Wikipedia talk:Notability (cryptocurrencies)

Some non-criteria

It might be worth offering some non-criteria:

• "It's got a market-cap of over <value> US dollars" - market caps, however large are not intrinsically notable.
• "It's been promoted by <famous celebrity>" - notability is not transitive, and even if the person advertising this product is famous, the coin might still not be notable
• "It was recently listed on <exchange>" - being on a notable exchange does not make a coin notable
• "It was the highest gainer, biggest volume on X day" - statistics do not establish notability
• "It's been <incubated/advised> by <famous venture capitalist>" - still not relevant. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch ^^ any thoughts? Salimfadhley (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey Salimfadhley thank you very much! All great ideas. I will try to add it tomorrow. In any case, feel free to let me know if you have any comments or feedback on the draft in general! JBchrch talk 00:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Another non-criteria I've seen in the wild: "It's got X developers working on the github project".

Another point which might seem obvious to us but not to many new editors is the consequence of all of the above: There will be popular, high-volume, appreciating crypto-currency projects with famous collaborators which nevertheless don't meet our criteria and should not yet have an article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the frequency with which cryptocurrencies get promoted by celebrities and influencers in return for the payment of considerable sums of (actual) money (examples: Kim Kardashian and the FaZe Clan Save The Kids debaclé), I'd almost suggest that any claims of endorsement by celebrities or influencers should be treated as a reason to exercise considerable doubt and to double and triple check whether there is genuine notability and not just paid-for promotion. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I second this. A cryptocurrency getting promoted by celebrities should not be grounds for notability, and if the promotion is covered by mainstream media it should not count towards its notability. SunDawntalk 11:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done JBchrch talk 01:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments

I stumbled across this via a link on a users talk page, and I hope you don't mind if I leave a few comments.

First in general, while I see the need for this clarification, I have to ask whether we would be better served by adding a paragraph to WP:NCORP in order to minimize WP:CREEP? In particular, I think we could say something along the lines of When using news sources to assess the notability of cryptocurrencies or blockchain-related projects, it should be demonstrated on the basis of significant coverage in mainstream reliable news sources. "Mainstream sources" are understood to be the ones that cover a wide variety of subjects (such as The New York Times) or a broad topic area (such as financial news, e.g. the Financial Times), and which have an audience that extends beyond a specific industry or affiliation.

I believe, in conjunction with existing policies and perhaps a little tweaking to wording elsewhere in NCORP that this will give the same result, abet with considerably less writing - the clarification and explanation can be provided in an explanatory essay.

Focusing on the proposal itself, it currently includes There is consensus that (in most cases) cryptocurrency-focused sources (eg Coindesk, Bitcoin Magazine, etc). - It's not entirely clear what there is a consensus **for**. I would assume from the context that there is a consensus that they should not be used for notability and should generally be avoided as a source, but I feel it would be useful to clean that up in the draft.

BilledMammal (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Thanks a lot for your comments! Yes, I have thought about the WP:CREEP issue and the possibility of adding some language in WP:NCORP, and I think that's a good idea moving forward. I just thought it would be easier to start with an essay, see what the reaction of the community would be, and then possibly progress to amending guidelines and garnering a wider consensus. Whatever the outcome, I hope this essay (in its complete form) can still be useful as an explanatory text, as you mention. As for the sentence you pointed out (thank you), I think it was added by Jtbobwaysf, so maybe they can take a look. JBchrch talk 15:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: in addition to the two RFCs noted on coindesk, we also had this RFC Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_3#RfC_to_tighten_sourcing_on_this_article and from what I have seen since then there has been maybe what might be called an informal consensus that we have been applying across all the cryptocurrency articles, where we remove all the questionable sources (anything with RSP problem, blogs, etc). The closing editor noted that this consensus officially only applies to the Bitcoin Cash article, which for some time had been a big promotional/TE problem. I dont think the village pump proposal was ever done, but I am not sure it really needed to be since we are not seeking a new policy, we are just following an informal consensus to to be strict on this genre (noting that being strict on any genre would also be fine I suppose). Generally, the questionable sources are things that you might see removed from any article (medium, blogs, UGC, etc). But in this genre editors like N2e (talk · contribs), David Gerard (talk · contribs), myself and many others have just started to be more strict and I would say it has really helped. I think if you feel it is necessary to seek wider approval for that, we could do a village pump proposal (for formality or other purposes), and I guess it too might snowclose. I will note that from time to time new editors are unhappy with our informal consenus and want to see something in writing as policy, but I haven't seen any editor push to that end (although I recall for example that Hocus00 (talk · contribs) was displeased with it (but has stuck around now seems ok with it, I am guessing). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Retimuko: FYI in case you are interseted in this draft essay as well. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• I am certainly fine with this being an explanatory supplement to NCORP with a single paragraph to summarise core points (especially in how it may differ from first glance understanding of NCORP). The nature of crypto-news sources being functionally non-independent in this field and therefore not to be counted comes to mind as an example. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Needs to be more about sourcing than notability

