Jump to content

Talk:Ethereum/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Lede

Because Ethereum provides a new framework for transactions, no previously-used description will work in the lede. I'd be happy for suggestions on improving the lede sentence. Sanpitch (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, this is a tough topic to describe. Ripple has been similarly challenging. Mastercoin is clearer, but it's a simpler concept for a system. ––Agyle (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the blingy warning about a logo was placed at the bottom of the page. As far as I know, no logo (Ethereum or otherwise) has been used on this page.Sanpitch (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I see no justification for the logo warning, so I'm removing it. Sanpitch (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Web 3.0 publishing platorm"??

I don't really buy the "Web 3.0 publishing platform" thing; it sounds like a marketing guy is trying to make it more cool. Ethereum doesn't need to be made more cool. I also don't think 'generalized' is useful to modify blockchain. Unless I hear otherwise, I'll change the lede to something like "Ethereum is a blockchain-based virtual machine featuring stateful user-created digital contracts and a Turing-complete contract programming language." Sanpitch (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The original article read "Ethereum is a decentralized Web 3.0 publishing platform". I increased the clarity of this statement to "generalized blockchain-based virtual machine" without changing the part about the "Web 3.0 publishing platform". According to Ethereum's official documentation, Ethereum is " the generalised blockchain for smart contract development". What "generalized" indicates in this context is the fact that the Ethereum blockchain is taken to a higher level of formal abstraction than a traditional blockchain design. It's scope of application is therefore wider and more complex. Can you express a reason for why their own self-description shouldn't be useful in the lede?
As for the Web 3.0 label, it's been part of the article -- in the opening statement, background, and references -- since January, 2015. As I said, I never modified that part, although I do agree with it which is why I left it in the article. Tim Berners-Lee and the W3C do not have a monopoly on the expression. As such, it has been appropriated by the project in many discussions within and outside the Ethereum community. In fact, the term has been widely used to refer to the prospect of web decentralization in general. If you want me to dredge out the references I can do that, but I don't see why that should be necessary. It's a useful buzzword to understand the general evolution of the web and the particular ambitions and communications of the Ethereum project. There is definitely some form of marketing aspect mixed into all this, but I don't consider the intent of that marketing to be misleading. --Aliensyntax (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no need or requirement that we follow what the Ethereum team says about itself. Also, Ethereum is no more a "publishing platform" than Bitcoin is; it sounds like a marketer at work.
"Web 3.0" is a marketing buzzword; I think it distorts and cheapens Ethereum to describe it as such. Ethereum is fundamental technology, and is better compared to TCP/IP or to http. "Web 3.0" is like a Rorshach (sp?) test; it can mean whatever you want it to mean. Sanpitch (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
As this article is specifically about Ethereum, what the Ethereum core devs have expressed is in fact directly relevant. Without any strong reasons to believe otherwise, we should proceed in good faith and not automatically ignore or assume their statements are arbitrary or suspicious.
The phrase "distributed application development platform" would be more precise and perhaps less contentious than "publishing" platform. Although, the lede will get a bit long-winded with adjectives. I'm fine with simply calling it a platform, but this wouldn't be all that informative. What do you suggest?
"Web 3.0" is only partially a marketing buzzword. It's also a fairly common neologism. While the term might have a number of ambiguous connotations, that doesn't obscure its specific denotation: namely, the evolution of those functions of the internet that are predicted as extensions of Web 2.0. In the context of Ethereum and related projects, the specific meaning is based on the notion of web service and platform decentralization (not the more common association with the semantic web). That's a useful and economical description most people will have little trouble relating to. More importantly, the term is as I said earlier widely applied in discussions of Ethereum, both by their developers and those reporting on the project. It should therefore be left in to promote a more direct understanding of the content of the article along with the background literature on the topic.
And yes, Ethereum can be related to a core protocol and it has been referred to as such. However, these points are not mutually exclusive. Feel free to edit in whatever other details you wish. --Aliensyntax (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed comments. I also don't want to ignore the Eth devs, Wikipedia in general doesn't like primary sources; secondary sources are preferred.
I removed "generalized" as the further content in the lede sentence talks about smart contracts and the Turing-complete language. I also removed "publishing." Sanpitch (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

this should not redirect etherium

etherium is a strategy game and deserves its own article. it is also completely unrelated to this.84.213.45.196 (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Alternatives

The links in the 'alternatives' section looked to me to belong better in a 'See Also' section, which I've created. Sanpitch (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed them entirely, unless and until we can find a clear reference to them being such - David Gerard (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Advert, peacock tags

The claim that it's not a cryptocurrency is ridiculous. It has an exchange value, it's traded on crypto exchanges, its publicity has been entirely in the crypto sphere, it looks/swims/quacks like a duck. It's a crypto with a smart contract and virtual machine mechanism bolted on. Basically this article reads like a press release and needs a thorough cleanout, hence tagging - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've gone through and tightened up the writing considerably. I've removed most uncited claims. The next step is to go through the references and (a) make sure everything cited is either WP:RS or, if primary, cited for purposes primary sources are allowable for; (b) verify remaining referenced claims - David Gerard (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Given it a reference check, removal of gratuitous primary references and a de-peacocking. Also removed problems flagged in the AFD. So I've removed the tags for now - David Gerard (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Group photo?

I’m surprised to see a developer group photo on a wikipedia page. Is that something you’d want in an encyclopedia? --Nomeata (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's not completely irrelevant, I see no reason to remove it - David Gerard (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Press coverage

The "Reception" section was just a list of articles on Ethereum. We're not Ethereum's clippings scrapbook. If any of these are useful reference information they should be worked into the article. Here are the articles that were listed:

  • Paul Vigna (28th October 2015). Microsoft to Offer Ethereum Based Services. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 7 November 2015.
  • Finley, Kurt (2014-01-27). "Out in the Open: Teenage Hacker Transforms Web Into One Giant Bitcoin Network". Wired. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
  • Gray, Jeff (2014-04-07). "Bitcoin believers: Why digital currency backers are keeping the faith". The Globe and Mail. Phillip Crawley. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
  • Cox, Ryan. "Can Ethereum kill Bitcoin with self-executing contracts?". SiliconANGLE. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
  • Nathan Schneider (7 April 2014). Code your own utopia: Meet Ethereum, bitcoin's most ambitious successor. Al Jazeera America. Retrieved 10 June 2014.
  • Soon, the internet will be impossible to control. Jamie Bartlett. Retrieved 19 December 2014.
  • Keiser Report: New Crypto Phenomenon Ethereum. Max Keiser. Retrieved 10 June 2014.

- David Gerard (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

If they do supply relevant information it would be a good idea, because without the press clippings scrapbook there's literally one non-primary RS - David Gerard (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Before you started actively editing the article, there was a more long-form prose section under 'Reception'. Is there a reason that this version was not good enough for you? If you want a shorter article, look to previous versions rather than just removing whole sections of the article.Sanpitch (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The trouble is that that version was hype too. Wikipedia is not a press coverage scrapbook (WP:LINKFARM) - if those articles are worth including, they need to actually be used as references.
I note also the heading is "reception" - none of it is talking about how Ethereum has been received, it's just a list of press clippings. From e.g. the version before I touched it, there's two statements from non-WP-notable people and one from someone notable enough to have a WP article who also happens to do amateur economics blogging, and that was as an involved participant at an Ethereum meetup rather than as any sort of third-party RS.
So if a "Reception" section is to be of value, it needs to actually be about the reception - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
One important task for an article is to establish notability. The references in the version you cite above give a *better* impression of the notability of Ethereum than the ones that remain. The remaining references are almost all by participants in Ethereum, while many in the old version are third-party sources. It seems like you're interested in cutting the article down, which would be fine if you'd keep worthy material and add new content. Sanpitch (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
These refs probably satisfy prima-facie notability, but that's actually a different thing to pulling their weight in the article. I'm not talking about prima-facie notability. I'm saying, if they're to go in then they should be used as actual sourcing, as references for claims, not just a press clippings scrapbook - David Gerard (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Imogen Heap

One thing that has got a lot of press coverage is Imogen Heap's recent attempts to sell music using Mycelium on the Ethereum blockchain. Although from the sales site's listing of every sale (if you click through to the right place in the unlinkable mystery-meat navigation - Licensing -> Distributions), total sales of "Tiny Human" appear to be ... $97.45 - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary for lay audiences

The opening summary is very difficult to understand without exisiting technical knowlegde; "Ethereum is a cryptocurrency platform and Turing-complete programming framework intended to allow a network of peers to administer their own stateful user-created smart contracts in the absence of central authority." Phrases like "Turing-complete" and "stateful user-created smart contracts" should be rephrased and/or better explained 82.11.177.11 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That's because advocates keep trying to put the entire aspirational press release into the intro and never mind if it's comprehensible to people who aren't technically knowledgeable on cryptocurrencies. I'll try to make it more comprehensible - David Gerard (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Tried to clear out the excess jargon again (I'm a techie myself and this level of detail straight out of the primary sources is totally inappropriate for a Wikipedia-level summary), let's see how we go - David Gerard (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Cryptsy

How much Ether was stuck in Cryptsy? - David Gerard (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Article relies too much on primary sources

This article may need to be rewritten entirely, as it relies too much on primary sources. Instead of using secondary sources to list the different media organizations that have covered the subject, the sources should be used to support (and possibly expand) the article itself. Material available from sources that are self-published, or primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article, but it must be possible to source the majority of information to independent, third-party sources. Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

As you can see from the history and this talk page, this has been done a few times. Cycle goes: advocate fills article with puffery, outsider cuts it down, repeat. The new stuff should be given a few days for cites, but it will need cites, and they will need to be third-party ones - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hacked it back down again. The intro really doesn't need to say "smart contract" then define it twice, and it doesn't need to state twice that it was launched in 2015. I removed the timeline section because the past events are redundant with the intro and the future events violate WP:CRYSTAL.
And really - it's a cryptocurrency. Most of what happens with it is trading on cryptocurrency exchanges. It recently had a pump'n'dump bubble. The most prominent "smart contract" on the Ethereum blockchain is a ponzi scheme. Claims that it's primarily a smart contracts platform and only incidentally a cryptocurrency are aspirational at best - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The timeline I added certainly doesn't make Wikipeia into a crystal ball. I'm happy to remove any mention of dates for the future releases. This is definitely something that people want to know; Is your concern that there wasn't a reference for every noun and verb used?
Nick Szabo presented at the Ethereum DevCon and buys into the idea that Ethereum is at it's heart more than a cryptocurrency. In the future you will likely be able to pay miners with other currencies than Ether, so at a minimum you should acknowledge that it's 'multiple cryptocurrencies'  :-) But poly-crypto-currency is awkward; the rest of the world is happy to call it a smart contract platform. The whole point of the blockchain craze now is that banks and others can do the sort of things that Ethereum allows.
Fiat currencies have been the focus of pump-and-dump schemes, and there is certainly bigger ponzi schemes using the dollar than any on the Ethereum blockchain. I think Dodi 8238 has some valid concerns; rather than just removing the edits, why don't you just tag the article? I'm sure in Wikipedia's massive list of rules there's something like 'if at all possible, keep newly added info'. Sanpitch (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Why don't I just tag the article? Because bad article content that should never have been here should just be removed, not tagged, and when a pile of bad and uncited content is added it was noted here on the talk page as badly needing citation and wasn't cited.
If you go to a news site, e.g. news.google.com, and enter "ethereum", the only news coverage above bitcoin blog level in the last several months is about the pump'n'dump on the cryptocurrency and its value as a commodity; there is no evidence in WP:RSes that "the rest of the world" give a hoot about its aspirations to be primarily known as a smart contracts platform. "In the future you will likely be able to pay miners with other currencies than Ether" is pure WP:CRYSTAL and is certainly not sufficient grounds to "acknowledge that it's 'multiple cryptocurrencies'"; I don't see how that reasonably follows from mere aspirations to maybe write code for something in the future. "The whole point of the blockchain craze now is that banks and others can do the sort of things that Ethereum allows" - well no, that's not what "blockchain" deployments seem to be for; in VC terms "blockchain" is a buzzword to attract funding, and the actual products seem to be Merkle-tree ledgers between parties who basically trust each other and don't have to use adversarial proof-of-work or similar. Some seem to be just git repackaged.
"Fiat currencies have problems too" (ignoring the curious cryptocurrency jargon misuse of the term "fiat", which in economics means any intrinsically useless object or record accepted as payment, which certainly covers all cryptos) is irrelevant here. This article is about Ethereum - David Gerard (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@Sanpitch: Wikipedia has a policy against publishing material that hasn't first been published elsewhere: Wikipedia:No original research. If you can't provide reliable sources for the future events that you added to the Timeline section, then they can't stay in the article. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@David Gerard: Thanks for correcting my edits in which I made it sound like Ethereum was primarily a smart contracts platform.[1] I thought I'd be proactive, read a secondary source (in this case Vigna's WSJ blog post) and edit the lead. In particular, Vigna writes that: "Vitalik Buterin, a 21-year old programmer and writer, launched Ethereum this summer as a platform for what are called smart contracts." Vigna doesn't describe Ethereum as a cryptocurrency, so I thought it was primarily a smart contracts platform. You've obviously followed this subject longer than I have. Perhaps you'd like to add a citation to the lead that explicitly says that Ethereum is a cryptocurrency, because right now, neither of the two sources that have been left to support the first sentence appear to support more than the latter half of it.[2] --Dodi 8238 (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
+1, good edits - David Gerard (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
When cryptocurrency exchanges say that people trade "Ethereum", does that mean that they are actually trading "ethers"? In that case, would it be accurate to say that "Ethereum is a blockchain-based platform that includes a cryptocurrency called ether"? The platform's use for managing smart contracts could then be mentioned later in the lead. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
yeah, I've rephrased it as "Ethereum is a cryptocurrency platform offering smart contract functionality." which I think sums it up concisely - David Gerard (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Should an editor who casually says things like "It recently had a pump'n'dump bubble" (he felt comfortable assessing it so while it was going on (and as of now this editor looks wrong), which is beyond what a real world trader would be comfortable doing about any commodity or asset so cavalierly) and alludes to it (and all cryptocurrencies) as a Ponzi scheme have any place religiously editing this entry? It's the opposite version of someone who would just write "to the Moon" over and over again and equally ruinous to Wikipedia. the language this editor uses in his comments belies his sentiments and ideology. When it comes to ethics, I would think that an editor like that should recuse himself. This portion is of lesser importance to understanding and is so out of context as to be risible but has withstood all his edits: "The documentation notes that computation on the EVM is "very expensive" and that "you will not be able to do anything on the EVM that you cannot do on a smartphone from 1999."[13]" Very selective and very biased "quoting."
Wikipedia should be a place where ideology is left at the door. Augur, something built within the Ethereum platform, has a robust and informative Wikipedia article by contrast. If I didn't know anything about Augur, I could go there and get somewhat informed. Not so for Ethereum. But Ethereum has become relevant enough and talked about enough that people should have a place to come and find information about it, even if certain Wikieditors don't agree with the platform. Right now, anyone coming to this page would leave Wikipedia uninformed. That seems like failure of Wikipedia's mission.
Someone who has never looked inside the Wikisausage before and hopes he is doing it correctly. 205.173.24.4 (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Personal attacks on an editor you disagree with probably constitute doing it wrong - David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
To the editor(s) who are trying to revert the article to the way it was before I started this discussion: It would be more helpful if you could read a few secondary sources (preferably ones that can be classified as independent, third-party sources) about the subject and expand the article based on those. Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source of information, summarizing the information gleaned from secondary sources. If you are affiliated with the subject (including if you have invested in it financially), please see our conflict of interest guideline. Also, if you are logging out to make problematic edits, please see our policy regarding sock puppetry. I initially thought that the problematic editing was coming from users who were logging out to make edits, but it turns out that the recent influx in IP editing was due to recruitment via Reddit about 22 hours ago.[3] I also just learned that individuals were recruited to edit this article via the same website about 3 days ago.[4] --Dodi 8238 (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC) [edited 15:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC) and 06:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)]

