Talk:ShapeShift

request for protection
I think this page should be protected due to an IP address editors trying to remove sourced content here and. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. MER-C 16:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

New ShapeShift Logo & URL
Change ShapeShift logo to its new logo found here: https://page.shapeshift.io/branding/. Wiki did not let PNG be uploaded.

Change ShapeShift url to ShapeShift.com. Ari121212 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. NiciVampireHeart 09:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2019
Replace "A 2018 investigation by the Wall Street Journal found that ShapeShift had processed $9 million in funds from criminal activities over a two-year period."

With this:

"A 2018 investigation by the Wall Street Journal found that ShapeShift had processed $9 million in funds from criminal activities over a two-year period. However, a further review done by the blockchain investigation organization, Cipherblade, claimed that the Wall Street Journal had overstated money laundering by $6 million."

Sources: https://medium.com/cipherblade/how-truth-disappears-into-the-black-hole-of-shoddy-journalism-bbff158cd271 https://www.coindesk.com/shapeshift-blockchain-analysis-bitcoin-ether Ari121212 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Medium blog and Coindesk are not reliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yahoo Finance Source for the above request: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wsj-shapeshift-money-laundering-claims-091358072.html
 * Changed the word "revealed," in this request to "claimed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari121212 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yahoo Finance often just re-publishes somebody else's content (from some "partner feed") without any additional editorial oversight. There is a link to the source, which is theblockcrypto.com. It is not a reliable source at all. Retimuko (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2019 - Country of operations, url, and founding year
Change: ShapeShift's founding date to 2014, not 2013. Source: See ShapeShift timeline in blog here: https://medium.com/shapeshift-stories/check-out-shapeshifts-new-look-4092255c6e26 Change: ShapeShift url in the right-hand box from ShapeShift.io to ShapeShift.com. Source: Please see ShapeShift.com on the global nav at the top of ShapeShift.io. Change: Based in country from Switzerland, to London, UK. Source: https://shapeshift.com/terms-of-service. Ari121212 (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Specifically reliable sources independent of the company itself are preferred.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 10:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2019
Please change, "It is headquartered in Switzerland..." to, "It is headquartered in the United Kingdom." Please change, "The company was founded in 2013," to, "The company was founded in 2014." Please change, "Headquarters: Switzerland," to "Headquarters: United Kingdom." Please change, "Website: ShapeShift.io," to, "Website: ShapeShift.com" Please change, "Launched: 2013; 6 years ago," to, "Launched: 2014; 5 years ago." Ari121212 (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Its actual headquarters seem to be in Colorado - where it's incorporated hopping about the globe is a different thing - David Gerard (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Not asking to change the Colorado copy. Asking to change "Headquartered in Switzerland," to "Headquartered in the United Kingdom." Leaving Switzerland as the headquarters misinforms Wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari121212 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How can we verify? Retimuko (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. As above, reliable sources independent of the company are generally preferred. This is especially true for articles such as this, which are under ongoing restrictions due to prior controversies.   Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 10:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2019
Please add:

"In July, 2019, ShapeShift launched it's new platform. Giving users the ability to trade, track, and secure crypto on a self-custody, hardware-secured platform."

Source Yahoo Finance: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/shapeshift-platform-aims-crypto-self-130033172.html

Add After:

"A 2018 investigation by the Wall Street Journal found that ShapeShift had processed $9 million in funds from criminal activities over a two-year period." Ari121212 (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This Yahoo Finance piece is really from Coindesk. There is a link to the source on Yahoo Finance. Is there a better source? Retimuko (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Why is CoinDesk not counted as a reputable publication? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.210.138 (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The canonical answer is WP:RSP - note that it's classed as " Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases." If you read the discussions, you'll see that all other crypto sources are even worse. So even for crypto-related articles, we need mainstream third-party RSes - David Gerard (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks for this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.210.138 (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Would CoinDesk be allowed here seeing as this is simply the announcement of a product launch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.210.138 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think if you can't find any mainstream source, then the product launch in question is literally not worth noting - WP:NOTBROCHURE. More generally, with known-bad sources we shouldn't really look for excuses to put them in anyway - David Gerard (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds promotional to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As noted above, no reliable sources have been brought forward to support this addition. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2019
After: "A 2018 investigation by the Wall Street Journal found that ShapeShift had processed $9 million in funds from criminal activities over a two-year period."

