Talk:OKX

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 August 2020. The result of the discussion was speedy withdrawn.

On the question of OKEx fabricating its self-reported trading volumes

An edit by Jovan92 dated 16 May 2018 and marked minor removed reference to a credible preliminary inquiry that puts in doubt the self-reported trading volumes of OKEx and other crypto currency exchanges. The user gave no explanation for the removal. In the next 48 hours I intend to reinstate that reference, and I invite subsequent discussion of the topic here. Adelphious (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

On June 7, an editor at IP address 202.130.102.26 deleted the reference to the same Sylvain Ribes article for medium.com, "Chasing fake volume: a crypto-plague". The truncated sentence now ends with a comma, suggesting it was accidental, and the edit comment says simply, "Made minor introduction changes", suggesting the editor did not intend to delete the reference. Presuming the deletion was an accident, I'll reinstate the reference for now. Adelphious (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On August 9, 2018, an editor acting under a new Wikipedia account removed the reference to Ribes' study with the remark that "medium is not a good source for that reference", "medium" being Medium.com, the blogging platform on which Sylvain Ribes published his data and analysis. Because OKEx publishes its own blog on medium.com,^[1] it would appear that OKEx itself disagrees with that justification for removing the reference. Whether or not Ribes is a credible source is a separate question, and I would add that under most circumstances such original research as Ribes' should not be used as source material on Wikipedia. I invite discussion about those two points here, but since neither were given as arguments for removing the reference, I will reinstate it for now. Adelphious (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a Forbes article to the "OKEx" references that cites Ribes' analysis. Forbes is a credible third-party source. Adelphious (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single-purpose account activity?

I realized today that substantial changes to "OKEx" introduced on 16 May 2018 were copy-pasted from the "About Us" page of the company's official site. That editor failed to note the company as the source. This suggests abuse of Wikipedia as a promotional tool via single-purpose accounts. Be wary of suspicious changes to this article in the future. Adelphious (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is not good

Two RSes in the whole thing. What coverage is there that isn't crypto blogs? - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ, Asia Times, and two more in Bloomberg[2][3] Џ 18:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can cut it down to just those, though then it'll be quite short ... - David Gerard (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week, culled sources - David Gerard (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would reinstate paragraph 2 because the sourcing in it was good enough and the information in it was noteworthy to a reader with general interest in the exchange. Forbes' journalism is good enough, and its staff writer's reference to Ribes' blog post on Medium.com makes the post credible enough for OKEx by proxy. But if reinstating Ribes' critical findings, I would balance them with OKEx's notably (and verifiably) high position on two prominent exchange lists, those at coinmarketcap.com and livecoinwatch.com, and those only because they are mentioned by Ribes and I don't know any others. Adelphious (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated some content from the second paragraph, adding Bloomberg.com as a source in case Forbes.com is not considered reliable. Adelphious (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article "OKEx" should be deleted

Evidence of notability must be verifiable for a topic to have its own Wikipedia page. The only notable characteristics of OKEx are its consistently high rankings in trading volume and markets served on the two data collection sites CoinMarketCap.com and LiveCoinWatch.com. But statistical data are not sufficient to meet Wikipedia's standards of notability, and even if they were, neither data collection website is reliable, as Sylvain Ribes has persuasively argued, and as journalists at Bloomberg and Forbes and editors and at least one admin on Wikipedia have affirmed. Unless someone can produce better evidence for OKEx's notability as a cryptocurrency exchange, I will nominate "OKEx" for deletion according to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.

The same standard holds for any other cryptocurrency exchange that has its own article in Wikipedia until sources more reliable than CoinMarketCap.com and LiveCoinWatch.com can be established. Until then, the only secure place in Wikipedia for any cryptocurrency exchange should be on a list of cryptocurrency exchanges.

For further reading on the topic of deletion at Wikipedia, please review Wikipedia:Deletion_policy and in particular Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Adelphious (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update This Page

I have updated the page with latest resources. Inviting for reviews and suggestions. --Harryishere (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been waiting for someone to review or share their suggestions. But, seems the article is in good shape now with notability issue and authoritative source issues being addressed . Thus removing both the tags. --Harryishere (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You added many unacceptable sources such as coindesk, theblockcrypto and other cryptocurrency-advocating sites, blogs, press releases. Too many to remove one by one and consider which statements would be unsupported without them. Retimuko (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Will revise the issues pointed by you and will come back to you. Thanks. --Harryishere (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have gone through the general sanction prevailing over the topic concerned where I have edited. Thanks much for pointing out and letting me know. I was unaware of the same. Can I go ahead with the necessary remedies to my previous edit while pruning the bad resources and the associated statements that can not be established independently from the sources acceptable under this sanction and Wikipedia citation policy? Thanks much. --Harryishere (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]