content in the controversy section.
- Added template in his Talk page.
Lustigermutiger21 (
talk)
09:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I mentioned on my talk page, no, I do not have a COI. I do feel that your original coverage - consisting of a section almost as large as the coverage of his entire career - was undue. I think it is on the wrong side of undue still, but it is an improvement. -
Bilby (
talk)
09:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ Bilby Your "position" is well described here, Talk.
- "far from convinced this needs to be covered"
- (personal attack removed)
Lustigermutiger21 (
talk)
09:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is a serious personal attack. Please don't do that. It will not help. -
Bilby (
talk)
09:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a serious personal attack but a fact.
Lustigermutiger21 (
talk)
09:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Because this is a sensitive issue that will certainly engender strong feelings, I have no wish to make anything more of this. But Wikipedia has a strong stance against person attacks - see
WP:No personal attacks - and making them never helps your position. -
Bilby (
talk)
09:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- (personal attack removed) Lustigermutiger21 ( talk) 09:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Because this is a sensitive issue that will certainly engender strong feelings, I have no wish to make anything more of this. But Wikipedia has a strong stance against person attacks - see
WP:No personal attacks - and making them never helps your position. -
Bilby (
talk)
09:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a serious personal attack but a fact.
Lustigermutiger21 (
talk)
09:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is a serious personal attack. Please don't do that. It will not help. -
Bilby (
talk)
09:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I mentioned on my talk page, no, I do not have a COI. I do feel that your original coverage - consisting of a section almost as large as the coverage of his entire career - was undue. I think it is on the wrong side of undue still, but it is an improvement. -
Bilby (
talk)
09:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I also had to remove the claim sourced to a forum post. I don't see it as essential, as the claim was only that the issue resurfaced in 2017, which isn't horribly relevent to thie issue, but either way under
WP:BLPSPS we cannot use self published content for information about a living person unless it was authored by them, and even then only carefully. -
Bilby (
talk)
09:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Changed with
Source which confirms: "The republished elements of Wood’s posts first resurfaced on a Reddit digital currency group in 2017"
Lustigermutiger21 (
talk)
09:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- That covers half of what you wrote, but not the "drawing significant attention within the cryptocurrency community". -
Bilby (
talk)
10:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Significant attention within the crypto community can be seen by considering the other 4 Sources in this section. If you want to help improving the section instead of deleting without reason (personal attack removed), add additional sources please.
Lustigermutiger21 (
talk)
10:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Generally with a BLP we would need a source that specifically states that it drew significant criticism if we wanted to make the claim that it did. Having brief articles years later suggests that you may be right, but you need more than your interpretation of the meaning of the sources. I think the buzzfeed piece probably is significant in itself, but I do not know how to evaluate the various blackchain-specific sources, if they are significant, and if they represent significant criticism or just brief ongoing mentions. -
Bilby (
talk)
11:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the constructive feedback. You can remove the "Significant attention within the crypto community" part if you want. in my opinion it was sufficiently covered by the other sources. Lustigermutiger21 ( talk) 11:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Generally with a BLP we would need a source that specifically states that it drew significant criticism if we wanted to make the claim that it did. Having brief articles years later suggests that you may be right, but you need more than your interpretation of the meaning of the sources. I think the buzzfeed piece probably is significant in itself, but I do not know how to evaluate the various blackchain-specific sources, if they are significant, and if they represent significant criticism or just brief ongoing mentions. -
Bilby (
talk)
11:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Significant attention within the crypto community can be seen by considering the other 4 Sources in this section. If you want to help improving the section instead of deleting without reason (personal attack removed), add additional sources please.
Lustigermutiger21 (
talk)
10:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- That covers half of what you wrote, but not the "drawing significant attention within the cryptocurrency community". -
Bilby (
talk)
10:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Changed with
Source which confirms: "The republished elements of Wood’s posts first resurfaced on a Reddit digital currency group in 2017"
Lustigermutiger21 (
talk)
09:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I do not have much experience with cryptocurrency sources, so I've raised this in regard to them at BLP/N. I'm not certain that there is an issue, but with BLPs I figure an overabundence of caution is rarely an error. - Bilby ( talk) 04:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Based on the discussion at BLPN, where another editor and I both expressed similar concerns to Bilby that this content is not
WP:DUE, I have removed it for now so that consensus can be reached for whether it is appropriate to include in the article, per
WP:ONUS. The content was sourced to Business Insider and BuzzFeed News, neither of which are high quality, and Business Insider in particular has not been found to be generally reliable (see
WP:BUSINESSINSIDER and
WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS). For contentious or controversial content, there should be multiple high quality sources that discuss it, especially on a
WP:BLP (see
WP:PUBLICFIGURE:
If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
). – notwally ( talk) 21:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)- HU @ Notwallythanks for your feedback.