I just reverted an edit by David Gerard which deleted an entire section, per WP:BRD, and because I do not see that a consensus has yet emerged on the matter here on the Talk page. I'm happy to continue the discussion, but the section should not be removed without consensus first. N2e (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Lede

Just reverted an edit by David Gerard. The lede was two sentences long; with the change it's now two and much more completely characterizes Ethereum; thanks Encapsulate for expanding on the lede. Sanpitch (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Not impressed with the current article as created by David Gerard. Noticed that a recent editor felt intimidated by an edit [5] by David Gerard. Sanpitch (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll modify this to state my main goal; I'd like everyone who makes an edit to the Ethereum page to be made welcome. I believe that David Gerard can do this and still maintain a high-quality article. Sanpitch (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
You may wish to consider applying WP:AVOIDYOU, particularly the last sentence - David Gerard (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions

I went here to get some basic answers about Ether(eum). None of my questions were answered. How many coins of ether will there be? Limited or not? Inflation or not? Proof of Work or Proof of Stake? (Article says "other proof of work" and contradicts to information elsewhere). etc. As is, I got no relevant information from the article at all. LinguistManiac (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Proof of work apparently (proof-of-stake to come later), and will be mined indefinitely rather than having a limit on the number of coins (just added a cite for these) - David Gerard (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It the Ethereum blockchain databased based on the original bitcoin protocol?

In another article (which is linked in the first sentence of the Ethereum article), Block chain (database), the lede currently reads:

"A block chain or blockchain is a distributed database, based on the bitcoin protocol, that maintains a continuously growing list of data records hardened against tampering and revision, even by its operators." (emphasis added)

I am trying to get my head around the extent of the differences I'm hearing about in the sort of version 2 blockchain that is being used in Ethereum.

  1. Is it new, sort of a new and additional instance (subclass) of the general category (superclass) of thing that we call a blockchain?
  2. Or is the Ethereum blockchain, in fact, "based on the bitcoin protocol"? And merely an enhancement of an earlier bitcoin-specific protocol?
  3. Final question: even if Ethereum is "based on the bitcoin protocol", would that require that all "blockchains", forever and always be "based on the bitcoin protocol"? This seems a stretch to me, and that blockchains could be imagined, and constructed, that are explicitly not "based on the bitcoin protocol". In other words, protocols that express blockchains might be many and varied, and not all protocols would necessarily be based on the exact same protocol that was used in 2008 to express the original bitcoin blockchain. But then I am not familiar with the details of blockchains and am only trying to ensure we explicate this correctly in Wikipedia, with sources.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe Ethereum's codebase is based on the Bitcoin codebase (though I don't have a cite), so it's a fork of that (as most altcoins are). Hypothetically you could do blockchain software that wasn't, but that's not relevant here. The actual blockchain generated from this is separate - David Gerard (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course Ethereum depends on Bitcoin for the idea of a blockchain, but that's all. The functionality is quite different from that of Bitcoin, so even if they wanted, the code could not be shared. Ethereum does not just change a parameter in the BTC codebase, but designed brand new trees, and the system is account-based, rather than based on unspent transactions. I am not aware of any Ethereum implementation which uses a Bitcoin codebase. FYI, I guess that reddit is a better place for such discussion, rather than Wikipedia. Sanpitch (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks David Gerard and Sanpitch. Input from both of you has been helpful in my understanding.
I've started a discussion on the Talk:Block chain (database) Talk page, and would like to get these alternative perspectives on just how much all blockchains must be based on the bitcoin protocol into that discussion. I wonder if you might be willing to join that discussion. In my view, just getting your perspective from your comments above would be helpful.
My goal is just to get the lede sentence of that article improved, so it describes only verifiably what a block chain database is, even in 2016, where it would seem it may be a bit different (and wider in scope) than it was in 2008-2013. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

Can we make this page more simple? Make analogies? Legionof7 (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

D. Gerard's edits

People have tried to add some items to the Wikipedia page under applications, which there are many of course, and he has removed them citing this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided

So basically because the list of applications contains links to websites or articles, any bullet point that has a link to a web page that he thinks he could possibly come close to construing as being a non-ideal type of link, he simply removes the entire bullet point.

This is obviously a deliberate abuse of that concept, which is intended only to help people improve links, not to remove a list of applications. The wide variety of applications for Ethereum is a key point of information. D. Gerard's edits removing these applications has been abusive and removed important enough information from the article so that the relevance of Ethereum has been obscured by his abuses.

For examples of this, see the history of edits to the Ethereum page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runvnc (talk • contribs) 02:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't answer for User:David Gerard, but I can say this: The entries that were added to the list were formatted incorrectly. According to WP:EL, article bodies (including embedded lists) should not contain external links unless they are being used as references (at the end of an entry and inside <ref></ref> tags). I support expanding the "Applications and platforms using Ethereum" section, but I think we should use independent, third-party sources (not self-published or official sources) when doing so. Reasons for this include having as unbiased sources as possible and not giving someone's project attention that it hasn't already received elsewhere (representation should be proportional to prominence). We should also refrain from making personal attacks against other editors. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
He did not need to remove the whole entry, obviously. He used some issue with the link as an excuse to remove the items entirely instead of changing link formatting. It is obvious if you look at his edits that he was just looking for any excuse to take away from Ethereum or the article. Its not a personal attack, it was abusive to delete the entire bullet point, in the context of his constant attempts to discredit Ethereum and other crypto projects. His personal crusade and specific abuses are inescapable aspects of the edit history for this page. That is not a personal attack. It is important to document these biases and abuses because they are causing editors and users to waste a lot of time and misleading the public and without this documentation people don't understand the context of the edits. Runvnc (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I doubt that David Gerard removed the entries in bad faith, even though it did appear heavy-handed. These kinds of lists are notorious for attracting spam on Wikipedia. That is why some editors think that certain kinds of lists should only contain entries that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. This inclusion criteria usually ensures that every entry has already received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. A less strict inclusion criteria would be that entries can be added as long as there are independent, reliable sources to support their inclusion. I have no particular objection to applying the latter criteria here. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah he's causing a lot of damage. Legionof7 (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

We need to protect against people like D.Gerard who are biased and try to attack this page. Legionof7 (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

If you have a legitimate case against another editor, I suggest that you follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. This talk page, for example, is not the appropriate forum for discussion of another user's conduct or history. The appropriate forum would be the other editor's talk page, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, or a more specialized noticeboard. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I remain perpetually amazed by advocates for something who seem to sincerely believe that only other advocates should be allowed to edit the Wikipedia article, and whose first reaction to edits they don't like is a brigading and smear campaign - David Gerard (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The named personal attacks on me are a project of various people on Reddit /r/ethereum who appear to be holding a position in Ethereum who have decided my Wikipedia editing will affect their financial interests adversely. I have tried to be helpful, but there's a saying about horses and water. (Also a weird threat by Reddit PM.) I welcome more eyes on this article from experienced Wikipedians - David Gerard (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not making a personal attack. I do not hold any position with Ethereum or own any Ether. I simply occasionally visit the subreddit because I know Ethereum is a very important set of advancements in distributed computing. If anyone is interested in the reality of what's going on between your person and this article and related topics, there is plenty of evidence of an ongoing long term dismissal, dislike, and campaigns against articles on Ethereum and other projects like bitcoin that you hate. After seeing that evidence I decided to go ahead and 'fall on the sword' and call you out publicly as abusing your influence on Wikipedia, even though I knew that would put me in a difficult position socially. This is a campaign that you made personal long ago. Ethereum encompasses a great deal of extremely valuable and practical cutting-edge research in fields like distributed computing, distributed autonomous organizations, and IoT, and your personal crusade to diminish the amount and value of information available about it is a personal attack on human advancement. I'm trying to shed a light on these tragic errors you are making. Unfortunately I cannot remove your person from this crusade and make the topic seem less personal. Runvnc (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
If you start a paragraph "I am not making a personal attack", it makes your case better if you don't then follow it with an extended personal attack. If you had relevant evidence you would have brought it - David Gerard (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Smartphone from 1999

The article cites the statement "you will not be able to do anything on the EVM that you cannot do on a smartphone from 1999", and from that draws the conclusion "It may be suitable for implementing e.g. security protocol logic". However, I believe the citation refers to computational power, not functionality. E.g. applications like Augur (now available as a beta release) and Digix proves that more complex functionality is possible. This should be properly reflected in the article. - LarsPensjo (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This was put in after spurious claims in the press that Ethereum would be good for selling actual computing resources on the EVM, in the manner of cloud computing. People out there do seem to think it's good for that, when it totally isn't - David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Source please? David Gerard. Legionof7 (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

BRD on recent section removal by D. Gerard

Material should be restored, while the discussion is ongoing, and no consensus has been achieved.

  • David Gerard recently removed on 2016-04-01T15:09:13‎, an entire section from the article, with the edit comment "Implementations: rm entirely WP:SYNTH collection of primary sources, per talk page)"(diff)
  • I restored it on 2016-04-01T15:47:27‎ per WP:BRD, with the edit comment: "Undid revision 713036976 by David Gerard revert section deletion where no consensus was achieved on Talk page; discussion was not closed, but clearly was not complete yet either. See Talk." (diff)
  • David Gerard then removed the section again on 2016-04-02T11:45:34‎ with the edit comment "until you actually justify primary-sourced synthesis in said talk page, rather than refusing to, it should stay out until its reintroduction is justified" (diff)

I do not believe the section text should be removed until consensus is achieved on the Talk page, but I will not get into an edit war with David Gerard.

Mr Gerard:

  • has not established that WP:SYNTH is what is going on in that section, although he has asserted that. Other editors on this Talk page (see earlier discussion) obviously disagree.
  • Moreover, on the claim about primary sources, wiki policy explicitly allows them in some cases, and also the discussion on the Talk page prior to Mr. Gerard's first removal of the entire section was mixed. Several editors—including Runvnc, Sanpitch, and myself—have noted that primary sources are specifically okay in this instance.

THEREFORE, I think Gerard's deletion of that section should be restored, until a consensus is reached on this discussion page (either on the WP:SYNTH assertion, or on primary sources not being okay to merely establish the existence of a particular implementation of Ethereum.

Since I've chosen not to do the same sort of edit warring that D. Gerard is doing, I would appreciate it if another editor would evaluate the argument presented here, and restore the material, while the discussion continues on this Talk page in the previous section where it was discussed. There is not, and has not been, a consensus support D. Gerard's position. N2e (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The references in question are completely ok to be present. A related question is whether they should be in a section by themselves or if a single sentence in the 'History' section is sufficient (in which every implementation and corresponding reference is listed). Or perhaps listed in an 'External Links' section. BitTorrent has an 'Implementations' section.
In summary, of course it's fine to have some primary references as noted above. Sanpitch (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Having a primary source sometimes amidst other content is OK. Having a complete section comprising only links to primary-sourced-only (AKA non-notable) content isn't OK, especially when no-one is able to come up with any secondary sources for any of them. I'd suggest the section only be restored if the majority of the content can be linked to secondary sources. ClareTheSharer (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Clare's is basically my position - David Gerard (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Folks, let's wait until the discussion ends respectfully rather than edit-warring the section. ClareTheSharer (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Claire, I respectfully disagree. WP:SYNTH is not applicable in this case. This section content doesn't require secondary sources because it is not defining the articles overall notability (notability is not question), nor is the section seeking to make a point that contradicts the rest of the article. A list of important programming languages the software is implemented in doesn't fit the requirement for secondary sources. If Microsoft states that MS Word comes on MacOS, and WindowsOS, we dont need to find secondary sources to put that on wikipedia. WP:PRIMARY is quite clear on this. The list of languages should remain and David Gerard should refrain from WP:EDITWAR until there is a clear consensus that this content doesn't belong. I support keeping the section in question. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Unclear why you are writing this here (to a message -- which was heeded 4 days ago -- asking for the edit war to stop as it escalated into personal attacks). But the point I was making in my comment a few lines above was about shopping lists of implementations (which by the way are not a matter of languages, we can fully expect to see multiple implementations per language) where the only justification for inclusion in the list is a primary link. Tolerating this leads to Soapboxing all over Wikipedia and I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect an implementation list to be limited to implementations loved by more than their author or her documentation. Hence I continue to encourage the enthusiasts who have come here to defend the name of Ethereum to add secondary sources demonstrating that to every list entry rather than scapegoating David. ClareTheSharer (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Hello @ClareTheSharer:, I wrote this because @David Gerard: has been persistently reverting changes he doesn't agree with based upon demands for secondary sources. He might be right that a list of all the software languages might not be useful, but that is a seperate discussion. Where in the wikipedia guidelines does it say secondary sources are required to add content to a page like this (non medical, non BLP, etc)? That's all assuming arguendo that GitHub is a primary source. Github is a contributor reviewed content management platform. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
        • I'm glad you asked! If it's the contributors uploading to it, it's a primary source: WP:PRIMARY. If it's a multiuser contributed thing (a wiki, a blog, a git repo), it's an unreliable user-contributed source per WP:USERGENERATED. You will note that the first of these is a subsection of WP:RS, which is actually the sourcing rules for Wikipedia, and if you're going to argue sourcing you really should familiarise yourself with it and its practical application, e.g. at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard WP:RSN. The second is a subsection of No Original Research WP:NOR, which is an absolutely core rule of Wikipedia and has been for over a decade. If you want to argue for the inclusion of sources that appear to violate NOR, you should probably familiarise yourself with this too. Also verification, WP:V - which is why I keep repeating over and over the golden rule of sourcing, Verifiable Third-Party Reliable Sources. The sourcing on this article has improved markedly of late, and if I've helped that happen, to the point of being blamed in section headers personally, then I'm most pleased to have been effective in improving Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • If this article is seriously being nominated for Good Article status, then all the cites need to be unimpeachable by Wikipedia sourcing rules. Right now they just aren't. To achieve GA - the level below Featured Article - you seriously need to have all your ducks in a row, and have them absolutely bulletproof. You know how I keep repeating Verifiable Third-Party Reliable Sources ad nauseam? That's mild compared to the standards for GA or FA. Really really - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Wow, the cart is being put in front of the horse by suggesting this article is anywhere close to a Good Article. This is not a Good Article yet. I will address that in the new section below. This talk page section is related to a discussion over whether David's edits are overzealous, and I have already made a comment on this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ethereum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Gerard (talk · contribs) 22:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

CLOSED
Review started by an ineligible reviewer, someone who made significant contributions to the article. Nomination was returned to the reviewing pool. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Sourcing is still not good. There should be nothing with even slightly questionable sources - nothing primary, nothing from user-sourced content, nothing from blogs, nothing from trivial non-mainstream sources, etc. Every source needs to be a verifiable, reliable third-party source to the highest of Wikipedia standards - remember that Good Articles is the standard below Featured Articles. The sourcing on the article has improved markedly in the past few weeks, but it's nothing like there yet. It isn't helped by Ethereum partisans on the talk page arguing that they don't need proper sources because having a repo up on Github counts as a high-quality source for Wikipedia purposes. (It doesn't.) This strongly suggests that the article will still be prone to partisans adding bad sources.
  • Skimpy on content - the article feels thin, and there are lots of things a reader might want to know, and that an Ethereum advocate would want the world to know, that aren't present or aren't sourced to excellent sources. For many, it's questionable that excellent Wikipedia-quality sources exist. It needs more, and anything added needs the best Wikipedia-quality sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • David Gerard, I don't believe you can be the primary reviewer on this nomination; one of the requirements is that you not be the nominator nor have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review, per WP:GANI. Since you have made more than a quarter of the most recent 250 edits to this article, that would seem to disqualify you.
This doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able to make the above comments in a review opened by someone else, but it does mean that you shouldn't be doing the review yourself. I am happy to put the nomination back into the reviewing pool for someone else—who has not contributed to the article—to eventually select for reviewing. In the interim, further work can be done to improve the sourcing to bring it to GA level. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @David Gerard: What is going on here is Wikipedia:Navel-gazing. This is a weak article, not even close to a good article. But more important, what is your motivation to nominate this for a Good Article, and then immediately review it as not good? Is this justification to continue your excessively-vigilant patrol of the sources on this page (and some sort of official nomination to continue, even if you nominate yourself)? The problem that is going on from my vantage point is the vigilance that is being put to quality patrol here. David, you are essentially biting the newcomers by reverting changes, section blanking, and immediately flagging edits as low quality sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethereum&oldid=715456900 is a perfect example. In this one you wrote "(NYT.com is normally an RS, but you're citing an arguably oversimplified technical description to a finance journalist)" in your edit summary. You mean that a finance journalist at NYT is not qualified to say something about ethereum? This page is not a BLP or MDRS. BTW- In this talk page section above we were talking about your section blanking due to you not believing the citations are appropriate. In some cases blogs are fine, such as blogs.wsj.com, blog.microsoft.com, blog.ethereurm.org, etc. This technology is really too new to find out what is correct and what is not, at least this month it is unlikely to happen. Take it easy in the meantime, its just a new page on a developing open source technology. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Legionof7 nominated the article, not David Gerard. David Gerard was just the first user to click "start review" on the GA nominations page and start a review discussion. Anyone may nominate an article, and any uninvolved and registered user with sufficient knowledge and experience with Wikipedia content policies may review an article nominated at the GA nominations page against the good article criteria. The problem that BlueMoonset pointed out was that David Gerard is not sufficiently uninvolved, so the nomination has now been relisted on the GA nominations page for someone else to eventually select for reviewing. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
From David Gerard's Sourcing bullet above: "There should be nothing with even slightly questionable sources - nothing primary..." As discussed ad nauseam above, primary sources are often acceptable. I think all the primary references in the article are fine, though the content may be re-arranged. Sanpitch (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for administrator review Re: editor David Gerard

This article edit process is essentially being dominated by one editor @David Gerard: in a way that is contrary to the principles of wikipedia (open collaboration.). I thought I would ping some feedback from those who might not normally drop by this somewhat obscure page about a new technology.

Highlights of actions (above in this talk page over the past month or so):

  • March 21st, @Runvnc: created a talk page section above titled "D. Gerard's abuse of 'policy' and personal crusade against Ethereum and general bias against crypto projects and articles"
  • April 1st a talk section was opened by @N2e: relating to section blanking and edit warring of D. Gerard.
  • April 15th D. Gerard nominated an article for Good Article, and then immediately reviewed it as a bad poor article, apparently seeking a weak review to justify his continued actions relating to deleting content based upon primary sources. Eventually another admin @BlueMoonset: over-ruled David's to review an article in which he has had much input.
  • April 15th D. Gerard tagged an edit by stating that New York Times was not a reliable source in this case (or so he thought). David said "(NYT.com is normally an RS, but you're citing an arguably oversimplified technical description to a finance journalist)" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethereum&oldid=715456900 ...Begs the question, what is a reliable source?
  • April 18th @Sanpitch: said, "From David Gerard's Sourcing bullet above: "There should be nothing with even slightly questionable sources - nothing primary..." As discussed ad nauseam above, primary sources are often acceptable. I think all the primary references in the article are fine, though the content may be re-arranged."

I guess there might be more, I think the overall tone is clear, I dont see any end in sight, and I find it to be a downer. Any feedback and suggestions from other people? Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This is part of an ongoing personal attack from people with a COI (including a financial position in ETH) re: Ethereum, who issued a Call To Action on Reddit to turn this article into more of an ad for Ethereum - see much above discussion on this matter. Several of Jtbobwaysf's claims above are in fact false, and he has been told this.
Basically, editors with a huge COI engaging in an extended personal attack - David Gerard (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, David Gerard makes very different editing decisions than I would have; I have been critical of him, but I do not see any reason to make a whole section about his editing at present. If he's dominating the editing, then make some edits and if he reverts them focus on the specific edits. Sanpitch (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Jtbobwaysf:. Note David did not nominate for GA, that was Legionof7. As for the rest, I'd caution you not to assume bad faith on the part of an experienced Wikipedian with no declared interest -- see WP:GOODFAITH. No doubt he is being WP:BOLD here and has made some controversial calls, but he's mostly right and it would be smarter to ask yourself how he is right and then edit to meet that standard rather than to constantly try to call teacher to tell him he is wrong. And if he is in fact wrong, focus on the edit, not the editor. ClareTheSharer (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • David Gerard has been making an attempt to hold back a campaign, coordinated off-wiki, to control the article and use it for promotion. The fact that a particular editor disagrees with some of David's decisions as to how to do so does not justify an "administrator review" of David, and in any case this is not the place to ask for one. Also, posting a message critical of David and in it pinging five editors who have disagreed with him looks rather like canvassing: be careful of possible boomerangs. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I will stay agnostic for now on the broad stroke of the behavioral issues articulated in this section, and focus on only one item re D Gerard behavior, and it was a new item, and occurred in this very section after Jtbobwaysf started this section to discuss a set of broader issues.

  • I (User:N2e) was mentioned in the opening post by Jtbobwaysf. Then David Gerard said:

    "This is part of an ongoing personal attack from people with a COI (including a financial position in ETH) re: Ethereum, who issued a Call To Action on Reddit to turn this article into more of an ad for Ethereum - see much above discussion on this matter. Several of Jtbobwaysf's claims above are in fact false, and he has been told this. Basically, editors with a huge COI engaging in an extended personal attack."

    D. Gerard used the plural "people", seeming to refer to a number of the folks mentioned in the preceding post.

I take that comment by David Gerard as a personal attack against me. I came to this page because I was interested in the technology. I do not have a financial position in Ethereum, nor did I come to this article because of any "Call to Action on Reddit". I'm not a reddit user, and have only rarely even gone to that website. All of my edits to this page in the several weeks I have been here have been well sourced, by reliable sources.

My message to Mr. Gerard is that you ought to cut the personal attack on other editors, and focus on the content, not the contributor. You have done a fair amount of both attacking others and contributor focusing in your comments on this Talk page. The whole thing may come back to bite you if you don't get your editing into compliance with community standards. Recommend you begin to assume good faith, and quit dreaming of conspiracies against you or this page. Let's just edit the page to improve the encyclopedic coverage of Ethereum, a rather obviously notable technology that is, per the New York Times and many other sources, seems to be having some impact on a number of other entities and technologies as well. N2e (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that given the literal direct evidence of attempts to twist this page to the financial advantage of ETH holders, I have excellent evidence from which to assume bad faith.
However, I am most pleased to work on a content basis! Verifiable third-party reliable sources, the thing that ETH advocates like yourself are observably not doing so well at bringing - David Gerard (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
There ya go again. All outside editors can see that little shift, once again per the DG modus operandi, to turn the discussion to an editor rather than policy.
The policy discussion is going on elsewhere on this page. Of course verifiable reliable sources are needed. And as has been pointed out in that policy discussion, secondary sources are preferred, but wiki policy simply does not say that primary sources may never be used. So take the policy discussion there, and see if you can build a consensus.
But this section was started by someone to discuss the editor behavior of one David Gerard. And in that last move, DG perfectly illustrates one of his primary moves to "make it about the editor" and "not focus on content". Cheers. 11:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ethereum/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 18:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy fail. At the time of nomination the article had major cleanup tags in place that were unquestionably valid. Now, a month later, and after an accurate-looking GA1 review that was discounted as having an ineligible reviewer, it still has many such tags. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

BRD: Is the New York Times an unreliable source? Does the tag stay?

Well, to avoid a revert war, let's have a BRD discussion.

Here's a paragraph from the article at present:

The Ethereum system has been described as "a single shared computer that is run by the network of users and on which resources are parceled out and paid for by Ether."(source)[unreliable source?]

I had removed that cleanup tag, recently added by User:David Gerard. My edit comment was: " The New York Times is clearly a verifiable source, and this meets WP:V, as has been discussed on the Talk page. Develop a consensus on Talk if you want to argue otherwise."

User:ClareTheSharer reverted my edit, and added the tag back. (Clare, I don't want to get in a revert war with you, so did not revert you. But clearly, per WP:BRD, the proper state of the article at present should be, the tag is out? Why? DG made the Bold edit. I was the first Revert; pretty standard under WP:BRD. The article should, then, stay in that (first reverted) state while the discussion proceeds. But I don't want to edit war, so did not revert your policy-incorrect reversion. Other editors may do so if they wish.)

I removed the tag based on both my view that the NYT meets WP:V, and because someone else (somewhere else on this Talk page) had commented that they thought it was an inappropriate tag.

So I'm starting a formal discussion here to see if David Gerard and ClareTheSharer have any policy-based reasons to have this tag in the article, under the D part of WP:BRD. All editors are, of course, welcome to weigh in. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason I marked it was that, given someone had put in a Good Article nomination - where references have to be solid - it struck me as not a robust reference for the claim: specifically that a finance blogger is not an authority on technology. The statement strikes me as approximately correct in some sense, but that's still not a solid reference for it, because even if it's in a generally reliable publication, it's a statement by someone outside their expertise, on a subtle claim of technical novelty in Ethereum.
The relevant guideline is Context matters and WP:NEWSORG: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis." The latter sentence is a direct statement that just being in the NYT does not make a reference strong - instead it just makes it less likely to be bad. I note also from WP:RS: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." This column is editorially supervised and in a solid publication, but is a statement by an author outside their field of expertise, so is not necessarily a good source for this particular technical detail.
Or, to put that more tersely: just being in the NYT does not make a given column automatically a rock-solid source, not at all - David Gerard (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The author of the article is a staff writer for the NYT (not a blogger). https://www.linkedin.com/in/nathaniel-popper-36529a5
Thanks for leaving the revert intact and bringing the discussion here, N2e, I appreciate that.
The revert: I reverted it because I felt the removal missed the point (no-one seriously treats the NYT as inherently unreliable so that can't be the point!) and was thus incorrect. I did not regard the specific issue raised by David Gerard to have been considered at the point the tag was removed, just a caricature of it in the context of a regrettable and escalating atmosphere.
The issue: I think David made a reasonable point that justifying the text in question with a remark by an author outside his specialisation is not correct, and applying the tag was not unreasonable in context. I think a better source is desirable if one can be found but that it's not urgent. I think the mismatch between the text and the source is not so extreme that it needs to be a divisive issue so consider the general level of hostility to the editor involved undue. I would not object to the removal of the tag if it was done objectively rather than as part of a conflict between editors. HTH ClareTheSharer (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The issue is you and David are reverting good faith edits of editors for no cause. The NYT author is inside his specialization and is an expert in Bitcoin employed as the business reporter for the NYT. https://www.linkedin.com/in/nathaniel-popper-36529a5 I am at a loss where you think it is prudent to revert good faith edits from a reputable news source by an author who is an expert, who attended Harvard according to his linkedin. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/nathaniel_popper/index.html What is going on here is edit warring. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I struggle to see the problem with the source; the NYT tech columnist seems plenty reliable for describing the system on which the currency rests. (not stuff about finances, but stuff about IT). I do struggle with a) the word "sometimes" being left out; and b) more than anything, this being stuck in the LEAD with no context, and appearing no where in the body, and nothing in the body gives it context. That is the way more serious problem. With regard to the reliability of the source, the interpersonal duking it out here is unWikipedian all around. WP:RSN is thataway, and exists to resolve exactly this kind of problem. It won't resolve the issue of it being only in the LEAD nor its lack of context in the body. That will need to be fixed. But the objections to the source need to be dealt with first. I suggest that David drop the objection. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, looking into Popper, he does appear to know his stuff, so I withdraw the objection. I've also moved the fragment to the relevant section - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done, the editor who originally added that tag on the lack of reliable source nature of the New York Times has withdrawn the assertion. N2e (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

(non-admin closure) no consensus to merge. Jytdog (talk) 05:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vitalik Buterin is primarily notable as the creator of Ethereum. His own article is still a stub after two years and the assistance of the subject with cites. The Ethereum article could do with the substantial content, and is largely mergeable here. What do others think? - David Gerard (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Comment- @David Gerard: I just noticed that this article was nominated and easily passed Wikipedia: Articles for Deletion about two months years ago. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LocalBitcoins. Your merger suggestion here appears smells like a Wikipedia:Proposed deletion which states: "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." I think you knew that this proposed deletion (merger) would face opposition (as the article already passed AfD two months years ago). Your second nomination here without notifying any previous voters (there was only one delete vote that I could find), or making a new entry in AfD violates protocol. There have already been three votes opposed to this (one vote got censored today because he personally attacked you). I think it is time for you to withdraw this, don't you think? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Jtbobwaysf I think the AFD you meant to link is this one: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LocalBitcoins where a bunch of articles would put up for deletion at once, which was closed 2 March 2014. The Buterin article was one of them. I don't know what you mean about 2 months ago, and I think you should strike most of your post. Jytdog (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Oops, thank you @Jytdog:! :-) I misread the dates. My point is still largely the same, that I think a Wikipedia:Proposed deletion redirect/merger is the wrong approach for an deletion that is likely to be controversial. Am I incorrect to be calling this a WP:PROD? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing out of line about proposing a merger, especially not two years after doing something with the article was discussed. The merger has been appropriately advertised, per WP:MERGE. Please AGF. The proposal would add heft here and the encyclopedia would lose nothing; I could see keeping them separate as well. I have no opinion myself. Jytdog (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I dont see any additional content to move over here that is not already inside this ethereum article. (I've moved what I thought was relevant already). Do you see anything else? Buterin's involvement in bitcoin (both his programming and as an author) doesn't really warrant anything more than passing reference here.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
In general having duplicate content in WP articles is a really bad idea as they grow apart and Wikipedia starts to say two different things about it - sometimes even contradictory things. What usually happens is that you have some article about X. It gets too big eventually, and a section of that article gets split out and becomes a WP:SPLIT article, X'. That article will have its own WP:LEAD; you copy the lead of X' into the former section on X, with a {{main|X'}} hatnote at the top of that section that links to X'. New content gets added to the body of X'; if that content reaches importance of the LEAD of X', that lead is updated and then the section in X is updated with the updated lead from X'. That way, the two articles stay in WP:SYNC. Sometimes articles grow up separately and end up needing some kind of coordination (which generally ends up being something like what I just described, where it is clear which article gets new detailed content). But it is irrational and bad practice to have uncoordinated duplicate content. David's suggestion was a reasonable way to coordinate the content; have it all here. The oppose !votes below are making kind of strange arguments that don't really deal with the purpose of the merge proposal. (the Buterin article is really stubby) Jytdog (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Buterin is notable for 3 things. His software contributions to Bitcoin, his co-founding of the first bitcoin magazine, and third is founding of Ethereum. Ethereum only makes up 1/3 of this. Thus merging is really an attempt at delete, as 2/3 of the content would not be relevant on this Ethereum page. If anyone thinks the article is too small, they should just send it back to WP:AfD which is the appropriate venue for this, not here on the talk page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
You are really ABF with the "trying to delete" thing (not good for you or the process of improving this article) I hear the argument that there is stuff about Buterin that has nothing to do with Ethereum; that is a good argument, which you should use below! Jytdog (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Good suggestions, I will add that. What does ABF mean? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The opposite of AGF, where B = bad.  :) As I said above, merge proposals are completely legitimate. In this case there are good arguments for it, as well as good arguments against it. People can and do differ in good faith, all the time Jytdog (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Voting

  • OPPOSE— Article Vitalik Buterin has high quality verifiable sources, and meets notability guidelines. Buterin is notable for 3 things: his notable software contributions to Bitcoin, his co-founding of Bitcoin Magazine (the first bitcoin magazine), and most recent is his founding of Ethereum. Ethereum only makes up 1/3 of this. This article has previously been nominated for WP:AfD and passed, thus a discussion of delete/merge on the talk page is not the appropriate venue. If you want to delete it, send it to AfD and seek broad consensus. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no reason to do anything quickly in Wikipedia, outside of a few very small arenas. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE— What harms is there it keep this article, even if it is still very incomplete? Would it really benefit users more to have it removed? I highly doubt it. Vitalik Buterin is a notable personality in the blockchain space (that encompasses much more than Ethereum), a recognized and leading scientist. With verifiable bones and flesh contrarily to Satoshi Nakamoto, he is quite young and hopefully here to stay for a long and fruitful life (but his prolific contributions so far are already significant to justify creating a dedicated page, that I agree, would deserve to be more detailed). Mayerwin (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Vitalik Buterin article is sourced and is better as a standalone article. Adding detailed information about Buterin won't make a better quality Ethereum article.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Closing Request #1

There is a unanimous conclusion to keep the article on Vitalik Buterin. I'll remove the links on top of the relevant pages. Sanpitch (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not appropriate for you to close as you voted, and the discussion has been open only for 7 days. Things may change. Jytdog (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
From WP:MERGECLOSE I see that "If enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or is unanimous consent to merge, any user may close the discussion and move forward with the merger." I guess that this would also include unanimous consent to *not merge*. This is not a contentious issue given the votes above, and as you say, a week has passed. It appears that *anyone* can close the merge discussion. What am I missing? Sanpitch (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
It was completely inappropriate for you to close that. Do not even try to WP:WIKILAWYER this. Jytdog (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi jytdog (talk · contribs) I also was wondering about this same issue (closing) a few days ago, as the merger page doesn't much address it. I read: "If there is a consensus against the merger, or, for older proposals, if there is no consensus or no discussion and you don't believe it is appropriate to merge the pages, then please remove the merge proposal tags, and, if necessary, close any discussion." I cant find on WP:MERGECLOSE who is allowed to close the merger. I think we should at least assume good faith on the part of Sanpitch (talk · contribs) here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
About the last thing you wrote, Sanptitch's first !vote was here; AGF is not really in the cards. The relevant guidance document is WP:CLOSE, which is very clear that "Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins" (Emphasis in the original). It is inappropriate for someone who has voted to close. It is bizarre that this merge proposal is being taken as offensive by people here. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Folks, I apologize for not assuming good faith in my original vote, and for not obeying protocol in my subsequent vote and in attempting to close the merger proposal. Believe it or not, I did look in WP:MERGECLOSE before I attempted the close and my reading (as described above) of the policy was that I was allowed to close. I am taking Jytdog's word that my close was not kosher. For what it's worth, the Ethereum community that I'm part of is very easy-going; I hope that this apology will do a bit to further similarly good relationships on this talk page. Sanpitch (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Closing Request #2

David Gerard (talk · contribs) There doesn't appear to be any interest to support this proposed merger (at least none that has voted here). Tags are meant to be temporary, what is the process to close this? I would remove the tag myself, but it appears from previous comments in Talk:Ethereum#Closing_Attempt_.231 that I am not allowed to remove it because I voted, correct? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC) User:David Gerard I don't see any hope of this passing without an RfC so I am going to close this. Jytdog (talk) 05:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ISO 4217 code - ETH

It says the ISO 4217 code for ether is ETH, but since the ISO 4217 code for Ethiopia is ETB ETH cant be neither a legal ISO 4217 nor an unoffical ISO 4217 code.84.46.92.130 (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I've listed it as a "symbol" (the Bitcoin article does similarly) - David Gerard (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Etherium should NOT redirect here

Etherium is a different topic that should not be redirecting here. Legionof7 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I started a discussion about this on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 24. It seems that "Etherium" is a common enough misspelling of Ethereum that it warrants a redirect to this page, at least as long as there isn't an article about a subject that is really called "Etherium" or, in the case of the video game by that name, the company that develops it. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Article looks better; suggest removing primary ref warning

The article looks (to me) to be in a relatively good state now after recent changes (yes, I'm sure that it can be improved even further). On a specific note, I think the warning about primary sources can be removed. My count is that only 14/47=30% sources are primary, which sounds reasonable to me. I am also confused as to why the white and yellow papers are not listed as references; shouldn't they be among the first references? Sanpitch (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Not yet, unless we kill the entirely primary-sourced "implementations" section - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
From WP:Primary we read "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Because the implementations section is not making any analysis or interpretation (see WP:PRIMARY) and other locations are also using primary sources appropriately, we are fine to remove the warning. Sanpitch (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there third-party evidence anyone cares about the implementations who isn't already heavily into Ethereum? Is there verifiable third-party RS coverage of the list of implementations? - David Gerard (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Sanpitch, David Gerard — I have removed the article-level cleanup tag, and added a section-specific cleanup tag. Having done that,
  1. I note that the tag, whether in the section, or at the top of the article as formerly, is quite redundant, since every statement also has an inline tag on it for the same reason.
  2. Although it is fine to have a cleanup tag of some kind asking for non-primary sources (I often add these same tags myself to various articles where sources might be improved), that alone is unlikely to warrant removal of the statement entirely, as has been defended in a previous section on this Talk page. N2e (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I presented the view (above, half a week ago) that it is probably unnecessary to have both a section-level tag asking for secondary sources, and also more than a half-dozen inline tags in that section that flag some primary sources. Does anyone want to present a counterargument? Why the double tagging is needed? If not, I will remove the section-level (redundant) tag in a few days, if someone else has not done so already. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Frankly the section needs to go, given nobody's been able to give non-primary sources for any of it in a week. There's no reason to list this stuff here for a general audience, given there's no third-party verification for it - the list is completely WP:SYNTH cobbled together from primary sources - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for expressing your view on that. Methinks you might be better off adding your comment to the section, above, where that particular topic was being discussed. THIS section was talking only about a very small subtopic of that: where should tags requesting sources be placed (top of article or in the section where the issue exists) and whether redundant tags are necessary, or only a single instance of challenging the primary sources.
So let's allow this section to be about the more narrow issue. And take your view on immediate deletion of the section up to the section on the Talk page (above) where it was already being discussed. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Uh, in this section I said "Is there third-party evidence anyone cares about the implementations who isn't already heavily into Ethereum?" Given that, your answer seems to be evading the actual point: how is the section in question not prima facie WP:SYNTH? - David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
My point was, read the section heading. This section is about something else, a rather narrow point about tagging. I'm not saying you might not have added statements to this section about something else. I am saying, however, that since that topic, the broader one, was already being discussed in a subsection topic higher up on this Talk page, it would probably be best to keep it there, along with the input from many editors who weighed in on that. N2e (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Which section do you mean? This is literally the only section mentioning the "Implementations" section you seem so keen to keep without actual non-primary sourcing. As you are refusing to justify your reinclusion of this purely synthesised section, I've removed it again. Please do not replace it without justification and better sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Many bad sources being added

Blogs and wiki articles fail WP:RS and probably won't stay in the article. We seriously need verifiable, independent, third-party sources. If there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources of things you want to write about in Ethereum, it is possible they just aren't verifiably noteworthy enough to warrant mention in the article - David Gerard (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the ethereum blog is a useful documentation of the details of the genesis block, but I will add another ref for completeness. Also- it seems silly to reference Vitalik's white paper, but not provide a link to it. There are many 3rd party references to the white paper, but the wiki link is the best reference if someone wants to read it--Bamos01 (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, primary sources may be included as sources in Wikipedia, and they are very useful for particular sorts of technical details that many secondary source media sites would not write about. Articles should, of course, be principally supported by secondary sources, but primary and tertiary sources may also be used. For example, I do a great deal of editing on spaceflight-related articles, and it is often the case that primary sources are used to provide technical specs on rockets and vehicles, but not about company importance, launches, etc. where many secondary sources are used.
I agree however that other wikipedia articles may not be used as sources, as that would fail WP:CIRCULAR. So if there is a problem with particular statements that are unsourced, please kindly challenge those with a {{citation needed}} tag. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
And now a string of non-notable projects sourced to their home pages. These really need verifiable third-party coverage in reliable sources - that is, evidence that anyone outside their creators cares - or they are likely to be removed - David Gerard (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm not so sure I'd say it the way you did. Certainly statements may be challenged, and as said above, secondary sources are better than primary sources, but a consensus for removal might be hard to gain a consensus on if the main thing in this article that is supported exclusively by primary sources is a mere list of applications that are using Ethereum. If little else is claimed (e.g., something like "Foobar is based on Ethereum and is the no. 1 xyz in the financial industry." etc.), then I think there would be little reason to sustain a challenge. WP:V would do just fine on allowing that list to stay, even with sources from the organizations websites that are developing the sources. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the third-party sources requirement for a project's inclusion in the "Applications and ventures using Ethereum" section is reasonable because, following the WP:NOTEVERYTHING policy, I don't think that these kinds of sections/lists should be indiscriminate directories of all of the projects that claim to use a certain technology. The third-party sources requirement also makes it easier to combat promotion and spam, because then we wouldn't be giving a project attention that it hasn't already received elsewhere. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe in being inclusionist re applications when a tech article is new (i.e. up to a few years old), to help provide useful information to help a new technology get off the ground, but being deletionist (i.e. requiring third-party sources or a Wikipedia article) thereafter.--greenrd (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
You may think it is deletionist to require third-party sources for the "Applications and ventures using Ethereum" section, but WP:SPAMBAIT is pretty clear about how to avoid giving an opportunity to spammers with these kinds of sections/lists. The section is now referenced with third-party sources and contains about a dozen entries. This page says that there are currently 190+ applications using Ethereum. Independent third-party coverage has proven to be the most reliable/consistent way to distinguish which examples are worth mentioning in these kinds of sections/lists and which are not. Also, Wikipedia should not be used to "help new technologies get off the ground". That is promotion and should be done somewhere else. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC) [edited 08:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)]
Indeed. And particularly in a topic like this, where, bluntly, quite a lot of the interest in the article is going to be from people with a financial position in it, directly interested in promoting Ethereum. WP:SPAMBAIT strongly applies - David Gerard (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree - this is exactly the point I've made below and I welcome the amplification. ClareTheSharer (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
We've had a pile of editors from the /r/ethereum subreddit who have strong ETH positions, and at least one editor who hasn't declared their COI despite being prompted who is an Ethereum Foundation board member. There's a lot of COI advocacy going on here, hence the direct turn into personal attacks when the bad sourcing is called into question - David Gerard (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Quick note on sources

There are different ways to analyze sources in Wikipedia. One is the primary/secondary/tertiary historiographical scheme. Every policy and guideline says we should use secondary sources. If you want to edit really well, secondary sources are almost always best. This is to avoid WP:OR in interpreting the source, but also in giving WP:UNDUE to things.

The other and way more important way to analyze sources, is independent vs not. As above, if you want to edit really well, it is pretty much always best to use independent sources, and long stretches sourced only from non-independent sources are always pretty suspect.

Finding independent, secondary sources, reading them, and the summarizing them, giving WEIGHT according to what they say (not what you think), is the best way to go. Generally.

