Talk:Urbit

Comment
Urbit should probably have its own page. Jenstrange (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've started one. Stellaproiectura (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Refs
Are there cites that aren't from crypto sites for what it is? Crypto sites are not evidence of notability.

There's also a paragraph of detailed technical claims that are cited only to Reason, which is not only not in any way a tech RS, and which doesn't support them in any case.

And too much self-citing.

And it's not Yarvin's "association with the Dark Enlightenment" that gets him kicked from conferences - this sentence is very euphemistic. Say what the views are, they're certainly well-cited enough in RSes.

This thing is barely notable - it could be quickly cut to half the length just by sticking to the RSes for what they're RSes for. Is this all there is - David Gerard (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This is my first article from scratch, so forgive me — I'm unclear as to how I'm to summarise the insides of software without using their own documentation nor whitepaper. Are you saying you expect this to all be found on The Verge et al.? As to Yarvin's own views — I wasn't trying to be euphemistic, just succinct; his views are summarised neatly on his own page. This is about the software, which — especially if you look at comparable software stubs — is more than notable, in my opinion, given its codebase, project, lengthy history, its investment from VC, and its overall subcultural participation within its field. Finally, how are crypto sites not notable? I'm not that into crypto, so I wasn't aware we just, like, never use their magazines. I can keep working on this, but I personally do believe it's notable — and separate from Yarvin, who doesn't even work on it anymore. Stellaproiectura (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I also want to add that the creators' myriad invented terms to try and describe their own product has contributed to its obscure reputation (as stated in sources) and I felt it was worth mentioning? Unsure why you removed it. Stellaproiectura (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I fully concur that everything about Urbit is amazing, in its way. Just I've been looking for literally years for RSes on it ... sorry if I'm being a bit harsh here. I'll have a look later on for more, and see what we can say about this ... thing - David Gerard (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I added some written sources and some others, removed unsubstantiated claims...it's a start. I'll keep looking. Let me know when we can remove the notability box. Stellaproiectura (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * eh, I'm convinced enough :-) Nice one finding a book source too - David Gerard (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Mining the draft
I notice someone separately tried to create Draft:Urbit, which was rejected at WP:AFC earlier this year. Anything useful to mine from this? - David Gerard (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It has a lot about how the internals work, but I am doubting we can cite anything non-primary. The draft was also citing Medium articles and the like — which I'm unsure are notable, if Forbes contributors aren't. I can check, though. Stellaproiectura (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Architecture and the "how"
- I think this article needs a section with more detail on the overall network, but I don't think there's any way of reliably describing that outside of primary material, which is troubling me a bit. Because it's so impenetrable, the sources on it seem limited, as the learning curve is steep. Unsure how to rectify that — most sources want to talk about Yarvin, but the company's been building a really intriguing, working, alternative internet structure for nearly a decade. Stellaproiectura (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Intriguing" is about right. I've seen some really good critiques of it (from FP nerds who are going "why the hell did Yarvin do this like this") ... but in blogs - David Gerard (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The claim "The platform has been described as "complicated for even the most seasoned of functional programmers".[7]" is quite outdated (six years old!) and should be qualified or removed. DavisNealE (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We'd need an RS that anything had made it less so - David Gerard (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction on "Routing"
"::(Section: Overview ) This isn't really a great explanation, right?
 * The Urbit routing system consists approximately of 255 'galaxies', 65,000 'stars', 4 billion 'planets' and 4.3 trillion 'moons', which respectively function similarly to DNSs, ISPs, personal computers and devices that connect to them."

- All communication is P2P, although the stars and galaxies assist with routing, they're not really required AFAIK

- Stars and Galaxies can be used as "personal devices" too

- At the moment, only galaxies do routing

This could probably be rewritten to be more accurate by someone who understands it better, but I don't really trust my own ability. PapaMichael (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"Overview" - internals
Has any RS covered Urbit internals to this level of detail? The only third-party cite is a quick Reason column which talks to one guy from Urbit and only backs the idea of "planets". The section should be cut unless and until there are solid RSes - David Gerard (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The recent addition of even more primary sources and blog source isn't it either. Wikipedia is not a primary-sourced fan site. Where are the RSes for this bloated section? - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Found a couple of RSes not used so far: Fast Company 2022, The Point 2022. No tech RSes - David Gerard (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Cut this down considerably - still need third-party RSes if possible - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I cut down primary-sourced detail some more, per this discussion and the lack of anyone else remedying it with independent RSes in the months since. If there's an independent RS that gives a hoot about the internals of Urbit, we should use it. Is there nothing from the FP world, for example? - David Gerard (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I went source hunting and have filled it out a bit - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Controversy - Neutrality
David Gerard - I'm new to editing wikipedia so don't want to do the wrong thing/engage in bad behavior, edit wars etc., but I do think the "must be level and neutral" is important - more important than "not designed as a political structure" which leaves it vaguely ambiguous (maybe it's not "designed" that way, but used that way?) If I can only have one, I'd rather have "must be level and neutral".

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urbit&diff=prev&oldid=1138680529

My goal isn't promotion, being neutral infrastructure is a critical principle of the project and relevant given the controversy and Curtis Yarvin's personal political blog. This is a heated topic so I think it's worth quoting the neutrality bit explicitly (especially because it's from Yarvin himself who says it in his departing blog post).

Separately I also corrected/updated the routing information and overview. Not sure if I'm then supposed to update these talk sections? Thanks for the help. J6nhfwBuBN (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * There's basically very little RS coverage of the internals. All the coverage is of the politics. So that's what we have for the Wikipedia article. Yarvin's words have the creator's weight, but they're not dispositive, at all - David Gerard (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason I removed that phrase was because I do not think it is informative in that context. Being "level and neutral" sounds very nice, doesn't it? If this is vaguely restating the project's goals as described in the lead of the article, Yarvin's comment is superfluous. If it isn't, then we would need a WP:IS to explain what he's getting at, and to indicate to readers why it matters. Grayfell (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand - the reason I pushed for it is given the political controversy surrounding Yarvin people think the project is about creating some sort of neo-reactionary software system or open source project with a specifically nrx partisan/political goal. Given his personal politics and blog, explicit comments from him saying the infrastructure must be 'level and neutral' (in the way the web is) is clarifying (in the blog post he goes into more detail). Others associated with project often don't know this is his view (from what I can tell) which further confuses things. That said, I understand why this would require WP:IS - thanks for taking the time to explain your thinking. 136.25.114.211 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing
As you can see, I've been through the article a bit. I've been through all of Google News and Google Books on "Urbit" looking for usable third-party RSes, and I think we've got basically all of them. (Given Wolfe's closeness to Thiel, I'm not convinced how independent she can be treated as, but the claims are non-controversial and it's through a proper publisher, so fine.) If there's any I've missed, we need 'em - David Gerard (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)