Hi Qcne, thanks for the quick response. How should this positioned. There is so much bad information on Bitcoin floating out there, our economist wrote this from a professional lens, properly cited. Are there edits you could recommend because it is shocking there is not a simple page where people can learn the pros/cons and understand the myths and facts about the technology and where it fits. We were trying to align to the below. Many thanks!!
Hi @EconomicEvolution. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not for pages where people can learn the pros/cons/myths/facts about a topic. That is a (common!) fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. An article can’t be framed as an editorial with subjective judgments about what is good or bad.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of notable topics where the content of the article is paraphrased/summarised from reliable sources.
So, the draft you made is suitable for your blog or company's website, but not for Wikipedia. Instead, a viable article on this topic might be something like Debates surrounding Bitcoin or Criticism of Bitcoin or Impact of Bitcoin, where the content would only be presenting verifiable and reliable sources that reflect different viewpoints without asserting opinions as facts.
I am also slightly concerned that you have a conflict of interest in the topic if you employed an economic to write this draft. It is mandatory to disclose this conflict of interest; failure to do so would be a breach of our Terms and Conditions and would lead to your account being blocked.
Hey Qcne, thanks for the quick response. There is no opinion in this piece and no judgement, everything is properly cited and summation of professional research. We don't have a hard opinion either way. And being an economist is our career area of subject matter expertise, there can't be a conflict where people with experience on a topic cannot write about a topic? Or am I misunderstanding. We are huge consumers of Wikipedia so, happy to learn and grow into publishing but we may need your help. And can you confirm there are no opinions in the content, they are all referenced sources. Or is the intros and conclusions, if we deleted those and changed the title to what you suggest would that meet the guidelines? And forgive the silly question and thank you for your patience!!! EconomicEvolution (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) The draft is structured like an essay. This format is more appropriate for an academic paper or editorial rather than an encyclopaedic entry.
2) The draft synthesises information to support specific arguments, which constitutes original research. Original research is prohibited on Wikipedia.
3) The draft contains subjective judgments and evaluative language, which reflect personal opinions rather than a neutral presentation of information from reliable sources. Likewise, there is biased language eg., labelling sections as "Myths vs. Facts" implies a judgment about which perspectives are correct.
Hello, EconomicEvolution!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Qcne(talk)12:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