Just saying. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Mostly agree. However, I suggest in some cases relating to software (and other obscure & rapidly changing topics) that primary sources can also be useful, relevant, and necessary. The detailed tour schedule for Madonna, or current software version for Amazon Kindle, or supported programming languages for software are all content that the mainstream media media may not care to stay up to date on, but are quite useful to wikipedia readers. However, certainly we must be careful to only consider the content and not allow that to be a door for PR and other nonsense to slip in. I think that anything that from the ethereum.org (including but not limited to their blog) should be an obvious choice for inclusion on this wikipedia entry (just as it would on Microsoft's many pages). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    • It is not, however, sufficient - it is at best secondary. In particular, whole sections that are primary-source or user-generated sites need some justification to exist, and evidence that all this isn't just using Wikipedia as an advertisement.
It's turned out that, when faced with Wikipedia requirements for verifiable third-party reliable sourcing, quite a lot could be found - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Well we can agree to disagree on this. There is no prohibition against primary sources, and certainly it is not justification for section blanking :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
        • It turns out that's a matter of some dispute. Particularly on an article like this, WP:SPAMBAIT applies. At some point the section in question is basically just an external link forest, for culling by WP:ELNO - frankly it's at that stage now with literally one independent third-party link - David Gerard (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Really - If a section (or article) is sourced solely from a company's (or non-profit's, or university's, etc) website, all kinds of bells go off. Is the topic that is sourced that way so un-noteworthy that nobody else talks about it? If so, does it deserve any WEIGHT in the article (or is the whole subject really NOTABLE if it is the whole article?) Also, sections/articles sourced to the subject's website basically turn WP into a promotional vehicle - a mirror for - that website, and we are WP:NOTWEBHOST nor a vehicle for promotion. It is a really bad sign, to see whole sections or articles sourced to SPS of the subject of the article. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

We've discussed this previously on this Talk page, and had the same result. Wikipolicy clearly does not prevent us from using primary sources in all cases, but they should not of course be used to form any sort of a main basis for a wiki-article, nor be used to reflect any encyclopedic analysis on the topic. Primary sources that are used merely to point out the mere existence of particular instances of implementations, and claim nothing more, are certainly appropriate. N2e (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Theere is a difference between "can, gingerly" and should. And basing a whole section is not "ginger" it is problematic. That is policy. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
We didn't have a "discussion", you edit-warred it in and did your best to intimidate others away from arguing. Claiming it's now somehow established consensus misrepresents the discussion - David Gerard (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the primary source tags from the implementation. See WP:Primary - Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

Using a primary source is appropriate in this case for technical information - no synthesis has been used it simply states the language used. The information isn't deputed and there is no reason to suspect its inaccurate.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I've restored in the cases where there is only a primary, closely-connected or user-generated source - primary as well as third-party evidence of outside interest is one thing, literally only primary sourcing for its existence is another. Having literally nothing but primary sources for their existence makes mention in the Wikipedia article problematic and worthy of flagging (particularly in a WP:SPAMBAIT-prone subject area such as cryptocurrency), and burying the tags won't make this not an issue. e.g. Parity actually has third-party coverage, so the primary is helpful rather than a bare bad support. Relevant guidelines that are applicable restrictions are WP:SPAMBAIT, WP:ELNO, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:PROMO (as have already been mentioned in this section). In any case, the actual tag text - "non-primary source needed" - is accurate, helpful and a suitable notice to the reader - David Gerard (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
A primary source is a perfectly adequate and appropriate for referring to what language a program is written. Go-ethereum (Geth), written in Go is this information contested? how could a secondary source be helpful? The tag is misleading to the reader as it gives the impression the content may be incorrect. Nothing is being put in promotional or spam like way, references aren't classed as external links, stating the language is technical information it does not make the article blog like. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
You are failing to address the objections: it is not the fact itself, it is whether they should even be mentioned on Wikipedia or, in this context, merely represent WP:SPAMBAIT, WP:ELNO, WP:NOTWEBHOST or WP:PROMO. Just because something is a true fact about an article topic does not mean that it should therefore be in that topic's Wikipedia article, and particularly with attention to those problems - David Gerard (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Then the argument is not about the sources for the information, but whether the information should be included or not? Jonpatterns (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
You appear to be missing the point again. The sources' quality is relevant because they are not sources that indicate this information belongs in Wikipedia, and given the repeatedly stated concerns surrounding this article and subject area anything in Ethereum needs its relevance demonstrated.
I strongly suggest a reread of Wikipedia:Verifiability and all the sourcing policies and guidelines linked from it - and not a reading looking for loopholes or excuses, but a reading that seeks to understand why I am saying these things based on said policies and guidelines - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
David I am with you somewhat but to me this is more a question of WP:WEIGHT - per NPOV we let reliable sources guide us in how to distribute WEIGHT in an article, and it is questionable whether something that isn't discussed at all in independent, reliable sources should get WEIGHT at all in our article. For some things it makes sense to use non-independent sources but you need to be really careful to keep it brief so that stuff doesn't overwhelm the rest, and our article simply devolves into a vehicle for promotion and a proxy website. There are lots of times that things like come up where questions of WEIGHT and questions of the reliability of sources intermingle and you have to use both policies at the same time to sort things out. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT could be relevant, it mainly talks about different viewpoints. I don't see any evidence of there being different viewpoints on which language Go-ethereum is written in. To me the question is more: should a list of clients and the languages they are written be included in the article, or is it too much detail?. The section is essentially a list so Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia or Wikipedia:Listcruft may be relevant. I'm not sure why WP:ELNO has been repeatedly referred to. This is a guide for a section of direct external links, as often placed at the bottom of a wikipedia article.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The heart of WEIGHT is that we give WEIGHT in an article based on reliable sources. Now read what David G said about the level of quality of an SPS. (it is very low). You need to work with VERIFY and WEIGHT together to come up with the clueful answer here. Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
This would be an example of reading looking for loopholes, rather than reading with an eye to understanding - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The quality of a primary source depends on what its being used to verify. For example, company's website could be used as a reference for the location of its headquarters if that wasn't disputed. It could not be used to verify the company is a world leader in making widgets.
Whether something should be included in an article is not solely based on whether reliable secondary sources are available. The questions are, is the information encyclopedic, is the information disputed, does the information need a secondary source.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The first thing you said is reasonable. The second thing is kind of true; you are not dealing at all with the what happens to articles when big chunks of them are cited to SPS. Please engage. Jytdog (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

Please note that if you have a financial interest in ETH, including a holding, or close involvement with the Ethereum Foundation, Ethereum development or any other substantive conflict of interest, you are required by the Wikimedia terms of use (section 4) to disclose it before editing. I know there are several people who have edited in the past 24 hours who have not so disclosed and really should get around to doing so - David Gerard (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I am one of those new editors but have nothing to disclose. I saw the discussion about the state of the ethereum wikipedia page on reddit and decided that I wanted to try to improve it some for fun. --Bamos01 (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing in the Wikimedia terms of use that would prohibit people who hold Ether or who are Ethereum developers from contributing to the article; it only specifically prohibit people getting PAID for editing. On the other hand WP:FCOI says 'stakeholders' are 'advised to refrain from editing affected articles.' I read that as it is not prohibited. I think that holding Ether is a benign connection; people who owne US dollars may contribute to that article, users of Android and desktop Linux may contribute to those articles, and those who own Apple (directly or via index funds) likely contribute to the article about Apple. People who write C++ code, certainly don't need to declare a COI, so I see no reason that someone writing an Ethereum app (i.e. an Ethereum developer) needs to declare a COI. Sanpitch (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
This is correct - it doesn't stop people from editing, but they are in fact required to declare it (and thank you for doing so) - David Gerard (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there some justification to naming two editors at the top of this page as having a conflict of interest?

  • Legionof7 (talk · contribs) stated he owns about 3eth, or about $30 of ether. Is a $30 shareholding a material stakeholder under the definition of conflict of interest?
  • sanpitch (talk · contribs) stated he owns an unknown quantity of ether and does some software development.

I have quickly looked at talk:Bitcoin, talk:litecoin, talk:Oracle Corporation, talk:salesforce.com, talk:gold, and talk:silver these don't have any (that I saw at least) conflict of interest statements at all. talk:Microsoft I didn't see any similar conflict of interest statements which name editors by name.

1. I'm just curious if there is some precedent for these users being singled out at the top of the talk page? I cant find any on any of the above pages.

2. I would like to know if there is some threshold for stakeholder that becomes a material financial stake. I think we would agree possessing gold jewelry or a silver candleholder would not cross the threshold of being necessary to report for purposes of disqualification of editing.

Seeking some feedback Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I marked myself as having a conflict of interest just to prevent further infighting with David Gerard. I don't believe that I have a COI just because I own 3 ETH, but just to be on the safe side I called myself out. Legionof7 (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf, it is a template. This is what the template is for. If there are more people who have a connection to the company or a financial COI, they should disclose it and we should list them there. This is basic COI management; disclosure. Anywhere you go, in academia or the corporate world, disclosure of conflicts of interest is essential and basic. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The answer is Wikimedia Terms of Service section 4, and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Declaring_an_interest on English Wikipedia. tl;dr yes this is actually required. It doesn't stop you from editing on a topic, but you do have to declare a conflict of interest and refrain from editing it in a manner that hits your conflict. You've been a Wikipedia editor for several years, this is pretty basic stuff - and really, it's common sense to declare COI and edit around it - David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I re-read the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Declaring_an_interest and I now see the on Talk:Godwin's law. This has clarified my question relating to precedent of having users's names at the top of my page. Thank youJtbobwaysf (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's make a note here; thousands of articles on Wikipedia are edited from time to time by people with the sorts of very lightweight connections to a topic that are noted by the two editors identified in that COI talk page header on this page. I have edited the article on the Federal Reserve System, and I own considerably more Federal Reserve Notes than the 3 Ether worth (about $30, at today's prices) than User:Legionof7 disclosed about their ownership of Ether. I imagine this is true of many of the editors who edit that article; but it is also true that editors from around the world who own zero Federal Reserve Notes of US currency also edit that article. Both are welcome, and both should be. If someone is, however, an employee of the Federal Reserve System, that is a clear conflict of interest in the Wikipedia sense of the term.

The same is true of editors who have interests in just about anything. Tens of thousands of such articles are edited by folks who "care" every day. Editors are volunteers, and of course, edit whatever articles choose to invest the time into, whether articles on cooking, fine art, history, travel, or spree shootings in Norway.

Everybody cares about stuff, and what they care about is quite likely to affect where they spend their time editing Wikipedia.

I am fascinated by the intersection of the economics and technology that is seen in the advent of Blockchain 2.0 technologies in the past few years. Moreover, as the New York Times has said, Ethereum seems to be the leading one (or most rapidly advancing) of those at the present time. I am both an economist, and a technologist, so I'm even more interested in those topics. Thus, I am about the mission of trying to improve articles about these topics, and other related articles. In time, my interests will likely move onto something else, which they have done for over 15 years of Wikipedia editing now. As I said before, I own no Ether, am not an employee or contractor to Ethereum, etc.

So Sanpitch and Legionof7 have minor exposure with Ethereum. Such incidental exposure definitely does not disqualify their contributions to improving this article.

But in this particular article, it just feels like folks who also have an interest in the world, just on a countervailing side for some reason or other, are endeavoring to use every angle possible to oppose edits by those editors who are interested in this new, and seemingly, rapidly advancing, technology, even when that advancement and expansion of these articles is all supported by verifiable sources.

That non-neutral behavior is getting a little tiresome. N2e (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely getting tiring. As somebody who has only meta-edited this article and watched the behavior of editors, including yours N2e, the intensity-level of advocacy and personalization of content disputes has taken me aback. COI is just a subset of advocacy; advocacy is the problem that screws up articles and creates noise that interferes with calm discussion. You are one of the chief among those N2e and as an experienced Wikipedian I look for better from you. Jytdog (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC) (strike per REDACT, moving discussion to user Talk page, which is where I should have put it Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC))
Agree with all of you, this seems to be one of the most contentious talk pages I have seen in a while. Also it appears that the arguments of both parties are making some valid points and specifically I agree with N2e that a $30 investment wouldn't likely impede anyone's ability to have NPOV. Reading about this today I read this article, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/ certainly an interesting perspective on COI. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Assumption of good faith

this is not about improving the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In the above discussion of "Conflict of interest" in this article, User:Jytdog makes the following statement"

It is absolutely getting tiring. As somebody who has only meta-edited this article and watched the behavior of editors, including yours N2e, the intensity-level of advocacy and personalization of content disputes has taken me aback. COI is just a subset of advocacy; advocacy is the problem that screws up articles and creates noise that interferes with calm discussion. You are one of the chief among those N2e and as an experienced Wikipedian I look for better from you. Jytdog (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I take this as an explicit attack on an editor, but with nothing concrete to which the attacked editor may constructively and with good faith respond.

There is a forum for these things to be discussed. If you feel that my editing behavior is in any way out of bounds, please take it to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, or to any noticeboard for editor behavior, where I may formally respond to any specific allegations you would care to make. This would require specific edits I've made, with my words, not merely vague insinuations. I do not think you can find anything.

Do not just leave vague assertions that poison this Talk page. N2e (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't be daft n2e, there is no personal attack there, and your warning to Jytdog is a joke. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This is not about improving the article. See WP:TPG and WP:DR. I'll raise the issues with N2e on their talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Based on Jytdog's strike-out of the personal attack on me (in the original Talk page section, above, not here in my quotation of it in this section--although they are welcome to strike it here as well), I have stricken my challenge to them for that personal attack. N2e (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Ether vs. Ethereum

David Gerard (talk · contribs) posted an interesting question at Talk:Vitalik_Buterin#Why_the_aversion_to_calling_Ethereum_a_.22cryptocurrency.22_platform.3F so I thought I would copy it here as it is more relevant here (if I understand his question correctly). This raises the question if the Ethereum article properly addresses this. I thought if I posted here maybe it will get more responses/input.

Why the aversion to calling Ethereum a "cryptocurrency" platform?
Ethereum is mostly used for ETH to be speculated upon. This is also the main verifiable observable use Buterin himself puts it to! (per [6][7] "sound financial planning"). "publishing platform" in the first sentence of this article is actively misleading - there are no notable uses of Ethereum for publishing. Even the smart contracts are most notable in RSes for their hypothetical possibilities.
Why are advocates so averse to the word "cryptocurrency" around Ethereum? - David Gerard (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Agree, the Vitalik Buterin page shouldn't be making statements about if Ethereum is a publishing platform or if it is a cryptocurrency (or if it is both), as this is in dispute (or at least there is a misunderstanding about it). I think that discussion is more relevant (here) at the Ethereum page. The aversion to calling it a cryptocurrency maybe stems from the fact that Buterin has repeatedly referred to it as not being a cryptocurrency. According to my understanding Ether (ETH) is the cryptocurrency component of Ethereum (a blockchain software platform). Thus Ether is a subset of the superset Ethereum (which is the turing complete language), and as you point out in this case the subset may be more well known than the superset. Ether is used to pay bockchain hosts (aka miners) to host your software (smart contracts) on their servers which are running Ethereum software. This is different from say Bitcoin where the nodes (miners) don't allow user's software to be hosted. There is some nuance to that, which belongs in the description. Buterin's sale of his ETH he describes it as logical under Diversification (finance), per the links you have provided (thus I don't see how it is connected to the subset/superset discussion). Augur_(software) is an example of a company that has deployed a solution running on the Ethereum platform. Augur uses Ether to pay for its prediction markets to be recorded into the Ethereum blockchain. To my knowledge Bitcoin cannot support such data to be put into the blockchain. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I think "cryptocurrency and smart contracts platform" describes what it is, what it aspires to be and what it is actually most used for in practice in five words, and is not in fact inaccurate, particularly with "the cryptocurrency is Ether" after it. The current intro wording is more aspirational than informative; it misleadingly obfuscates the fact that trading in ETH is the main present-day use for anything Ethereum - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi David, Ether is the cryptocurrency, not Ethereum (that is explained right above in my reply) and I guess there are ample citations on the article to confirm this. Ethereum is a blockchain platform, or maybe a 'smart contracts platform running on the blockchain.' Trading in Ether is not a use of Ethereum any more than trading in MSFT is a use of Microsoft software. The uses section in the article describes multiple uses of Ethereum and none of those uses is trading Ether. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
"Trading in Ether is not a use of Ethereum any more than trading in MSFT is a use of Microsoft software." That's clearly a false statement. You can't trade in ether without the Ethereum platform being involved - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi David, yes a bad comparison I made. You are right, trading in Ether requires that the transaction would be recorded on the blockchain, just like in Bitcoin. I guess the point you are asserting, (which I can't rule out), is that: the quantity of blockchain Ether transactions that are the result of market making > the quantity of blockchain transactions that are the result of applications running on Ethereum (such as Augur (software). If that is true, and if we can find reliable sources to document it, then we should enter that into the article. In the end we are talking about open source software (essentially a database with a little logic in it) and users are free to use it as they want. Tor_(anonymity_network) is also open source and has many uses, despite I think it maybe being well known for the infamous Silk_Road_(marketplace), but it is not defined by that. The Tor article has a Tor_(anonymity_network)#Usage section (much more detailed than the usage section of Ethereum), just as Ethereum#Uses has. Clearly this Ethereum usage section section needs to be expanded/improved and I will work on that when I have time. I have taken a quick stab at it and added cryptocurrency as a 3rd use. Please send some good sources to support us making a change to the overall definition (if necessary). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Forbes.com/sites

