Resolves YES if Manifold Markets has a Wikipedia page before the end of the year.
EDIT: To be more specific these are the criteria that I will use (thanks to @XComhghall for suggestions):
Draft, articles for deletion and redirects do not count as a 'Wikipedia page' in this market.
If the article goes through the guided draft and review process, and it gets approved, I will resolve the market YES if the page is still there after a week (has to be approved before January 1st).
If the article goes through the guided draft and review process, it gets approved before January 1st, but someone flags it for deletion within a week of it getting approved, I will wait until the Wikipedia admins decide to delete (resolving NO) or accept the article (YES), independently of how much time it takes for the admins to arrive at a conclusion.
If someone makes a non-draft page, then I would only resolve YES, after someone else (I can do it if you notify me that the page is up) nominates the article for deletion, and the Wikipedia admins accept the page BEFORE January 1st.
EDIT: there's currently a draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Manifold_(prediction_market)
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ3,369 | |
| 2 | Ṁ3,196 | |
| 3 | Ṁ2,597 | |
| 4 | Ṁ1,884 | |
| 5 | Ṁ1,380 |
People are also trading
154 million in revenue and all the behind-the-scenes pages are something out of 1998 :(
ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Helper_script
Manifold has passed the bar for notability. It's been referenced by both media and scholarly research https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2023&q=%22manifold+markets%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
I think the numerous bloomberg references are also a substantial change since the draftify. I think if we bring in someone more neutral to all of this they could probably help decide.
@qrdlkaggle It's a little bit more complicated than that—for there to be an article, Manifold needs to pass the the notability requirement (either the general one or the specific one for companies). Most of the google scholar and bloomberg sources seem to just have passing references to Manifold, not the significant coverage that Wikipedia notability needs.
The usual method to get a neutral editor to look at the draft is submitting it to Articles for Creation, which an editor did a week or two ago. The editors who looked at it declined it (archived discussion here).
There's some confusion in the AfC discussion over sources. Maybe a source assesment table would be a good place to start? I'll create one on the talk page if I have the time sometime this week, or anyone else who would like to can!
Update: After the editor CreatorNotConsumer's submission of the article was declined at AfC (see further discussion here at the AfC help desk), they removed the AfC submission/declined templates and moved the article to mainspace at 4:32 UTC today. About an hour and a half later, editor KingSupernova reverted the move to mainspace, saying,
The previous consensus was to leave this page as a draft for the time being, and I'm not aware of anything changing since then.
KingSupernova (who reverted the move to mainspace and is identifiable as a bettor in this market) left the following message on the draft's talk page about two hours ago.
@adk it was mentioned on Manifold:live that there's apparently a rumour that I was the Manifold user who asked KingSupernova to nominate the article for deletion with a flimsy reason (or at least: that's what it sounds like the rumour must be about, given the above comment).
Consider the rumour denied! Not that I can prove anything, of course.
(Edit: Confirmed! Isaac, who is KingSupernova confirms below that it wasn't me.)
Such manipulation is terrible idea, and I had considered writing a comment here warning people not to try to mess with Wikipedians, they will respond with extreme prejudice to real or perceived attempts to manipulate what is on Wikipedia.
@chrisjbillington Thanks. If everyone who's accused comes out with a denial except the person who actually did it, then that sort of defeats the purpose of not naming them in the first place.
@IsaacKing Ah, you are apparently KingSupernova! Are you saying that you don't want to confirm it wasn't me, because then by process of elimination people could figure out who it was?
...could you maybe confirm it wasn't me but pre-commit to limiting to some small number of denials?
(obviously my denial by itself isn't meaningful to anyone who doesn't trust me anyway)
Are you saying that you don't want to confirm it wasn't me, because then by process of elimination people could figure out who it was?
No, I'm saying exactly what I said; that if ten people are accused and nine of them say "it wasn't me" and the tenth says "I decline to answer", everyone will have a good idea of who did it. So if you think that anonymity is appropriate here, then your behavior is going against that.
Of course the same principles apply to me being the one to make the statements rather than the people in question.
.could you maybe confirm it wasn't me but pre-commit to limiting to some small number of denials?
I don't see any particular reason to use such a policy, and I see several reasons not to. The list of suspects is not very long.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/gFMH3Cqw4XxwL69iy/eight-short-studies-on-excuses
@IsaacKing I wasn't endorsing anything in particular about valuing anonymity with that comment, I just wanted to say it wasn't me so that anyone who trusts me anyway would know. And I guess trust is transitive enough that this might be believed more generally (the sorts of people who trust me around here tend to be pretty trustworthy people, I think).
@TheBayesian Think it was just selling out without sufficiently considering slippage, or without caring.
@TheBayesian eh, bots gonna bot, it's just trading against you for some reason, doubt it's more sophisticated that that. Also, looks like @ben is liquidating a few other positions, so whatever they're doing, it's probably not based on there being any news for this market.
@BenjaminIkuta It seems to just be that the sources are mostly just mentioning Manifold in passing and/or affiiated with Manifold. There's some discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#21:51,_27_November_2023_review_of_submission_by_CreatorNotConsumer
placed a 300 M limit order on NO at 75%, if anyone is interested
