![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Does this need a disambiguation? I may update this. revert if appropriate please.
Ethereum#Decentralized_finance mentions web3 which is related to DeFI Decentralized finance
?
Michael Ten (
talk)
23:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
For someone late to this, it seems that web3.js played a role in claiming this name, but I did not dig any deep to affirm it. If someone knows more about the history, it would be good to know when and how the js came into play and it's role on it.
— Arthurfragoso ( talk) 02:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Other way around. Gavin Wood coined the term and the javascript team at the Ethereum Foundation used the term in their library. It should be renamed as it does not have too much relevance to the overall movement, it is a code repository for some specific functions specific to Ethereum development.
179.9.7.78 ( talk) 12:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
For someone late to this, it seems that web3.js played a role in claiming this name, but I did not dig any deep to affirm it. If someone knows more about the history, it would be good to know when and how the js came into play and it's role on it.
— Arthurfragoso ( talk) 02:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Other way around. Gavin Wood coined the term and the javascript team at the Ethereum Foundation used the term in their library. It should be renamed as it does not have too much relevance to the overall movement, it is a code repository for some specific functions specific to Ethereum development.
179.9.7.78 ( talk) 12:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
This article title is incorrect. "Web3" is a reference to, and trademark of of the Web3 Foundation. "Web 3.0" is the name of the technological movement it stewards.
179.9.7.78 ( talk) 12:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The concept of 'Web3', as defined [sic] here, consists of a number of vague statements that provide no clear definition of what might constitute Web3.
I would suggest that the article is removed until something can be written that actually gives more than a vague, 'hand-wavey' notion of what the title is supposed to mean. This, currently, is more of a non-article than an encyclopaedia entry. It gives the impression that Web3 is merely a new journalistic buzz-phrase, which it might well be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.135.44 ( talk) 21:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I think there is a small problem we're facing here: the sources we use are talking about the internet when they mean the world wide web. The question I have here is are we in the position to change that in the text to ensure it's correct? I think it's tricky because we should be relying on what the sources say. BeŻet ( talk) 12:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Compiling a list of sources that ought to be considered for this article:
Less strong but still worth considering:
I hope to come back and do some work on it myself, but wanted to put this source list here for the benefit of anyone who may have the opportunity to focus on this article before I do. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Some folks heavily involved in the cryptocurrency space are trying hard to bend the world to their own vision. The term "web3" is just that - it is not a thing, hence the haziness, but a term they are coining to try and legitimate their activity. Saying a lie long enough or loud enough shouldn't make it happen, this page should simply be deleted. 78.197.117.47 ( talk) 08:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I think this source is not good enough to give a general overview of the topic - it doesn't seem to be much more than a blog. BeŻet ( talk) 13:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a "technologies" section of this article, which is currently blank, and which specifies in the edit page that "specific products" should not be listed. Of course, it is sensible to prevent promotion of favored products. But many Web3 technologies are dependent on tokens which are associated with the companies which developed the token (this is the case with Steemit and LBRY, for example.)
So, what kind of content is appropriate for this section if not "specific products"? Is there anything that could be put under this heading which is not already under the heading "Concept"? And if not, should we keep this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.55.152.212 ( talk) 02:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the article should say that Gavin Wood "coined" the term Web 3.0. It seems like a misreading/misunderstanding of the original ref, which states "Gavin Wood coined the term Web3 (originally Web 3.0) in 2014." I think the article meant that he coined the term Web3, and that the idea was originally called Web 3.0 (I assume from what Web 3.0 used to mean, which was the next version of the web after Web 2.0).
Also, the current citation verifying that he "coined" Web3 is a Wired article in which the main contents are an interview given by Wood. I don't want Wikipedia to claim that he originated the term, or imply he originated the concept, without strong sources to back up what might be considered an
exceptional claim. When I search Web3 "coin" Gavin Wood
in Google News, it seems all of the sources are from within the past month... all after the original Wired article (and all less reliable-looking than the Wired article).
He also created an organization called Web3 Foundation, and I worry how easy it would be for an entrepreneur and well-known blockchain creator to market themself as the originator of a concept that is gaining lots of recent attention (and, likely, funding).