Is not a reliable source. Roger Aitken (the author of the article on forbes.com/sites) more than passes as an expert on currency and can be used appropriately. As there is no BLP issue, nor anything contentious in his reporting, there is no reason to tag an article by an expert in the field as 'unreliable' absent evidence of such. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Totally Agree. @David Gerard: you said in your edit 16:59, 28 April 2016‎ David Gerard (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,633 bytes) (+176)‎ . . "(i believe there are no such marketplaces as yet; the Forbes article is a "contributor" article, i.e. a blog post, not a print or staff piece, and Forbes explicitly disclaims it on the page)" First, what you believe to exist has no bearing in wikipedia. Second, this whole thing of flagging reliable sources is over the top. You previously marked an NYT.com piece as unreliable and in this entry you mark Forbes as unreliable. Stop trying to edit war your beliefs into the article. Your beliefs are irrelevant at wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Technically forbes.com/sites is unreliable as we would term it. Its not full editorial control so we cannot extend the 'reliability' of it being under the Forbes banner to articles on it. What this means from a source reliability standpoint is that we treat the article (and its author) as self-published and reliability is dependant on the author. This limits the areas in which it can be used to non-contentious, non-blp areas in which the author has expertise. It should be obvious that Roger Aitken (the author) clearly passes that barrier given his previous staff positions as a financial journalist, as well as his professional career outside of journalism. From what I can see, the info his article is being used to reference is non-contentious mostly factual. In fact his entire article is generally a description of the process and history rather than opinions on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
"what you believe to exist has no bearing in wikipedia" - see, a more appropriate response would be to come up with a good cite for one existing if you actually thought I was wrong - David Gerard (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • And just to be clear from his bio on forbes.com: "former FT staff writer covering stock exchanges and transaction services." "written for a number of trade titles like Futures & Options World (FOW), magazines such as the FT’s Investors Chronicle and UK national newspapers like The Independent." "worked as a ratings editor for Moody’s in London and New York" - if this person is *not* qualified to write on what is effectively a form of transaction service, there are very few people who would be. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Ehh, fair enough. (Does he rate a Wikipedia article, fwiw? There isn't one as yet.) - David Gerard (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Probably but hard to source due to the wikipedia criteria. Journalists tend not to get written about unless they win major awards or land significant scoops. Merely being good at their job is not enough. It's easier to get an article through AFC about a newly promoted head of a minor bank, than it is about the journo of 30 years experience who writes about him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done — as of these last two comments, with the removal of the challenges in this edit (diff), and the editor who orginally added all of those challenges acquiescing, in the Talk page comment above, and by not, once again, adding the tags back to the article, THIS topic-related Talk page subsection is "DONE".

The comments that follow are about other stuff, some not even related to article improvement. N2e (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

    • In general I would be a bit wary about considering journalists as experts on anything. In most cases the nature of their job is fast-paced and generalist; even when journalists are specialist, it is not unheard of for e.g. science and technology journalists to write articles or books that misunderstand key points about a science or technology. This might occur because they overestimate their own competence - thinking that, say, having written articles about cryptography qualifies them to judge whether a cryptographic system is secure (it doesn't!) - or because they too easily trust their sources, or received wisdom, in a sector. Since Ethereum is both a complicated technology and a transaction service, has not seen widespread proven usage yet, and is controversial, this kind of scepticism should be applied liberally to journalistic sources for this article.--greenrd (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Yeeeup, that's about my issue. Journalistic cites for statements of fact are one thing; journalistic cites for things that just also happen to closely resemble not-quite-English promotional phrases used by advocates need something more. (I think in particular of the consistent attempts by ETH advocates to describe it as absolutely anything except a "cryptocurrency", when that's what even the creator observably actually uses it for in real life.) - David Gerard (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
        • In my community of Ethereum users and advocates, I consistently hear people refer to it as crypto-currency, *and* more. An iPhone can be used for phone calls, and a hell of a lot more. Why the neg? Sanpitch (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Look at the edit history of this article and Vitalik Buterin. Persistent efforts not to call Ethereum a cryptocurrency. At one point advocates were even trying to call it a "publishing platform" in the first sentence. But even Buterin's own main observable, verifiable, notable, real-world use for it is cryptocurrency speculation - all other uses are largely hypothetical, and even when manifested in the real world the hope is of ETH going to the moon so holders can cash out rather than the uses being value-generators - David Gerard (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
            • Buterin described Ethereum as "A Next-Generation Cryptocurrency and Decentralized Application Platform".[1] I have added that to the first paragraph. Comments welcome.

References

  1. ^ "A Next-Generation Cryptocurrency and Decentralized Application Platform". Bitcoin Magazine. Retrieved 2016-05-06.
Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
please discuss article content, not contributors Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
            • Whoa, why not 'assume good faith'? Your comments that Ethereum is solely used for speculation are subjective and not cool. Sanpitch (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
              • WP:AGF applies to other people working on Wikipedia. Even the creator of Ethereum notably uses it for speculation - what is "bad faith" about noting that? One editor on Vitalik Buterin literally did change the intro to say Ethereum was a "publishing platform". Who am I assuming bad faith in here? - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
      • And that would be heading down the original research/synth route. Absent evidence that a specific journalist does not know what they are writing about, we assume they do until proven otherwise. In this case said journo also has relevant real word experience in a professional capacity, so it would be even less likely. There have been cases where certain specific journalists have been deemed 'unreliable' but thats because they have a reported history of distortion and lack of rigor in their research. For example, anyone who attempted to use Melanie Phillips as a source on anything (except herself) would quickly learn the difference between what is and is not reliable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources

  •  Done Have used the NYT source now to support a number of statements about this emerging technology application platform. Also, added a section to explicate the adoption challenges that the NYT identified as Ethereum moves forward, to help ensure good balance in the article. There is certainly more in the NYT source that could potentially be used to improve this wiki article, so other editors, have at it. N2e (talk)

Charles Hoskinson, initial CEO of Ethereum

Apparently, the original/initial CEO of some Ethereum for-profit entity was Charles Hoskinson, who according to this source, left in June 2014, and has not been involved with Ethereum since. On the video, he also says he wanted to have a hybrid model for the operation, with a for-profit and a non-profit entity, but that Ethereum decided to go with, after the initial early-2014 phase, with the token sale funding/creating only the non-profit Ethereum Foundation. I realize that this interview is a primary source, and for this purpose is probably questionable to use to update the article. Link to the video interview is here. And here is a link from the Bitcoin News Service that references the same interview. I leave it for editors who may want to improve the article, as it does provide one account of the first 6-7 months, and his leaving the Ethereum group, and may be helpful in locating other secondary sources that might have covered those early months of the project and the organization pursuing it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

--Donschoe (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Readability and context

I implemented the draft to the mainspace (which I mentioned my intention yesterday above). Please feel free to comment or revert if you dont like it :-) Trying to improve readability. There is one bad citation where I used a StackExchange (forum citation) as I cant find anything as a secondary source that establishes that the EVM supports LLL, Serpent, and Solidity. If we are sufficiently improved, I propose that we remove the content context tag at the top of the page. If we are not let's identify specific problems and fix. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I have removed this tag Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleting content

Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs) Noted you deleted some content on this page due to 'sources.' I have seen in your contributions you also doing that at other articles as well. Please read WP:RS and comply with those guidelines. There is prior discussion on this talk page above about sources. On articles in which notability is not in question primary sources are in some cases allowed.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The article previously had major cleanup tags 'in place' that were unquestionably valid. Probably those major clean up tags need to return to the article. We have to be careful to not make the article a format and advertising site for its subject and its theories. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
You didn't address you deleting cited content. Whatever tags the article had before is irrelevant. Second request for you to address your deletion of cited content. I have also edited your NYT quotation. You putting some type of disclaimer in saying "NYT says xyx" is not permitted under wikipedia rules, as the statement is appears to add weight. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I just went through Earl King Jr.'s edits here and they all look good to me, and the edit reasons gave explanations. The dubiously-sourced material can't just hang around forever, and having a cite that's a bad cite is not sufficient reason.
Also, looking at Earl King Jr.'s contributions, by "doing that at other articles" you mean removing really badly-sourced blatantly promotional material from other cryptocurrency articles. I haven't looked over all of those, but the ones I've looked at so far seem absolutely on-point and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and policies - David Gerard (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia allows primary sources in certain cases. This has been discussed ad nauseam above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Indeed it does, but that's not an excuse for just plain bad sourcing, even though it keeps being used as one ad nauseam above - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Project schedule dates

There are projected release dates for the Metropolis and Serenity releases (which other sources had mentioned, but without dates) of Ethereum—plus targets discussed publically for the first time for several additional upgrades in 2017 and 2018 which I had not seen discussed earlier—in this media article here: Vitalik Buterin Sets Milestones On Ethereum’s Route to Be The ‘World Computer’, 8 June 2016. N2e (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

we generally don't want to include that kind of stuff per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I guess I'm confused. I work much more on WP:Wikiproject Spaceflight articles, and it seems articles on nearly every launch vehicle system list dates for future launches, and often use stated dates by manufacturers as to when mfgrs anticipate that a new version of a launch vehicle may hit some particular development milestone or when it is planned to make its maiden launch. Of course this stuff needs to be stated in encyclopedic terms, and be clear that it is a scheduled date. In fact, it is these sourced statements of planned dates that may often be used later on (say in a History section) that shows the slippage of plans to reality (obviously with all statements tied to source citations).
So I'm just at a loss as to why ordinary secondary sources that document planned dates for future releases of software are not considered appropriate by some editors in this particular set of Wikipedia articles. I see that Wikipedia does not generally have any problem representing future dates for Microsoft and Apple software releases, nor new automobiles, nor new jet fighter aircraft, nor new buildings under construction, nor many other things. So, seriously, why is this space different than all those? N2e (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

SW Languages

Ento (talk · contribs) recently added Rust to the list of infobox languages. It now includes

  • C++,
  • Go,
  • JavaScript,
  • Python,
  • Java,
  • node.js,
  • Haskell,
  • Rust

(all above with no citations).

Second there are the client implementations of:

  • Go-ethereum (Geth), written in Go[41][non-primary source needed]
  • Parity, written in Rust[42][43]
  • Cpp-ethereum, written in C++[41][non-primary source needed]
  • Ethereum(J), written in Java[44][45][41][non-primary source needed]
  • Pyethapp, written in Python[46][41][non-primary source needed]
  • Ethereumjs-lib, written in JavaScript[47][41][non-primary source needed]
  • EthereumH, written in Haskell[48][41][non-primary source needed]
  • Ruby-ethereum, written in Ruby[49][41][non-primary source needed].

Does anyone here (For example sanpitch (talk · contribs), Legionof7 (talk · contribs), David Gerard (talk · contribs) know if this as all true? Bitcoin Core only lists c++. Is ethereum really written in so many languages while bitcoin core is only in c++? Maybe there is a distinction I don't understand...I think it would be better if the article could explain this clearly. Comments?? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, we have no third-party verification that anyone other than the development teams even use these versions or that they even work. There's a serious WP:WEIGHT issue with this list at all, and it still strongly resembles an attempt to sidestep WP:EL - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Could be. There are two full lists, the one in the infobox and the one in the article. Let's see if we can clean it up. Need to figure it out first, I am hoping some of the other contributors here can comment. N2e (talk · contribs), do you know anything about all the languages? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Its a mis-understanding as I can see. The blockchain platform is not the same as the client implementations. The infobox should contain the language the platform is written in, the client-side implementations are listed in the article (rust etc). 'Ethereum' will be written in one, maybe two languages which should be sourced and in the infobox. The client implementations are already listed with their relevant languages. Although Rust... just ugh. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Great answer. I was wondering if that is the answer as well. I read two different sources online (and saw some videos earlier) that said that the language is Solidity. "Solidity is a javascript-like programming language designed for developing smart contract programs that run on the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). Solidity is compiled to bytecode that is executable on the EVM. Using Solidity, developers can write applications that implement self-enforcing business logic embodied in smart contracts, leaving a non-repudiable and authoritative record of transactions." Maybe we can re-write this and create a section for it. Then de-weight all the client implementations. Here are a couple of sources to consider https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/ethereums-solidity-now-available-in-microsoft-visual-studio/ and http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/microsoft-adds-ethereum-language-solidity-visual-studio-1552171 both seem to state that the language is Solidity. Comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Weirdly articles on Ethereum are strangely reluctant to talk about what the actual platform or the EVM are coded in. Plenty about individual client implementations (albeit primary for the most part) or scripting languages like Solidity (which is basically a custom version of Javascript to run on the EVM from what I can see). It may just be a case of newness coupled with the inherant non-interesting nature of that particularly technical tidbit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I feel a bit embarrassed, there is a whole page on Solidity this article doesn't link to Solidity. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User Only in death above says "The blockchain platform is not the same as the client implementations." This is incorrect; each client participates in the Ethereum *protocol*, which results in blocks being added to the blockchain. This is the whole point of a decentralized system; there's nothing else besides the client. Each client is an independent implementation of the protocol. The developers who write them are choosing to write in the language they are most familiar with, hence the diversity. The languages which compile down to the EVM (Solidity, LLL, etc...) are a completely different can of worms. Sanpitch (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I probably didnt express myself well at all there. I mainly meant that the infobox appears to be a mixture of info regarding the clients and the protocol. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I wonder what Written In exactly means. In first place, Ethereum is a protocol specified in a white paper and yellow paper. As per design, there are four official reference implementations: Python, C++, Golang and Java. All of them implement the protocol specification, are stand alone and provide an individual implementation of the EVM. In addition, there is the 3rd party implementation in Rust which also offers all that. I personally can confirm all of them working. However, I am not sure what the scope of that info box is? Could anyone clarify? The Bitcoin article does not contain a written in box. As far as I know Bitcoin is also written in more than one language, however the Bitcoin reference implementation Bitcoin Core is C++ only, but that's just a client, not the protocol. Donschoe (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
That was pretty much what I was looking at. I didnt realise there were multiple EVM's however. I'm going to take out the 'written in' as it appears not relevant to the protocol - only to the clients. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the same goes for the Infobox "Operating System" as well right? Again we are talking clients right? So take out that too? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Possibly. It's a protocol and it's software and both are in active development in close tandem and aren't really completely separate layers. {{Infobox protocol}} isn't quite the right infobox either - David Gerard (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Dirty hack put in the infobox. There is probably a better/more succint way to express it, but that would need to be in prose rather than the infobox. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I have re-organized a draft a bit to try to include more on solidity as it seems the compiling part is important. Its on my page User:Jtbobwaysf/sandbox. Please comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the Solidity article should be merged here - much of it is primary or uncited, the third-party sources therein don't go into technical detail and it's really 100% Ethereum - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Good question. Does Solidity = Ethereum? Are there non-Ethereum uses for Solidity? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs) just took out all reference to the implementations. I added them back in in two reference-dense sentences in the 'overview' section. I hope that Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs) and others will justify further edits in this section given that removing these references is obviously not a unanimous decision. Sanpitch (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems that Sanpitch as an editor on this article [8] is in a conflict of interest if they do not edit neutrally. Self declared participants in the Ethereum implementation and organizers of Ethereum groups would have to show extreme neutrality and a lack of promoting any information without good sourcing. A strong conflict of interest and involvement in Ethereum leads to this information being reverted and yes it was tagged as poorly sourced. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if COI is the right term for this. I think it is more of question of who you are writing for. User:Sanpitch, your edit note here: said "The implementations are an important feature for developers". I am not sure if you are familiar with WP:NOTHOWTO (please do read that) and you are kind of writing a manual-level article. Or maybe you think that from a developer's perspective, this article is just .. well, gaping incomplete without that content. Would you explain a bit, commenting on both things I speculated about? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I should have used "user" instead of "developer". Ethereum is not a tool that a non-technical person will easily use, especially if they want to get the fully decentralized experience, which means avoid exchanges. So I used the word 'developer' to refer to the people who want to use Ethereum in a decentralized way and are willing to work with the command-line interface that most implementations offer. The only way do this is to use one of those implementations; having these listed in two sentences seems entirely appropriate for Wikipedia and to not violate anything in WP:NOTHOWTO.
As for me having a conflict of interest, that has been covered before on this page, I don't think there's a reason to rehash that again. Sanpitch (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah the COI thing is a red herring I think this is more about what we are doing here. It kind of seems to me the like the information about how to use ethereum is a) something that someone who wants to do this would actually get from ethereum.org and b) maybe too technical for an encyclopedia article aimed at the general reader. (this is the [{WP:NOTMANUAL]] thing)... especially if there aren't secondary sources that discuss it. And this keeps getting added in, sourced basically to ethereum.... Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
This section started out with a complaint about an entire section. That has been reduced down to two sentences with references that point people to how to use Ethereum. The Linux page has references to Ubuntu, Fedora, and Gentoo, it feels entirely reasonable for Ethereum to also have two sentences to point to its software. The second sentence that was removed pointed to projects not sourced from the Ethereum Foundation, and which may not be so trivial to find. Do we have to make certain that every article on Wikipedia is aimed at the general user; what about Channel state information or Proteorhodopsin? Those articles may be useful for a certain audience, I think that two sentences do not constitute a manual and are entirely reasonable in this case. Sanpitch (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You said "The implementations are an important feature for developers", Sandpitch. As a group leader or meet up for Ethereum organizer or someone involved commercially in Ethereum in the present, getting technical probably makes sense as it helps people you are involved with. But caution, restraint, since the sourcing is mostly junk, primary things written to induce more participation in this commercial fringe cause. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

