Talk:Decentralized autonomous organization/Archive 1

Lack of expression of uncertainty

The I doubt the idea of DAOs is nowhere near fully explored. I think this article conveys a too large sense of certainty about existing analysis and where they will bein the future.88.159.68.118 (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Please enjoy fixing that issue. Fiddle Faddle 16:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

What wording would you use to convey this uncertainty?--dbabbitt (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I would convey that uncertainty by having a much smaller article!! I agree with the poster above that idea of a DAO is too new to deserve such a long article.Sanpitch (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

<!-- Do not remove this line! -->

At the top of the article is <!-- Do not remove this line! -->, but no rational is provided why. It seems as though it was added to be disruptive, so I am going to remove that line, despite the warning. Piguy101 (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

After looking in the page history, it looks like the note was part of {{AFC submission|||u=Dbabbitt|ns=2|ts=20140703003039}}, and it simply was not removed when the tag was removed, perhaps because of its warning. Thus, the note was not added to be disruptive, and there should be no complaints about its removal. Piguy101 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

language

Dbabbitt besides sources, the article needs copyediting. it's full of vague, waffling and imprecise sentences with obvious contradictions from lede to end.(eg def of agent in first section: hardware-- then: virus). I dont understand the material, otherwise I'd fix it and not post here. --Wuerzele (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Wuerzele, I'll have a techwriter friend look at it with me. --dbabbitt (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Check out the delete page for the original draft of this page

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decentralized Autonomous Corporation:

Is purely original research. Exists apparently to promote an individual's pet theory, which does not appear in academic literature or reliable sources, and also apparently to promote Bitcoin. No reliable sources exist discussing the page's concept. All the sources that are of reliable origin are of oblique and minimal relevance to the subject.

dbabbitt (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it sure looks that way. I removed a bunch of uncited or unsourced or poorly sourced things from the article. I suggest others do the same. It looks as if the article needs even more over haul and a lot more pruning. Then we can decide the relevance of it and just how the sourcing is connected in some cases to self promotion by various entities. The whole article is suspect, some overt advertising was removed also. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Nominate for deletion? ----Snowded ^TALK 10:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Feel free. The article title seems like a made up term to compensate for no real world coverage of the subject, except for very fringe, very obscure aspects. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrong section (per the section heading) but since Snowded and Earl King Jr. recently added new comments to the Dec 2015 discussion, I'll also reply here.

This topic is also being discussed in the section below. See that for more info. In the meantime, I'll just say that the topic of these autonomous and decentralized orgs is now happening in the social science literature, as well as in the real world. Google the term. This article would, in my opinion, not stand a chance of being deleted in an AfD, but of course anyone can propose an AfD if they wish. Also, I don't think the currently proposed Merge will gain consensus support either. N2e (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Content removal

A large amount of this article has been removed over the last month, here is the diff Jonpatterns (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

A large amount of the article was sourced to Forums, Wiki's, Blog's and what appear to be copy pastes from article from Bitcoin sites. There is very little in the article that is sourced in a good way as far as complying with Wikipedia standards. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I see more of the article has been removed, see diff. Are no suitable sources available? Jonpatterns (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure but as someone above stated Is purely original research. Exists apparently to promote an individual's pet theory, which does not appear in academic literature or reliable sources, and also apparently to promote Bitcoin. No reliable sources exist discussing the page's concept. All the sources that are of reliable origin are of oblique and minimal relevance to the subject. So it seems like some enthusiastic editing happened that was pretty much idiosyncratic to a bunch of Forums and Blogs etc. There are some what appear to be o.k. sources in the article but everything is processed in kind of a slanted way toward some object, maybe bitcoin? Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The section Block chain (database)#Decentralization is tagged with requiring more expansion, there may be some suitable material from this article.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The big idea behind decentralized autonomous organizations is important, and has been a part of scholarly social science papers for at least 3-5 years. I read a paper by a guy named "Deegan" (last name) a few weeks ago that had this back a few years ago (but it was part of a book of essays in an edited volume, so I don't have it right now). I can find the book again next time I'm at the library.

This article did have some fluff, badly sourced/whatever, and looking at the edit history I see I removed a bunch of it myslef in recent weeks. Having said that, it appears that the article has currently been utterly decimated, where it formerly presented the nub of the idea of what a decentralized autonomous org is. Perhaps too much has been removed, as it doesn't even say what these entities are now or why they might be important. I don't have the time to go through all the edits that removed material and figure out which one were/are consensus-justified and which may not have been.

One possibility is WP:BRD, and then remove only the worst of the unsourced and unjustified stuff, and leaving the rest to discussion and building consensus on the Talk page. That way we would not make the article a mess, and let it totally miss what a decentralized autonomous org is. N2e (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you got a source which establishes this article as being anything other than a made up phrase? We need some third party source to establish notability ----Snowded ^TALK 13:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a number of them. The one scholarly source I mentioned above, but don't have at present (I'll probably be at the library today and will attempt to check out that book). Also, there are a fairly large number of news articles being written about one particular new decentralized autonomous organization. Four of those news article sources are listed here, and I suspect one or more of those sources will establish what you are looking for (one of them is written by a social scientist from Australia).

