Talk:William Entriken

Citation Style and Multiplicity of Sources

Context and Rationale for Citation Approach: The subject matter of William Entriken's Wikipedia article, primarily revolving around blockchain, cryptocurrency, and NFTs, is inherently contentious. Recognizing this, I have made efforts to ensure that claims or statements are substantiated by multiple verifiable sources. To avoid cluttering the text with excessive individual citations (which can impede readability), I have employed a grouped citation method, specifically the bulleted list for a clean organized look, presenting multiple sources within a single footnote.

Precedent for Group Citation Style:

• Grouped Citations: The article uses bulleted lists within footnotes to separate sources, enhancing readability. While other non-bulleted group citation methods may be acceptable, bullets are preferred for clarity.
• Editing Consideration: This style necessitates using the source editor, as the visual editor may not support this format. If you're unfamiliar with group citations in the source editor, please suggest edits on the talk page for assistance.
• Maintaining Precedent: Please avoid disrupting this style by adding multiple consecutive footnotes. This practice is intentionally avoided to maintain a clean and reader-friendly format.

Redundancy and Reusability of Sources:

• Limitation in Source Reusability: Given the current Wikipedia editing system's limitations, each source in a bulleted inline citation is treated as a new citation, even if an individual source appears elsewhere in the article. This is due to the inability to create or use individual 'ref name' tags for a source within these grouped citations (at least to my current knowledge).

Multiplicity of Sources for Single Statements:

In this article, you may notice that certain bulleted citations include numerous sources, typically reputable secondary sources and occasionally primary ones. These sources may either redundantly reinforce the same information or provide subtle nuances to certain details. This method surpasses the standard requirements of Wikipedia and is a conscious decision aimed at enhancing the veracity of statements or claims through a consensus from various viewpoints of credible sources.

It's crucial to recognize that, although Wikipedia may regard different sources as equally credible in terms of editorial standards and reliability, they are not necessarily perceived as equal by all readers. This approach is tailored to accommodate diverse reader preferences regarding verifiable sources that they may trust more. Technically, if all sources are high-quality and reputable, the choice of which one to include for verifying a statement in a typical Wikipedia article could be arbitrary, as they could each be used interchangeably. In this article, however, we have established a precedent for including any or all relevant sources in a readable format by utilizing the group citation method detailed earlier.

NOTE: This is not an invitation or justification to stuff group citations with low-quality sources in an effort to artificially enhance a statement’s credibility. The focus is on maintaining high standards of source quality while providing a comprehensive view of the subject matter through diverse, reliable perspectives.

• Emphasis on Veracity: When a statement is supported by numerous credible sources, I have grouped these sources to underscore the claim's robustness. This practice is beyond Wikipedia's standard requirements but is adopted here to enhance the article's credibility and neutrality.
• Diverse Perspectives: Including multiple reputable sources like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Fox News in a single footnote offers a range of perspectives, catering to diverse reader preferences and mitigating perceived media biases.

Invitation for Contributions:

• Adding Multiple Quality Sources: While not mandatory, contributors are encouraged to add multiple reputable sources affirming a statement and enhancing its veracity, using the established grouped citation method via bulleted listing.
• Verifiability and Broad Acceptance: The aim is to extend verifiability beyond basic requirements, ensuring that claims are supported by a variety of reputable sources, thus fostering broad acceptance regardless of individual media biases.

Conclusion: This overall approach, while unconventional and perhaps viewed by some as excessive, is a deliberate choice to enrich the article’s veracity and readibility in an era where information is scrutinized from various perspectives. Please make an effort to maintain the precedent in this article here, and consider applying it to future articles you create elsewhere! Codeconjurer777 (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It comes across as promotional spam, and I'm editing it into a less billboard-like form. Also, duplicating the equally spammy stuff in ERC-721 likely isn't useful here - David Gerard (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Abridged Response on Whether Bundle Citations are "Spam":

As detailed in the consensus-based content guideline, bullet list footnotes, alongside other bundle citations, are a valid tool in Wikipedia’s editing system when sources / citations are included for the purpose of verifying information in the text it is attached to. Simply “using it” is not promotional in nature.

