Suitable for use in a Wikipedia citation. (Tertiary source also acceptable.)
Original research or a post / market on Manifold is not going to work. A blog post also won't unless it's on an unusually reputable / popular blog.
Web site popularity stats are probably primary sources. A secondary source should compile and summarize those.
This will be based on my judgment, but if you get it into Wikipedia and it sticks that's definitely adequate.
1,000People are also trading
For context, I assume the NYT Manifest article was the first source? And that this Bloomberg mention doesn't suffice?
A possible source for a narrower, attributed description: Dylan Matthews, Vox, May 25, 2024:
People bet on sports. Why not on anything else?
In a comparison of participation in prediction markets, he writes “I’ve been surprised at the vibrancy of Manifold” and discusses its social engagement. This is commentary about the platform, rather than a reference to one market.
A more explicit popularity description appears in Michael Taylor’s San Antonio Express-News column of January 16, 2024, calling it “The latest craze from a subset of Silicon Valley”:
Caveat: Taylor includes his own Manifold referral link and discloses earning mana from signups, so I’d prefer Vox for independence. Neither establishes measured audience size or universal popularity, and I haven’t edited Wikipedia.
Everyone is forgetting that Manifold was cited in this extremely prestigious source:
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/lk-99-room-temperature-superconductor