As a source of general information, not just "Manifold Markets has a market with over 2000 traders [citation: link to manifold]".
Must be clearly accepted as a general Wikipedia policy or norm, not just one rogue editor adding one in and nobody caring enough to contest it.
There will be no AI clarifications added to this market's description.
1,000People are also trading
@Hakari For the same reason it lists things like election ratings? These elections haven't happened yet, and it could certainly wait until the election occurs and list which seats are far from close. But in fact they deem that some seats being competitive and some safe, by widely accepted criteria, is noteworthy. Similarly, they might plausibly decide that which seats trade near 50% and which closer to 99% is also noteworthy.
@EvanDaniel I see, thanks. I suppose the difference is prediction markets can be manipulated by a sufficiently bored whale unlike ratings after publication.
I'm just going to cut my losses and sell out. Extremely disappointed that I found a market from a creator whose profile description says that their market title+descriptions outweigh their contradictory intentions, researched the facts of the matter to find novel, non-trivial content triggering resolution, traded based on this and documented it, only to have the market creator say well that's not what I was actually interested in and add a new description disqualifying my find.
I put 1/4 of my total mana at the time into this market where I did the original research on recent events which, by the simple letter of the market, triggered resolution. Isaac's profile description exists exactly to assure us of what will happen in this situation. It was violated. I traded on a market which has simply been edited into a different market. You could have resolved this correctly and then created a new market to capture what you are really interested in. That is what everyone should do, and it is especially what you should do if you wrote an entire profile description saying that that's what you'll do.
I am happy to defer resolution of this market to the @mods. They're free to resolve it to N/A, or YES, or leave it open, whatever they feel is most appropriate.
@IsaacKing I don't see any issues with how you're running this. I'm happy to take it over if you'd like, or support in other ways. My personal preference would be to avoid N/A.
My current read is that the intent was that market prices would be cited as forecasts, not simply for the role in some other story. If, for example, market prices were listed in the table alongside election competitiveness ratings, that would count as citing markets as a source (assuming some caveats about them staying put and not being reverted and so on).
I think the biggest complexity is that Wikipedia doesn't have clear indications either direction here, and this is likely going to end up resolved on the basis of specific examples or lack thereof, rather than a formal policy.
@IsaacKing The mods aren't swayed by your profile description. It's fine for them for you to change a market to match your intent. You aren't breaking manifold's system, you're breaking your own document.
As time passes the problem of this market will just grow. The fact is that the market description was very consequentially changed, meaning there are groups of holders who traded based on different market descriptions.
Eleven months ago I advocated for this to resolve YES, but since there are now many people who traded on a completely different market description, the least harmful resolution is N/A, as quickly as possible.
There is no resolution that will not be unfair to one of those groups. This situation appears to me wholly contrary to your profile description.
@marvingardens I haven't edited the description since February, and I think it was all in response to questions in the comments, not trading behavior. What is the particular concern?
@marvingardens Didn't I already address that? Citing Polymarket on its own platform metrics is clearly not accepting prediction markets as a source in the same sense as news websites are accepted as a source.
@IsaacKing Regardless of "same sense", I traded based on the market title and description (not to mention your profile description!) at the time. I found an instance which matched the title and description, had been edited in after market creation, and had been passively accepted (i.e. edited around) by many editors in good standing for a significant period of time.
I don't feel you addressed it (in fact this "same sense as news websites" is a novel construction here) beyond simply changing the market description to specifically exclude it.
@marvingardens By your logic, can you provide an example of a website that would not be accepted as a source by Wikipedia?
@IsaacKing The two categories that come to mind would be (1) sites which are simply never cited and thus cannot be said to be accepted as a source in any meaningful way and (2) sites which have been discussed and classed as totally unreliable at e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard .
The former is more likely since, as discussed previously, most sites can be seen as reliable in some domain and unreliable in some other. But, discussion in the latter can so restrict the reliable domain that the site still ends up in category 1.
A site could be cited in a single place or a small number of places and then have those citations removed as part of a local talk page discussion on reliability, without escalating to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard; that would also effectively be category 1.
Specific examples:
- They appear in the linked noticeboard to be reaching consensus on considering "behindthename.com" to be an explicitly unreliable source.
- The Daily Mail has famously been deemed an unreliable source by Wikipedia, so much so that it's in the lede of the Daily Mail's Wikipedia page.
- Spam sites are explicitly blacklisted
- While manifold, the website, is cited as a source for e.g. how Sweepcash worked, no manifold MARKET was ever cited that I could find, meaning that it failed your question by sheer absence.
- the website "draftmancer.com" has never been cited by wikipedia as a source, and so cannot be said to be an accepted source.
@marvingardens BehindTheName would presumably still be accepted as a source for a claim about itself.
@IsaacKing Possibly, although you can see with the example of the Daily Mail that it is literally not cited. I wouldn't think that an identified unreliable source would be for some reason seen as reliable in making claims about itself.
In any case, this is the boundary on which we can say wikipedia accepts or doesn't accept sources. There is no other "doesn't accept" case outside of either (1) a total lack of citations or (2) a consensus decision at a location like the noticeboard.
If you want to say that the noticeboard consensus somehow doesn't count because editors may arrive at reasoned exceptions to site-specific unreliability, then what on earth could the "not accept" case be, at all? Just the hard blacklist? Fine. Then this market resolves YES even more obviously.