The reality is that this area is very new, and apparently evolving rapidly. I just removed a couple of unsourced statements from articles this morning that one of these DAO orgs is currently the second largest crowdfund ever; but note: I removed because they were not sourced, not because there are not already sources that say the crowdfund is huge (> US$50 million raised). There will no doubt be better sources soon on the magnitude of the crowdfund for that particular org. But the point is that these DAOs are a thing now, and many sources are supporting that. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree with N2e, there will be plenty of sources on this now and will be more in the near future (probably this month). We only need to establish notability for the article with secondary sources and we can use primary sources where necessary to fill in the holes for the time being. I found some sources and will add below. Appears some rescued content is here, maybe useful for something http://coinwiki.info/en/Decentralized_autonomous_corporation Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Doubtful. You can not use some bitcoin Wiki or whatever it is to source Wikipedia. It is probably the source of the Wikipedia article mostly from before. It can not be used. We need some third party source to establish notability. Otherwise it is just a phrase that someone started some other Wiki with and wants that phrase to have popular meaning. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, another wiki is not a source in itself, but this wiki has some sources that might be useful to editors here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I've obtained a copy of the book I mentioned previously in this section, and am rereading now the chapter with the essay by "Patrick Deegan" who mentioned "decentralized autonomoum organizations" several times. I will add some content to the article as I finish reading it, but here is the citation, in wiki-book syntax for an edited book:{{cite book |title=From Bitcoin to Burning Man and Beyond: The Quest for Identity and Autonomy in a Digital Society |editor1-last=Clippinger|editor1-first=John H. |editor2-last=Bollier|editor2-first=David |url= |format= |access-date= |year=2014 |chapter=The Relational Matrix: The Free and Emergent Organizations of Digital Groiups and Identies |last1=Deegan|first1=Patrick |pages=160-176 |publisher=Institute for Instituional Innovation |location=Amherst, Massachusetts |language = |isbn=978-1-937146-58-0 |quote= }} So, yes, "decentralized autonomous organizations" were being discussed at least as early as 2014 by scholars not mentioned in the article to this point. N2e (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Per the content clean-out being discussed above I will add a few sources here. We can discuss them based on WP:RS and then implement content accordingly.

Source: Sogeti

1. http://labs.sogeti.com/dawn-decentralized-autonomous-corporations/ Source: Sogeti, Source Type: WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

Source: Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

2. http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/swan20150402 Source: Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, Source Type: WP:SCHOLARSHIP (thinktank)

Citation removal

Hi Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs) you left the content in place and only deleted the citation https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decentralized_autonomous_organization&oldid=721354567 saying "(Remove not really a citation. It is a blog forum)." What's the purpose of deleting the citation and leaving the content? This doesn't look like a blog post to me, why do you think this is a blog post? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Source: Fast Company

3. http://www.fastcompany.com/3047462/the-humans-who-dream-of-companies-that-wont-need-them Source: Fast Company, Source Type: WP:NEWSORG (well known technology magazine)

Source: Bitcoin Magazine

4. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bootstrapping-a-decentralized-autonomous-corporation-part-i-1379644274 and http://bitcoinmagazine.com/7119/bootstrapping-an-autonomous-decentralized-corporation-part-2-interacting-with-the-world/ and http://bitcoinmagazine.com/7235/bootstrapping-a-decentralized-autonomous-corporation-part-3-identity-corp/ Source: Bitcoin Magazine by Vitalik Buterin, Source Type: WP:NEWSORG (the first Bitcoin magazine)

Source: Lets Talk Bitcoin

5. https://letstalkbitcoin.com/bitcoin-and-the-three-laws-of-robotics Source: Lets Talk Bitcoin, Source Type: WP:NEWSORG, it also appears to be user generated content.

Aeon.co

6. https://aeon.co/essays/are-we-ready-for-companies-that-run-themselves Source: Aeon.com "Aeon was founded in London by Paul and Brigid Hains. It now has offices in London, Melbourne and New York. It is not affiliated with any other organisation or political group. Aeon is committed to big ideas, serious enquiry, a humane worldview and good writing. That’s it." Source Type: WP:NEWSORG, Notability: Aeon (digital magazine)

Content removal 1

Hi, Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs) you removed cited content in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decentralized_autonomous_organization&oldid=721704411 and said you justified it by saying "(Removed iffy content sourced to fringey source. Too iffy and supportive anf congratulatory about this subject. Too mono sourced for the claims)". Aeon doesnt look fringe to me, do you have any evidence to support Aeon is not a RS? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It's an essay filled with opinion and inexactness on technical topics. Editorial judgement is sufficient reason.

You seem to be convinced that citing is all you need to do to add content. This is completely incorrect - you need to read and understand WP:WEIGHT, as I'm sure I've pointed out to you before. Just because you have a fact and a source for it does not mean it belongs in Wikipedia. You're repeatedly claiming otherwise, but it's still not the case - David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Content removal 2

Hi, David Gerard (talk · contribs) you removed cited content in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decentralized_autonomous_organization&type=revision&diff=721509928&oldid=721509863 and said "failed verification - in the source this is about robotics in general, not DAOs im particular)." In fact this article makes no mention of robots and refers to robot companies, which is a term they are using for DAOs. Please justify your deletion of cited content.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It's in the section quoting Krugman, which as I noted was him talking about robotic unemployment not DAOs. You are misreading your own source - David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Content Removal 3

Hi, David Gerard (talk · contribs) you removed cited content in this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decentralized_autonomous_organization&type=revision&diff=721509863&oldid=721508729 and you "said (rm pure speculation sourced to opinion piece on bitcoin blog, which is marked at the top as a speculative opinion piece)." Do you have any evidence this is a blog piece? I guess Thank youJtbobwaysf (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Coindesk is a fringe bitcoin advocacy site. WP:PROFRINGE applies. It is not a WP:RS for any serious topic - David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Coindesk is I think the most cited news site dedicated to the cryptocurrency/blockchain projects. Are you implying that WP:PROFRINGE applies to cryptocurrency/blockchain in general?Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Aeon Content Removal summary

David and Earl, you both removed a lot of content from Aeon and left other content. Are you asserting Aeon is a reliable source for some things and not for others? I'm left a little confused here. Maybe easier to just address my questions (here in summary rather than one by one, as I guess the answer might be the same). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You really need to understand that Wikipedia requires the application of judgement to sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Financial Times

7. The DAO (organization) set a record for the largest crowdfunding campaign to date. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/17/automated-company-raises-equivalent-of-120-million-in-digital-currency.html Source Type: WP:NEWSORG, Notability: Financial Times

Ethereum.org/dao

This is a primary source, and it seems to be the largest write-up on the dao to date, maybe useful information. https://www.ethereum.org/dao Source Type: WP:PRIMARY, Notability: Ethereum company post

Bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-17/blockchain-company-wants-to-reinvent-companies Source Type: WP:NEWSORG, Notability: Bloomberg News

The Law of The DAO

http://www.coindesk.com/the-law-of-the-dao/ Written by attorney Andrew Hinkes, Berger Singerman LLP, | Published on May 19, 2016 at 16:15 BST N2e (talk · contribs), David Gerard (talk · contribs), sanpitch (talk · contribs), Legionof7 (talk · contribs), you might all find the these two above sources useful for this article and the DAO. Source Type: WP:NEWSORG, Notability: CoinDesk

Content removal Law of the Dao

This is not a good source. It's a pure opinion piece on a bitcoin blog, which is marked at the top as a speculative opinion piece. It was used in the article to add purely hypothetical rambles as if they were well-sourced and standard statements about the article topic. The guy may be knowledgeable in his field, but cutting and pasting a single speculative opinion piece into Wikipedia voice is not good sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

CoinDesk isn't a blog. It has quite good content relating to pluses and minuses of DAOs including legal risks but understand if you are saying that opinion pieces aren't allowed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

David Gerard (talk · contribs), is only the legal content not allowed to be used or this nothing in this article allowed to be used?Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll post something to WP:RSN asking - David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been busy for about a week and didn't have time to reply over at RSN. I just looked today at the archive and the only other reply over at RSN disagreed with your deletion of this content. Lot's of news bits are being written about the legality of this new type of organization (even more being written about The DAO and as long as we use an NPOV this type of content is kosher (unless you can show otherwise). Saying CoinDesk a blog and calling the lawyer's remarks "hypothetical rambles" just doesn't make sense to me. Anyhow, going around on this subject isn't really worth it, in time there will be reliable sources relating to the legal discussions that I suspect you will have less objections to. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

How to Sue A Decentralized Autonomous Organization

http://www.coindesk.com/how-to-sue-a-decentralized-autonomous-organization/ Written by attorney Stephen D Palley, of PLLC | Published on March 20, 2016 at 15:17 BST Source Type: WP:NEWSORG, Notability: CoinDesk

Precise same problems as The Law of The DAO, also removed accordingly - David Gerard (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, per above.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The Real World of the Decentralized Autonomous Society

www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/download/692/776 by JZ Garrod Carleton of Carleton University 17 February 2016 Source: Global Sustainable Information Society Source Type: WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Content removal

Hi Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs) you removed this content https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decentralized_autonomous_organization&oldid=721355009 and said "(All about Bitcoin and has nothing by way of definition of this subject in article. Overlinking to try to get some kind of 'feeling' attempt at notability in the article.)" This article is about a "Decentralized Autonomous Society," appears to me to be about DAOs. Is this not a RS? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR, it's what you're doing here - reading what you want to into a source that does not mention it - David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The DAO Might Be Groundbreaking, But Is It Legal?

http://www.americanbanker.com/news/bank-technology/the-dao-might-be-groundbreaking-but-is-it-legal-1081084-1.html?zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1 May 19, 2016, Source Type: WP:NEWSORG, Source: American Banker

Hi David Gerard (talk · contribs), this article has a lot of legal information, is this source ok to implement legal from like Bloomberg? This article contradicts some of what is in the article's currently legal section. NPOV suggests this be given some weight, correct?Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi David Gerard (talk · contribs), what about the content in this piece?Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

WSJ May 16, 2016

http://www.wsj.com/articles/chiefless-company-rakes-in-more-than-100-million-1463399393 Source Type: WP:NEWSORG, Source: Wall Street Journal

General Comments

There are no comments here yet. Does everyone mostly agree the above 5 sources are reliable sources under WP:RS... Please feel free to add other sources/ links here and we can begin to work on this article Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Largely journalistic or promotional pieces but yes I think they establish that the article should exist. We need to be careful how we use them however ----Snowded ^TALK 06:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Journalistic sources are WP:RS specifically as defined in WP:NEWSORG. I have updated above by type. Which source specifically is promotional? Do you mean promotional as defined under WP:QUESTIONABLE? Please feel free to comment above under each sub-heading, that is why I made each of the subheadings. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course the article should exist. DAO's have been talked about in the scholarly literature for several years now. And in the more journalistic genre, just in the past two days, Fortune, the Wall Street Journal and TechCrunch have all written articles on a DAO. I just feel sorry for the editors who have to take this article, now in a very messed us state due to excessive deletions by you which made the article unencyclopedic and with the poor/non-existent intro observed by D. Gerard elsewhere on this page, and must now try to build it back into decent shape, so that it might represent the encyclopedia of human knowledge that Wikipedia purports to be. N2e (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree with N2e, this excessive and urgent deleting just created an article that made no sense, and then now it is a large amount of extra work to rebuild it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I have started to update some content on my User:Jtbobwaysf/sandbox. Please comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I have implemented some early content after no feedback here. Still some problems with earlier content that relate to background theory that I dont really understand yet. Maybe the editor who put it in can adjust it (game theory discussion)? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

What is it?

That intro is literally incomprehensible. What is a DAO in general? The thing associated with a blockchain is a cryptocurrency. The body text is also incomprehensible. This phrase is in the news, presumably the article should actually explain it to people who come here looking. Do we have RSes that aren't from Austrian economics think tanks? Is DAO actually just a concept in Austrian economics? Where do blockchains fit in? Where does The DAO on Ethereum fit in? The article should answer all of this and it answers none. Would this article be better as a section in Ethereum? - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to be just a part of Ethereum, but this walled garden of articles on these subjects is at best confusing and at worse could be a real problem. Yes it should be a part of the other article The DAO began a crowdfunding effort on April 30. It is collecting money not in dollars or even the virtual currency bitcoin. Instead, it is fundraising on the Ethereum platform, an alternative version of bitcoin. It plans to use the money it raises to fund startups building applications on Ethereum, and as of Saturday had raised more than $107 million, according to the company’s publicly viewable digital wallet on Ethereum. source here [1]. There is a possibility that this whole subject is some kind of ponzy scheme (No idea) because the people that write the code get the 'money' and these groups do not seem to answer to any real world mainstream normal business practices, so we had better be careful all around on these articles. Also there are not many criticisms in any of these articles. It looks a bit like a big cyber contest to gather virtual money. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi David Gerard (talk · contribs), this article's content was mostly all deleted recently. It's not ethereum, and the earliest mentions of it predate Ethereum. It also describes Ripple and The DAO (organization), Bitcoin, in addition to Ethereum. I guess there are also other examples as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Cited content removal

Legacy content

Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs) refrain from deleting cited content from this page and other pages. Content that is properly cited under WP:RS must remain unless you gain consensus or demonstrate a problem with it with other properly cited content.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not a 'must remain' if it is not appropriate. I gave an edit summary that fairly dismissed the citation as totally not connected and inappropriate here [2] 05:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The content does have problems that maybe can be resolved after gaining consensus on this talk page. You already deleted a large quantity of content on the page already, and you also deleted cited content resulting in a similar discussion on Talk:Ethereum#Deleting_content. Gain consensus before you delete cited content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

My edit summary, Does not make sense to give a source for this information from 1961 which is really pre use of computers and code. Very wrong to source modern computer code to this unknown article) Can you really argue your point? No I don't think you can. The so called citation has zero, nothing to do with the information that was edited. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this pre-dates modern computers. The editor who added the content was maybe trying to establish some background for it. Maybe this background doesn't deserve to be here? However, your wholesale deletion of content on this page created a page that made no sense and ultimately is a disservice to wikipedia. How much other cited content did you delete from this page without seeking consensus? I will create a new section below to discuss this, see what the consensus is. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Crowdfunding

Hi David Gerard (talk · contribs), you deleted some cited content relating to Decentralized_autonomous_organization#Crowdfunding. I am reverting your change where you challeged that Ethereum and BitShares were crowdfunded. Do you have any evidence that these two were not crowdfunded? Please review the citation and comment why you think it is not crowdsourced. If you seek to challenge the source, I have placed it above Talk:Decentralized_autonomous_organization#Aeon.co for convenience. The source says:

"One of the most intriguing parts of such a system is that it allows the crowdfunding of large-scale projects without the centralisation and fees of either stock exchanges or platforms such as Kickstarter. The DAC platforms themselves are models – in the year since Bitcoin Miami, Ethereum has raised about $14 million, and BitShares around $6 million, solely through the direct sale of the digital currency that will allow people to run programs or make exchanges on their networks."

Please review and comment Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The statement implies that the crowdfunding of those two projects had anything to do with DAOs. The source clearly does not support that. Nor does their crowdfunding have anything to do with DAOs at all - just because something is a citable fact does not make it automatically relevant to any given Wikipedia article. Rereverted. - David Gerard (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The source clearly says that the two DAOs were crowdfunded. Why are you disputing content from a WP:RS. Do you have a source to support your claim, or are you just reverting because you personally think it is incorrect? I have added a second citation to prove Ethereum was crowdfunded.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you calling Ethereum and BitShare DAOs? That's a novel use of the term DAO. And the source doesn't support it and in fact works against that interpretation - it doesn't call them DAOs, it talks about DAOs and separate about them as successful examples of crowdfunding. If it were supporting your claim, it would say something that called them DAOs - David Gerard (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, good point David, I don't know...Maybe I was reading it wrong... In this Talk:Decentralized_autonomous_organization#Source:_Lets_Talk_Bitcoin Larimer refers to Bitoin as an early example of a DAC. He goes on to found Bitshares. I have been thinking over the past couple of days that Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc are all DAOs/DACs (I am not really sure if there is a difference between DAO/DAC). Maybe I am wrong on this. I will ping a few people here, maybe they know. N2e (talk · contribs), sanpitch (talk · contribs), Legionof7 (talk · contribs) 0x0F (talk · contribs), Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs), etc do you guys know if Ethereum and Bitcoin are DAOs? Here are the list of articles that I have mostly been using as well as their links. Talk:Decentralized_autonomous_organization#WP:RS_RE:_Notability_and_DAO.2FDAC_definition Feedback greatly appreciated, I might have been totally wrong in my edits. Thanks, Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

They are not.Legionof7 (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum do not have powerful voting mechanisms like some DAOs that are and will be implemented on top of Ethereum. Even so, they certainly are distributed organizations with mechanisms for interacting with other members. It all depends on what you define a 'DAO' to be. I.e. even if gold was not itself a monetary system in the same sense as a govt-based monetary system, it's certainly part of the history and background. Sanpitch (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess I was confused then. It does say that Bitcoin was an early example. Anyhow for now, to narrow the definition since both you and David agree that I am wrong in my reading. Thank you both! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't calling you wrong. I think it's reasonable to call Bitcoin and Ethereum 'DAO's, just be clear what you mean by this. Sanpitch (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

No worries :-) I am just trying to figure out a subject that I don't understand too well and for sure I am probably wrong as much as I am correct.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleting cited content third warning

In addition to deleting my comments on this talk page (discussed below) you have now deleted cited content on the main page here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decentralized_autonomous_organization&oldid=721354567 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decentralized_autonomous_organization&oldid=721355009 Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

This "warning" is bogus per WP:WEIGHT and you are behaving querulously to another editor - David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Background content and expanding content

The last bit of original content on this page not yet deleted is the background information. Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs) deleted it and then I reverted the delete proposing to wait a couple of days for us to figure out what shall be done. The background theory all pre-dates the 2013 earliest mentions of DAO/DAC. Is there precedence to keep content that pre-dates earliest mention? Has anyone read the citations looking for mention of DAO/DAC? For me keep or delete are both fine. However, the page is quite bare without it, the other citations demonstrate notability regardless, and the merge isn't going to work for multiple reasons. Maybe we should expand and add some primary sourced comment to fill out the page? Please commentJtbobwaysf (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

No. All these associated articles are iffy at best and sourcing the information to their own theorists would be too iffy. It seriously looks like these groups in general could have real difficulty soon Ethereum can already “side-chain” bitcoin and has been able to since launch… Bitcoin is the laggard and cannot do the same until it adds the ability to “freeze/thaw” coins. Using the BTCRelay contract to confirm BTC transactions, it’s possible to have trustless two-party ETH-BTC trades. If instead a BTC burn address is setup, an Ethereum contract could use BTCRelay to create a 1:1 token for every Bitcoin burned allowing (in theory) all bitcoins to migrate onto the ethereum chain with no loss of value. And technically, you could validate proof of work in a contract too, so you could even let the mining industry keep burning those electrons to mint new coins… if you really wanted.[Source

http://bitcoin-daytrading.com/ethereum-cant-work-wary-endorsing-project-100-hype-no-substance/]

It is a short way from primary sourcing these article to giving them credibility when these groups have raised huge amounts of 'money' and they appear to have no real oversite by the mainstream. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

By primary source I mean using whitepapers, official blogs, etc. This link you sent doesnt appear to be WP:RS. I have tagged this weak section in question with refimprove. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Over sourcing to one article

There is way too much sourcing to a single citation in this Wikipedia article Morris, David (26 January 2015). "RoboCorp". aeon.co (News). Aeon (digital magazine). Retrieved 17 May 2016.

That citation in this article is a short essay by who knows who? An expert or a forum blog type of online magazine, and is being used in a kind of copy paste, almost, way to fill in the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Aeon (digital magazine) is a WP:RS and the author's website is http://davidzmorris.com/curriculum-vitae/ the website says the author is a contributor to Fortune (magazine). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Does that mean it should be used 12 times? Are there more mainstream sources for this information. Why mine this very short essay that many times.? Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Content from WP:RS can be used. FYI, I see a word count of 4000+ words in the source you are referring to as very short. Jtbobwaysf (talk)

Careful with this source. The Krugman quote I just removed is not about DAOs at all - they're quoting him from elsewhere (a 2012 NYT article) talking about robots in general, not DAOs in particular. Every use of this Aeon source to substantiate a claim needs checking to make sure it's absolutely and definitely about DAOs - the article isn't very clear at times when it is and isn't - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

And another just removed. This is a general essay, not a technical source. It needs to be treated with greater caution, not used as much as it's being used and with the weight it's being used for - David Gerard (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Convoluted methodology explanations

The article should not be another post from Bitcoin or the other groups to reinforce their ideas on Wikipedia. Should this article which is sourcing democracy in the article be used without some kind of critical judgement from some sourced third party giving some critical input?? [3] That goes for most of the sources in the current Wikipedia article. The information is lacking in critical aspects and well sourced disagreements on this subject. Reading some of the information in the link given here, it looks like these groups are so super fringe that we might use some restraint with their own published material. This information is a part of the link above For security reasons if any of these things happens, the contract execution is abruptly terminated and the user that attempted the illegal transaction will lose all the ethers he sent to pay transaction fees. This subject is very tough to explain in plain English maybe impossible. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs), that link you pointed out looks like an excellent source, thank you I hadn't seen it before. I also believe it might be useful to put in some information from source (provided that it complies to WP:PRIMARY), and agree it is sometimes difficult to put the technical jargon into plain English. I have added that source to the list above. I think we can keep adding sources and discussing or understanding of the sources. I think the article is moving along well given the disaster shape it was in recently. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Legal issues

