Jump to content

Talk:Web3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 15 (talk | contribs) at 13:17, 3 April 2022 (OneClickArchiver archived Did Web3.js played a role in claiming this name? to Talk:Web3/Archive 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Web3" refers to the Web3 Foundation. "Web 3.0" is the name of the technological movement it stewards.

This article title is incorrect. "Web3" is a reference to, and trademark of of the Web3 Foundation. "Web 3.0" is the name of the technological movement it stewards.

179.9.7.78 (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources to verify this? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources talking about the "internet" when they mean the "world wide web"

I think there is a small problem we're facing here: the sources we use are talking about the internet when they mean the world wide web. The question I have here is are we in the position to change that in the text to ensure it's correct? I think it's tricky because we should be relying on what the sources say. BeŻet (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure most readers would make a meaningful distinction between the two. However if there are sources that go into how web3 is a concept that relates to the WWW rather than the Internet, we could potentially say as much here (and also explain how the two terms are different). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a large problem here. In a subject which is fundamentally rooted in technology the article, indeed the concept of 'Web3', consists of a number of vague statements assembled under a title which seems to owe more to journalistic novelty than to any actual technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.135.44 (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got sources that you think present a clearer idea? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What, exactly, is 'Web3' supposed to mean, or be?

The concept of 'Web3', as defined [sic] here, consists of a number of vague statements that provide no clear definition of what might constitute Web3.

I would suggest that the article is removed until something can be written that actually gives more than a vague, 'hand-wavey' notion of what the title is supposed to mean. This, currently, is more of a non-article than an encyclopaedia entry. It gives the impression that Web3 is merely a new journalistic buzz-phrase, which it might well be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.135.44 (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the article ought to be deleted, that's a conversation that needs to happen at WP:AFD rather than here. But if you think the article simply needs to be improved, I would encourage you to do so: WP:SURMOUNTABLE. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources

Compiling a list of sources that ought to be considered for this article:

Less strong but still worth considering:

I hope to come back and do some work on it myself, but wanted to put this source list here for the benefit of anyone who may have the opportunity to focus on this article before I do. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is just spam

Some folks heavily involved in the cryptocurrency space are trying hard to bend the world to their own vision. The term "web3" is just that - it is not a thing, hence the haziness, but a term they are coining to try and legitimate their activity. Saying a lie long enough or loud enough shouldn't make it happen, this page should simply be deleted. 78.197.117.47 (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web3 is the place for this discussion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage article

This reads like a social media rant. The article briefly mentioned several implementations or theories for web3 but then doesn't give any information about them. The bulk of the read presents the opinions of several celebrities who have no relation to the subject matter. We can do better. This is a very disappointing example of Wikipedia. 69.169.131.138 (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Do better. Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How? There is no meaning to this term. It is a very fresh neologism. The closest one can get is that web3 means “what if we put the web on the blockchain”. What if, indeed? Would it work? Would anyone use it? What specifically would it mean to do that? Nobody knows. I still think, though I am shouting in the wilderness, that there is nothing to write an article about here. FalconK (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better the unenlightned be exposed to Wikipedia's more balanced coverage than all the promo spam you otherwise encounter when you Google the neologism. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overemphasis of blockchain

I think the lead needs to tone down blockchain. Web3, having read many different sources, seems to be the thing that comes after Web 2.0. Everyone seems to have their own ideas about what that means, but some common themes are: more user control, decentralization, less reliance on big platforms, more peer-to-peer relationships, and maybe even better user privacy. These are my impressions, and feedback, not an attempt to craft a sentence. Instead of relying so heavily on footnote 5, could we try to take a broader view? Jehochman Talk 07:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? It looks like this term is being heavily flogged by blockchain maximalists who really want it to be a buzzword, and I don't see anyone else using it. If you can find a current source that discusses it as being something else, substantively, maybe that would be useful. FalconK (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about NPR [1]? We should at least show there are many different opinions. This is an emerging neologism. The exact definition will be in play for a time. I prefer a more general (less constrained) definition. Jehochman Talk 08:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that article too. It discusses primarily blockchain, cryptocurrency, and NFTs, and reports on the same maddening idea that somehow these will "undergird" the internet. It doesn't offer anything beyond them to explain how to get the user control, decentralization, less reliance on big platforms, more peer-to-peer relationships, or better user privacy. "Instead, they are decentralized, built upon a system known as the blockchain." Why? How? Who could know? FalconK (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It’s a maddening bunch of idiocy. Perhaps the reason it keeps going is that people are unhappy with what Web 2.0 has become, and are casting about for something better. These crypto grifters are latching onto that desire for something better. Jehochman Talk 12:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, the overwhelming majority of discussions about Web3 are from the crypto crowd - hence, the overemphasis on blockchain. BeŻet (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that any concept of "web3" without a blockchain is fundamentally different from the one described at this article and should be described separately (and disambiguated as necessary). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accepting that, it logically follows that we need the General Sanctions warning box for cryptocurrency that I have just placed on this page. Jehochman Talk 23:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undue source

I think this source is not good enough to give a general overview of the topic - it doesn't seem to be much more than a blog. BeŻet (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it, it's definitely undue. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Web3 / Web 3.0 "coined"

I don't think the article should say that Gavin Wood "coined" the term Web 3.0. It seems like a misreading/misunderstanding of the original ref, which states "Gavin Wood coined the term Web3 (originally Web 3.0) in 2014." I think the article meant that he coined the term Web3, and that the idea was originally called Web 3.0 (I assume from what Web 3.0 used to mean, which was the next version of the web after Web 2.0).

Also, the current citation verifying that he "coined" Web3 is a Wired article in which the main contents are an interview given by Wood. I don't want Wikipedia to claim that he originated the term, or imply he originated the concept, without strong sources to back up what might be considered an exceptional claim. When I search Web3 "coin" Gavin Wood in Google News, it seems all of the sources are from within the past month... all after the original Wired article (and all less reliable-looking than the Wired article).

He also created an organization called Web3 Foundation, and I worry how easy it would be for an entrepreneur and well-known blockchain creator to market themself as the originator of a concept that is gaining lots of recent attention (and, likely, funding).

Anyone have any higher-quality sources, or otherwise objections to removing the info? - Whisperjanes (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are raising a good point. The term Web 3.0 did exist before, but it referred to something completely different (semantic web). Wood may have been the first to use Web3 to refer to this specific concept of blockchain powered decentralised web, but I do agree that if the source is an interview with him, we should look for better ones. BeŻet (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a first cut at clearing up the confusion. The "Terminology" section still needs significant editing for flow and clarity. Jehochman Talk 13:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jehochman: I'm not going to revert those changes, but I think it's more confusing now, as the article isn't about the semantic web, but about something completely different that shares the same name. I would remove the quote and the intro sentence. BeŻet (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've made a second cut. Is that better? The important thing is that we should describe the terminology in chronological order. What came first, what came next, and why these are different but easily confused. Jehochman Talk 14:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think that's much better. BeŻet (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that looks much better, thank you Jehochman. I still wonder if there are any better sources that state he coined the term or originated the new term? Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, we should really only say he created it if there are multiple, high-quality sources stating so. If there's a better way to state how he contributed to the concept than using the term "coined" (that is, if there aren't more high quality sources), then I don't mind summarizing his contributions in a different way. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think the claim is controversial. Nobody else claims to have coined the term as far as I have seen, regularly monitoring media about this topic. Jehochman Talk 23:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it's controversial; it's that it's an important claim solely sourced to an interview article. It seems to apply to the first point of exceptional - "apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". I wouldn't mind if this were a smaller article about a smaller topic, but this article gets more than 10,000 views a day. For a relatively new topic, that's enough views to impact others writing about Web3. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I'm just looking for stronger sourcing here. I don't want this article to be the start of spreading information that might not be complete, or might be someone's personal claim. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wired is a good source for nerdery. [2] As is O'Reilly. [3] Jehochman Talk 16:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the O'Reilly source, that's what I was looking for more of. It still seems like these articles stem from the Wired article (O'Reilly links the Wired article in the sentence after it's statement that Wood introduced Web3), but if others aren't too concerned by this, then I'll leave it be :) - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is "Technologies" Section for?

There is a "technologies" section of this article, which is currently blank, and which specifies in the edit page that "specific products" should not be listed. Of course, it is sensible to prevent promotion of favored products. But many Web3 technologies are dependent on tokens which are associated with the companies which developed the token (this is the case with Steemit and LBRY, for example.)

So, what kind of content is appropriate for this section if not "specific products"? Is there anything that could be put under this heading which is not already under the heading "Concept"? And if not, should we keep this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.55.152.212 (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blockchain could be one; right now, probably the only one. BeŻet (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We already link out to blockchain; I'm not sure what purpose would be served by detailing it here. The purpose of the section is unclear to me with it left empty. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Perhaps it was added as a form of encouragement, but maybe we should just remove it all together until there is more to write about. @Jehochman: would you be against us removing this for now? BeŻet (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t mind either way. My logic was to replicate a section from Web 2.0 that was not covered by this article. I think we could provide a concise summary of each of blockchain, cryptocurrency, NFTs, metaverse and any other key buzzwords, with a link to the full article. That way a reader knows a little more what this all about without having to read a bunch of other articles. Jehochman Talk 17:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it now to avoid confusion. BeŻet (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Web3 is going great

This website is hysterical, and a good news crawl for web3 controversies. We should probably add a "Controversy" section to highlight just how scammy web3 is right now. I think we should also look at the Web 3.0 technology stack as identified by the web3 foundation. This technology stack is more sophisticated than just "blockchain." We might add a section on these technologies. I am going to add these two sites as external links because I think both of them are valuable to readers seeking more information. Jehochman Talk 16:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it is definitely hysterical (re. climate hysteria), also not notable. 2404:4408:4756:D000:5D3C:6E02:8D9:7EC5 (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because you say so, bro? Jehochman Talk 12:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The history of this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Web3&diff=prev&oldid=1021050414

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Web3&diff=1072849109&oldid=1054434244

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Web3&oldid=1020938025

Where can i find the history of Web3 before November 9, 2021‎? Was the page moved before Web3 became about crypto Web3? Michael Ten (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page log shows that an earlier version of this page was deleted in 2009, made a redirect to Semantic Web § Web 3.0 in 2019, and restarted in 2021. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 05:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. It didn't tell me anything!

Perhaps the people who wrote this should read a good article like the one about the electron. Just read the introduction and try to understand what it does that this article does not.

To define something (that is what an encyclopedia article is supposed to do right?) you need to define its properties including what you can do with it. None of that seems to happen here.

Let's look at what we can do with the current web, which I think is just Timbo's web with a lot of nastier people on it. Presumably web2 didn't happen because no one knew what that was either. The first thing I need to know for any web is how do I create a website. At the moment all I do is upload a bunch of files onto a server and I'm done. To view my website all a user needs to do is to enter a url for a file on my server into their browser and bingo! They obtain the url from some other website which may or may not be a search engine. For the majority of people these are the only important characteristics of a web.

So how do things change with a web3 web? I was hoping this article might tell me – but no. Presumably for web3 I need some kind of blockchain access to create a website. Does this imply that I need a crypto-currency account? If so, I will probably give up producing websites because I'm not going to sink that low. Also, at the moment, if I need to amend information on my website, I just upload a new copy of the relevant file to the server. The old information is gone forever. Suppose I accidentally include false or damaging information on my site concerning some individual or organisation and they bring pressure on me to remove it. How is that going to work on an append only blockchain? Even if not easily accessible, the false information will be there forever – until crypto-currencies go tits up in a nasty stinking mess anyway!

From a users perspective, how hard will it be to see old versions of a website? Does web3 make the Wayback Machine redundant? I'll come back in a few years and probably find that this article has been depreciated in favour of one about web9, but no one can define that either. Articles like this are not encyclopedic.81.140.177.204 (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really a problem with the article, but with Web3 itself - it's a very hazy concept; more of a buzzword than anything. BeŻet (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Web3&oldid=1080788696"