Anyone have any higher-quality sources, or otherwise objections to removing the info? - Whisperjanes ( talk) 07:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think the claim is controversial. Nobody else claims to have coined the term as far as I have seen, regularly monitoring media about this topic. Jehochman Talk 23:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". I wouldn't mind if this were a smaller article about a smaller topic, but this article gets more than 10,000 views a day. For a relatively new topic, that's enough views to impact others writing about Web3. - Whisperjanes ( talk) 06:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Web3&diff=prev&oldid=1021050414
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Web3&diff=1072849109&oldid=1054434244
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Web3&oldid=1020938025
Where can i find the history of Web3 before November 9, 2021? Was the page moved before Web3 became about crypto Web3? Michael Ten ( talk) 00:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I've followed the development of the WWW since the beginning, from the static HTML sites and its unidirectional information (web 1.0), the revolution of blogs that allowed users to share their thoughts and the base for a bidirectional content creation (web 2.0) and the social media, when all the content was generated by the users (web 3.0). Why some people claim today that the next big thing is called web3 🤔? -- Ekz4 ( talk) 11:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
This reads like a social media rant. The article briefly mentioned several implementations or theories for web3 but then doesn't give any information about them. The bulk of the read presents the opinions of several celebrities who have no relation to the subject matter. We can do better. This is a very disappointing example of Wikipedia. 69.169.131.138 ( talk) 15:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
The bulk of the read presents the opinions of several celebrities who have no relation to the subject matter.
This website is hysterical, and a good news crawl for web3 controversies. We should probably add a "Controversy" section to highlight just how scammy web3 is right now. I think we should also look at the Web 3.0 technology stack as identified by the web3 foundation. This technology stack is more sophisticated than just "blockchain." We might add a section on these technologies. I am going to add these two sites as external links because I think both of them are valuable to readers seeking more information. Jehochman Talk 16:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
climate hysteria
I reverted some good faith edits by Elyna2734 which purport to discuss the "scholarly literature". The edit states of Web3 "the term has gained popularity in scholarly literature as a means to refer to a more equitative version of the internet".
The provided reference states "For its advocates, the peer-to-peer character of web3 means it represents a more equitable vision for the web than its current iteration, Web 2.0, which is dominated by powerful intermediary platforms (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Google and other big tech companies)". Since this concept is attributed to Web3's advocates, it would be misleading to attribute it to "scholarly literature". Additionally this concept and the "Three fundamental architectural enablers" are already mostly reflected in the lead and therefore appear to be redundant. It may be reasonable to add something about distributed ledger, if this isn't redundant to the already-mentioned blockchain and cryptocurrency concepts. ScienceFlyer ( talk) 00:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Agree with ScienceFlyer—I don’t see what value this sentence adds, especially in the lede, which already provided a more neutral (and grammatical) summary of these facts. The source is a policy brief (a lay summary of a topic), not an academic publication. Calling it “scholarly literature” is a mild misrepresentation at best. RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ ( talk · contribs) 02:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
One of the very first things I noticed when reading this article is that it doesn't seem to use consistent terminology for its subject matter: the Wikipedia article itself is titled Web3, but the content of the article begins with "Web 3 (also known as Web 3.0 and sometimes stylized as web3)..."
The article should use a consistent naming convention between the title of the article and its content, so which should be the title of the article? Web3, Web 3, web3, or Web 3.0? TheWizardG ( talk) 04:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps the people who wrote this should read a good article like the one about the electron. Just read the introduction and try to understand what it does that this article does not.
To define something (that is what an encyclopedia article is supposed to do right?) you need to define its properties including what you can do with it. None of that seems to happen here.
Let's look at what we can do with the current web, which I think is just Timbo's web with a lot of nastier people on it. Presumably web2 didn't happen because no one knew what that was either. The first thing I need to know for any web is how do I create a website. At the moment all I do is upload a bunch of files onto a server and I'm done. To view my website all a user needs to do is to enter a url for a file on my server into their browser and bingo! They obtain the url from some other website which may or may not be a search engine. For the majority of people these are the only important characteristics of a web.
So how do things change with a web3 web? I was hoping this article might tell me – but no. Presumably for web3 I need some kind of blockchain access to create a website. Does this imply that I need a crypto-currency account? If so, I will probably give up producing websites because I'm not going to sink that low. Also, at the moment, if I need to amend information on my website, I just upload a new copy of the relevant file to the server. The old information is gone forever. Suppose I accidentally include false or damaging information on my site concerning some individual or organisation and they bring pressure on me to remove it. How is that going to work on an append only blockchain? Even if not easily accessible, the false information will be there forever – until crypto-currencies go tits up in a nasty stinking mess anyway!
From a users perspective, how hard will it be to see old versions of a website? Does web3 make the Wayback Machine redundant? I'll come back in a few years and probably find that this article has been depreciated in favour of one about web9, but no one can define that either. Articles like this are not encyclopedic. 81.140.177.204 ( talk) 18:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Lmao, everything that has the potential to disrupt neo-marxismapproaches like centralization will instantly be framed "racist", "sexist" or promoting far-right extremism. Look at the people in web3. Those are the most post-modern, idividualistic free minded people.
Beside, the reference given does not state the extremism bs at all. However I'm sure its easy to find some quirk-head to chatter some nonsense together in some medium article, such that this wiki can frame "properly" 2A01:598:B184:2B4:35C8:92D0:62E6:C67D ( talk) 21:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I think the lead needs to tone down blockchain. Web3, having read many different sources, seems to be the thing that comes after Web 2.0. Everyone seems to have their own ideas about what that means, but some common themes are: more user control, decentralization, less reliance on big platforms, more peer-to-peer relationships, and maybe even better user privacy. These are my impressions, and feedback, not an attempt to craft a sentence. Instead of relying so heavily on footnote 5, could we try to take a broader view? Jehochman Talk 07:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. It’s a maddening bunch of idiocy. Perhaps the reason it keeps going is that people are unhappy with what Web 2.0 has become, and are casting about for something better. These crypto grifters are latching onto that desire for something better. Jehochman Talk 12:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Does this need a disambiguation? I may update this. revert if appropriate please.
Ethereum#Decentralized_finance mentions web3 which is related to DeFI Decentralized finance
?
Michael Ten (
talk)
23:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
For someone late to this, it seems that web3.js played a role in claiming this name, but I did not dig any deep to affirm it. If someone knows more about the history, it would be good to know when and how the js came into play and it's role on it.
— Arthurfragoso ( talk) 02:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Other way around. Gavin Wood coined the term and the javascript team at the Ethereum Foundation used the term in their library. It should be renamed as it does not have too much relevance to the overall movement, it is a code repository for some specific functions specific to Ethereum development.
179.9.7.78 ( talk) 12:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
For someone late to this, it seems that web3.js played a role in claiming this name, but I did not dig any deep to affirm it. If someone knows more about the history, it would be good to know when and how the js came into play and it's role on it.
— Arthurfragoso ( talk) 02:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Other way around. Gavin Wood coined the term and the javascript team at the Ethereum Foundation used the term in their library. It should be renamed as it does not have too much relevance to the overall movement, it is a code repository for some specific functions specific to Ethereum development.
179.9.7.78 ( talk) 12:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
This article title is incorrect. "Web3" is a reference to, and trademark of of the Web3 Foundation. "Web 3.0" is the name of the technological movement it stewards.
179.9.7.78 ( talk) 12:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The concept of 'Web3', as defined [sic] here, consists of a number of vague statements that provide no clear definition of what might constitute Web3.