- I would like to be clear here: According to WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS, the source is reliable.
- I will now add a sentence to the "Early life" section and cover it with the reliable source as usual in WP. Given the fact that Wood was 18 years old at the time of the blog post, this fits into the early life section and we don't need to set up a controversy section for it.
- If you make the edit ,,undo" for no reason, I will take action against it.
Lustigermutiger21 (
talk)
05:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The addition of this content is disputed per multiple editors as being UNDUE. There are also concerns about using just one source and PUBLICFIGURE. It is clear there is no consensus to re-add this, please see WP:ONUS - the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
- Also, please stop assuming editors have a COI and accusing editors of whitewashing. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I removed all unreliable source not listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and placed citation needed. Please do not add or delete anything in this article if you have a Conflict of Interest. Lustigermutiger21 ( talk) 08:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you assume a source is necessarily unreliable if it isn't listed at WP:RSP, you err. I have restored the reliable sources you removed. Robby.is.on ( talk) 12:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
|
| WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Gavin Wood, along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
|
| This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
If he's only notable for Etherium, and with the current sourcing, the BLP seems borderline WP:N. If so, a merge to Ethereum may be justified. Widefox; talk 21:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
-
User:Uhooep There's one or two independent, non-primary sources here (three if counting the IBT which is an announcement and quotes him), so is still borderline based on
WP:GNG, let alone N:B. Please stop removing the tag just because more sources are added, we need quality secondaries, not more primaries.
Widefox;
talk
17:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi
User:Widefox. Apologies. To my mind Wood is a key figure in this space and easily passes GNG, but I recognise that needs to be substantiated by reliable sources and not based on the opinion of one editor. I shall try to find more appropriate sourcing when I get a chance. Regards
Uhooep (
talk)
19:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- No problem, you're still building the house so it's unreasonable to demolish it, and although WP:NOTINHERITED from Ethereum applies, two bio sources would be good start. Widefox; talk 20:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi
User:Widefox. Apologies. To my mind Wood is a key figure in this space and easily passes GNG, but I recognise that needs to be substantiated by reliable sources and not based on the opinion of one editor. I shall try to find more appropriate sourcing when I get a chance. Regards
Uhooep (
talk)
19:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
In 2017-18, the publications of "Insights Into a Modern World" from Wood sparked significant controversy within both the media and the cryptocurrency community. While the Controversy section currently outlines the general uproar, it does not specify that Wood's fantasies involving the fictional character Elizabeth occurred approximately 11-12 years prior, according to his blog post and other sources. Furthermore, the blog post describes the character as having AIDS and expresses Wood's desire for penetration, content deemed by many as excessively explicit and unsuitable for a general audience.
To provide a more comprehensive overview of the controversy, it may be beneficial to include specific details about the nature of the blog post from 2013|2017, such as those outlined above - but without violating the Wikipedia guidelines. Additionally, considering alternative phrasings for the more explicit details. Lustigermutiger21 ( talk) 08:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- User @ Bilby seems to have a COI by removing content in the controversy section.
- Added template in his Talk page.
Lustigermutiger21 (
talk)
09:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I mentioned on my talk page, no, I do not have a COI. I do feel that your original coverage - consisting of a section almost as large as the coverage of his entire career - was undue. I think it is on the wrong side of undue still, but it is an improvement. -
Bilby (
talk)
09:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ Bilby Your "position" is well described here, Talk.
- "far from convinced this needs to be covered"
- (personal attack removed)
Lustigermutiger21 (
talk)
09:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is a serious personal attack. Please don't do that. It will not help. -
Bilby (
talk)
09:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a serious personal attack but a fact.
Lustigermutiger21 (
talk)
09:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Because this is a sensitive issue that will certainly engender strong feelings, I have no wish to make anything more of this. But Wikipedia has a strong stance against person attacks - see
WP:No personal attacks - and making them never helps your position. -
Bilby (
talk)
09:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- (personal attack removed) Lustigermutiger21 ( talk) 09:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Because this is a sensitive issue that will certainly engender strong feelings, I have no wish to make anything more of this. But Wikipedia has a strong stance against person attacks - see
WP:No personal attacks - and making them never helps your position. -
Bilby (
talk)
09:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a serious personal attack but a fact.
