Revision as of 19:29, 18 April 2018 editCompassionate727 (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,164 edits →Huge primary-sourced addition - what's useful here?: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:32, 19 April 2018 edit undoComefrombeyond (talk | contribs)64 edits →Huge primary-sourced addition - what's useful here?Next edit → | ||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
:::::::It's notable if third-party Reliable Sources bother to cover it. If not, it's not notable and shouldn't be in the article - ] (]) 19:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC) | :::::::It's notable if third-party Reliable Sources bother to cover it. If not, it's not notable and shouldn't be in the article - ] (]) 19:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC) | ||
::::::::Yeah, that. My assumption was that if everyone uses it, no one will talk about IOTA using it. But David applies the correct standard here, both to that technical detail and every other. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 19:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC) | ::::::::Yeah, that. My assumption was that if everyone uses it, no one will talk about IOTA using it. But David applies the correct standard here, both to that technical detail and every other. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 19:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::https://iotasupport.com/gui-newseed.shtml and https://iota.guide/seed/how-to-generate-iota-wallet-seed/ are such sources. IOTA seeds are not the same thing as seeds in other cryptocurrencies. I guess once someone adds the sources "Seeds" section gets the right to life... - ] (]) 21:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:32, 19 April 2018
Numismatics Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Computing: Software / Security Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EddieQuebrado (article contribs).
Sourcing
Im still working on adding sources. I have collected most of them here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110nWGgJVXzkWr5Q0Uh-X9M6GxQBjZ6l2LK3pOjXnKzo/edit?usp=sharing Havent had the time to add them yet. Want to mention that the overall quality of the article has gone down allot since my last revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmash (talk • contribs) 19:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @Badmash: This article was previously for awful sourcing. Today I have cleared all the content that lacks WP:RS. You need to find some content for the article, WP:SOAPBOX applies here. @Jytdog: @David Gerard: you might want to add to your patrol, seems it has returned in its old form. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Xa7v9ier: you have reverted my edit to add a lot of unsourced content. This article was previously deleted due to unsourced content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Xa7v9ier: this is the second time you have reverted my edits deleting your poorly sourced content. You have created three entire sections on this article that rely entirely on WP:PRIMARY. This is all trash, see you edits and you deleted the only sourced content on this page which was the microsoft news in this edit . Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Jtbobwaysf: The Next Web author, MIX, has a known public feud with the IOTA community, which might contradict WP:RS guidelines. https://twitter.com/Mixtatiq/status/966312593077030912
- Still an RS, and the "feud" is attacks from IOTA cultists - David Gerard (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Jtbobwaysf: @David Gerard: I disagree with WP:RS here, as the individual directly mis-quoted by Mix , his interpretation of that particular situation stemmed from a lack of understanding of the basics of IOTA. His other articles lack WP:NPOV in favour of clicks. WP:COI Twpks (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- That's not what WP:NPOV or WP:COI mean. Please don't invoke policy pages you don't seem to have read or understood - David Gerard (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:NPOV Language
It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at P. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |
The 'Microsoft partnership scandal' appears to violate WP:NPOV. Specifically, no where in the sources does it mention this being a 'Scandal' as denoted in the section title. Additionally, neither source for the passage 'The Iota Foundation was derided' state this.
This section appears to be WP:N however unless sources are corroborate that this was a 'Scandal' it is quite literally WP:NOTSCANDAL. Similarly the Foundation was not derided, as per those sources. Please update sources or reword that passage as this is WP:NOTSOAPBOX.
Note: I have a WP:COI so requested the edit.
Notability Tag
I think some of us have heard of IOTA. However, the article still needs sources to comply with WP:GNG. Please add WP:RS as all this use of WP:PRIMARY including IOTA website, medium, blogs, and reddit is just not good enough (in fact it is prohibited). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- There's been coverage in The Next Web ... most of it about the community weirdness, security issues and that they didn't actually have a partnership with Microsoft as such - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks David, found that and added it... and I removed the tag. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Recreated formerly deleted article
- This creation at a new name was previously deleted here Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/IOTA (technology). Its not clear to me yet if this is any better, where's the RS? I see a not fully independent (semi-interview, "Machine translation provided by Google") at Bloomberg, Business Insider seems routine coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. Where's the significant RS coverage of what it is, and does? Widefox; talk 13:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Huge primary-sourced addition - what's useful here?