I would suggest that the article is removed until something can be written that actually gives more than a vague, 'hand-wavey' notion of what the title is supposed to mean. This, currently, is more of a non-article than an encyclopaedia entry. It gives the impression that Web3 is merely a new journalistic buzz-phrase, which it might well be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.135.44 ( talk) 21:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I think there is a small problem we're facing here: the sources we use are talking about the internet when they mean the world wide web. The question I have here is are we in the position to change that in the text to ensure it's correct? I think it's tricky because we should be relying on what the sources say. BeŻet ( talk) 12:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Compiling a list of sources that ought to be considered for this article:
Less strong but still worth considering:
I hope to come back and do some work on it myself, but wanted to put this source list here for the benefit of anyone who may have the opportunity to focus on this article before I do. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Some folks heavily involved in the cryptocurrency space are trying hard to bend the world to their own vision. The term "web3" is just that - it is not a thing, hence the haziness, but a term they are coining to try and legitimate their activity. Saying a lie long enough or loud enough shouldn't make it happen, this page should simply be deleted. 78.197.117.47 ( talk) 08:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I think this source is not good enough to give a general overview of the topic - it doesn't seem to be much more than a blog. BeŻet ( talk) 13:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a "technologies" section of this article, which is currently blank, and which specifies in the edit page that "specific products" should not be listed. Of course, it is sensible to prevent promotion of favored products. But many Web3 technologies are dependent on tokens which are associated with the companies which developed the token (this is the case with Steemit and LBRY, for example.)
So, what kind of content is appropriate for this section if not "specific products"? Is there anything that could be put under this heading which is not already under the heading "Concept"? And if not, should we keep this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.55.152.212 ( talk) 02:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the article should say that Gavin Wood "coined" the term Web 3.0. It seems like a misreading/misunderstanding of the original ref, which states "Gavin Wood coined the term Web3 (originally Web 3.0) in 2014." I think the article meant that he coined the term Web3, and that the idea was originally called Web 3.0 (I assume from what Web 3.0 used to mean, which was the next version of the web after Web 2.0).
Also, the current citation verifying that he "coined" Web3 is a Wired article in which the main contents are an interview given by Wood. I don't want Wikipedia to claim that he originated the term, or imply he originated the concept, without strong sources to back up what might be considered an
exceptional claim. When I search Web3 "coin" Gavin Wood
in Google News, it seems all of the sources are from within the past month... all after the original Wired article (and all less reliable-looking than the Wired article).
He also created an organization called Web3 Foundation, and I worry how easy it would be for an entrepreneur and well-known blockchain creator to market themself as the originator of a concept that is gaining lots of recent attention (and, likely, funding).
Anyone have any higher-quality sources, or otherwise objections to removing the info? - Whisperjanes ( talk) 07:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think the claim is controversial. Nobody else claims to have coined the term as far as I have seen, regularly monitoring media about this topic. Jehochman Talk 23:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". I wouldn't mind if this were a smaller article about a smaller topic, but this article gets more than 10,000 views a day. For a relatively new topic, that's enough views to impact others writing about Web3. - Whisperjanes ( talk) 06:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Web3&diff=prev&oldid=1021050414
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Web3&diff=1072849109&oldid=1054434244
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Web3&oldid=1020938025
Where can i find the history of Web3 before November 9, 2021? Was the page moved before Web3 became about crypto Web3? Michael Ten ( talk) 00:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I've followed the development of the WWW since the beginning, from the static HTML sites and its unidirectional information (web 1.0), the revolution of blogs that allowed users to share their thoughts and the base for a bidirectional content creation (web 2.0) and the social media, when all the content was generated by the users (web 3.0). Why some people claim today that the next big thing is called web3 🤔? -- Ekz4 ( talk) 11:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
This reads like a social media rant. The article briefly mentioned several implementations or theories for web3 but then doesn't give any information about them. The bulk of the read presents the opinions of several celebrities who have no relation to the subject matter. We can do better. This is a very disappointing example of Wikipedia. 69.169.131.138 ( talk) 15:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
The bulk of the read presents the opinions of several celebrities who have no relation to the subject matter.
This website is hysterical, and a good news crawl for web3 controversies. We should probably add a "Controversy" section to highlight just how scammy web3 is right now. I think we should also look at the Web 3.0 technology stack as identified by the web3 foundation. This technology stack is more sophisticated than just "blockchain." We might add a section on these technologies. I am going to add these two sites as external links because I think both of them are valuable to readers seeking more information. Jehochman Talk 16:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
climate hysteria
I reverted some good faith edits by Elyna2734 which purport to discuss the "scholarly literature". The edit states of Web3 "the term has gained popularity in scholarly literature as a means to refer to a more equitative version of the internet".
The provided reference states "For its advocates, the peer-to-peer character of web3 means it represents a more equitable vision for the web than its current iteration, Web 2.0, which is dominated by powerful intermediary platforms (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Google and other big tech companies)". Since this concept is attributed to Web3's advocates, it would be misleading to attribute it to "scholarly literature". Additionally this concept and the "Three fundamental architectural enablers" are already mostly reflected in the lead and therefore appear to be redundant. It may be reasonable to add something about distributed ledger, if this isn't redundant to the already-mentioned blockchain and cryptocurrency concepts. ScienceFlyer ( talk) 00:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Agree with ScienceFlyer—I don’t see what value this sentence adds, especially in the lede, which already provided a more neutral (and grammatical) summary of these facts. The source is a policy brief (a lay summary of a topic), not an academic publication. Calling it “scholarly literature” is a mild misrepresentation at best. RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ ( talk · contribs) 02:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
One of the very first things I noticed when reading this article is that it doesn't seem to use consistent terminology for its subject matter: the Wikipedia article itself is titled Web3, but the content of the article begins with "Web 3 (also known as Web 3.0 and sometimes stylized as web3)..."
The article should use a consistent naming convention between the title of the article and its content, so which should be the title of the article? Web3, Web 3, web3, or Web 3.0? TheWizardG ( talk) 04:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps the people who wrote this should read a good article like the one about the electron. Just read the introduction and try to understand what it does that this article does not.
To define something (that is what an encyclopedia article is supposed to do right?) you need to define its properties including what you can do with it. None of that seems to happen here.
Let's look at what we can do with the current web, which I think is just Timbo's web with a lot of nastier people on it. Presumably web2 didn't happen because no one knew what that was either. The first thing I need to know for any web is how do I create a website. At the moment all I do is upload a bunch of files onto a server and I'm done. To view my website all a user needs to do is to enter a url for a file on my server into their browser and bingo! They obtain the url from some other website which may or may not be a search engine. For the majority of people these are the only important characteristics of a web.
So how do things change with a web3 web? I was hoping this article might tell me – but no. Presumably for web3 I need some kind of blockchain access to create a website. Does this imply that I need a crypto-currency account? If so, I will probably give up producing websites because I'm not going to sink that low. Also, at the moment, if I need to amend information on my website, I just upload a new copy of the relevant file to the server. The old information is gone forever. Suppose I accidentally include false or damaging information on my site concerning some individual or organisation and they bring pressure on me to remove it. How is that going to work on an append only blockchain? Even if not easily accessible, the false information will be there forever – until crypto-currencies go tits up in a nasty stinking mess anyway!
From a users perspective, how hard will it be to see old versions of a website? Does web3 make the Wayback Machine redundant? I'll come back in a few years and probably find that this article has been depreciated in favour of one about web9, but no one can define that either. Articles like this are not encyclopedic. 81.140.177.204 ( talk) 18:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Lmao, everything that has the potential to disrupt neo-marxismapproaches like centralization will instantly be framed "racist", "sexist" or promoting far-right extremism. Look at the people in web3. Those are the most post-modern, idividualistic free minded people.
Beside, the reference given does not state the extremism bs at all. However I'm sure its easy to find some quirk-head to chatter some nonsense together in some medium article, such that this wiki can frame "properly" 2A01:598:B184:2B4:35C8:92D0:62E6:C67D ( talk) 21:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I think the lead needs to tone down blockchain. Web3, having read many different sources, seems to be the thing that comes after Web 2.0. Everyone seems to have their own ideas about what that means, but some common themes are: more user control, decentralization, less reliance on big platforms, more peer-to-peer relationships, and maybe even better user privacy. These are my impressions, and feedback, not an attempt to craft a sentence. Instead of relying so heavily on footnote 5, could we try to take a broader view? Jehochman Talk 07:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. It’s a maddening bunch of idiocy. Perhaps the reason it keeps going is that people are unhappy with what Web 2.0 has become, and are casting about for something better. These crypto grifters are latching onto that desire for something better. Jehochman Talk 12:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)