There are now 3 sources that have commented in a more detailed way on the legal issues. Bloomberg describes it as being organized as a partnership. http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-17/blockchain-company-wants-to-reinvent-companies An attorney goes on to go over the legal implications here. http://www.coindesk.com/the-law-of-the-dao/ and also a different lawyer here https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/epicenter-bitcoin-125-florian-glatz-defining-a-legal-framework-for-decentralized-autonomous-organizations-dao I think given this, we might consider adding a legal section if someone is comfortable to edit it. I made the two following topics started by David Gerard (talk · contribs) into sub-topics of legal here, as I suggest he has well pointed out that this article is quite bare in a discussion of the legal ramifications (which I guess might be many). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

We need to get away from speculative opinion pieces on Bitcoin advocacy blogs. At least the Bloomberg piece is from proper edited media - David Gerard (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, got it relating to opinion pieces. CoinDesk isn't a blog btw.. Jtbobwaysf (talk)

DAOs and incomplete contract theory?

Incomplete contract theory - a formalisation of the common-sense notion that a contract can't cover every contingency and that's why we conventionally have humans in the loop (at least in theory). Insofar as DAOs are theorised in proper economics, is there anything about this? I realise there are default behaviours etc., I'm asking if there are citable explorations of this in relation to DAOs - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Legal liability

Corporations have one useful feature: they formally shield the owners legally. DAOs of course don't do that (unless and until the day that goes into law, which isn't any time soon). Does anyone know of something citable on this? - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, here: [4] - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Good article and could be used to try and clear up some of the really hazy aspects of this. My guess is that regulators are going to close done this whole concept, but who knows. In the mean time that article above would be a good source for more critical information, maybe a critical aspects section in the article. Right now its just presented at face value without much critical over view because of the overt primary or sympathetic sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You might also try this: https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/epicenter-bitcoin-125-florian-glatz-defining-a-legal-framework-for-decentralized-autonomous-organizations-dao Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Bitcoin blogs do not count. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Count towards what? It is not a blog (open the link), it is an audio an interview. FYI, we are not trying to establish notability for the article, it is well established. At worst it might be WP:PRIMARY and still is WP:RS.

It's from a partisan advocacy user-created content source, so no, it's likely not RS - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI we are not trying to establish notability for article? Yes we are, the article is currently tagged to possibly be absorbed into another article. The article is super over sourced to primary mostly ridiculously over wrought articles that go around in circles and are very hard to interpret because in order to understand this subject you have to read the code, computer code of what proposals are. I am going to start tagging and removing things that are over sourced to primary things. Also as mentioned there is a pyramid scam aspect to all this stuff which could turn into some real issues if Wikipedia is seen as advocating these business plans instead of explaining in plain English what is happening with them. Apparently there is no legal traditional oversight to a lot of this concept and that means people could get burned very easily. We really need a critical section and need to hash out the totally controversial nature of this very fringe idea. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. There are massive issues on this article with advocacy and possible financial COI issues. The sources must be highest quality RSes, not partisan blogs from cryptocurrency holders. This article has the same issues that Ethereum did, for the same reasons - David Gerard (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Legal Content NPOV

Hello David Gerard (talk · contribs), N2e (talk · contribs), FeatherPluma (talk · contribs), Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs), Frap (talk · contribs), and jytdog (talk · contribs), I suggest that we add more sources to better create a neutral NPOV for the legal questions facing a DAO. There are essentially four sources we have found, at least that I know of. Talk:Decentralized_autonomous_organization#The_Law_of_The_DAO comes and Talk:Decentralized_autonomous_organization#How_to_Sue_A_Decentralized_Autonomous_Organization both come from CoinDesk which is a RS in my opinion. These two articles are both marked as opinions as clearly Coindesk doesnt want to be giving legal advice. Last there is a third source I consider to be OK which is Talk:Decentralized_autonomous_organization#The_DAO_Might_Be_Groundbreaking.2C_But_Is_It_Legal.3F which is from American Banker and is clearly a RS. The last source is the Bloomberg source currently used. The current content states that a dao is a limited partnership, which these other sources dispute. There is lots of issues that are all in dispute. I suggest to develop a consensus on this that has a NPOV. I have been asking various editors on this talk page, with little response so I will ask some frequent editors of this page here. If there are more editors you want to ping, please join them in the discussion.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Tagging

General comments

Hi Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs) you have added a lot of tags to the top of the page today and not added any explanation here on talk. Please explain your tags and the specific problems otherwise the tags can be removed. If I am wrong and the tags don't require explanation, please advise. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

See above section. I concur with the addition of the tags.

• it reads like advocacy for the idea (advert, non-neutral)
• the wording is very vague and unclear (weasel words)
• the sourcing is questionable (I just added this)

Tags do normally warrant talk page mention unless it's obvious, but I concur that these tags are appropriate warnings to the reader and flags to other editors that the article is to be taken under advisement and read critically - David Gerard (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Given there still isnt any specific issues mentioned, I will go through the tags below.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello jytdog (talk · contribs), I was wondering if you could give a little input here please. I felt your input and oversight was worthwhile in the Ethereum discussion last month and this is quite similar (new ideas, not a deep coverage of those ideas in the press, and some charged opinions). Thank you! :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. (May 2016)

What is disputed about its neutrality specifically?Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It reads like advocacy for the idea (advert, non-neutral) because its story is told using primary sourcing to a huge degree. the wording is very vague and unclear (weasel words, things like comparing these concepts to 'democracy' and voting when the comparison is not really accurate . Democracy is a weasel word as used. The sourcing is questionable too much primary. One whole section is taken from one obscure article. Too much sourcing to one article. 12 times. Too much. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Understood relating to the democracy word, it isn't accurate and I have deleted that word. Which are the primary sources you refer to?Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (May 2016)

Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs), please explain what specifically is written like an advertisement. Also what is being advertised here?

