Talk:ERC-721

Establishing Subject's Notability

So the initial person who created this "ERC-721" article did not include any reliable sources whatsoever that could establish notability. As a matter of of coincidence, I had just prior created an article about the lead author of ERC-721 and included a treatment about ERC-721 itself with a trove of reliable sources mentioning ERC-721 by name as well as citing projects utilizing it. ERC-721 and its source paper ERC-721: Non-Fungible Token Standard are recognized as landmark and pioneering in the NFT space and their influence is apparent in the mainstream and academic spheres.

Examples to affirm notability from mainstream press that explicitly cite ERC-721 by name and not in trivial mention:

New York Times (the article is about an ERC-721 project CryptoKitties, and does explicitly cites properties about the NFTs ability to be bought, sold and traded on the blockchain and explicitly uses the term “ERC-721 token” thus it is not a trivial mention)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/cryptokitty-auction.html

Forbes

https://www.forbes.com/sites/cathyhackl/2021/03/04/four-things-brands-need-to-know-about-nfts-non-fungible-tokens/?sh=57a383f1222f

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliakarayaneva/2021/04/08/nfts-work-for-digital-art-they-also-work-perfectly-for-real-estate/?sh=9c6fade43f33

TheVerge

https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/2/22914081/open-sea-nft-marketplace-web3-fundraising-finzer-a16z

TechCrunch

Why the next CryptoKitties Mania won't be about Collectibles?

Mashable

https://mashable.com/article/twitter-non-fungible-token-nft-giveaway

CNBC TV18

https://www.cnbctv18.com/business/nfts-are-most-influential-in-contemporary-art-power-list-11663702.htm

HypeBeast

https://hypebeast.com/2021/12/artreview-power-100-2021-list

ArtReview

https://artreview.com/non-human-entity-tops-2021-edition-of-artreview-annual-power-100/

Vogue India

https://www.vogue.in/culture-and-living/content/terrain-open-is-the-new-platform-creating-a-space-for-art-nfts-in-india

TheGuardian

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/01/non-fungible-tokens-take-no-1-spot-in-influential-art-world-power-list

ERC-721 is also the subject of significant reference in scholarly literature including in peer reviewed journals. Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs) are also considered peer reviewed works given the rigorous editorial process for their publication, and there are extensive numbers of ERC’s that explicitly cite, derive or depend on ERC-721.

Scholarly sources that overlap with the “William Entriken” article include:

Journal of Business Venturing Insights

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235267342200021X

Procedia Computer Science

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050922019640

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162522007697

Scientific Reports:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8828876/

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9864250

Given the above evidence with at least 10 high-quality reliable sources in the mainstream media and scholarly literature including from well-known and highly reputable journals, it seems reasonable to assert that the notability of ERC-721 is well established. Therefore, I propose that we remove the "Lack of Notability" tag and focus on enhancing the article with these reputable secondary sources.

I invite collaboration from other editors to further improve the article. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Should we use "Crypto Sources" at all? If so, when?

Preface: I think that Crypto Sources could serve as valuable resources to improving this article in a supplementary way to mainstream and scholarly sources. I'd like to discuss the notion here for consideration with including them on at least a case by case basis in certain instances for this article. The conversation here for the entire scope of crypto articles on Wikipedia may be appropriately had elsewhere but we have to start somewhere.

Introduction: In the realm of Wikipedia's "reliable sources" policy, there's a general consensus that "Crypto Sources" often fail to meet the standards of reliability due to their tendency to sensationalize and favorably skew information. This inadequacy predominantly affects their use in establishing notability and verifying contentious (controversial) statements. However, this raises an important question: Are there scenarios where these sources can still offer value, particularly outside the context of establishing notability?

My perspective is that, in certain instances, Crypto Sources can indeed be valuable, specifically for:

• Providing historical or background context on crypto-related topics.
• Offering technical insights and information.

Elaboration: While the overall reliability of some crypto sources like Cointelegraph, CoinDesk, CoinGecko, and Decrypt may be questionable for certain uses (including important ones like verifying contentious claims or establishing notability), I believe they can be valuable in the contexts mentioned above. It's essential to clarify that this doesn't extend to all emerging crypto sources; discernment and careful evaluation are key. One notable aspect of crypto sources is the depth of understanding their writers often possess about niche topics within the cryptocurrency realm. This invested interest, though a potential source of bias, also means they're attuned to specialized information that mainstream audiences might overlook. Mainstream media generally addresses a broader audience, often eschewing the 'technical minutiae' that crypto sources might cover. Similarly, while scholarly sources delve into technicalities, they might not always address every nuanced aspect relevant to the crypto community.

This gap in coverage presents an opportunity for certain crypto sources to offer detailed insights, especially on technical or historical minutiae. It's crucial, however, to limit this to non-controversial, non-contentious information, as areas of dispute or significant debate would necessitate more universally acknowledged reliable sources.

To illustrate, let's consider the case of ERC-721 and CryptoKitties. Scholarly and mainstream sources frequently mention CryptoKitties as a pioneer in using ERC-721. However, they often overlook a crucial detail: CryptoKitties initially used a different, earlier version of ERC-721, launched in 2017, a year before the standard's official publication in 2018. This can be verified through a simple comparison of the smart contract code with the published standard, indicating that it was not standard-compliant in the strictest sense.

