Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
It might be worth offering some non-criteria:
I stumbled across this via a link on a users talk page, and I hope you don't mind if I leave a few comments.
First in general, while I see the need for this clarification, I have to ask whether we would be better served by adding a paragraph to
WP:NCORP in order to minimize
WP:CREEP? In particular, I think we could say something along the lines of When using
news sources to assess the notability of cryptocurrencies or blockchain-related projects, it should be demonstrated on the basis of significant coverage in mainstream
reliable news sources. "Mainstream sources" are understood to be the ones that cover a wide variety of subjects (such as
The New York Times) or a broad topic area (such as financial news, e.g. the
Financial Times), and which have an audience that extends beyond a specific industry or affiliation.
I believe, in conjunction with existing policies and perhaps a little tweaking to wording elsewhere in NCORP that this will give the same result, abet with considerably less writing - the clarification and explanation can be provided in an explanatory essay.
Focusing on the proposal itself, it currently includes There is consensus that (in most cases) cryptocurrency-focused sources (eg Coindesk, Bitcoin Magazine, etc).
- It's not entirely clear what there is a consensus **for**. I would assume from the context that there is a consensus that they should not be used for notability and should generally be avoided as a source, but I feel it would be useful to clean that up in the draft.
BilledMammal ( talk) 09:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Retimuko: FYI in case you are interseted in this draft essay as well. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 12:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I've been thinking on this - our present notability criterion for crypto/blockchain is straight-up WP:GNG and some WP:CORPDEPTH. This has worked quite well. So I concur that a note on WP:NCORP might work best, if sourcing notes are reasonable there - CORPDEPTH already rules out churnalism, for example.
We do need to state that crypto media is unusable trash. It makes the usual business boosterism blog look like the NYT by comparison.
Any "fintech" outlet with a "crypto" section on its front page probably counts too.
Mainstream financial media has plenty of coverage of crypto stuff that satisfies GNG and CORPDEPTH - not just passing mentions, but reasonable depth in many cases.
It is worth stating that "market cap" - as stupid and useless a number as it actually is - needs a solid RS and a date. Even if the RS just got it from Coinmarketcap or CoinGecko. And that it isn't notability.
The other source that has got some cryptos in is peer-reviewed academic coverage. There is a lot of pay-to-play, e.g. Frontiers In and other stuff on WP:CITEWATCH won't do. But if it's actual peer-reviewed journal papers - not eprints, arXiv or conference proceedings (which notoriously accept any trash in cryptocurrency), those are good too.
Basically: keep being hard-arsed on sourcing. - David Gerard ( talk) 16:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
It is worth stating that "market cap" - as stupid and useless a number as it actually is - needs a solid RS and a date. Even if the RS just got it from Coinmarketcap or CoinGecko. And that it isn't notability.
Saw the notice at VPP and just wanted to say that this essay is useful just as a collection of existing information elsewhere, even if there's nothing new in it, as I will surely be pointing certain draft writers at AFC to it. As it's more a corollary of existing policies and guidelines, I think leaving it as an essay but adding some relevant text to WP:NCORP is a good idea. — Bilorv ( talk) 21:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the essay's lead should mention that it only concerns itself with notability of cryptocurrencies and related financial products and service, and organisations that are involved in the business. "Blockchain-related projects" is too vague because the essay doesn't say anything about the notability of broader topics Crypto art or staking, or other conceptual topics for which only GNG applies. - hako9 ( talk) 08:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I added sections on academic publications and books. I think this reflects what I see in discussions on AFD and so on, but feel free to disagree and/or tweak my wording. With books and dodgy publishers, I'm thinking of the stuff Packt churns out; also, a lot is just this side of self-published - David Gerard ( talk) 00:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
This essay has been referenced in a policy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 and cryptocurrencies. Singularity42 ( talk) 22:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, Just noticed that the main reason of using crypto-centric sources is because they are "overwhelmingly enthusiastic about cryptocurrencies" and generally cover crypto-related projects in a "positive light", however I personally think using a source from these sights should be okay if they are not talking about it in a promotional or enthusiastic way. I only bring this up because my on SafeMoon were reverted for including these sources despite not being positive and directed at the criticism and legal issues of Safemoon. GR86 ( 📱) 10:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
It might be worth offering some non-criteria:
I stumbled across this via a link on a users talk page, and I hope you don't mind if I leave a few comments.