Limited consensus has established this on the talk page already. Your question is not really relevant. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I dont understand what limited consensus above means. Can you please explain that? Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. (May 2016)

Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs), please detail the weasel words you are referring to. Are you referring to the word democracy here? Maybe we can replace that word, I am not sure that voting with shares which is proportional to the number of shares a person holds is very democratic (as a person with one share has much less say that someone with 1000 shares).

The phrasing is vague and inexact, the writing is just plain bad, apple-pie statements are shoehorned in (using Bitcoin advocacy sites as sources) - David Gerard (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

David Gerard (talk · contribs) I have written a lot of the phrasing on this article and clearly I am having trouble understanding how to correctly phrase on these articles. Maybe you can help me to understand.

Today I added some new content from this source Talk:Decentralized_autonomous_organization#The_DAO_Might_Be_Groundbreaking.2C_But_Is_It_Legal.3F The article says "In theory, distributed autonomous organizations (of which the DAO is one of the first examples) are a hardcoded solution to the age-old principal-agent problem. Simply put, backers shouldn't have to worry about a third party mismanaging their funds when that third party is a computer program that no one party controls." First, my understanding is that I cannot copy the text as that would be a copyright violation. So I wrote "Distributed autonomous organizations are a proposed hardcoded solution to the age-old principal-agent problem." I added the word "proposed," as I thought we should put in a word to make it sound less authoritative. Is my addition of words like "proposed" what is causing this weasel word situation? Should I not put in the word "proposed"? Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (May 2016)

Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs), please identify the primary sources. I don't see any primary sources on the page other than the one letstalkbitcoin source. You are repeatedly asserting there are primary sources on this page, without giving evidence. Please provide. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been stripping out a lot too, I see Buterin as the main remaining one. An article concerning over a hundred million dollars, as this one does, should arguably have no primary sources - David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Specifically which are the primary sources? The Buterin article you refer to just above in CoinDesk is a secondary source. At that time was a journalist.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleting talk page comments

Hello Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs), First, you added tags to the article without making any justification on the talk page. I then created sections on the talk page so that we editors may discuss each of the tags. Then you you deleted my talk page comments and questions on this talk page in these edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Decentralized_autonomous_organization&oldid=721340465 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Decentralized_autonomous_organization&oldid=721340587 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Decentralized_autonomous_organization&oldid=721340754 . I have warned you previously against deleting cited content on the article itself, and now I warn you to not delete my comments on this talk page. If I am wrong and it is acceptable to delete my talk page comments, please feel free to educate me, I am always open to learn. I have re-added the content above.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring and deleting content

Talk page content removal

Hello Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs) 1. You deleted all the content on the previous page. We have re-built the content. 2. above you deleted my comments on the talk page Talk:Decentralized_autonomous_organization#Deleting_talk_page_comments which you haven't answer. 3. Then today you again started deleting a bunch of cited content with RSs on the main page. Talk:Decentralized_autonomous_organization#Deleting_cited_content_third_warning. I have listed the sources above here Talk:Decentralized_autonomous_organization#Sources for editor convenience to comment on. You have been admonished multiple times for deleting content with reliable sources. I was going to start reverting your changes (I reverted one), but rather than that and follow that road I thought I would request an admin to suggest what do to, as some of the edits now require a manual revert. Thank you.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

"You have been admonished multiple times for deleting content with reliable sources" You phrase this as if this is anything other than you arguing and trying to wikilawyer badly-sourced advocacy material into the articles. Although as I'm editing I can't speak with my admin hat on, I can say that Earl King Jr's edits look to me like the proper application of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV to an article in an area that is filled with advocates for a blockchain-based unlicensed investment scheme. For Wikipedia to say anything about it in Wikipedia's voice requires stringent sourcing. Bitcoin advocacy blogs, as you've been adding, really just aren't up to scratch. I've asked on WP:FTN for more eyes as well - David Gerard (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can speak with my admin hat on (it's a cloche and it's lovely) .;-) If anyone is edit warring, it's Jtbobwaysf. The overwrought pinging and long lists of tags to be 'explained' by Earl King Jr. seem almost hysterical and smack of advocacy for a cause. (And who is this 'we' who has 'rebuilt the content'?) If the sources given don't meet WP:RS and the other policies to which David linked, they can be removed. Period. Be careful, Jtbobwaysf, that you don't find a boomerang. Katie^talk 12:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs). 'we' refers to the editors that have added content and citations. Is an opinion piece written in a RS considered user generated content, and/or some other type of content that is automatically a non-RS?Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You're fundamentally misunderstanding how WP:RS works. It's not a case of "all sources of this type are always good and all sources of this type are always bad" (or "if I can justify this source if I squint then it's FAIR GAME FOR ANYTHING I CAN FIND IN IT"), you have to apply actual judgement. And sourcing can also be more or less stringent for different topic areas, e.g. WP:MEDRS is an example of extremely stringent Wikipedia sourcing requirements for medical articles that have strong consensus behind them.