Add: "In November of 2019, ShapeShift launched zero fee trading and its FOX token."

Forbes Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/justinoconnell/2019/11/20/shapeshift-launches-zero-fee-trading-fox-token-a-talk-with-founderceo-erik-voorhees-on-self-custody/#7aa4b14c714e Bloomberg Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-20/zero-commission-trading-is-coming-to-crypto-as-boom-times-fade Ari121212 (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The Forbes is a contributor blog, so not an RS. The Bloomberg appears to be announcing the Fox token - do we have anything in an RS that it actually has launched? I'm not so sure about covering announcements of forthcoming projects in the world of crypto - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Are there guidelines against taking news from contributed articles with Forbes? And these are quotes from Bloomberg: "ShapeShift, which has operated an exchange since 2014, said Wednesday it’s begun offering free 'perpetual' trades." Other one is, "ShapeShift exchange debuts zero fees following user defections." Doesn't that copy indicate that it has launched — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari121212 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are guidelines against Forbes contributor blogs - they're treated as just blog posts, not an RS - see WP:RSP. The Bloomberg copy is an announcement - is there evidence it's actually launched and is a thing? - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Revisions April 2020
Paid contribution. I have read the comments in this page. I will make minor changes to the infobox to change the erroneous foundation date and update the company logo.Tlvernon (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the transparency. Please be aware that we have sticter sourcing guidelines in place for cryptocurrency articles and that we are not using primary sources, blogs, contributor pieces (like forbes contributor), as well as cryptosites like coindesk. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Uploaded new ShapeShift logo, updated categories to be more accurate and correct company foundation dateTlvernon (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Added March 2017 series A funding $10.4 million using Reuters and VentureBeat references.Tlvernon (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Added November 2019 fee-free trading via FOX tokens using Nasdaq reference.Tlvernon (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

sourcing
we are not using primary sources on cryptocurrency articles, relating to this edit. This policy is longstanding and I guess you have also removed content based on this policy? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:PRIMARY is the relevant policy. On Wikipedia, the norm is to use primary sources to fill in or contextualize important details which are supported by reliable independent sources. The WSJ said the company began requiring identifying information, but that source was six years ago. That info is now obsolete, and repeating it without context would mislead readers. I attempted to summarize as briefly and as neutrally as I could the current situation, which is that they do not follow KYC laws at all. If you know of a reliable source for when this happened, by all means, we should use that instead. Alternatively, we could just remove the paragraph about them requiring identification completely. I would be fine with either. Grayfell (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We are not using primary sources on cryptocurrency articles. As a regular editor of that genre, you would be aware of that already. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * One thing we can, hopefully agree on, is that we don't misrepresent sources to imply something they do not state. The WSJ source from 2018 cannot speak to what this website is doing in 2024, and using it for that purpose, even obliquely, would be a misrepresentation of that source. That is not acceptable, as we both already know by now.
 * As for 'not using primary source n cryptocurrency articles' it sure would be easier if it were that simple, but it isn't. If you know of such a policy, please link to it, but we are not robots, and Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. Our goal is to summarize sources in a way which helps readers understand the topic. To put it another way, we are obligated to think about what readers expect to find when they read these articles for the first time. As I said, including this detail from the WSJ without any additional context would be misleading. I see it as cherry-picking, but whether or not it falls under WP:CHERRYPICKING is besides the point. We can either remove it completely, or use this primary source to provide the minimum necessary context to avoid misusing a reliable source for PR and promotion. As I said, if the use of a primary source really bothers you, we can remove it but only if we also remove the line it is contextualizing.
 * To put it more simply, this company proudly advertises that it allows its users to ignore KYC laws. Since multiple sources discuss this company in relation to money laundering, this is significant context, and we cannot falsely imply the exact opposite of the truth based on out-of-date information. Grayfell (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edits are becoming problematic. There is a long-standing consensus relating to sourcing on crypto articles, and we are not using primary or low quality crypto-sites (coindesk etc). WP:ICANTHEARYOU applies here. We follow the sourcing consensus so yes, this case is no more special than every other crypto advocate seeking to add the latest junk. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just today you removed forbescon sourcing from another crypto article, so you are aware of the sourcing consensus on these crypto articles. Please do not cherrypick as you noted above, and be aware of the boomerang. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)