To my knowledge all implementations are open-source, so I don't think use of 'commercial' as a pejorative is warranted. Ethereum certainly is 'fringe' in that it is experimental and may fail; I do not see this as a bad thing. I do not think the sources in the content under discussion were junk, but exactly appropriate for the few sentences that were removed. To repeat, in my mind, the two sentences that were removed are completely appropriate for this article.Sanpitch (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs), do you have any evidence Ethereum is WP:FRINGE? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The terrible difficulty advocates seem to have finding verifiable third-party reliable sources for claims strongly suggests it - David Gerard (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
David, do you have any evidence of WP:ADVOCACY?Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
You have personally participated in the discussions on this very talk page concerning blatant WP:ADVOCACY. So the answer to your question is "read this page and its archives" - David Gerard (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
In general the article is shaping up better because a lot of the promoting/advert style and very weak article citations have gone. Please read WP:RS and comply with those guidelines. There is prior discussion on this talk page above about sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Earl, but no evidence of WP:FRINGE?Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Per your request for evidence of WP:ADVOCACY to me above when you've personally participated in discussion of such on this page, it is not clear to me that you would understand or accept evidence for it. Cryptocurrency advocacy is a fringe position in general society at best if good faith is assumed, and one assumed to be borderline criminal in general - people literally lose their bank accounts for using them to buy Bitcoin, on the presumption their use will be criminal. So cranks or crooks, pick one or both - David Gerard (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
It appears to me that attempts to delete cited wikipedia content will not make crypto-currency any 'safer,' nor will it hamper criminals attempts to use it, and it gets us into a slippery slope of only adding to wikipedia what we think is 'best' for society. You have not provided any evidence of fringe or advocacy relating to this article...Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Are there attempts to delete cited content? No, just the poorly sourced stuff that probably should not have been there in the first place but was placed by people who may be overly enthusiastic with this subject. Whats best for society? Big subject but neutrality is best for Wikipedia. Evidence this is fringe? It is totally fringe, its best not to take everything/anything the sponsors of this idea say at face value because they have financial interests hence all the badly sourced citations to promo advert material are not good for the article. [[9] some interesting information, not a good source but still interesting about the fraud aspects of this Cryptocurrencies stay out of the legislation of any country. Their very essence protests against interference and control executed by the government. Therefore, the options offered by the cryptocurrencies for the development of the business also open possibilities for development of fraudulent projects. end quote. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Third-party RS for "Trust and transparency" section?

This section makes advocacy-like claims for the virtues of Ethereum, and is cited to blog posts. Do we have sources for the claims in it that would pass WP:RS? - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I had wondered about this whole section before and it doesn't really make much sense to me. True, blockchains offer a higher level of trust and transparency than a normal database, and I am sure that is covered on the Block_chain (database) page. Maybe the point here that there can maybe more trust and transparency in a program (smart contract) that can he executed in an open environment by the Ethereum Virtual Machine. Is the editor who made this section listening to you this discussion? If so, please add some comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
It does make sense to me but I work in finance tech. However I think the section should be removed completely because its a combination of badly sourced (not to say 'unreliable' absent evidence, but its not 'reliable' in the way we would prefer either) and basically from a technical point of view, 'transparent' is not the same as 'visible'. Essentially from the description I would want a much better source to verify what they section is stating is accurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Since you understand it, please tell us what the section is trying to say. Simply arguing to remove a section because the sources are maybe poor doesn't make sense. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
What it is trying to say/imply is that Ethereum is both more trustworthy and transparent (than other platforms) due to the visibility of the contracts (the technical method is most of the jargon in this section). In finance however 'visibility' is not the same as 'transparency'. Just because the contract is visible does not make the contract any more transparent, as absent a reliable source, I cannot see that the contract stakeholders are any more visible. Removing a section because the sources are poor is not that unusual. What we have here is a combination of 1. Poor sourcing, 2. Subtle puffery, 3. Overly technical jargon that is unencyclopedic in general. The first sentence itself is laughable on the face of it anyway, "Trust is especially important in some vertical markets, such as financial services." 'Trust' is important in all vertical markets (and financial services.) Its not 'especially' important in one more than others. Thats just hyperbole designed to set up the puffery. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Only in death (talk · contribs), I have added some content. I still agree with you that the title of the section should maybe be changed, and some of the existing content which is a bit jargonish should maybe be trimmed too. Thought I would get some feedback here first. Maybe change the section name to "Interoperability" or maybe "Visibility and Interoperability" N2e (talk · contribs) do you have comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Only in death sets out the problems clearly - it's a bad section. Without RSes, the section should be removed. With RSes, it needs a rewrite - David Gerard (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I re-wrote and added sources. Also changed the section name. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
You comment on the LinkedIn source "this is a publication about technical matters on a LinkedIn site by a senior engineering manager at LinkedIn; it is basically a source that meets WP:V" - the subject matter is not about LinkedIn at all, the guy is just blogging about blockchains and smart contracts. Maybe he knows his stuff! But it's still just a blog post, even if he's a very good techie - David Gerard (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi David, agree with you and I didn't make that comment... Not sure who put that there. It was already in there when I re-worked the section. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The transparency is one of the pillars that enables the idea of Ethereum, and has nothing to do with "interopability". "Visibility" is also the wrong word here, which is more an answer to the question "did it do what it promised to do?". I am using the word Transparency, as in "is operating in such a way that it is easy for others to see what actions are performed" defined by Wikipedia. Suppose you want to provide a web service where money is involved. As a user of such a service, you have to decide whether you can trust it. With Ethereum contracts, it is possible for the provider to prove what is going to happen. This is done by providing the source code for the Ethereum contract. It is then possible to verify that the Ethereum contract was created from exactly this source code. You don't need any laws or certifications to get trust. Sure, you need to have fairly deep knowledge of how the software and blockchain works, but the argument still holds. A simple example would be a gambling site. Can I be sure I can withdraw my winnings? I think it was an unfortunate decision to cut the section, instead of improving on it (or at least adding a tag of better sources needed). LarsPensjo (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
This assumes that people involved know how to look at the source code and make any sense out of it, much less know if the code they are given was the code that was actually being implemented in this "smart contract". This remains a really niche thing. Tiny nichey. Maybe institutions could hire people to check code for them but now we are right back at middlemen. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
And as we've recently seen with the DAO: what actually happens is that (1) anyone can code it so the code is shockingly low quality (~100 errors per KLOC) (2) everyone can see security holes (3) as there is no central maintainer that can rush out a patch, it takes considerable time, effort and bureaucracy to fix them - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Tiny? I beg to differ. Have you seen what happened to a contract called "theDAO"? When it was ready to "be used", it was immediately put into a sate of moratorium. That is a big thing for a business that some value to more than 150 million US$. It also shows that everyone doesn't need to have the competence to do this review. If it would have been a legacy LAMP server, it could have been just as riddled with errors, but, in worst case, no one would have noticed until there was some kind of disaster. See the MtGox tragedy, which may be the result of incompetence. How can you call this tiny? "anyone can code it so the code is shockingly low quality": If that is the case, transparency is even more important. Another even more recent example: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4njvhk/launching_in_12h_the_rouleth_full_european/ . "everyone can see security holes": True. It is a double edged sword. "there is no central maintainer that can rush out a patch": As a user, you have the option to not use the contract. I didn't claim that the transparency is a guarantee of anything. I claim, and can show more examples, that it gives a possibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsPensjo (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
That is called "living in a bubble" and "drinking the koolaid". Out here in the real world, this is some tiny niche thing. I agree 100% that one day this could change how things are done. It is not doing that now. The DAO is not actually doing anything now (last I checked) except accepting a lot of Ether from people. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Ethereum is mostly unknown and completely ignored "out there". Some say that if Ethereum is widely adopted one day, users will not know they are using Ethereum, they will just see and use new services. Using your argumentation, the whole article could as well be removed? Flying is today considered safe by many experts. One of the reasons is that every incident is analyzed, and new procedures are used to ensure the same thing can't happen again. This is not common knowledge among travelers. But that doesn't mean the practice is unnecessary and unimportant. What I want to explain is that a feature isn't irrelevant just because only a minority knows about it. "It is not doing that now": Wrong, it is being done, as we speak, on Ethereum. There are even web sites providing this as a special service. "The DAO is not actually doing anything now": Exactly my point. It is put into a moratorium until it has been approved. "except accepting a lot of Ether from people": Please stay on topic. (TheDAO doesn't accept ether from people since the creation period ended). LarsPensjo (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for engaging!! So happy. So yes, some of the tension you see here on the Talk page and in the editing of the article, is between a) editors who are relatively new to Wikipedia, who are in the bubble and are really excited about the coding (which actually exists) and what it is already known to be able to do (which actually exists) and its existing applications (which are nascent but real) and all the applications it may have one day (which do not exist) and want to write about all that, and b) editors who are very experienced here, and are trying to keep this article in line with our policies and guidelines which require that content be supported by what we call reliable sources and forbid content that makes big claims about stuff that doesn't exist yet. As usual we muddle through. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

More sources on the broad impact of Ethereum to a variety of areas, as well as distinctions with earlier blockchains

Here is another source that provides support for the breadth of Ethereum effects in a range of areas, as well as further support for the distinctives of what second-generation blockchains are capable of doing. Beyond bitcoin. Your life is destined for the blockchain, Wired, 9 June 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N2e (talk • contribs) 20:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC

Thanks for bringing that ref. I just read it, and boy is it full of what we call WP:CRYSTALBALL. There is so much hype about what blockchains ~might~ do one day and yes even startups promising to do that. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for this sort of thing. Please do read the link at CRYSTALBALL which is WP policy. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I added one quote from it over at Decentralized Autonomous Organization, on the background (maybe theory) behind it all. Yes, agree with you jytdog, that much of it is too broad. But an interesting source and thank you N2e for pointing it out. Specifically regarding the release dates for the future Ethereum versions, I think we could make a passing remark such as "scheduled release date" on the article, but it seems that software in general is always late anyhow. Maybe similar to MSFT saying they will release in Q4 2017, or something like that. I think that our broad strokes on future announced software roadmap is kosher for the article in my opinion. But also agree with jytdog, that we cant get too specific. Just my two cents, or three by now :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I think we could make a passing remark such as "scheduled release date" on the article, quote Jtbobwaysf No. Why would that be a good idea? The page is not an advert for this idea or promotional tool for their possible plans. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Do other software articles include future version release plans? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

And here is another reliable source media article on the broad impact of blockchain-based technologies including Ethereum: We're About to Live in a Blockchain-Based World, PC Magazine, 10 June 2016. N2e (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

again, we are about to live in a blockchain world. none of this is really here yet - it emerging and has been emerging for a long time. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Not distinguishing actual from hypothetical is endemic in the cryptocurrency world - see the list of use case examples on block chain (database) for another example - David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Folks, I'm just listing some sources here, as I find them, that might be useful for article improvement. In general, I've not been using the sources in the article in the mainspace,, or I wouldn't take the time to list them here. Your objections are not objections about everything said in every reliable source I've listed here. They are objections with some ways in which some parts of these articles might be used to source some particular hypothetical statements in the article space that, quite clearly, have not yet been written by any editor.