In the present case, we're talking about an article closely related to an unlicensed investment scheme that's already over $100 million, and the general public coming here to - so I would strongly suggest that stringent sourcing requirements are appropriate here. Sources need to be mainstream, not cryptocurrency advocacy sites. Sources for technical claims need to be technical sources that know what they're on about. Speculation with a single source is not appropriate, if a speculation is articleworthy per WP:WEIGHT then it'll be in multiple places. That sort of thing.

Fundamentally, just because a fact is true doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia - that's the whole point of WP:WEIGHT, which is part of WP:NPOV, a core Wikipedia policy. So your repeated section headings complaining of editors removing sourced content or attempts to post bogus "admonishments" of them for doing so reveal a deep misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is here for - David Gerard (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Your right, I am working on understanding RSs as related to this article, and I made this section Talk:Decentralized_autonomous_organization#Sources to encourage discussion about the sources so that I may better understand what sources I may use. You have recently commented on the two CoinDesk opinion sources and your comments were helpful. It would be helpful to me if you could explain which of this article's sources are primary.

I think I now understand your point about speculating on legal issues (and thus why I shouldn't have added the two legal opinion articles). By doing so I was speculating whether or not the The DAO (organization) (which I guess you were referring to relating to the $100M) is an licensed/unlicensed investment scheme and this has no relevance to this article because if The DAO turns out to be a fantastic pyramid scheme, or furthermore some court rules DAOs in general to be a prohibited organizational system, it will just be additional content that will be added at that time. Is this the point, that wikipedia shouldn't be giving legal advice, like with MEDRS and thus I should't have added that content? Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a tricky one, but it's the sort of thing we would need to be careful of, especially as any legal opinion at present is speculative. However, there are defaults, e.g. that if you have a bunch of people working together without incorporating they're typically regarded as unprotected general partners, so there's no remarkable claim being made there. And the stuff from Aeon about the difficulties with prosecuting diffuse organisations isn't wrong as such, although look at the music industry response to any identifiable person being caught downloading music - David Gerard (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello David. Now I get it relating to the legal content. Is it your position that the other content found in those two legal opinion articles that talk about the mechanisms of DAOs cannot be used for any purpose? If we using content discussing voting mechanisms, the mechanics of how DAOs operate, etc this is all good content that is at worst WP:PRIMARY and still a RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I put a call for "what constitutes suitable sourcing for this article" on RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Legal_issues_on_Decentralized_autonomous_organization - let's hope others have time to come over and look - David Gerard (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The only feedback you received on RSN message board stated that they disagreed with your deletion of this content. Is that correct? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Your interpretation of Wikipedia editor discussion strikes me as bizarre - David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Aeon citation removal

Jtbobwaysf I removed some weak and basically poor sources which were also 'over weighted' in the article. You seem to have assumed some type of ownership to this article though you have been warned about edit warring after you brought that subject up previously. You have already been warned by an uninvolved editor also. I suggest you return my edits and take some of the advice you have been given previously. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs), in this specific edit you were deleting the citation and leaving the content unchanged/un-cited asserting the Aeon citation was over-weighted (it is is used once). Relating to your claim of ownership, do you have any evidence I have violated WP:OWNBEHAVIOR?. I don't own this page or any other page, and if you think I might be acting as if I own this page, then why not have a civil discussion here on the talk page about RS? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Your badgering of editors who disagree with your sourcing and your posting bogus threats concerning their editing right here on this page are the obvious ones - David Gerard (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Citation?

Is this a good citation source for the article?? [5] Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Passes basic RS, the reporter notes he owns a tiny amount of BTC and ETH so might know a bit about what he's talking about ... - David Gerard (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Time to archive Talk page

The central concerns of the past month or so that perhaps this article should be merged to another, or sent to AfD, appear to be resolved by consensus for its retention. There are some secondary themes that have not been mined to absolute exhaustion. However, I suggest we can close out on them. I did observe that there is a reference that 2 editors dislike, for reasons they haven't really detailed, which 2 other editors per edit summaries have promoted. (I am not any of the 4 editors.) The present status is that the article has now attained adequate referencing for most of its content. While the reference in question is perhaps not from a venerable immediately recognized source, it is a modern, independent, edited long-journalism source, with many respected content providers; moreover, the article in question is written by someone who contributes widely in this and closely related fields, including to many of these said venerable venues. Notwithstanding these considerations, the reference's content is entirely consistent with, and thus encompassed by, the other remaining sources within the article, and so perhaps this particular bone of contention can be allowed to bleach in the sunlight. Unless there are stated objections, I think everyone will be accommodated by archival of this Talk page in the next day or so, in the standard way, so I will complete that, subject to any further input. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Just add a flag for an archive bot to take care of it rather than doing it by hand I suggest - David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Hello Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs), you reverted my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decentralized_autonomous_organization&oldid=724592139 stating "Revert bad sourcing bit coin magazine source. Stop using these promo sources" This content is cited by Wired (magazine). Are you asserting Wired is not a WP:RS? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It's gratuitous primary sourcing. Turning an article into a press clippings collection is not how to write a Wikipedia article either. You still appear to think anything you can find a cite for must therefore go into the article somewhere - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the bitcoin magazine, that is what you are referring to as the primary source right? ThanksJtbobwaysf (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The entire paragraph is a Buterin quote making vague apple-pie statements about the potential of DAOs. It adds no useful information on DAOs to the article. I've removed it again - David Gerard (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)