Talk:Non-fungible token

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ST927s (article contribs).

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2022

Recommend the following changes: -Dete Shirley included as the author of the NFT and ERC 721 -Cryptokitties included as one of the NFT projects launched in conjunction with ERC-721

The changes would be in this paragraph: The term "NFT" only achieved wider usage with the ERC-721 standard, first proposed by Dapper Labs CTO Dieter "Dete" Shirley in 2017 along with the phrase "non-fungible token" via the Ethereum GitHub, following the launch of various NFT projects that year.[28][29] The standard coincided with the launch of several NFT projects, including Curio Cards, CryptoPunks (a project to trade unique cartoon characters, released by the American studio Larva Labs on the Ethereum blockchain),[30][31] rare Pepe trading cards and Cryptokitties.[28]

Sources for Dete Shirley as author: https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cryptocurrency/22/09/28923395/nft-day-is-september-20-heres-what-to-know-about-the-first-annual-holiday https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/cryptocurrency/international-nft-day-why-is-it-celebrated-and-whats-the-road-ahead/articleshow/94322480.cms

Source for Cryptokitties as one of the first 2017 NFT projects https://fortune.com/2017/12/04/blockchain-cryptokitties-ethereum/ 107.219.194.231 (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't see why these are notable, and we'll need a better source than "international nft day trivia" to verify the author part Aaron Liu (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

other uses

On October 2022, AirBaltic launched a NFT collection with benefits for the airBaltic Club loyalty programme. [1]2A02:2455:460:DA00:5D18:5ED2:E725:7553 (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Needs a reliable source explaining why it matters. Few crypto outlets are reliable. Grayfell (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The usages of NFT have also generally increased since then. This page indirectily misinforms people by only focusing on the asset and picture side. It much more reflects the publics understanding of the technology and bias towards the technology then giving a neutral approach towards the technology. Consider how to properly discuss modern NFT relationship with smart contracts for example. While you can discuss if it is a reliable source here is how for example different ecosystems discuss NFTs to understand how they are claimed to be used https://docs.stacks.co/docs/write-smart-contracts/tokens or https://messari.io/report/explain-it-like-i-am-5-nfts Other companies in healthcare have also started using NFTs in relation to their automation of data. Some aspects of even the default NFTs are naturally interlinked with smart contracts, but smart contracts get very little mention on this page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runefar (talk • contribs) 07:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I'm currently working on expanding the article in accordance with my latest edits on the German page. It includes a large section on use cases in science and especially medicine. If you know about more use cases or have any other suggestions please feel free to share them, so we can all work on getting the info in the article.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I've had to revert the recent changes you made, which I think were largely adding https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JasonKryptonite/sandbox&oldid=1132121064 to the article. Unfortunately almost all this content is your synthesis of primary sources. I'd encourage you to read WP:OR and WP:RS. It's also not clear how notable any of it is. I'd suggest reworking it to be based mainly on reliable secondary sources covering the topics. Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies) should be of use there with regards to what are good sources. JaggedHamster (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources covering the claim that "Other companies in healthcare have also started using NFTs in relation to their automation of data"? I've seen various NFT related companies and crypto blogs claim it's a potential use for them but I've not seen any reliable sources claim they're in actual use. In case you've not seen it, WP:CRYPTO is a useful essay about the current consensus on sourcing for blockchain related articles like this. JaggedHamster (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi JaggedHamster, the entire section was based on secondary sources, most of which were papers published in peer-reviewed journals of different fields and to the best of my knowledge depict the current academic consensus on the matters discussed. I've conducted no original research whatsoever nor have I made any statements in the section that were not made in the sources mentioned. I'd kindly ask you to read the circa dozen papers mentioned to verify every single sentence. If you have any reason to believe that the section does in fact not represent the current state of research on the respective issues I'd ask you to please base that claim on references to any studies or papers I might have missed during my research for this article or show me how I've misrepresented the papers cited in the section.

Furthermore, there were exactly two primary sources mentioned in the entire section solely to enable readers to directly look up the official websites of two projects mentioned and not in order to base any claims through original research: ref 130 and 131. I'm surprised to hear that a section depicting findings made in papers published in highly regarded peer-reviewed journals including the Journal of Medical Ethics and Science would ever be considered to be a synthesis of primary sources.

The fact that the topic is part of the academic discourse provides more than enough notability in accordance with WP:Notability (cryptocurrencies)#Notability criteria as far as I can tell ― especially when considering that the recent additions have thus far been the only ones in the entire article to actually reference academic literature and not merely journalistic sources.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

One of the core problems is that you've cited a lot of papers (mostly primary sources, as they're mostly new proposals and research, not literature reviews/review articles etc) but not established via secondary sources that the papers are actually notable. It feels like you've done a lot of research into recent papers making proposals about uses for NFTs and then interpreted and summarised them. To quote from WP:OR "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources", "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." and "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.".

The "Patient data as NFTs" is largely about a single primary source which proposes a specific way to do this. How do we know this paper is notable? Similarly the "Minting patents as NFTs" is a summary of a single primary source's proposal for an approach to how to mint patents as NFTs. There's no secondary source establishing that this paper is notable. A good secondary source would let us know what is actually important to mention in each of those sections, if anything.

The "Tracking supply chains using NFTs" section is a summary of one paper proposing a particular approach and one paper which responds to that. You say "In this context one paper in particular dealing with the tracking of pharmaceutical supply chains has gained attention among academic circles" but what is the source for this claim? Similarly, what establishes that the paper by Gebreab et al is notable?

You say "The paper written by Chiacchio et al. has resonated mostly well within academic circles" but this claim seems to be WP:OR which you support by linking to various other primary sources which cite Chiacchio et al, not a secondary source which actually says that the paper "resonated mostly well".

We should be basing the article on what reliable secondary sources say regarding NFTs, not on us selecting primary sources making proposals about use cases for NFTs and summarising those. JaggedHamster (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your objections. There seems to have been a misunderstanding on my part vis-à-vis the term "primary/secondary source" due to my native's "Primärquelle/Sekundärliteratur".

This, however, could in my opinion have easily been amended by e.g. pointing it out to me on the talk page & adding an appropriate template instead of reverting every single byte of the changes I had made. An easy solution to this problem would have consisted in me making changes to the text based on your reservations by referring to and relying more on articles and books writing about the papers mentioned, despite already referencing some of those in the sections added. The sections could just as well have been shortened accordingly while almost solely referencing secondary sources despite that leaving readers with more questions than answers. Another viable alternative would be to specifically phrase the sections in a way that would make it clear that the suggestions are merely suggestions presented in academia and are furthermore fairly recent.

I must also point out that there are no scientific works that couldn't be referred to as recent on this topic. The subject has only fairly recently gained public attention with peer-reviewed journals publishing papers on the topic mostly within the past one to two years. A summary of relevant studies that are often cited by other authors based directly on the wording of the studies themselves is unavoidable if one wants to describe the proposals in question without cutting them down to a single sentence. This goes hand in hand with WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD & WP:PRIMARYCARE. The only alternative is to wait several years until even more papers and books have been published referencing the proposals in question. This seems to be a tad more strict with regard to relevancy criteria than necessary in order to improve the article and keep it up to date.

But all of that can very well be debated with everybody involved finding a viable solution that extends and thus improves the article. What really cannot be debated in my opinion is wiping out every single letter of the changes with reference to the well founded points you have made, none of which had any bearing on the following changes: [2][3][4][5][6][7] One must also mention that your reservations are only applicable to parts of the sections reverted. E.g. the first sentence here and last sentence here, which in one form or another could have remained in the article even if one were to fully agree with the points you've made.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it'd be useful to get an outside opinion, because I suspect we're not going to agree on whether the information should be included based on the sources used. Wikipedia talk:Notability (cryptocurrencies) seems to have primarily been written by @JBchrch and @David Gerard, one of them might have useful insights? JaggedHamster (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Could someone please link the precise sources being discussed here? It's not clear from the above discussion or the article - David Gerard (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It's in reference to these additions and this revert.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a bit murky, but it looks very like using papers outside a journal's usual remit to post WP:CRYSTAL claims - ones that clearly failed - in wiki voice. I also see a crypto conference proceeding and a marketing "journal" - David Gerard (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It's merely an attempt to showcase current discussions in academia about potential applications of the technology (i.e. state of research), not an effort to predict the future or promote something. The changes also included descriptions of how NFTs have so far been used to fund research as well as additions to other sections (money laundering etc.) with no bearing on the objections mentioned above. The objections were in reference to WP:N & WP:OR.