Each one of my citations within those bullet lists is intended to serve to verify information in the text it is attached to and is not merely tangential to a particular statement it is applied to. While it's possible there may be occasional instances of a source not fitting appropriately, generally speaking, that should not be the case. I've made a good faith effort to be careful and thoughtful and where I applied sources within the bullet list footnotes for the purposes of verifying information.

If you are going to call use of it "spam" or promotional, then you need to point out specific instances where a source is used without a valid purpose for verifying something and is otherwise solely promotional. Or otherwise indication that a particular source has been prioritized at the exclusion of others that might have comparable weight for consideration in being included.

If you are not able to do that then I don’t believe you haven't demonstrated clear evidence of spam or misuse of the feature and it should not be characterized as spam, promotional, or an advertisement as you have done.

I don't believe this tool should be exploited to allow spam through leveraging the burden of editors looking through each and every source as a way to obfuscate verifying the validity of its application. I would say a good rule of thumb is, if two sources within a bundle citation like bulleted list citation don't correspond to verifying anything, then the entire footnote should be flagged. Looking at one or two within the bullet list footnote is equivalent to looking at two regular footnotes directly next to each other, which is pretty standard in Wikipedia articles.

Just because it is a minority of users like myself using the tool, and not something you might personally use, does not mean that it is invalid or de facto “spam”. Thus my use of it should not be contested and removed for trivial preference of  “standard practice” when it otherwise serves a valid purpose to the spirit of Wikipedia's policies (specifically, verification, as is the purpose of a citation), and is not in violation of policies or consensus-based content guidelines.

Please see an extended discussion in the following reply to clarify the nuance of my perspective around what is considered "spam" and appropriate use of bundling citations it in relation to the content guidelines and policies. Otherwise we may bicker of what qualifies as spam without understanding what definitions and frames of reference we are using to discuss it here. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended Discussion on Whether Bundled Citations are Spam. Part 1

So regarding the bullet list citations as “spam”, I think it’s an interesting topic of discussion and one appropriate to have here in regards to improving this article. I have reviewed relevant policies and content guidelines and think a good place to start is with a working definition of spam to ground our discussions and ensure understandings can be held on mutual footings.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam

In reviewing the above Spam content guideline page (which is built based on consensus), it goes through a few different things on content, citations and external links. but the essential spirit in my own words seems to be, ‘something lacking informational value relevant and appropriate to the core purposes of Wikipedia.’ The content guidelines detail the “promotional” aspect of when something’s purpose doesn’t serve Wikipedia’s policies or spirit but rather has the purpose of promotion (contrary to Wikipedia’s values) and is thus considered spam.

Some examples it gives to illustrate the point about “spam” in promotional form

External Links:

It states: “Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam.” This demonstrates an instance of something adding no material value to Wikipedia’s core purposes, and serves only for promotion. This instance, though, addresses something outside the scope of bullet list citations and I don’t believe I provided any questionable instances of external links, and none were included in the body; the External Links section itself to me appears unremarkable. Nor did I include standalone “external links” inside any of the bullet list footnotes that were not a part of a reference being cited in relation to the text it was attached to.

Citation spamming:

This would be the most relevant to bullet list citations, and the content guidelines describe citation spamming as: “the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes, or references … is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content, but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation.” It further clarifies it “should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia.” It gives examples of abuse like academics adding their works as citations deliberating to promote themselves or someone replacing URLs to commercial links or blogs.

Ultimately citation spamming is characterized by including references and links without a legitimate purpose like verifying information (the essential purpose of a “citation”). When the purpose served for its inclusion is promotion rather than any good faith attempt at anything else serving Wikipedia’s purposes like verification, it is considered spam.

