Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Cryptography: Computer science Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Low-importance).

Cryptocurrency Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Notability and promotion

The overuse of primary sources here makes me question if this is even notable? The content, tone and length aren't acceptable. Can we cut it down and rewrite it based on secondary sources or is this a WP:TNT? Widefox; talk 22:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping creator User:Uhooep Widefox; talk 17:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the usage of primary sources be inherently bad? I do believe it would be worth expanding on this project but this article is far from a disaster. 2A02:8106:9:6500:74C5:74DF:DFB:55C5 (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC) K[reply]

Being a contributor to this page it is difficult to understand your criticism. Mainly created by community members this page is intended to give information on the Polkadot project and the ecosystem to come in the future. The Web 3 Foundation is a nonprofit as the driving power behind this. Being actively developed ATM Polkadot is one of the most interesting emerging technologies in the crypto world. I would love to help making this page better. Therefore it would be important to know what in your opinion can be improved on. MasterOfDesaster99 (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a means of advertisement and we don't care whether the subject is non-profit or not. We look at the subject's notability, first. We use metrics like the coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources to determine if the subject is notable or just another thing that exists. People interested in Polkadot should find some other website to host discussion of the subject because Wikipedia is not the place for that. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern over advertising on Wikipedia. However, the project has achieved some notability as a blockchain software protocol. It has recently received coverage/mention by a number of mainstream news sources (Forbes, Bloomberg, PC Magazine, Financial Post). It's among the top 10 crowdfunded projects of alltime. The technical specifications for the software has academic merit with citations in journals and conference proceedings on Google Scholar. Famously (infamously), it was a major victim of the Parity wallet hack (for which there is even further coverage of the Polkadot project from reputable media sources). Pdmcgillivray (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of a project is a highly subjective matter though. Wikipedia is the means to give independent information about relevant topics. I want to contribute and want to make this page better and would highly appreciate your help in doing so. MasterOfDesaster99 (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's several WP:SPA accounts here - all editors please note you must read and abide by WP:COI, and disclose per that. Widefox; talk 19:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

This article had two RSes, one of which was a single mention in Bloomberg and the other was an article on the ICO in TechCrunch.

I just cut a large slab of technical detail that was completely primary sourced. It shouldn't be restored without RSes.

As noted above, this article still needs RSes. Are there any? - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-17/ethereum-blockchain-killer-goes-by-unassuming-name-of-polkadot Coin (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrade from stub status

I tried to bring back some of the details that had been lost in previous versions, while restructuring a bit the lead section, removing some of the promotional tone in sentences, and bringing a couple more sources from non-crypto medias. There is definitely a lot more work to be done on this page - given that it is one of the largest cryptocurrencies, its notability deserves it a bit of love and attention 7804j (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Polka blog post graphic 002.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible future paid editing

Someone was advertising today on twitter for a writer to "improve" this article.[1] Schazjmd (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]