Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bitcoin/1

src: media.wired.com

Bitcoin

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch o Watch article reassessment page o Most recent review

Result: Consensus for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I was editing this article today and noticed very massive POV source distortion in the lede[1], the sort of which should have been caught in the Good Article review. The lede implied that retail transactions had become a significant use of Bitcoin, and used one sentence from a source that was mostly critical of the use of bitcoin to imply it was popular amongst retailers. The previous GAR was very brief and lacked in thoroughness. An editor other than the reviewer also raised concerns about the article.

I'm asking for a community review, because I am not well versed enough in the relevant literature to analyze what parts of the article are neutral. However the extremely poor use of the sources in the lede, make me suspect that the article may have other serious issues.Bosstopher (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: Thanks for bringing this to GAR--I've been planning on doing so. I initially voiced concern at the GA review where it passed, but my comments weren't really taken into account in my opinion. I love Bitcoin and I'd love for this to be a GA, but right now it shouldn't be. I needs a lot more work.-Newyorkadam (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Newyorkadam is incorrect, as his suggestions were all being followed, as far as they were constructive, ie specific enough to be actionable. He made a number of points that were notes to himself (I cant believe..., I wish..., I´d like to ..., etc). In all fairness, I d appreciate if he contributed to the article or weighed in when editing gets difficult. I´´ve seen him turn up for GA reviews only. (Correct me if i am wrong.)--Wuerzele (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: I haven't been very active recently, and the reason I've mainly worked on GA reviews is because I nominated those a few months ago and they are being reviewed now. Me not editing Bitcoin actively does not mean that I don't have the ability to point out issues in the article. I do plan on working on it this summer, however. -Newyorkadam (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Comment: The above rationale for community reassessment is spurious. It is unclear

• which sources in the lede supposedly are "extremely poorly used"
• which single sentence has "very massive POV source distortion" and
• how the requester arrived at the general conclusion of "extremely poor use" of sources in all of the lede

As verbose and emotional those accusations appear, so do they lack in substance. I suggest to confine discussion of a single issue to the talk page. This is what appears to be happening, as within 5 days only the editor that Bosstopher mentioned in his post responded. I consider reassessment of a long and complicated article based on a single sentence and spurious rationale inappropriate.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Newyorkadam for letting me know. I was the one who nominated this article. Can you show me or tell me where thr massive POV is? Sorry if there is any incorrectly spelled words as I am typing this on my Wii U. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 22:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: I heavily dispute the idea that this is a spurious nomination. The article passed GAN with a review that is shorter than some DYK reviews. While I've only noticed problems in one section of the lede, the problems are so huge that it makes me skeptical of the idea that the rest of the article was properly scrutinised. Also note how Newyorkadam claims his concerns have not all been properly adressed, and the large number of concerns that were raised during the original GAN which were not commented on in the second GAN. As for the POV issues let me go through the paragraph in question (as it appeared before i nominated the article)[2] clause by clause to show why I take such serious issue with it:

1. "Bitcoin as a form of payment for products and services has grown"

   The source used[3] never explicitly states this only noting that use of BitPay by merchants has grown. Overall retail use of bitcoin is not addressed in the source. The idea that retail use of bitcoin is growing is also disputed by this MIT technology review source[4] (used later in the paragraph) claiming that there was no growth in 2014. It's also the case that noting retail use "has grown" is very vague and vacuous. Was it a small growth? A big growth? Did it grow as a proportion of bitcoin usage? Did it grow in scale with other uses of bitcoin? Was its growth less than the growth of bitcoin hoarding? "Has grown" could have any of these meanings.

2. "and merchants have an incentive to accept it because fees are lower than the 2-3% typically imposed by credit card processors"

   The article this is sourced from for the most part focuses bitcoin's lack of success in the retail sector. It notes that interest in bitcoin is mostly due to "its popularity in the black market, and for its wildly gyrating valuation." While it notes entrepreneurs who are trying to popularise retail use of bitcoin, it also details obstacles that are in their paths (legal status of the currency, massive fluctuations in value). It is selective usage of a source, to only use the positive things the source says about bitcoin (low transfer fee incentive) and ignore all the things it notes as obstacles in the path of its retail usage.

3. "Unlike credit cards, any fees are paid by the purchaser, not the vendor."

   Slightly misleading. As noted later in the article transaction fees for the purchaser are optional. While this is not contradicted here, due to the usage of the phrase "any fees," the vagueness could be read to imply that all transactions require transfer fees from the purchaser.

4. "The European Banking Authority[29] and other sources[13]:11 have warned that bitcoin users are not protected by refund rights or chargebacks."

   Seems ok.

5. "Despite a big increase in the number of merchants accepting bitcoin, the cryptocurrency doesn't have much momentum in retail transactions"

   Sentence pushes a POV. The mention of the big increase in merchants, downplays bitcoins lack of success in the retail sector that the source used notes.[5] The source details how a very small proportion of bitcoin is used in legitimate retail transactions, and none of the other sources used in the paragraph argue anything to the contrary. However if someone were to read the lede they would come under the impression that legal retail use of bitcoin is a booming and successful sector. The lede doesn't even mention the hoarding of bitcoin and its use in speculation, which is mentioned as prominent use in a lot of sources.

This is a bad, bad paragraph. Bad is the opposite of good. This is supposed to be a good article. For this reason when I noticed how poor this paragraph was it raised alarm bells. I read the GA Review that passed the article, and noticed it was incredibly brief, and left concerns unaddressed. I then looked at the first (failed) GA Review and noticed it was much longer and showed that others had a lot of concerns with the article in question. I am no bitcoin or tech expert, so I am not well equipped to examine every nook and cranny of the article in detail. This is why I nominated the article for community review instead of reviewing it myself. After looking through what I did, I felt it perfectly reasonable and not spurious in the slightest, to ensure that this is article was reassessed. Bosstopher (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

In making the 5 points above Bosstopher does not show that there is "massive POV source distortion", but "slightly misleading", critisizing that growth isnt further qualified (minor at best that could be tweaked) and "seems ok", yet continues with emotional broad range criticism. the continued lack of engagement on this page does not look convincing, that he is justified --Wuerzele (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the overriding issue (I apologise if this is due to my lack of clarity), which is that the lede heavily overplays bitcoins retail usage. The fact that one sentence in the paragraph is not incredibly misleading, like most of the other sentences does not mean there is no issue. Also there are currently 440 articles nominated for GA status which havent been reviewed, and articles which have been up for community reassesment much longer than bitcoin with even less engagement. Bosstopher (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I do think we're reaching some common ground here. Whether the lede is simply "slightly misleading" or "massively distorted," it's good to hear that the participants of this discussion agree some change is needed. Fleetham (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the state of referencing and coverage, but the prose is choppy, jumbled, full of footnotes and hard to understand, with lots of technical jargon, making this article's writing C-class at best. I'll have a go at copyediting, but getting the prose to GA or even B-class quality is a long shot. Esquivalience ^t 04:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Voting

Current Votes: 1/3/0 Last updated by Wugapodes at 19:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Should the article lose its GA status?

Support demotion. Fleetham (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Weak keep Demote as below ?? (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't close yet User: Esquivalience said he wants to have a go at improving the article's prose. I'd prefer to wait and see what they can pull off before closing this. Brustopher (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to start copyediting right now, but it's a long shot to bring it up to GA-class quickly. The passed review was literally just:

Demote for now and assess as C-class. If this is renominated again, it should be reviewed by an experienced reviewer. Not trying to disparage anyone, but the reviewer who did the review only had ~2,400 edits at the time. Esquivalience ^t 00:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Demote per Esquivalience. Brustopher (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia