Related markets for a wikipedia page this year:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.00196.pdf

This academic paper mentions Manifold. Worth a mention in a future article, but not enough to prove notability.

@Gabrielle yeah, it is not peer-reviewed, maybe after it gets published

Not even a draft yet, very unlikely that there will be one by March 27 as it takes a long time for them to revise the draft, and I haven't heard of any further articles that could be used to justify the page

@egroj If there were sufficient sources, I could make in a couple hours - there’s no actual requirement for putting an article into wikispace - but like you said there are not enough sources for it right now, and I’m doubtful that will change in the next month.

@Gabrielle yes, I agree. I meant very unlikely that there will be a page, not a draft. Additionally, it takes time from the draft to the publishing

@egroj What I was saying is that there’s not necessarily any time from a draft to a published article. There are recommended systems for taking a draft to a published article, and those take time for other users to review, but if someone knows what they’re doing then they can bypass those.

In other words, if the NYT published an article on Manifold today, I could have a sufficiently good published article on Wikipedia tonight.

I’m still betting NO, but that’s because I doubt that the NYT will publish anything.

@egroj I'd suggest updating the resolution criteria to have the page still exist and not be going through the "articles for deletion" process. Nothing stops someone from creating the page in article space with no content, but it would be shortly deleted.

@Gabrielle thanks! I updated the description to include a waiting period for resolution

It seems way to optimistic to have multiple "reliable" (for Wikipedia) sources by March, so I created another market for this year:

Before anyone does, they should make sure to read through Wikipedia's meta article about notability for companies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)

The basic summary (remember to read the whole thing) is that a topic is "notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Blog posts ("self-published sources") are generally not considered to be reliable.

One of the potential sources, a list of FTX investments from the Financial Times, would not help for providing significant coverage because of this note: trivial cover includes "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists".

Potential sources:

• https://www.jutarnji.hr/vijesti/svijet/sanse-za-nuklearni-rat-u-2023-drasticno-su-porasle-ovakvo-sto-nije-videno-od-kubanske-krize-15254863

• https://www.ft.com/content/9a3b4b78-b18b-4d1f-b28b-05a73525aa61

@Gabrielle +https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/12/journalists-wake-up-to-the-power-of-prediction-markets/ pros: academic source, cons: essay, only a passing mention

It’s still pretty thin on sources, but there’s a real chance more will come

The page on prediction markets mentions Manifold Markets but there is no link to a page. A lot of other prediction markets platforms have wikipedia pages.|

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market

I'm betting NO to incentivize someone making a page.