Talk:Evolution (marketplace)/Archive 1

Up/down
While it would be useful to change Wikipedia pages whenever there's news about a site going up, going down, potential scams, etc. it's not encyclopedic -- at least not for Wikipedia. We don't cover anything that hasn't been covered already by reliable sources. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Is it not best that wikipedia have the most up to date information? A lot of sources on wikipedia come from online articles, is the new source reliable? It would not be factual to say it is online? Maybe "Current status" should be removed all together? MarkehMe (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's can seem counter-intuitive, but it's not. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia waits for things to be covered in reliable secondary sources before including them. (WP:NOTNEWS and WP:V are the most relevant policies, I think). However, I think Krebs is a perfectly reliable source to cite for such a thing (and certainly the Guardian is). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, thanks for helping. If anymore reliable sources of information come up I'll add them in. MarkehMe (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Some additional sources
I don't have time right now, but will work these in later if nobody else does:
 * News.com.au
 * Ars Technica
 * Computer World
 * Sydney Morning Herald

&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

the phrase "exit scam"
As far as I can tell, calling something like this an "exit scam" is a new thing. The earliest mention I can find of the phrase is in this Vice article from last month, but there it refers to individual vendors cutting and running in a similar fashion.

So, if someone were to expand this,
 * 1) Is Vice RS?
 * 2) Would bringing it up as the origin of the phrase be OR?

Then again, maybe a better secondary will fill in the gaps soon. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 06:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good point. It would be OR to say they coined it -- we would need a secondary source (to Vice's primary source) crediting them as doing so. I don't think it's necessary to get into the origin of the term in this article, though. As long as we're defining what it is, that it's used in the Guardian story makes me think it's ok to include? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks more like everyone's using it after the whistleblower use the phrase. And I don't think Vice coined the phrase, though it is still the first secondary source I could find mentioning it. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 15:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Talks
I was wondering if this site is still open? What is possible on here?? Who monitors it?? 174.251.160.59 (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

.Onion url
The site URL ( k5zq47j6wd3wdvjq.onion ) triggers a blacklist warning. Is there a way to get this added on the article (e.g. the silkroad article has the onion url) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.139.156.248 (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Onion URLs are tricky things to include and the way we typically handle them is to exclude them except where reliable sources support a particular address. It's pretty rare that happens. I think it's good general practice to omit them altogether, though. Not because they lead to inappropriate/illegal content necessarily but because they're subject to manipulation without legal or even procedural remedy. There are no sanctioned registrars, for example. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: After some edit warring over the URL, removed it, which I agree with. As I've said to multiple people now, Deepdotweb is really stretching the definition of reliable source, and especially if there's strong consensus that it's wrong, we should just remove it. Except for, say, Silk Road, there just aren't reliable sources for the URLs and no authority to verify ownership as with the rest of the web. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 23:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I think we should get the url back there as soon as possible. Because otherwise this leaves a door open for phishing attacks. Maybe there should be a note next to it (ie [unconfirmed]). Eventually the other guy's intention by making these malicious edits wasn't even a phishing-attack but having the URL removed from here. Also don't get yourself fooled - there's no consensus/dispute concerning the other url he posted. It's definitely false and actually the first time that address appeared on the surface web. And from what I know DeepDotNet could be considered a reliable source if confined to statements about the Darknet only. Also there's 141 reviews on that site who implicitly confirm the address. To make things short: I'd suggest getting the url back with a small note attached to it. --Fixuture (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't tell if you're saying to bring back the Deepdotweb url or something else? We can't include anything without a reliable source, but if we think the deepdotweb link might be compromised or otherwise inaccurate, there's no sense linking to that, either. The problem is, onion urls are only so verifiable. I don't think we should link to any, but wouldn't be very opposed to restoring the DDW link -- I'd want 's thoughts, though, as it was he/she who removed it. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He. I think you folk should be able to work this out. From reading the discussion, it sounds like you know a helluva lot more about it than I do.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm asking to bring back the DeepDotWeb onion url - the one OP named above.
 * > but if we think the deepdotweb link might be compromised or otherwise inaccurate, there's no sense linking to that, either
 * What...Noone ever said that. The guy who edited the page over and over again: Naturalevasion most likely did a phishing attack by replacing the correct address with a fake one. More unlikely but also possible is that his intentions were to have the onion address removed from this site which is what did. I think DeepDotWeb is a reliable source for everything concerning the darknet (and only that). Additionally there's about 150 reviews from users on the DDW site who implicitly confirmed the address. Plus the Subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/EvolutionMarket (which has over 2000 subscribers) has the same link on its sidebar. One option that I suggested here was getting the correct onion url ( k5zq47j6wd3wdvjq ) back on the article but having a little note - for example [unconfirmed] - placed behind it. --Fixuture (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok. For lack of any strong objections, I've restored the sourced URL. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not paying attention to historical context when I made my edit earlier, sorry! Funny timing though, as it seems this site will now be down permanently. Timeeeee (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)