This editor has contributed only to this article and its talk (and has posted editors' personal information to talk) in the past, and this is a huge primary-sourced addition that needs review by uninvolved editors. What in this is useful and sourced to third-party RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ordinary readers are not interested in that marketing stuff (from the previous version), I added information which is really useful to them. "This editor has contributed only to this article and its talk" is an incorrect statement. "and has posted editors' personal information to talk" -- I didn't know about that restriction back then... wait, is it an attempt to discredit my version with help of ad hominem? Comefrombeyond (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's not ad hominem to note that 20kb of primary-sourced material being added by a problematic and single-issue editor is a reason for due caution. Is there anyone else who thinks the new stuff is good content to add? - David Gerard (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- I contributed to Misplaced Pages in the past, don't let the fact that I wasn't able to recover the old account to fool you. Regarding asking "anyone else": the truth can't be found by voting, just compare my and your versions. Mine contains much more useful information, if you think that your marketing stuff (which, frankly saying, makes me suspect you being a IOTA shill) is really that important then add it to my version. Comefrombeyond (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've compared the two revisions. My first note was that David Gerard's preferred revision contains more information about the business side of this topic, and Comefrombeyond's contains more about the technical side. Some of the information on the technical side is important, particularly about those aspects which distinguish it from other cryptocurrencies (i.e. that users are required to validate each other's transactions). Other aspects seem of no particular importance (such as seeds and units), and some unduly promote the subject of the article (notably the scalability section). A larger percentage of the information in David Gerard's preferred version seems of notability, but it can probably be condensed a little bit too. From an ease of editing standpoint, I would probably start with Gerard's version, then incorporate the more important elements of Comefrombeyond's revisions into that. —Compassionate727 18:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- "Seeds" part is the most important one actually. An incorretly generated seed may lead to a loss of million dollars worth of tokens. Comefrombeyond (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- This may or may not be true, depending on whether the fact that the website uses seeds is notable. If every cryptocurrency uses seeds in a similar manner, there really isn't anything to talk about here in that regard. But also of note is the fact that I couldn't tell that from the information given in the article, which talks exclusively about how the seeds are generated (nothing about their purpose aside from "enabling access to the network"). —Compassionate727 19:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's notable if third-party Reliable Sources bother to cover it. If not, it's not notable and shouldn't be in the article - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, that. My assumption was that if everyone uses it, no one will talk about IOTA using it. But David applies the correct standard here, both to that technical detail and every other. —Compassionate727 19:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- https://iotasupport.com/gui-newseed.shtml and https://iota.guide/seed/how-to-generate-iota-wallet-seed/ are such sources. IOTA seeds are not the same thing as seeds in other cryptocurrencies. I guess once someone adds the sources "Seeds" section gets the right to life... - Comefrombeyond (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, that. My assumption was that if everyone uses it, no one will talk about IOTA using it. But David applies the correct standard here, both to that technical detail and every other. —Compassionate727 19:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's notable if third-party Reliable Sources bother to cover it. If not, it's not notable and shouldn't be in the article - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- This may or may not be true, depending on whether the fact that the website uses seeds is notable. If every cryptocurrency uses seeds in a similar manner, there really isn't anything to talk about here in that regard. But also of note is the fact that I couldn't tell that from the information given in the article, which talks exclusively about how the seeds are generated (nothing about their purpose aside from "enabling access to the network"). —Compassionate727 19:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- "Seeds" part is the most important one actually. An incorretly generated seed may lead to a loss of million dollars worth of tokens. Comefrombeyond (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've compared the two revisions. My first note was that David Gerard's preferred revision contains more information about the business side of this topic, and Comefrombeyond's contains more about the technical side. Some of the information on the technical side is important, particularly about those aspects which distinguish it from other cryptocurrencies (i.e. that users are required to validate each other's transactions). Other aspects seem of no particular importance (such as seeds and units), and some unduly promote the subject of the article (notably the scalability section). A larger percentage of the information in David Gerard's preferred version seems of notability, but it can probably be condensed a little bit too. From an ease of editing standpoint, I would probably start with Gerard's version, then incorporate the more important elements of Comefrombeyond's revisions into that. —Compassionate727 18:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- I contributed to Misplaced Pages in the past, don't let the fact that I wasn't able to recover the old account to fool you. Regarding asking "anyone else": the truth can't be found by voting, just compare my and your versions. Mine contains much more useful information, if you think that your marketing stuff (which, frankly saying, makes me suspect you being a IOTA shill) is really that important then add it to my version. Comefrombeyond (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Start-Class numismatic articles
- Low-importance numismatic articles
- WikiProject Numismatics articles
- Start-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- Start-Class software articles
- Low-importance software articles
- Start-Class software articles of Low-importance
- All Software articles
- Start-Class Computer Security articles
- Low-importance Computer Security articles
- Start-Class Computer Security articles of Low-importance
- All Computer Security articles
- All Computing articles
- Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests