Talk:ERC-721
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
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
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
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
TheGuardian
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 notable 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. 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.
- I think a balance can be struck to have the projects listed, perhaps subtitled as it is and then have a "see more" fashioned redirect link to learn more about the project and lead the reader there. 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)