Talk:Initial exchange offering
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS
The article Initial exchange offering, along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Sources
[edit]Hey, @David Gerard: could you please explain to me what's wrong with sources I added? Why it's not reliable? And can you give examples of sites for crypto theme that will be reliable. Thanks. --SeeTheDots (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Crypto sites are not considered WP:RSes. For example, WP:RSP lists Coindesk as unreliable, and the discussions note all other crypto sites as even worse. You need actual mainstream coverage in Reliable Sources, even for crypto topics. That Bloomberg cite was literally the only one I could find, but that's the sort of thing you need - David Gerard (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- You just added back the same bad sources, and then a new bad source - David Gerard (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, @David Gerard: because I can't understand what's wrong with them. I checked, forbes.ru and coindesk.com are exciting more that 15 years each, and cryptoglobe.com — almost 6 years. isn't that enough? --SeeTheDots (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Because they are not considered Reliable Sources for Wikipedia. Please read (and try to understand) the discussions linked from WP:RSP on Coindesk, for example - which I already referred you to above. Forbes contributor blogs are also not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. There is literally a single RS in this article right now, and that's the Bloomberg reference - David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- This is how many articles use these sites as a source: forbes.ru, finance.yahoo.com, coindesk.com ALTHOUGH wiki consider them as non-reliable. Why it can be used there but I can't use it here? --SeeTheDots (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Because they're bad sources you shouldn't be using - you're trying here to come up with excuses to deliberately use known bad sources. You're also failing to distinguish between Forbes staff articles and Forbes contributor blogs, which WP:RSP explains too. Did you read it? - David Gerard (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- This is how many articles use these sites as a source: forbes.ru, finance.yahoo.com, coindesk.com ALTHOUGH wiki consider them as non-reliable. Why it can be used there but I can't use it here? --SeeTheDots (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Because they are not considered Reliable Sources for Wikipedia. Please read (and try to understand) the discussions linked from WP:RSP on Coindesk, for example - which I already referred you to above. Forbes contributor blogs are also not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. There is literally a single RS in this article right now, and that's the Bloomberg reference - David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, @David Gerard: because I can't understand what's wrong with them. I checked, forbes.ru and coindesk.com are exciting more that 15 years each, and cryptoglobe.com — almost 6 years. isn't that enough? --SeeTheDots (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
==Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160C== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 16 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cgreg038 (article contribs).