Do we have any issues, thoughts or clarifications on anything presented here so far? Codeconjurer777 (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended Discussion on Whether Bundled Citations are Spam. Part 2

As we can see in the Citing Sources article which is a consensus-based Wikipedia content guideline, the bulleted list footnote is a feature provided by the Wikipedia editing system, among other similar citation bundling mechanisms. It allows for multiple citations to appear under a single footnote organized with a bullet point for each. It’s designed to aid in the clear presentation of information and can be contrasted with having many footnotes appearing sequentially one after another which disrupts readability. Obviously, the very purpose of any citation is to be used to verify information, thus the nature of this type of footnote’s purpose and inclusion in Wikipedia is not promotional. Simply “using it” (and having multiple citations within a single footnote by the nature of how it works) should not be interpreted as a promotional action, or spam.

How I use it, as I have explained and I hope also demonstrated in my work, is fundamentally to verify information from statements made in the text.

Wikipedia:Citing sources - Wikipedia

There is some ambiguity and possible contradiction about use of “repeating sources” within the Citing Sources article. On the one hand, it notes a tool it provides to allow for the streamlining of repeating sources which would be the named reference code, and we should all be aware of the “Repeat” feature built into the visual editor citation tool. Repeating references is thus an ordinary aspect of Wikipedia citing practices.

In contrast, within that article in a section noted “Consecutive cites of the same source” it does say redundant use of a citation used repeatedly throughout an essay does not require the citation mentioned each time. However, the example it cites is multiple footnotes of the same source within the same sentence or same paragraph. It doesn’t really preclude using a citation multiple times throughout an article as appropriate, especially when new information is being applied from the source. It is seems to refer to common sense notions of when the point of a citation is being “beaten to death” and that it’s repeating serves no real value.

There’s absolutely instances in the “William Entriken” article of repeating sources. Some of the claims are contentious like regarding ERC-721 being considered “pioneering” or “foundational” to NFTs, I feel putting the citations “once” per sentence in an instance where a novel statement about it is made serves to connect the source with the specific statement. There’s just too much nuance at play throughout the article regarding which sources verify which information, having it present in one area but omitting it in several others may result in editors not being aware of the source in question in how it applies to certain information. This may particularly be the case with inexperienced editors or ones who are otherwise not-so-diligent in their efforts to verify sources or understand how certain sources verify certain information, and may take actions that disregard the connection because they were ignorant of it. They may for example remove a sentence because they didn’t see the source

I don’t think adding the same citation two times or more in the same sentence is appropriate (something I did not do), or adding it to consecutive sentences if it follows the same line of thought without introducing a new dimension or claim that itself requires a citation to support it. However, I do think it is important to add the repeating citation, including in a bundled list to each instance of a contentious claim that may be reasonably separated from other sentences that have nuanced distinctions in what they convey and need to be verified accordingly.

There is a relevant Wikipedia essay referenced in the “Citing Sources” about “citation overkill” (the essay of which is NOT a policy or consensus-based guideline and should not be viewed as authoritative; also note, at the time of this writing I have not contributed to that essay) and it details an interesting point about “citation clutter” where multiple footnotes directly next to each other affect readability.

The essay does note that “citation overkill” (again it is not an authoritative work or policy) also mentions instances where notability or a certain viewpoint is obfuscated with multiple sources in an attempt to make it seem more credible where it otherwise wouldn’t hold water. In response to this, I have created a separate thread regarding Entriken’s notability that lays out sources and justifications in a distilled and streamlined manner. I would also welcome others to point out instances of claims in the article that are not credible and are being obfuscated with an overkill of citations being applied in a misleading way or where another viewpoint would hold greater weight that isn’t currently being represented adequately via a viable citation referencing it.

I did use some “Crypto sources” like Coindesk, Coingecko and Decrypt, and whether or not people agree on its use as appropriate given their general lack of status as Reliable Sources, they had legitimate intended purpose in verifying information in the text they were attached to. If believed otherwise, please look through my prior article version (before it was substantially edited by an admin) and provide examples of instances where citations containing those sources were used without any legitimate purpose of verifying information and thus existed as promotional spam. Whether it is acceptable to use these “Crypto sources”, which are generally not considered to be Reliable Sources, especially in a Biography of Living Persons, is a discussion to have in another thread.

Thus in conclusion, based on my understanding of Wikipedia’s consensus-based guidelines on spam and use of bundling citations such as the bullet list footnote, my use of the footnotes in this article is appropriate and not considered "spam" or "promotional". I welcome finding any specific instances of citations demonstrated to not have a valid purpose in verifying information it is connected to in the body and we can take appropriate measures to correct it. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Much of it is about ERC-721 and not about Etriken at all - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be zero coverage of Entriken outside crypto blogs - which means this is unlikely to be usable in Wikipedia. What are the three best sources for Entriken in actually mainstream press? - David Gerard (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Please see the topic created under "Establishing Subject's Notability" for a clear breakdown.

Also, I must admit, I find it "baffling" that you apparently looked through enough sources in the "influence of work" section to conclude that the subject was not explicitly mentioned in there (but rather the topic of his work ERC 721 was, though he was also was in fact cited by name in scholarly sources referencing the ERC-721 paper), however, you were not able to apparently find ANY of the mainstream articles mentioning William Entriken. Bundled citations aside (which might be more effortful to look through), there is an entire subsection "Cybersecurity" citing Inc Magazine (a known mainstream source) where it is literally the only source and single citation for that subsection and then assert there is "zero coverage" of him.Codeconjurer777 (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Statement of Non-COI

I am addressing a request for a statement of disclosure concerning my whether potential status is as a paid editor. This request arises from an observation by an admin who suggested that the nature of my edits may give the “impression [I] have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic” which I understand to be a very serious violation of Wikipedia’s policies not to be taken lightly.

I wish to clarify unequivocally and unambiguously: I am not a paid editor. I do not receive any form of compensation for my edits on Wikipedia. My involvement on this platform is entirely independent; I am not associated with any organization engaged in promotional activities, direct editing, or article creation on Wikipedia. My editing efforts are personal and self-guided, without external influence or oversight. Furthermore, I am not editing on behalf of anyone, nor do I consult with external parties regarding my Wikipedia contributions. The subjects of my edits, including in citations and external links, are unaware of my activities on this platform, and I have no obligations to them concerning my actions or statements here.

The guidelines on Conflict of Interest in Wikipedia necessitate disclosure only when there is a relevant conflict to report. In this context, my statement here is not a disclosure per se, as I maintain that there is no conflict to disclose. Nonetheless, in the spirit of transparency and collaboration, I have chosen to present this clarification. I wish to emphasize my right to anonymity as per Wikipedia’s guidelines, and I understand that the essence of these rules is to ensure the integrity and quality of editing, as COI’s may lead to disruptive editing practices in violation of Wikipedia’s policies. Whether or not my statement here convinces administrators and editors is secondary to the fact that my edits are independent and free from external influences; if given unlimited resources to investigate the matter, this truth would still hold.

I am committed to contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia. While I acknowledge that my contributions may not be flawless, I believe they demonstrate competence and significantly enhance the understanding of the topics I address. With this commitment to quality and collaborative spirit, coupled with my deference to some level of administrative guidance, I assert that my editorial choices require no justification beyond their contribution to the knowledge and information available on Wikipedia. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to address a point of potential confusion regarding the creation of the “ERC-721” article on Wikipedia.

It is important to note that I was not the creator of this article. Although its creation coincided closely in time with my creation of the “William Entriken” article, these events were independent of each other. This clarification is necessary to ensure attribution of the very lacking editorial process in the creation of the ERC-721 article is NOT attributed to me, and to also affirm that we are also NOT the same editor under multiple accounts.

To provide further context, the “ERC-721” article was developed by an editor who, based on available information, appears to be participating in the Wikiacademy program. In contrast to the approach I employed in the “William Entriken” article, where I meticulously utilized Reliable Sources to establish notability and contentious claims, the initial version of the “ERC-721” article lacked this rigor. It had NO reliable sources whatsoever to my knowledge. Notably, many of the Reliable Sources used in the “William Entriken” article I created before it could have been EASILY and effectively applied to the “ERC-721” article to firmly establish its notability. This distinction is crucial to understand: our editorial approaches and the quality of content in these articles were markedly different. Therefore, it should be evident that the two articles were authored by different editors with distinct editorial styles and standards.

Moreover, I urge not to use the “ERC-721” article as a reflection of my content quality. In my assessment, the article was not in a suitable state for promotion to Wikipedia’s mainspace when it was initially created. However, in recognizing its overlap with the subject of William Entriken, and in an effort to enhance its quality, I did contribute edits to the “ERC-721” article after it was moved to the mainspace though a more thorough treatment at the time of this writing is founded.

I only mention this here as it relates to my competence as an editor and to avoid confusion. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Establishing Subject's Notability

Generally speaking Entriken’s notability comes from the sphere software development. He is most well-known in the blockchain space for lead authoring ERC-721, but he is also recognized as a civic hacker in Philadelphia from several different initiatives covered in reliable sources as well as in Cybersecurity, as covered in INC Magazine.

Also of note, the following titles are mentioned explicitly in secondary sources listed below : solutions architect, cybersecurity specialist, financial analyst, general manager, and civic hacker. “Civic hacker” is a significant aspect of his notability related to his open source contributions across domains and while that overlaps with his work in blockchain that he is recognized for, ERC-721 may not be characterized as “software” per se and he has been cited for giving commentary around technology independent of actually creating it.

Reliable sources regarding Entriken:

The New Scientist (twice)

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2272687-nft-developers-say-cryptocurrencies-must-tackle-their-carbon-emissions/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2314737-why-is-the-uk-government-getting-into-nfts-and-is-it-a-good-idea/

Inc Magazine

https://www.inc.com/sonya-mann/cybersecurity-zecco-scandal.html

NBC news (Philadelphia)

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/frustrated-over-late-septa-trains-software-developer-creates-app-to-recommend-schedule-changes/2113743/

PhillyVoice

https://www.phillyvoice.com/ezpass-pennsylvania-turnpike-code-fines-appeals-foia-hacker/

Drexel Magazine (regarding 40 under 40)

https://drexelmagazine.org/2022/william-entriken/

https://www.lebow.drexel.edu/news/six-lebow-alumni-named-drexel-magazine-s-2022-40-under-40

Fortune Magazine

https://fortune.com/2022/04/25/how-a-new-generation-of-nfts-plans-to-cut-its-carbon-footprint/

Technical.ly (multiple times) (this is NOT a crypto source / blog, they appear to have a sound editorial policy, please see: https://technical.ly/ethics/)

https://technical.ly/civic-news/traffic-court-data-expensive-william-entriken/

https://technical.ly/software-development/nft-william-entriken-standard/

https://technical.ly/civic-news/septa-regional-rail-late-app/

Additionally, as the lead author of ERC-721, William Entriken has received direct credit in numerous citations pertaining to the ERC-721: NFT Standard publication. As an authoritative work in the domain of NFTs, his work is extensively cited across a wide array of peer-reviewed academic journals and other scholarly literature. Consequently, when scholarly sources discuss ERC-721, they frequently cite Entriken's work with his name prominently included in the reference listed for the publication. This extensive citation in academic literature not only underscores the significance of ERC-721 but also highlights Entriken's pivotal role in its development and recognition in the scholarly community.

Scholarly sources include:

Journal of Business Venturing Insights

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235267342200021X

Procedia Computer Science

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050922019640

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162522007697

Scientific Reports:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8828876/

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM):

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9864250

There are many more out there that a simple Google Scholar search would yield, but those are examples of reputable ones.

Given the Reliable Source both in the mainstream and scholarly spaces, his notability seems to be firmly established. Furthermore, Reliable Sources cite him for things in a broad array of topics including outside the scope of ERC-721, thus a full merge with the article for ERC-721 is also not warranted. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)