Talk:NEO (cryptocurrency)

major cleanup

I'll be slowly cleaning up this page over the coming weeks to address the many issues currently found in this article.

advertisement and paraphrasing

Style guidelines - Modeling the page on more well constructed projects of a similar size such as NEM (cryptocurrency) and Waves platform with a rewrite for a more neutral tone and removing copy pasted material.

Proposed sections in line with similar project pages.

• • History - Important dates to the project. Inception, rebranding, release of additional nodes etc.
  • Architecture - A description of the delegated byzantine fault tolerance, virtual machine compiler, NEO as a generation mechanism for the GAS token
  • Features - wallet, block explorer, etc.

primary sources, notability, reliability of sources

Adding sources from CNBC, Forbes, Bloomberg and other more reputable mainstream news sources and well as articles with more technical substance to source a more substantive architecture section.

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-11/china-s-largest-cryptocurrency-thrives-despite-intense-crackdown

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/nikolaikuznetsov/2017/08/10/neo-co-founder-banks-on-blockchain-to-build-a-smart-economy/#69545001d267

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/01/24/how-big-is-blockchains-carbon-footprint/#5205041c6cec

• https://themerkle.com/reconstructing-smart-contracts-part-1/

• https://themerkle.com/reconstructing-smart-contracts-part-ii-parallel-universes-and-unlimited-scalability/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andman8 (talk • contribs)

• • Crypto blogs aren't accepted as RSes, and the Forbes links are contributor blogs - David Gerard (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

CoinTelegraph not a reliable source?

This is about user David Gerrad reverting one of my edits. I'm just wondering why CoinTelegraph is not a reliable source? The team is made up up of professional journalists and editors so it's not just a blog that some teenager put together. It's the oldest crypto news site and also has the largest readership. The publication is regularly referenced by 'real' newspapers as a source of authority and breaks stories relating to crypto and cyber crime on a regular basis.

See [1] for example. And how do you know about the team? Retimuko (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The Dash article was a press release and it was marked as one, so I agree in that case CT would not be an a RS. My source was written by a journalist and I don't see any hype or bias in the writing. You can read the profiles of the editors and writers on the site. All have established reputations in journalism and the cryptocurrency community. It's about the only publication I'd trust to be an RS in crypto. Malozarpla (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be your personal opinion. There is an established consensus that such crypto sites are not acceptable. And I see that you added Investopedia to the article again. First, it is not a reliable secondary source. See WP:RSP. Second, you effectively reverted a revert without a discussion. Please see WP:WAR and the notice on your talk page about a special situation around blockchain and cryptocurrency articles (and one revert rule in particular). Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you for the WP:RSP resource and WP:WAR. I wasn't aware of these pages or the policies regarding cryptocurrencies and blockchain articles. I'll revert my edit on the page. I'm really just trying to improve this article. On another note there are some research papers that I could add. Are there any policies around these that I need to be aware of? Thanks again.Malozarpla (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

If they're actually peer-reviewed journal articles, that's probably OK? (except Frontiers in Blockchain, Frontiers is a predatory open-access publisher). Conference proceedings are iffier. Just papers on arXiv are equivalent to blog posts, unless they're also peer-reviewed - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)