Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 9 << Mar | April | May >> April 11 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


April 10[edit]

Request on 06:22:01, 10 April 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Mahbub Alam Bhuiyan[edit]

Mahbub Alam Bhuiyan You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:02:17, 10 April 2022 review of submission by Emmanuelle Dilshad[edit]


Emmanuelle Dilshad (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Draft deleted and its history suppressed. Also, see our guideline on autobiographies. Bsoyka (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:05:45, 10 April 2022 review of submission by Emmanuelle Dilshad[edit]


Emmanuelle Dilshad (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be "very kind, very sensible and have great moral character" but I'm afraid that like most of us you are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not working[edit]

I try to submit my article, but I get this error An error occurred (TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'length')). Please try again or refer to the help desk. Please help Green Echidna (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Faker.js
@Green Echidna: Wikipedia is not a how-to manual; what you've written isn't acceptable in its current state. Its sources are a YouTube video from an unverified channel (unknown provenance), a blog post from someone who could feasibly be called a subject-matter expert, and a tutorial (routine coverage); of those only the blog post could be considered an acceptable source and even then that is debatable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské CourianoI didn't make a how to manual. I just gave a snippet of the code. On programing languages site they also give snippets of code. The youtube video is a reuploaded video from a google software engineer with over 1 million subscribers. So he knows quite a bit about software. What I written was a started piece that if approved would allow others to edit and make it better. That isn't the final product, I just wanted to started a page. This page is about a very popular service and is necessary to complete wikipedia. Green Echidna (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Green Echidna: Then why is the article written in the second-person ("you")? That's not "providing code snippets", that's explaining how to use it. Also, your argument about the YT video is an ironclad argument against using it, as you're basically admitting it's contributory copyright infringement, which we NEVER link to, let alone cite. In the event there is a question as to the veracity or provenance of the source, we do not use that source AT ALL. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the link, no longer copyright infringement. Saying that is in second person is not painting the full picture. I use you only in "What can It do" section which is fine. If I was writing about apples and I said "You can eat apples". Would that be writing a how-to manual? No of course not. It would just be explaining the purpose of the apple. Just replace the apple with what I am writing about and it is the exact same. Green Echidna (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I was writing about apples and I said "You can eat apples".

That wouldn't be encyclopedic. You could say something like "Humans can eat apples.", but you should never talk to the reader. Bsoyka (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:40:59, 10 April 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Jaza613[edit]


I disagree with the reason given for rejecting the submission, namely that the topic is not sufficiently notable. Proof of Humanity was the main focus (not just a side mention) of an article published in TIME magazine (and it was mentioned in a second TIME article), which is surely a reliable independent secondary source. And it was one of the main topics discussed by Vitalik Buterin (inventor of Ethereum) in a high-profile recorded public talk. I added those sources as citations. An internet search will reveal many other secondary sources that refer to Proof of Humanity (admittedly most other sources may not be as reputable, but they're still independent). Furthermore, I have only cited English-language sources, but (as the project is largely based in Argentina) there are also Spanish-language sources that are independent secondary sources. I myself have no affiliation with Proof of Humanity, I only discovered it about two weeks ago. Can somebody please review this submission again, in light of the evidence suggesting that the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Jaza613 (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaza613: The reviewer commented that the TIME article was a good source, but the rest of it was not, and given that conflict-of-interest sourcing is a massive issue in the topic-area (and the big reason it's under general sanctions), we can't have not-reputable-but-independent sources. I will not comment further as this is, as I mentioned before, covered by a sanctions regime. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to the reviewer inline in the submission, saying:
Thanks for mentioning Buterin's 2022 book "Proof of Stake", I wasn't aware of it. The book hasn't been published yet, so we don't know exactly what its content will be. But according to https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/714151/proof-of-stake-by-vitalik-buterin/ , it will include the essay "Crypto Cities", which was originally published on Buterin's blog at https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/10/31/cities.html , and which mentions Proof of Humanity.
And:
Proof of Humanity is mentioned in the 2020 academic paper "Sybil-Resilient Coin Minting" , details and full text at https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.15536 . The paper is in arXiv's CoRR, which isn't peer-reviewed, but is moderated (and the authors of the paper in question have published other work to peer-reviewed journals, such as IEEE/ACM).
So, there you go, two more reliable independent sources.
Once again, I ask that you review this submission again, in light of the evidence suggesting that the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Jaza613 (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also replied inline, saying:
To clarify, I dug a little deeper, and the mention of Proof of Humanity wasn't in the original 2020 version of the paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.15536 , the mention of Proof of Humanity was added to the paper in Feb 2022. Jaza613 (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More of my inline replies:
The academic paper that describes Proof of Humanity in greatest detail, is the "Kleros Long Paper" at https://kleros.io/static/yellowpaper_en-8ac96b06f39f19a6a28106cf624e3342.pdf . It's only self-published (and it hasn't been submitted anywhere for peer review, as far as I'm aware), and it's obviously not an independent source, but it has been cited by other independent academic papers, such as https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.06597v1 (submitted for CoRR moderation), and https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3975500 (published in Journal of Law, Technology and Policy).
And:
The academic paper "Who Watches the Watchmen? A Review of Subjective Approaches for Sybil-resistance in Proof of Personhood Protocols" https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.05300 also describes Proof of Humanity in reasonable detail. One of the authors is Santiago Siri, so it's obviously not an independent source. But it was published in the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers in Blockchain.
And:
The academic paper "The Social Smart Contract" https://basicincome.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Miller_Sandra_Democracy_Earth_Foundation_Paper_fort_17th_BIEN_The_Social_Smart_Contract.pd_.pdf predates the Proof of Humanity project, but its detailed description of the mechanics of "Proof of Identity" (section 3.2) and "Universal Basic Income" (section 3.3) were the original blueprint that led to Proof of Humanity several years later. The author is listed as the "Democracy Earth Foundation" (and the first person listed on the "Team" is Santiago Siri), so it's obviously not an independent source. But it was presented at the peer-reviewed BIEN Congress.
And:
The TED Talk "How to upgrade democracy for the Internet era" https://www.ted.com/talks/pia_mancini_how_to_upgrade_democracy_for_the_internet_era also predates the Proof of Humanity project, but it presents the broad socio-political ideas behind Proof of Humanity, and it describes in detail the direct democracy / liquid democracy experiment (in Buenos Aires, Argentina, about 10 years ago) that directly led to the founding of Democracy Earth, which in turn directly led to Proof of Humanity. The speaker is Pia Mancini, the partner of Santiago Siri, so it's obviously not an independent source. But it doesn't get much more mainstream than a TED Talk. Jaza613 (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another inline reply from me:
Yes, I know that the academic paper "The Social Smart Contract" doesn't mention the term "Proof of Humanity". That's because the paper predates the coining of the term. That paper instead uses the term "Proof of Identity". The paper also makes far more mention of Bitcoin than it does of Ethereum (which was brand-new at the time), whereas Proof of Humanity today is built entirely upon the latter. And the paper describes how Roma Siri (daughter of Santiago and Pia) became the first person in world history to receive a "blockchain valid birth certificate", and it was done using Bitcoin rather than Ethereum. However, you can't discard a source simply because "it fails the CTRL+F test" (nor because implementation details have evolved over time). If you actually read the content of "Proof of Identity" (section 3.2) and "Universal Basic Income" (section 3.3), it's clear that what it's describing (in exhaustive detail) is the "first design draft" of what would later become Proof of Humanity. The paper "Who Watches the Watchmen? A Review of Subjective Approaches for Sybil-resistance in Proof of Personhood Protocols" (which passes the "CTRL+F test") cites "The Social Smart Contract", thus providing proof of the evolutionary link between the paper "The Social Smart Contract" and "Proof of Humanity". And I personally first came across "The Social Smart Contract" (at https://github.com/DemocracyEarth/paper where it's published as a "living roadmap"), and that in turn led me to discover Proof of Humanity. So don't tell me that that paper has nothing to do with Proof of Humanity, it's the project's genesis! Jaza613 (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The academic paper "The Social Smart Contract", in "Proof of Identity" (section 3.2), describes "video proof", "hash proof", and "attention mining", almost exactly as they are implemented today in Proof of Humanity. In particular, it describes how a video must contain a verbal declaration, and how the blockchain public key must be displayed in the visual recording - you can see thousands of such videos online today at https://app.proofofhumanity.id/ . It also uses the term "replicant", which is the exact same term used in https://blog.kleros.io/proof-of-humanity-building-the-internet-of-humans/ (one of the several PoH launch announcements published by Kleros). And for UBI, it uses the term "drip", which is the exact same term used in https://kleros.gitbook.io/docs/products/proof-of-humanity/proof-humanity-tutorial-remove-and-challenge (a PoH guide by Kleros). So, maybe all of that helps the paper to pass your "CTRL+F test". Jaza613 (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have found everything that you asked for: mainstream media articles, peer-reviewed academic papers, and detailed descriptions. I would like to think that I've been one of the more patient of the many new contributors whose entries you review. I appreciate all your feedback, and I appreciate your dedication to maintaining Wikipedia's high editorial standards. I really thought that, with a bit of persistence, I would be able to satisfy you as to this entry being ready for publication in Wikipedia. But I give up, it seems clear to me that you're not going to change your mind about rejecting this, at least in the short term. No doubt you hear this all the time, but I honestly think that you're being unreasonable, and that the subject in question is noteworthy enough, and the available sources are reliable enough and comprehensive enough, to warrant a Wikipedia entry. Anyway, if you don't mind, I will keep adding to this draft, I would appreciate you not deleting it. And I hope that you at least agree with me (you have already indicated as much) that the noteworthiness and the available sources for Proof of Humanity appear to be on a significant growth trajectory, so hopefully this entry will be worthy of publication in Wikipedia within the next year or so. Jaza613 (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More inline replies that I just added:
The relevant quote from the academic paper, in full, is: "On the other direction, exemplifying emerging communities within the digital realm, the Democracy Earth Foundation is a non governmental initiative towards e-Democracy. It is related to Proof of Humanity, which is quite similar to our approach. They also use a web of trust for identification, though it seems for now that a single endorser is enough for one to be accepted. They use Kleros, a distributed online dispute resolution protocol, to resolve identity disputes. Interestingly, in some cases, when an identity is found to be 'Duplicate' or 'Does not exist', they remove from the registry all the identities that vouched for it. This is more harsh than the approach presented here, that only penalizes these neighbours. Proof of Humanity also delivers universal basic income to registered users." That's more than a mere mention if you ask me.
And:
I should also point out that in the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHm7H4zOim8 which I cited, Vitalik Buterin is briefly introduced by Santiago Siri, but he is then interviewed by Olivia Goldschmidt, who is a journalist with La Nación. You can see her articles at https://www.lanacion.com.ar/autor/olivia-goldschmidt-8226/ . La Nación is considered the leading traditional newspaper in Argentina, and has the second-highest readership in the country. Buterin's talk was also covered here https://www.clarin.com/tecnologia/vitalik-buterin-argentina-segui-vivo-charla-creador-ethereum-guru-criptomonedas_0_h4ucApriz.html by Clarín, the leading liberal newspaper in Argentina, with the number-one highest readership in the country.
And:
There are several other articles describing Proof of Humanity in reasonable detail, from those mainstream Argentine newspapers, for example: https://www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/santiago-siri-que-haya-un-discurso-mas-amigable-con-el-mercado-en-las-nuevas-generaciones-me-da-un-nid28112021/ , https://www.clarin.com/tecnologia/metaverso-web3-nft-dao-significan-palabras-tech-surgieron-2021-definiran-futuro_0_Oo41ZDHM7.html , https://www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/negocios/criptomonedas-el-proyecto-de-un-argentino-que-capto-el-interes-de-los-grandes-jugadores-del-mercado-nid26102021/ . Jaza613 (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:04:42, 10 April 2022 review of submission by Yoshio Daggett Official[edit]


Hello! I wanted to contact you regarding the kind rejection I received. I have read that writing an autobiography is not how it is normally done here on Wikipedia, but I was wondering, if I can't do it, who can? As I understand it, the reason many autobiographies are deleted because of bias, however I do not believe I showed any bias in this page, and feel it remained purely informational. I read that one other reason may be lack of external credibility, and have compiled a list of external sources regarding the authenticity of my career of being an author. The primary reason I wanted to submit this article is to obtain an image of professionalism in my work (whether that be if someone wants to know about me, or just googles my name). If you have any feedback on how I could make this happen, it would be extremely appreciated. Thank you for your time and patience, and have a wonderful day. Yoshio Daggett Official (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoshio Daggett Official: "Obtain an image of professionalism"? That isn't something Wikipedia is ever going to be capable of doing by its very design. People, as a general rule, tend to be bad at seeing their own biases in what they write unless it's blatant; just because you can't see bias doesn't mean people with no connexion to you or your surrogates can't. As for sourcing, a Google search (string: "yoshio daggett") shows no in-depth, non-routine, independent sources written by identifiable authors and published in outlets with editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, retracts, and corrects, so any discussion of an article about you is grossly premature - there's literally nothing for us to work with on the sourcing front, which means our notability and biographical policies are impossible to satisfy at this stage. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. As all the article contained was my age (Redacted), and list of published books, I thought it had be unbiased but, as you said, I must have been blatant. I apologize, as I am still trying to navigate my way through this new territory. Thank you, and have a wonderful day. Yoshio Daggett Official (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I very strongly urge you to also read WP:Guidance for younger editors. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yoshio Daggett Official: Wikipedia is not for merely documenting your career or existence. That's what social media is for, and you should use that to tell the world about yourself. I would suggest that you simply go on with your life and career and not worry about a Wikipedia article. There are good reasons to not want one. If you truly meet the notability criteria, an independent editor will take note of coverage of you and choose to write about you. Trying to force the issue as you are is rarely successful. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_April_10&oldid=1082935075"