I think your objections will be more salient when some particular editor uses one of these particular sources in a way that you object too. So in my view, you should save the objection for that. I suppose an alternative would be for you to take one or more of these publications to the reliable sources noticeboard and have them put on some sort of a blacklist. As far as I'm aware, that is not the case today. N2e (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(As a side note: I'd be happy to be informed if any of these sources have been deemed blacklisted by Wikipedia; in which case I would not even list them on a Talk page. I'm just fairly new to doing any content building at all in the interesting area of the economics and technology, and social order implications, of these various odd digital assets and value tokens. So if there is something you know that others don't about Wikipedia blacklists, then please let us all know.) N2e (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
What I see going on here is a continued pattern of editing (aka deleting content, sources, etc) which is WP:ADVOCACY executed by means of WP:OWNERSHIP to protect the public from "pyramid schemes."
WP:ADVOCACY: "The public needs to know this: Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations campaigns, even for worthy causes."
These crypto articles are not WP:BLP nor are they WP:MEDRS & there is no basis for this constant aggressive push-back on sources. Assuming arguendo that these crypto schemes are all pyramid schemes (as has been asserted by some editors deleting content on a few of these pages), is there any wikipedia policy basis that creates a higher standard for sources of the pyramid scheme such that normal rules on WP:RS do not apply? I have seen WP:FRINGE advanced as a justification, but these technologies are not fringe given the amount of media coverage. How should we proceed? Should we take this matter to the RS noticeboard to gain some more feedback on this issue, or is there a more appropriate venue? This issue has been going on for some time across a few pages that I have seen all in this same sphere The DAO (organization), Decentralized Autonomous Organization, and Ethereum (to name a few). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not clear that you understand Wikipedia sourcing or what makes something suitable to put into a Wikipedia article. The thing on Streembit you just added to this article is sourced to (a) the project page (b) a blog post, neither of which even mention Ethereum. How, to your mind, is this appropriate sourcing to put something into a Wikipedia article? - David Gerard (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
David, that was added by an IP....
Jtbobwaysf, David is working to raise source quality here which is always good. Yes, David is shooting himself in the foot some by giving his personal opinions here on that Talk page but his edits are 100% in line with the mission of WP and the policies and guidelines. Again, please cool it with the interpersonal commentary, both of you. The essence of WP:CIVIL is not writing stuff that causes unnecessary friction that gets in the way of the work. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog thank you for the feedback... I wasn't referring to David specifically, there are a couple of editors on these crypto pages that I thought had made similar pyramid type comments and appear to be holding these pages to some sort of higher WP:RS standard... Editor N2e said above "So I'm just at a loss as to why ordinary secondary sources that document planned dates for future releases of software are not considered appropriate by some editors in this particular set of Wikipedia articles." I too share the same confusion as N2e to why RS guidelines are not be uniformly applied on these pages like other SW pages.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTALBALL is not about sourcing but rather content and as to other SW pages WP is full of absolute shit content in many spots and even whole articles. See WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS. Wikipedia is not a webhost and we do not exist so that projects or companies can hype their future plans. WP is a project to provide the public with encyclopedia articles that communicate accepted knowledge. It is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and many many people abuse their editing privileges to promote things. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Understand now and agree with you jytdog, WP:CRYSTALBALL makes sense here.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
:) Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

History

The current history section is very scant and uninformative. I would like to expand it some to describe the state of blockchain consensus protocols prior to Ethereum and provide a brief description of the way that Ethereum innovated on the existing blockchains. --Bamos01 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur that the current section is weak. As an editor who has written a lot of "History" sections for various articles, so that the encyclopedic story on a project or entity does not get lost by the relentless drive of technology news and presentism, I think the project you are setting out on is a good one. But do be sure to fully source (with full citations) all the statements you make in the History section you intend to flesh out. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks- I took an initial shot at it to make it a little more informative. will try to keep working on it. ::--Bamos01 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Here is a reliable secondary source (as Wikipedia sees such things) on Ethereum from April of 2014. Will likely prove useful to your history project: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/7/code-your-own-utopiameetethereumbitcoinasmostambitioussuccessor.html.
Second, since you are new to Wikipedia, you might find this makeref tool useful for the citations you add. I use it all the time. https://tools.wmflabs.org/makeref/ I highly recommend adding a refname to all citations (this facilitates reuse of the same citation in the article multiple times); e.g. I would use something like aja20140407 for the refname of the source I provided above, since that will later on and over the years help editors who see the source have an explicit date when the source was current/published. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

More sources

  • Here is another very good overview of Ethereum in a webTV piece by Reason TV, just published a few days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6bGuKN3m6E It's actually the best piece I've found to explain Ethereum to people who are unfamiliar with it. Does a good job of explaining how Ethereum is much more than merely a cryptocurrency, which is rather overemphasized (I believe) in the article at present.
  • Here is a Wired article that refers to the expanded block chain capability as Block Chain 2.0,http://www.newsbtc.com/blockchain-2-0/ which I've seen used in other places as a descriptor for the second-generation blockchains that can carry both data and executables, but the term is not used in the Wikipedia article at present. Maybe useful there?
  • and another that calls it "Block Chain 2.0" http://www.newsbtc.com/blockchain-2-0/ N2e (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the info and instructions- I will take a look at these when I have a bit more time :) --71.232.29.137 (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I just foud the most thorough and comprehensive history of the organization that I've seen, a blog post by an insider named Taylor Gerring, who seems to have been with Ethereum from the early days in 2014, and seems to still be with them. He mentions a Stiftung Ethereum as the name of the Swiss entity formed in Zug, Switzerland in June 2014. The author does not describe whatever entity existed to support the early develpment work, but other sources in the article indicate there was a for-profit entity established in Switzerland in early 2014. The link to the Gerring blog post is here: https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/02/09/cut-and-try-building-a-dream/. Of course this is a primary source so could only be used in limited ways to improve the article, but it does provide a good overview, and will likely be part of source material for books that are later written on the history of Ethereum. N2e (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Since there is now a section below entitled "Founders", just noting here that the primary source I found a month ago may very well have a more complete list. Once we have more names, we might very well be able to find secondary sources with a few quick google searches. N2e (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

cyptocurrency

we discuss Ether's use as a cryptocurrency in two places, under Ether and under uses. We should discuss it one place... where? Please feel free to boldly fix, i gotta run. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Remove it from "uses", it has its own section after all - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
As long as we are using sections to describe the high level uses, it should remain as a uses section. Maybe move the bulk of the use content into this section? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, so I did this which consolidates all the content about Ether under the Ether section and just leaves a stub sentence under the "Crytpocurrency" subsection. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I see that jytdog left a stub here, but now it is gone with no note here by who deleted it. What was the rationale? If we are going to have a section that has a name which is really general like 'uses' then we should say the three logical sub-uses that it has (application sw, enterprise sw, and currency). If there is some objection to listing it as a use (I can't understand what it would be as the article is not long at all) then as an alternative we need to change the title of the section maybe be 'software uses.' Make sense? Suggestions? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Capitals in ether

Through out the article 'ether' Ether is capitalized. Should it be? Why is it capitalized? Examples On June 17, 2016 The DAO, which had been hailed as a revolutionary use of Ethereum that demonstrated the potential for the platform, was hacked and around a third of the Ether held by The DAO, worth about $50 million at the time, was diverted into a user's account. The thief transferred the Ether into an account that probably prevented the hacker from withdrawing the Ether for about a month. After the hack The DAO investors, who were the only people able to take a decision under the rules of The DAO, debated how and whether to reclaim the Ether crypto currency that was taken, and whether to shut down The DAO. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

To me its a proper noun like Earl, not a generic thing. And it distinguishes it from ether. Others may feel or know differently; not sure what MOS says about this. Jytdog (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I suppose it depends whether we're talking about the thing or units of the thing. Compare "Bitcoin" versus "bitcoins", though the plural of "ether" appears to be "ether" - David Gerard (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
So what to do? When referring to the money of dollars or currency in an article do we refer to dollars as Dollars? Like for instance the amount of Dollars in a sentence does not look right in capitals, especially when the word Dollar is used over and over like in this article the word ether is used. It seems wrong to make a capital out of something that is an ordinary word like dollar especially a possible neologism that may not exist in two weeks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I just thought it was the general English language spelling convention to capitalize proper nouns. Ether is a particular value token on a particular blockchain; so it seems it is a proper noun. Ergo: capitalize it. I know that certain digital media publications have their own style guides which de-capitalize some things that standard English might capitalize. Wonder what WP:MOS offers. In the end, I have no strong opinion on it either way. Just go with whatever makes for a good readable encyclopedia for the reader who approaches this article knowing little, and wants to get an encyclopedic overview. So MOS and Jytdog's idea that it distinguishes Ether from ether is all I got. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The Bitcoin article does not take the approach of capitals on bitcoin. The capitals of Ether through out the article look wrong. It looks to be an exaggeration for attention. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the convention in one particular digital asset, bitcoin, is the slam dunk model for this article on a different set of software. As I began my research into the whole blockchain and digital asset space a few months ago, I believe I read that, in the "Bitcoin space", the convention is to spell is Bitcoin when the protocol is being discussed, and to spell it bitcoin when the digital asset is being discussed. N2e (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I said I could support the consensus either way in my comment of yesterday, above. However, I see that the article has been extensively edited and one approach was selected: So I think two notes need to be made here:

1. To my read, there was not a firm and clear consensus on which of the two spelling/capitalization routes to take. For example, the exploration of WP:MOS, mentioned by a couple of editors above, has not been done and discussed here prior to making rather extensive changes to the article.

2. Based on the last comment made by Earl above, and in some edit comments with the changes, it appears that the main rationale for moving forward was to match the convention in bitcoin. I do not think that is a strong rationale, and is a bit unlikely to be sustainably supported long term (as it is a somewhat oddball convention in the Bitcoin space since both the protocol ("Bitcoin") and the value token ("bitcoin") are called B/bitcoin). This is simply not generalize-able to all of Wikipedia on that basis. So someone else will likely reopen the spelling/capitalization issue for the ether/Ether value token later on.

Also, looking at all the edits with an aggregate diff, it appears that the prose is complexified and made longer by repeatedly saying, in the article prose, the "cryptocurrency ether" or the "ether crypto currency", when formerly we were just referring to "Ether", a proper noun that had been, once before in the article, described as the value token for the Ethereum software application and blockchain, and also serves a function as a cryptocurrency. So the prose is less readable now. N2e (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I will add that I don't care about whether Ether/ether is capitalized and I urge people not to care too much. This sort of stylistic detail becomes the source of endless debate and wasted time and energy in WP exactly because there is no definitive answer; it is a style issue. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Totally agree with jytdog, this doesn't much matter, the paragraph below about founders sounds much more important/useful Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep, same as me. I don't care a whit about changing it from whatever it is. But all my points above were not about that. It was just that since the consensus was not formed on Talk first, and for the other policy reasons, it's likely not long-term stable. Someone else will happen along sometime, and change it back. Likely none of those talking/reading this Talk page now. Therefore, would have been preferable to finish hashing it out on Talk now, rather than leave the unfinished and poor prose that we are leaving. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you. It would be nice if we could find more consensus and teamwork on the talk pages of these few crypto articles. It would just make editing easier and more efficient.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Its debatable what to even call the stuff, The value of Ethereum relative to the US dollar has plummeted over the past few hours, according to data from CryptoCompare. At the same time, the volume of transactions in Ethereum has spiked, indicating panic selling. [10] Is it ether or is it Ethereum. Like a lot of things about the article its fringe and iffy in general even the name of the stuff is debatable. Is ether a nickname?.... for Ethereum and if it is should the article even have ether the word in it? The people that made this idea do not capitalize it either [11] so why would we? Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

"programmable transaction" versus "smart contract" in lead

I strongly suggest the generally accepted term smart contract, that being what they're called. "programmable transaction" is used in one article, and the term itself (in quotes) gets approx. 7280 hits on Google compared to about 153,000 for "smart contract". We should use the proper term, not something that sounds like a euphemistic attempt to avoid the proper term.

BTW, the claim that this is the term the NYT uses fails verification - the quote is "In addition to the virtual currency, the software provides a way to create online markets and programmable transactions known as smart contracts." That is, "programmable transactions" is used in the article as an explanation of the term "smart contract", and the article itself says these things are "known as smart contracts" - David Gerard (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll note also that I couldn't find usage of "The Ethereum Project" (all three words capitalised) in RSes - when the phrase "the Ethereum project" is used, it's in that capitalisation, which is clearly a descriptive noun phrase rather than a compound proper noun - David Gerard (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Founders

The founders of Ethereum entities, both the orginal Swiss for-profit entity, and the Ethereum Foundation, are not clear in the article.

The article as it stands today lists only "Original author(s): Vitalik Buterin, Gavin Wood" and "Developer(s): Gavin Wood, Jeffrey Wilcke, Vitalik Buterin, et al." in the infobox. Not clear if "developers" would make the founders cut, or under what circumstances; as well as what sources might support it.

The article is fairly clear that Buterin is an inventor and founder from early on. Others would seem to be Charles Hoskinson (see Talk page section above) and Joseph Lubin who is identified in his Wikipedia article as the COO of the original Swiss for-profit company, with a source. There are no doubt others; I believe I may have read somewhere that there were originally some seven involved, but I don't have that source or know how to find it.

In order to make article improvement possible, let's start collecting any sources where a "founder" or initial executive/company officer of one of the Ethereum entities is identified.

Thanks Earl. Indeed. But useful to help future searches where all this is perhaps put together with secondary sources for who are the founders. Interestingly, these "first person" recollections (like the one you found on the reddit AMA from Di Iorio) can often be quite at odds with other first person accounts from the same founders. I was formerly involved in the unfortunate war on the Tesla Motors article over who was, and who was not, a founder of Tesla Motors, and specifically, if Elon Musk was or was not. In short, different founders, and various secondary sources, said differing things on the matter. Not fun. N2e (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
One of the sources that came up there was a Dutch De Week van Bitcoin web media interview with four folks from Ethereum recorded on 5 June 2014. This was prior to the creation of the non-profit Ethereum Foundation entity, when the Ethereum Switzerland GmbH (EthSuisse) was still around, and the Ethereum developers were still working for the for-profit entity. The four folks (and what they were doing for Ethereum GmbH) are: Stephan Tual ("in charge of communications"), Taylor Gering ("focus on infrastructure work around the website and tools for the development team" moving to more operations of the organization, working effectively, ...), Mihai Alisie (focus on the social side of the project; transitioning into interface) and Joseph Lubin (in charge of operations). Interestingly, they refer in the interview to being influenced by the Wikipedia article on Collective intelligence. Notably, at the time, they were planning a 4Q2014 rollout of version 1 of the Ethereum software (actual was July 2015) but caveated the plan with 'only if it is ready...'.
Here is a bio on Alisie. While a primary source, terms there could be used to search for other sources. http://blog.akasha.world/2016/07/18/moving-forward-on-all-fronts/ 17:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I have removed the content from the Founders and Developers fields for now, until we have solid sourcing on which to base claims. This kind of thing also becomes a fount of endless debate; let's fill that in when we have very good sources upon which to list names and include the citation when the content is added to the infobox. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. That's why I started a collection of data, names, sources on the Talk page. When we have sufficient info to make for sourced prose on the founders or execs, it will go into the article. That's all. N2e (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with N2e's approach here. We can discuss and then add the content when we have some consensus and good sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Staying clear of coin desk is probably a good idea. Perhaps a tiny bit of sourcing to it but no large scale information ideas. Too primary, too promotional. It is a big advert site for the subject in the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethereum/Archive_1&oldid=955547235"