First in general, while I see the need for this clarification, I have to ask whether we would be better served by adding a paragraph to
WP:NCORP in order to minimize
WP:CREEP? In particular, I think we could say something along the lines of When using
news sources to assess the notability of cryptocurrencies or blockchain-related projects, it should be demonstrated on the basis of significant coverage in mainstream
reliable news sources. "Mainstream sources" are understood to be the ones that cover a wide variety of subjects (such as
The New York Times) or a broad topic area (such as financial news, e.g. the
Financial Times), and which have an audience that extends beyond a specific industry or affiliation.
I believe, in conjunction with existing policies and perhaps a little tweaking to wording elsewhere in NCORP that this will give the same result, abet with considerably less writing - the clarification and explanation can be provided in an explanatory essay.
Focusing on the proposal itself, it currently includes There is consensus that (in most cases) cryptocurrency-focused sources (eg Coindesk, Bitcoin Magazine, etc).
- It's not entirely clear what there is a consensus **for**. I would assume from the context that there is a consensus that they should not be used for notability and should generally be avoided as a source, but I feel it would be useful to clean that up in the draft.
BilledMammal ( talk) 09:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Retimuko: FYI in case you are interseted in this draft essay as well. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 12:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I've been thinking on this - our present notability criterion for crypto/blockchain is straight-up WP:GNG and some WP:CORPDEPTH. This has worked quite well. So I concur that a note on WP:NCORP might work best, if sourcing notes are reasonable there - CORPDEPTH already rules out churnalism, for example.
We do need to state that crypto media is unusable trash. It makes the usual business boosterism blog look like the NYT by comparison.
Any "fintech" outlet with a "crypto" section on its front page probably counts too.
Mainstream financial media has plenty of coverage of crypto stuff that satisfies GNG and CORPDEPTH - not just passing mentions, but reasonable depth in many cases.
It is worth stating that "market cap" - as stupid and useless a number as it actually is - needs a solid RS and a date. Even if the RS just got it from Coinmarketcap or CoinGecko. And that it isn't notability.
The other source that has got some cryptos in is peer-reviewed academic coverage. There is a lot of pay-to-play, e.g. Frontiers In and other stuff on WP:CITEWATCH won't do. But if it's actual peer-reviewed journal papers - not eprints, arXiv or conference proceedings (which notoriously accept any trash in cryptocurrency), those are good too.
Basically: keep being hard-arsed on sourcing. - David Gerard ( talk) 16:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
It is worth stating that "market cap" - as stupid and useless a number as it actually is - needs a solid RS and a date. Even if the RS just got it from Coinmarketcap or CoinGecko. And that it isn't notability.
Saw the notice at VPP and just wanted to say that this essay is useful just as a collection of existing information elsewhere, even if there's nothing new in it, as I will surely be pointing certain draft writers at AFC to it. As it's more a corollary of existing policies and guidelines, I think leaving it as an essay but adding some relevant text to WP:NCORP is a good idea. — Bilorv ( talk) 21:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the essay's lead should mention that it only concerns itself with notability of cryptocurrencies and related financial products and service, and organisations that are involved in the business. "Blockchain-related projects" is too vague because the essay doesn't say anything about the notability of broader topics Crypto art or staking, or other conceptual topics for which only GNG applies. - hako9 ( talk) 08:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I added sections on academic publications and books. I think this reflects what I see in discussions on AFD and so on, but feel free to disagree and/or tweak my wording. With books and dodgy publishers, I'm thinking of the stuff Packt churns out; also, a lot is just this side of self-published - David Gerard ( talk) 00:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
This essay has been referenced in a policy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 and cryptocurrencies. Singularity42 ( talk) 22:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, Just noticed that the main reason of using crypto-centric sources is because they are "overwhelmingly enthusiastic about cryptocurrencies" and generally cover crypto-related projects in a "positive light", however I personally think using a source from these sights should be okay if they are not talking about it in a promotional or enthusiastic way. I only bring this up because my on SafeMoon were reverted for including these sources despite not being positive and directed at the criticism and legal issues of Safemoon. GR86 ( 📱) 10:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)