Talk:Manifold (prediction market)

radical openness

I believe their "radical openness" in open-sourcing their code, doing all development in public and making their finances and many (all?) internal design documents public should be added to the article, when possible. --Azertus (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Screenshot nominated for deletion

I nominated the screenshot for deletion at commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ManifoldMarkets.png. Wikimedia Commons only accepts freely-licensed material and I believe the logo is copyrighted and non-free. A low-resolution screenshot can be uploaded directly on Wikipedia, but only after the draft is accepted as an article (under the non-free content guideline). Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 14:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Not yet notable, potentially biased editing

I've just reverted the move to mainspace, as nothing seems to have changed from the "drafity" consensus last time this was discussed.

It may become notable soon, as it's a fast-growing site with much interest from people in positions of power. In particular, Manifold currently predicts a 60% chance of being mentioned in Time Magazine before the end of the year, which would be another significant source as per WP:CORP. This is a well-written draft, and once it meets the criteria for notability it would make a good article, so it should stay available until that point.

Full disclosure: I'm a Manifold user here because someone on Manifold asked me to nominate this article for deletion using an intentionally bad reason. (They believed that this would cause editors to anchor on the bad reason and be more likely to ignore a better criticism, therefore getting the article approved.) I am not a fan of these sorts of attempts to manipulate people using tactics other than rational good faith discussion, nor of interfering with an external platform like Wikipedia just to manipulate a prediction market, and this behavior violates several Wikipedia policies. (See WP:CANVASSING, WP:WAR, and WP:GAME) As such I'm making this behavior known, and asking other Manifold users to cease engaging in it.

(To be clear, this is not a campaign being pushed by anyone officially affiliated with the company, just by a few users who can win fake internet points by getting the article approved. It should not reflect poorly on the platform as a whole.)

I note that many, if not most, of the contributions to this draft have come from Manifold users. This is not necessarily a problem, as we are the people most knowledgeable about it, but is a sign that this article is being pushed towards approval for biased reasons rather than a neutral belief that it meets the notability guidelines. KingSupernova (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

There are 9 references in google scholar https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2023&q=%22manifold+markets%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Wikiqrdl (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple and significant references in different articles in bloomberg as well that occurred since the "drafity" consensus. Wikiqrdl (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@KingSupernova Is there someone perhaps we can summon take a look at this that might be more neutral? As both you and I are manifold users I am not sure we're the best judges here. Wikiqrdl (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

This article should move back to main space. Manifold now meets the notability requirement ("significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.") with significant coverage in the: New York Times, San Antonio Express News and CSPI, alongside many minor mentions in other secondary sources. Ma7ged (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Moved to main space given no updates to this thread. Feel free to continue discussion here.

I also removed sections that did not have sufficient third party sources in accordance with with WP:NOR. Ma7ged (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Another source to add

This is mostly a reminder to myself, but anyone is welcome to act on it before I get around to it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-02-14/lyft-had-a-typo CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: There seem to now be a sufficient number of references in support of the page, as discussed on the talk page and through the draft process. Some of the cited reference relate to prediction or prediction markets in general, btu there are enough on the platform itself.

Klbrain (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)