I still maintain that making changes to the additions based on those objections rather than simply deleting everything would be the most viable solution with regard to benefiting this encyclopedia. That will only be possible by reaching a consensus here. I have no interest in pushing any narrative here but would rather like to use my abilities & knowledge to help improve Wikipedia.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree with @JaggedHamster. I've read Kostick-Quenet et al. and Fairfield and they are mostly pitching their PRIMARY ideas about NFTs. I don't think that a detailed description is relevant for an encyclopedia. I for one see no problem in waiting several years until even more papers and books have been published referencing the proposals in question. If a piece of information is liable to go out-of-date within 5-10 years, we should think really hard about including it. I should note that there are papers out there that present critically pre-existing knowledge in a sort of SECONDARY fashion, such as this one. But, again, they should be used with care. JBchrch talk 11:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you JBchrch for your input and sorry for my late reply. It seems that the majority is against including the above mentioned changes in that form & I'll refrain from including them in the article. May I suggest mentioning them in a drastically shortened version, e.g. "There have been suggestions about the usage of NFTs in ..."?

I'd also like to once again ask to reinclude those edits that were removed in the process despite not having any relation to the objections put forth.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

JBchrch & JaggedHamster: Would you agree with the last two points made?--JasonKryptonite (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I've not got any objection to including information about proposed uses as long as it's from reliable secondary sources and is WP:DUE. Similarly for any changes unrelated to what we were discussing here. JaggedHamster (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Remove or update the description of The NFT Bay

Under "Unenforceability of copyright", I see a mention to "The NFT Bay":

"This criticism was promoted by Australian programmer Geoffrey Huntley who created "The NFT Bay", modeled after The Pirate Bay. The NFT Bay advertised a torrent file purported to contain 19 terabytes of digital art NFT images."

This is unfortunately not true, as the 19-terabyte torrent file is just full of zeroes, you can verify it yourself here: https://gist.github.com/zhuowei/ebd5601f7dd8e5ee186bf302874e0a4c 2A0E:1C80:12:0:0:0:0:50 (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BL33701 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by BL33701 (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Non-fungible token

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Non-fungible token's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto1":

• From Tom Brady: Princiotti, Nora (February 1, 2021). "Tom Brady Took a Road Less Traveled for His Super Bowl Return". The Ringer. Archived from the original on September 10, 2021. Retrieved November 12, 2021.
• From Bitcoin: "This Billionaire Just Called Bitcoin a 'Pyramid Scheme'". Fortune. Archived from the original on 24 September 2017. Retrieved 23 September 2017.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent reverts

I have reverted multiple recent changes to the article based on unreliable and obscure sources which appear to have been added to promotional effect. The reasoning is similar to my comments at Talk:Axie_Infinity#Recent_edits. It is not enough for an obscure or unreliable source to mention a factoid, it must be summarized in context based on reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

As just one example of the problem with these edits on this page, I dispute that this puff piece from 2021 is a reliable source at all, much less that it is sufficient for the attached, extremely dubious, extremely promotional statement In the music-industry artists are able to gain more control over their artwork without interference by third-parties by using NFTs. At best, this is WP:SYNTH but that's being generous. Every source needs to be evaluated in context and summarize from a neutral point of view. These edits appear to be digging in the paper mines to find marketing cruft of churnalism to support specific statements. That appears to be cherry picking. Grayfell (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)