I've been thinking on this - our present notability criterion for crypto/blockchain is straight-up WP:GNG and some WP:CORPDEPTH. This has worked quite well. So I concur that a note on WP:NCORP might work best, if sourcing notes are reasonable there - CORPDEPTH already rules out churnalism, for example.

We do need to state that crypto media is unusable trash. It makes the usual business boosterism blog look like the NYT by comparison.

Any "fintech" outlet with a "crypto" section on its front page probably counts too.

Mainstream financial media has plenty of coverage of crypto stuff that satisfies GNG and CORPDEPTH - not just passing mentions, but reasonable depth in many cases.

It is worth stating that "market cap" - as stupid and useless a number as it actually is - needs a solid RS and a date. Even if the RS just got it from Coinmarketcap or CoinGecko. And that it isn't notability.

The other source that has got some cryptos in is peer-reviewed academic coverage. There is a lot of pay-to-play, e.g. Frontiers In and other stuff on WP:CITEWATCH won't do. But if it's actual peer-reviewed journal papers - not eprints, arXiv or conference proceedings (which notoriously accept any trash in cryptocurrency), those are good too.

Basically: keep being hard-arsed on sourcing. - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It is worth stating that "market cap" - as stupid and useless a number as it actually is - needs a solid RS and a date. Even if the RS just got it from Coinmarketcap or CoinGecko. And that it isn't notability.

If say, some new erc20 token, gains tremendous sigcov/notoriety in mainstream media like FT, hence notability is established. However, the mainstream media doesn't cover the everyday nitty gritty. So, in your opinion, if an item of info is WP:NOTEWORTHY, like mcap, but isn't covered by mainstream media, only covered by Coinmarketcap/Coindesk...this noteworthy piece of info should also be purged? - hako9 (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

If it's not in an RS, it's not noteworthy in Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Bilorv

Saw the notice at VPP and just wanted to say that this essay is useful just as a collection of existing information elsewhere, even if there's nothing new in it, as I will surely be pointing certain draft writers at AFC to it. As it's more a corollary of existing policies and guidelines, I think leaving it as an essay but adding some relevant text to WP:NCORP is a good idea. — Bilorv (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove "and other blockchain-related projects" from lead?

I think the essay's lead should mention that it only concerns itself with notability of cryptocurrencies and related financial products and service, and organisations that are involved in the business. "Blockchain-related projects" is too vague because the essay doesn't say anything about the notability of broader topics Crypto art or staking, or other conceptual topics for which only GNG applies. - hako9 (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Trouble is, blockchain promotion and cryptocurrency promotion are part and parcel of the same thing, promoted and covered in the same outlets using the same promotional language by the same people - David Gerard (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources - added books, academic articles

I added sections on academic publications and books. I think this reflects what I see in discussions on AFD and so on, but feel free to disagree and/or tweak my wording. With books and dodgy publishers, I'm thinking of the stuff Packt churns out; also, a lot is just this side of self-published - David Gerard (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A7 and cryptocurrencies

This essay has been referenced in a policy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 and cryptocurrencies. Singularity42 (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Use of crypto-centric sources if they aren't written in a "positive light"

Hi all, Just noticed that the main reason of using crypto-centric sources is because they are "overwhelmingly enthusiastic about cryptocurrencies" and generally cover crypto-related projects in a "positive light", however I personally think using a source from these sights should be okay if they are not talking about it in a promotional or enthusiastic way. I only bring this up because my on SafeMoon were reverted for including these sources despite not being positive and directed at the criticism and legal issues of Safemoon. GR86 (📱) 10:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

note that this page isn't even an official guideline yet, it's got the same status as someone just writing an essay!

The trouble with using non-RSes at all is that they aren't RSes. Non-RSes should be avoided in general really.

Some crypto sites are great, some journalists on them are great. But I still would avoid even using the good bits of CoinDesk - David Gerard (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)