Talk:IOTA (technology)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EddieQuebrado (article contribs).

Sourcing

Im still working on adding sources. I have collected most of them here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110nWGgJVXzkWr5Q0Uh-X9M6GxQBjZ6l2LK3pOjXnKzo/edit?usp=sharing Havent had the time to add them yet. Want to mention that the overall quality of the article has gone down allot since my last revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmash (talk • contribs) 19:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @Badmash: This article was previously for awful sourcing. Today I have cleared all the content that lacks WP:RS. You need to find some content for the article, WP:SOAPBOX applies here. @Jytdog: @David Gerard: you might want to add to your patrol, seems it has returned in its old form. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Xa7v9ier: you have reverted my edit to add a lot of unsourced content. This article was previously deleted due to unsourced content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Xa7v9ier: this is the second time you have reverted my edits deleting your poorly sourced content. You have created three entire sections on this article that rely entirely on WP:PRIMARY. This is all trash, see you edits [1] and you deleted the only sourced content on this page which was the microsoft news in this edit [2]. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: The Next Web author, MIX, has a known public feud with the IOTA community, which might contradict WP:RS guidelines. https://twitter.com/Mixtatiq/status/966312593077030912

Still an RS, and the "feud" is attacks from IOTA cultists - David Gerard (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: @David Gerard: I disagree with WP:RS here, as the individual directly mis-quoted by Mix , his interpretation of that particular situation stemmed from a lack of understanding of the basics of IOTA. His other articles lack WP:NPOV in favour of clicks. WP:COI Twpks (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not what WP:NPOV or WP:COI mean. Please don't invoke policy pages you don't seem to have read or understood - David Gerard (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV Language

The 'Microsoft partnership scandal' appears to violate WP:NPOV. Specifically, no where in the sources does it mention this being a 'Scandal' as denoted in the section title. Additionally, neither source for the passage 'The Iota Foundation was derided' state this.

This section appears to be WP:N however unless sources are corroborate that this was a 'Scandal' it is quite literally WP:NOTSCANDAL. Similarly the Foundation was not derided, as per those sources. Please update sources or reword that passage as this is WP:NOTSOAPBOX.

Note: I have a WP:COI so requested the edit.

Notability Tag

I think some of us have heard of IOTA. However, the article still needs sources to comply with WP:GNG. Please add WP:RS as all this use of WP:PRIMARY including IOTA website, medium, blogs, and reddit is just not good enough (in fact it is prohibited). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

There's been coverage in The Next Web ... most of it about the community weirdness, security issues and that they didn't actually have a partnership with Microsoft as such - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks David, found that and added it... and I removed the tag. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Recreated formerly deleted article

• This creation at a new name was previously deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOTA (technology). Its not clear to me yet if this is any better, where's the RS? I see a not fully independent (semi-interview, "Machine translation provided by Google") at Bloomberg, Business Insider seems routine coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. Where's the significant RS coverage of what it is, and does? Widefox; talk 13:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Huge primary-sourced addition - what's useful here?

[3] This editor has contributed only to this article and its talk (and has posted editors' personal information to talk) in the past, and this is a huge primary-sourced addition that needs review by uninvolved editors. What in this is useful and sourced to third-party RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Ordinary readers are not interested in that marketing stuff (from the previous version), I added information which is really useful to them. "This editor has contributed only to this article and its talk" is an incorrect statement. "and has posted editors' personal information to talk" -- I didn't know about that restriction back then... wait, is it an attempt to discredit my version with help of ad hominem? Comefrombeyond (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not ad hominem to note that 20kb of primary-sourced material being added by a problematic and single-issue editor is a reason for due caution. Is there anyone else who thinks the new stuff is good content to add? - David Gerard (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I contributed to Wikipedia in the past, don't let the fact that I wasn't able to recover the old account to fool you. Regarding asking "anyone else": the truth can't be found by voting, just compare my and your versions. Mine contains much more useful information, if you think that your marketing stuff (which, frankly saying, makes me suspect you being a IOTA shill) is really that important then add it to my version. Comefrombeyond (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I've compared the two revisions. My first note was that David Gerard's preferred revision contains more information about the business side of this topic, and Comefrombeyond's contains more about the technical side. Some of the information on the technical side is important, particularly about those aspects which distinguish it from other cryptocurrencies (i.e. that users are required to validate each other's transactions). Other aspects seem of no particular importance (such as seeds and units), and some unduly promote the subject of the article (notably the scalability section). A larger percentage of the information in David Gerard's preferred version seems of notability, but it can probably be condensed a little bit too. From an ease of editing standpoint, I would probably start with Gerard's version, then incorporate the more important elements of Comefrombeyond's revisions into that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"Seeds" part is the most important one actually. An incorretly generated seed may lead to a loss of million dollars worth of tokens. Comefrombeyond (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This may or may not be true, depending on whether the fact that the website uses seeds is notable. If every cryptocurrency uses seeds in a similar manner, there really isn't anything to talk about here in that regard. But also of note is the fact that I couldn't tell that from the information given in the article, which talks exclusively about how the seeds are generated (nothing about their purpose aside from "enabling access to the network"). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It's notable if third-party Reliable Sources bother to cover it. If not, it's not notable and shouldn't be in the article - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that. My assumption was that if everyone uses it, no one will talk about IOTA using it. But David applies the correct standard here, both to that technical detail and every other. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

https://iotasupport.com/gui-newseed.shtml and https://iota.guide/seed/how-to-generate-iota-wallet-seed/ are such sources. IOTA seeds are not the same thing as seeds in other cryptocurrencies. I guess once someone adds the sources "Seeds" section gets the right to life... - Comefrombeyond (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Literally every single source is primary or unreliable. Tagged accordingly - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I put a request for more eyes on the issue on WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

While we are waiting, could you comment on the article which can be found by googling for "David Gerard versus the block chain; a peak into an emerging wiki war"? Comefrombeyond (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The content you are attempting to force into the article violates the following policies: WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:PROMO. Please learn and follow the content policies -- Wikipedia content should be based on independent, secondary sources. Primary sources are OK used cautiously and sparingly There should be nothing unsourced. Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is being improved, it's impossible to make it perfect in one go. The content of your version is not much better than an empty page. Comefrombeyond (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Content that violates policy is not an "improvement". You are not engaging with policies and guidelines and you are obligated to. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Your version violates the policies too, the most of the sources are from media sites, the general tone of the content looks so similar to hyping that I'm tempted to ask you to disclose if you own IOTA tokens or are being paid. Maybe we can just leave the opening line and delete all the rest?.. Comefrombeyond (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing unsourced in my version. The sources are strong. You are just throwing words around when you write "Your version violates the policies too". The content you added and have been edit warring to retain violates every policy we have. You are not engaging with the policies and guidelines here. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Your sources are unreliable, your content looks as pure marketing aiming to hype IOTA. While the former is arguable, the latter is not. I guess we need a referee. Comefrombeyond (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Here, I'll add another name to the list of people opposing you. Don't re-add it without consensus. --Tarage (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you disclose if you own IOTA tokens? I see no other reason why you would prefer the version which attempts to hype IOTA. Comefrombeyond (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Niiiiiiiice personal attack there. I don't have any tokens. I don't even use bitcoin. But please, do continue edit warring and attacking. You'll be blocked faster that way and we can get back to making this article something other than a PR fluff piece. --Tarage (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

And then you got blocked. Such a shame. --Tarage (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2018

- ! Unit !! Number of IOTAs Lokesh1699 (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)