Despite this, I'm not contesting CryptoKitties' pioneering role in the broader sense. Rather, I'm highlighting a fascinating historical and technical detail that is absent from mainstream and scholarly discourse but is noted in sources like Decrypt and CoinDesk. This specific information, while technical, doesn't seem contentious, especially if presented as a straightforward fact without additional interpretation.

In summary, while exercising caution and a critical approach, I believe certain crypto sources can complement mainstream and scholarly literature by filling gaps in technical and historical information, provided the content is factual, minimizes reliance on interpretations from the writer of the source and non-controversial.

I welcome thoughts on the matter. What do we think? Codeconjurer777 (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

What Content and Sections to Include?

On the “William Entriken” article I had created prior to this “ERC-721” article moving to the mainspace by another editor, I had a section entitled Influence of Work. It contained a subsectioned list of various spheres of influence and specific projects that utilized ERC-721 from art, gaming, real estate, sports, pop culture as well as public criticisms. It is cited with a multitude of Reliable Sources that anyone is welcomed to verify.

An admin aptly noted that the section mostly did not contain sources with direct reference to William Entriken (some scholarly works referenced him through his work) and opted to remove the section questioning its relevance to that subject. However, given its direct relevance to the subject here, I propose moving that section in its entirety here.

I think that section has great value to readers in learning about the influence of ERC-721 which has significant coverage from secondary sources directly (mainstream and scholarly) and indirectly through projects whose NFTs are ERC-721 though not mentioned by their technical name in the press.

I think that there is a fine line between having a list of examples being trivial and it having encyclopedic value. The Wikipedia article on “Websites” does not contain a list of major businesses, celebrities and brands that have websites, such an inclusion of a list would be trivial given the ubiquity and common sense understanding of websites. NFTs while growing in their mainstream applications are not anywhere near this level of mainstream ubiquity. It is of value then to see examples of the ERC-721 in specific notable applications and the domains they take place in today.

The section can be found in this revision here Codeconjurer777 (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this about ERC-721 or just a fork of the NFT article?

Much of this appears to be about NFTs and their importance - but NFTs already have an article. So this is functionally a redundant content fork. Surely this should be severely cut back to the content specifically about ERC-721 itself, and the NFT material moved to that article as appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

So I do think you're right in that there's redundancy that should be addressed, particularly in the “Influence” section and its subheadings, but I also don't think that cataloging of notable projects on the subject's page should be removed/omitted entirely. I think it does have significant informational value for readers to see examples of notable ERC-721 projects directly on the subject's page, as opposed to them only being able to learn of the connection upon serendipitously discovering it on each project's own page or elsewhere not committed to a focused accounting on the subject. If Bitcoin ordinals becomes noteworthy enough to merit its own page and there are other noteworthy ordinals projects with RSs behind them, I think the same principles would apply in that context. To be clear, these are not just general NFT projects, these are specific instances and implementations of ERC-721 and are relevant to the page and subject, though the depth of treatment for each here should be considered when it may already exist on other pages.

I think a balance can be struck to have the projects listed, perhaps subtitled as it is, but replacing redundant text information with a "see more" fashioned redirect link to learn more about the specific project and lead the reader there (whether its own page or a section in one). For example, I do recognize the treatment on Bored Ape Yacht Club and Beeple 5000 Days is probably redundant as there really isn't any "new" information here that can't be found in their own articles. However, there are some things where there's not other pages dedicated to it and I think the treatment should still be contained here under the subheading, like about the ArtReview award. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure the specific uses of Primary Sources your generally referring to when contesting, but in addressing the validation of a project's use of the ERC-721 standard via PS, I see a necessary distinction from the typical reliance on secondary sources for establishing notability or contentious claims. Take, for example, a book that declares its publisher directly within its pages; such a straightforward assertion is naturally accepted as true. Similarly, when a project openly states its use of ERC-721, or when this usage is evident from publicly accessible information (considering the transparency of public ledgers), such claims in some instances are verifiable without the need for complex analysis where differing (even competing) interpretations might be possible, thus it’s not contentious and there is no reason to doubt its truthfulness.

Given the consensus around using primary sources for non-contentious claims, in this context overlooking such direct evidence by relying on a higher standard not necessary here (for establishing notability and affirming contentious claims) prejudicially detracts from the encyclopedia's educational value. Ignoring clear, verifiable, and undisputed evidence of a project's use of ERC-721 fails to support our mission to enrich readers' understanding of the subject in an accessible manner. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

How about not writing a redundant content fork and not having any material in this article that is not specifically about ERC-721 itself - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring my points raised, unwilling to consider compromises for solutions that are consistent with established precedents found in other articles and are applying a hard position that is not only inconsistent with precedents found elsewhere on Wikipedia but demonstrate a lack of interest in enhancing the article's encyclopedic value for readers within such constraints.

Regarding redundancy: Some level of redundancy is evident in other articles and is apparently accepted, for example in Objectification there is an outlining of the different elements of of objectification theorized by Maria Nussbaum, and in Dehumanization 's section "Objectification" it also presents the same elements. The context of the information is specific to each subject however and adds value to the subjects' articles in distinct ways. Thus there is precedent for some level of redundancy on Wikipedia if it has apparent value.

Regarding specificity of content to subject. Your position is that examples of notable ERC-721 projects should not be on the ERC-721 page despite being a significant part of its history and adoption. In the President of the United States article, should it follow that mention of other prior Presidents that are a significant part of its history should also not be mentioned? Because they are. It include mentions of specific presidents to illustrate broader points about the office's history, roles, and impact, so too can the ERC-721 article include mention of specific, notable projects that have played a significant role in its history and adoption. Thus your position seems to go against precedent for inclusion of relevant subjects that have encyclopedia value on the article subject though they may not be foundational to it.

There is room to compromise on "how" it's done (as I have attempted to do and discuss), but your hard position doesn't seem consistent with how Wikipedia is run as evidenced by other articles and practices of other editors which don't appear to be subject to dispute or controversy. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

You're attempting to preserve this article as an idiosyncratic personal essay, but you're doing it in Wikipedia article space. You may benefit from reviewing WP:OWN.

Also, if you don't want your insistence on duplicate citations being tagged, stop duplicating citations. Make them individual named citations and then you can just not duplicate them - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe I have displayed openness to discuss and compromise to improve the article.

You, however, are refusing to discuss or even engage in remotely constructive discussion. You are refusing to address logical points based on guidelines and precedents established and ignore established guidelines in favor of your own unjustified rules where apparently bundled citations are disallowed. You are abusing your power as admin. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

There have been multiple editors disagreeing with your approach here, and it wasn't just me thinking that you edit just like you're extremely closely linked to the author of ERC-721. But if you really think you have a case on that, then WP:ANI would be the place to file it - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement is a normal part of Wikipedia. So is engaging in constructive discussion, which is what we do when disagreements arise and what I have been attempting to do with others and you. But you don't seem to be making a good faith effort in doing that. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I am quite sincere in all my concerns about this article - David Gerard (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

While your concerns may be sincere, your efforts to collaborate and improve the article are not sincere. Apparently you dislike me and distrust me and in the basis of your personal feelings you have been channeling this passive aggressively by for example:

making excuses to scrutinize bundled citations despite not contesting that their use is appropriate based on established Guidelines.

applying the notability tag without a valid purpose, considering you nor anyone else has contested specific RSs used to establish notability

These actions do not serve a productive purpose, they are misguided and disruptive. And you refuse to hold yourself accountable.

You keep bringing up a COI as if reality is going to change and I am suddenly going to become pals with or married to the subject and need to make a COI disclosure. I can't make a COI disclosure if I don't personal know or have any direct connections with the subjects. Accept it or not, making a COI disclosure here would involve me having to fabricate an actual connection between us. The clear overwhelming majority of my contributions in good faith on the subject have a basis in verifiable RSs or even in some non-reliable but recognized crypto sources (which we removed); I am not presenting personal anecdotes with the subject that have no basis in an online footprint.

I have contributed to a variety of other pages outside of these subjects and I don't believe it evident that my impartiality, competence or efforts to comply with guidelines is any more or less apparent than here. If the subject were less niche and way more famous like Taylor Swift, perhaps my interest in contributing to the subject would be looked on with less suspicion as interest would be more expected. Regardless I believe my behaviors and editing practices have demonstrated a good faith effort to contribute and comply with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Which is more than I can say for you.

I managed to find an interesting set of notable subjects and history that was underexplored, I took the opportunity to flesh these out and I am proud of my work and contributions that I've been able to share. I don't think it should be trivialized because of your misguided sense of Wiki-righteousness. Maybe there is a COI or other factor contributing to apparent bias on your behalf, perhaps stemming from being an author in the crypto space, an aspiring public figure there. There aren't many notable, credible persons or projects in the crypto space, perhaps your position places you to close to such subjects and could explain some of your choices here that are inconsistent with good faith contributions. Not for me to figure out, not my problem, I'm just an editor writing on some of these subjects within the field. But your abuse of admin power is a problem.

I would like to create other articles about other topics, but aside from the exhausting effort that goes into a comprehensive article, my experience with you is quite discouraging. You don't have a pattern of acting in good faith, you make all sorts of false statements (that I've pointed out) and make disputes without evidence or sound arguments. You set a bad example and I'm sure it's not just me who thinks this: I've seen others on your talk page complain that you come in and make unilateral decisions without discussing it and assume your will is law and infallible.

You may do some good and serve helpful purposes over the years here and there but I don't think you know where the line is, or just don't care. As an admin, based on the pattern demonstrated, you're basically acting like a crooked cop who decides what the law is at your whim. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

As I've already noted: if you think you have a case to claim administrative malfeasance, the venue for it would be WP:ANI or similar - not an article talk page. Else you're just making a substance-free personal attack, and you should retract it and perhaps consider that if you can't make a case, you've greatly misunderstood the situation - David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)