Lustigermutiger21 (
talk)
09:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is a serious personal attack. Please don't do that. It will not help. -
Bilby (
talk)
09:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I mentioned on my talk page, no, I do not have a COI. I do feel that your original coverage - consisting of a section almost as large as the coverage of his entire career - was undue. I think it is on the wrong side of undue still, but it is an improvement. -
Bilby (
talk)
09:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I also had to remove the claim sourced to a forum post. I don't see it as essential, as the claim was only that the issue resurfaced in 2017, which isn't horribly relevent to thie issue, but either way under
WP:BLPSPS we cannot use self published content for information about a living person unless it was authored by them, and even then only carefully. -
Bilby (
talk)
09:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Changed with
Source which confirms: "The republished elements of Wood’s posts first resurfaced on a Reddit digital currency group in 2017"
Lustigermutiger21 (
talk)
09:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- That covers half of what you wrote, but not the "drawing significant attention within the cryptocurrency community". -
Bilby (
talk)
10:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Significant attention within the crypto community can be seen by considering the other 4 Sources in this section. If you want to help improving the section instead of deleting without reason (personal attack removed), add additional sources please.
Lustigermutiger21 (
talk)
10:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Generally with a BLP we would need a source that specifically states that it drew significant criticism if we wanted to make the claim that it did. Having brief articles years later suggests that you may be right, but you need more than your interpretation of the meaning of the sources. I think the buzzfeed piece probably is significant in itself, but I do not know how to evaluate the various blackchain-specific sources, if they are significant, and if they represent significant criticism or just brief ongoing mentions. -
Bilby (
talk)
11:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the constructive feedback. You can remove the "Significant attention within the crypto community" part if you want. in my opinion it was sufficiently covered by the other sources. Lustigermutiger21 ( talk) 11:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Generally with a BLP we would need a source that specifically states that it drew significant criticism if we wanted to make the claim that it did. Having brief articles years later suggests that you may be right, but you need more than your interpretation of the meaning of the sources. I think the buzzfeed piece probably is significant in itself, but I do not know how to evaluate the various blackchain-specific sources, if they are significant, and if they represent significant criticism or just brief ongoing mentions. -
Bilby (
talk)
11:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Significant attention within the crypto community can be seen by considering the other 4 Sources in this section. If you want to help improving the section instead of deleting without reason (personal attack removed), add additional sources please.
Lustigermutiger21 (
talk)
10:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- That covers half of what you wrote, but not the "drawing significant attention within the cryptocurrency community". -
Bilby (
talk)
10:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Changed with
Source which confirms: "The republished elements of Wood’s posts first resurfaced on a Reddit digital currency group in 2017"
Lustigermutiger21 (
talk)
09:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I do not have much experience with cryptocurrency sources, so I've raised this in regard to them at BLP/N. I'm not certain that there is an issue, but with BLPs I figure an overabundence of caution is rarely an error. - Bilby ( talk) 04:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Based on the discussion at BLPN, where another editor and I both expressed similar concerns to Bilby that this content is not
WP:DUE, I have removed it for now so that consensus can be reached for whether it is appropriate to include in the article, per
WP:ONUS. The content was sourced to Business Insider and BuzzFeed News, neither of which are high quality, and Business Insider in particular has not been found to be generally reliable (see
WP:BUSINESSINSIDER and
WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS). For contentious or controversial content, there should be multiple high quality sources that discuss it, especially on a
WP:BLP (see
WP:PUBLICFIGURE:
If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
). – notwally ( talk) 21:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)- HU @ Notwallythanks for your feedback.
- I would like to be clear here: According to WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS, the source is reliable.
- I will now add a sentence to the "Early life" section and cover it with the reliable source as usual in WP. Given the fact that Wood was 18 years old at the time of the blog post, this fits into the early life section and we don't need to set up a controversy section for it.
- If you make the edit ,,undo" for no reason, I will take action against it.
Lustigermutiger21 (
talk)
05:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The addition of this content is disputed per multiple editors as being UNDUE. There are also concerns about using just one source and PUBLICFIGURE. It is clear there is no consensus to re-add this, please see WP:ONUS - the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
- Also, please stop assuming editors have a COI and accusing editors of whitewashing. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I removed all unreliable source not listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and placed citation needed. Please do not add or delete anything in this article if you have a Conflict of Interest. Lustigermutiger21 ( talk) 08:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you assume a source is necessarily unreliable if it isn't listed at WP:RSP, you err. I have restored the reliable sources you removed. Robby.is.on ( talk) 12:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)