EddieQuebrado (talk | contribs) Update English 102 sec 005 assignment details Tag: dashboard.wikiedu.org [2.0] |
Comefrombeyond (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOTA_(cryptocurrency)&diff=836695242&oldid=835573916] 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? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 07:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC) |
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOTA_(cryptocurrency)&diff=836695242&oldid=835573916] 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? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Comefrombeyond|Comefrombeyond]] ([[User talk:Comefrombeyond|talk]]) 15:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:20, 18 April 2018
Numismatics Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Computing: Software Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)