JaggedHamster

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

clarification on use of source

Hey, for the ERC-721 article I noticed you flagged the source "The 10,000 Faces That Launched an NFT Revolution" as failing verification for the statement "The term "non-fungible token" (NFT) is not known to have been used to refer to NFT projects prior to ERC-721." I wanted to offer clarification.

I don't believe the Wired article specifically mentions ERC-721 at all, rather it offers commentary on the timeline for usage of the word NFT for which the wiki article statement is primarily based on the other sources cited that are about ERC-721. The main piece of text from the Wired magazine source I intended in support of the wiki article statement was "CryptoPunks were non-fungible tokens -unique digital assets, long before NFT became a household name." It's kind of ambiguous, it states they were NFTs though it doesn't suggest they were actually called NFTs at the time, but it does suggest in general that the word NFT was not in widespread usage at or prior to when it launched.

The project was launched in June 2017, the commentary offered by that sentence in support of the wiki article statement is that prior to ERC-721 (CryptoPunks launch), the term NFT was not widely recognized, which is logically entailed by the word not being used. However, that source doesn't go as far as affirming that no one else used it before ERC-721 as the wiki article statement goes, rather verification for that comes from the other two sources cited.

The rationale for including is that it is coherent with, logically entailed by and in support of the same aligned historical interpretation of the word's usage. As a counterpoint, if there is an RS that states the contrary, for example, "in 2015, the term NFT was a household name..." then we would have multiple viewpoints we would have to interpolate into the article. Instead, the Wired statement presents a different angle that I thought added value to a coherent picture so I connected them together.

It might feel kind of redundant to say, "is not known to have been used to refer to NFT projects prior to ERC-721, and it was not a household name during the time the early pioneering CryptoPunks project launched," so I chose to make the statement concise.

The statement could be extended to more accurately reflect that source though or maybe removed entirely, what do you think? Codeconjurer777 (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd say you need a source specifically referring to ERC-721 to support that statement, I understand your point but it seems like WP:SYNTH to combine sources in the way you have to reach a conclusion none of them explicitly state. JaggedHamster (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I could see it pushing in that direction as you point out. Perhaps its just better to remove it Codeconjurer777 (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)