Talk:Polygon (blockchain)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it certainly meets the notability guidelines, and while currently a potential stub, is well cited. Polygon is now preferred over the Ethereum blockchain for many use-cases, especially new dApps, due to the low fees and quick transaction times compared to Ethereum. It is central to the crypto ecosystem, and is often used in, e.g. NFTs and Polymarket, which is the world's largest prediction market. The native token is the 31st biggest token by market cap and has a market cap of over 2.7 billion dollars. In short, the article is well cited and should certainly meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It should not be deleted. --BlazingStar3321! (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Contested deletion

I unfortunately missed the deletion discussion, but this should comfortably pass WP:GNG. Some sources were discussed in the deletion discussion. There are thousands of news articles about Polygon, though the majority of them are in crypto niche news sources like CoinDesk (admittedly GUNREL), Cointelegraph, The Block and so forth. I'm sure I've also seen occasional coverage in Bloomberg, Forbes, WSJ and other more mainstream sources, but will need some time to dig them up. It's also the platform on which Polymarket runs, which has received a lot of coverage (especially in this election cycle) as the largest prediction market. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that this article, as it currently stands, does not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Recreation attempt

I draftified the original and intend to move it back soon. I added a handful of new reliable sources. It's not a drastic difference, but I would argue even the original demonstrated notability. In the AfD, a lot of reliable sources seemed to be deweighted based on speculation about possible churnalism (possibly based on a press release etc).

If our objective was to add a lot of WP:GREL sources to make notability more obvious, there are a lot more GREL-but-unimportant sources such as [1] [2], but I don't want to pad the article with insignificant content just for that purpose. I also don't necessarily want to prefer GREL sources over CoinDesk, Cointelegraph, The Block and so on. While those are not GREL, I would argue that they are actually the most authoritative and useful sources in this particular field. Reporters at those outlets tend to understand crypto topics a lot better than most MSM journalists, resulting in better reliability as well as breadth and depth. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

CoinDesk, Cointelegraph, The Block are less reliable than "MSM" sources. As a tertiary source which attempts to summarize reliable, independent sources, Wikipedia has a mainstream bias. This isn't a bug, it's a feature. For these outlets specifically (among other issues) they tend to be churn out a lot of conflict-of-interest pseudo-journalism with no obvious way to differentiate that from their supposedly good journalism. Something has very gone wrong when an article needs to cite shoddy industry boosterism and other garbage sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Polymarket source

@Grayfell: I understand the sources for Polymarket running on Polygon are of questionable reliability, but it seems like an uncontroversial fact that (AFAIK) isn't WP:LIKELY to be challenged.

Let's say we remove any details like "popular" for now. (We could probably find a separate source for any such details later, without it necessarily needing to mention Polygon.) Would you then agree that the statement that Polymarket runs on Polygon could be included insofar as no challenges arise? Do you think it's better to use one of the less-reliable sources, or no source?

While it's not a reason to bend any rules, it feels a bit silly that we list things like the Firozabad partnership (which I'd be ambivalent to removing) but not the most notable application on Polygon. Polymarket also mentions Polygon without a clear source, so if there's an issue here it would mirrored there as well. Hopefully we can find some remedy. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Stop adding spam sources to Wikipedia articles. To include this without a reliable source or any further context is telling readers that this detail matters. Why does it matter? Why is this important enough to mention without a decent source? To put this another way, if this is encyclopedically significant, we should be able to indicate to readers why it is significant. The only practical way to do that is via a reliable and independent source. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, so we should not include trivial details without a reason. To including this without such a reason makes the article read as promotional, which is not appropriate. This article has other problems, and other articles also have other problems. This is not an excuse. Grayfell (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would call any of this "spam". Not all statements require WP:GREL sources. Even WP:GUNREL doesn't mean "never use it". Do you really think any of the material you removed, like the statement that Polymarket runs on Polygon, is WP:LIKELY to be challenged?

Deciding what content is significant enough to warrant inclusion is a matter of editorial discretion. There's certainly content here that one could argue is unimportant, like the Firozabad partnership I mentioned, maybe other partnerships too. To remove mentions of Polymarket and Miden while leaving that is quite strange. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I've challenged that it belongs, for reasons that I've already explained, so the 'likely' ship has sailed. That essay is not an excuse to bypass WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOTPROMO.

As for being spam: "One of the most exciting breeds of modern-day canaries is Polymarket, a platform that is revolutionizing how we predict future events. Polymarket is a onchain information market platform that leverages blockchain technology and the wisdom of the crowd to transform how we forecast outcomes in various domains, from politics and finance to sports and entertainment."[3]

This source is pathetic nonsense.

What is or is not 'strange' to you is irrelevant. You do not have consensus to cite an unreliable source for a promotional, context-free detail. Grayfell (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You're conflating verifiability with significance. WP:LIKELY is about verifiability; disputing whether something "belongs" isn't relevant to that. If you don't trust the explanatory essay, WP:V itself is similar. Are you genuinely challenging the statement that Polymarket runs on Polygon?

Again the Forbes source and the other one you removed are not the most reliable sources, but not everything needs a WP:GREL source. This seems like an extremely uncontroversial statement which probably doesn't even require a source at all. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, and pretty much every aspect of a cryptocurrency prediction market is going to be controversial on multiple levels. As I would hope we both know, not everything which is technically true belongs in a Wikipedia article. The way to determine which details belong and what do not is via reliable, independent sources, which you have not proposed yet. Articles should not be a list of isolated facts without any context, our goal is to provide contextualized information to readers. While we do have editorial discretion, we disagree on this. The easiest way to resolve disputes like this is via sources. If you cannot find a better source for this, that's a very strong sign that it's not that important after all.

Articles are made worse then they include unimportant promotional details. So since I don't think this detail is important, and sources apparently don't think it's important, if you really insist on including this, you should either find a real source, or explain why this detail is so important that we should include it anyway. Grayfell (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, so it seems like sources are useful here not so much for verifying the statement, but insofar as they're a useful signal for judging the significance of Polymarket to Polygon.

Indeed secondary coverage can be a useful proxy for significance. But I think here that should be interpreted broadly to include coverage of Polymarket itself (e.g. [4]), not just its relation with Polygon. We often note relations between significant topics, even if the relation itself hasn't received very much attention.

For example, we also haven't clearly sourced the statement that Polygon is a layer on top of Ethereum. There are probably a few suitable GREL sources for that, but hypothetically if only crypto media mentioned that, I don't think it would be controversial to mention anyway.

I also think this is the sort of thing where quantity matters, and a substantial quantity of less-reliable (say GUNREL) sources can suggest significance, perhaps moreso than a single GREL source.

We can also argue significance in other ways, and I've heard some figures suggesting that Polymarket is the most used application on Polygon (or something along those lines), although I forget exactly what metric was used and will need to dig it up. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't rely on crypto sites like Cointelegraph and blogs like Forbes contributors. Please see WP:FORBESCON. Retimuko (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Retimuko: since these statements don't seem WP:LIKELY to be challenged, how would you feel about just including the mentions without a source? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think they are not likely to be challenged? These are not simple facts of nature. All content must be verifiable - this is the fundamental principle. If you cannot find a reliable source to support some material that is a good sign that the material is not important enough to be in the encyclopedia. Retimuko (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely to be challenged because sources appear to be unanimous on this. For example, the Polymarket docs say Polymarket operates on Polygon. Polygon says Polymarket is a crypto-native prediction market built on Polygon PoS. Similar statements appear in crypto media. Polymarket also mentions Polygon.

It may be the case that none of these are suitable sources, but I think it nonetheless strongly suggests that the statement is unlikely to be challenged. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Manually reverting to your preferred version against consensus is edit warring. Please find usable sources. If you cannot, please propose some other policy-based reason this information is vitally important to this article. Repeatedly linking to WP:LIKELY is not helping your case here. Grayfell (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Better sources

I found a couple better sources to hopefully resolve the concerns raised: Forbes (staff writer), Fortune. Both briefly mention Polygon. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)