User talk:Giovanni O

Welcome!
Hi Giovanni O! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Giovanni O. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Decentraland, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell! Thank you for welcoming me. I hereby declare that I have no relation (employment, commercial, or other affiliations) with the Decentraland project, and that I do not expect to receive any compensation related with it. Which part of my edits seems biased? How can I improve? GiovanniO (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying.
 * In general, the way to edit neutrally is to look at sources and summarize the context provided by those sources.
 * So more specifically, it's usually not enough to mention that a cryptocurrency transaction was recorded. Readers are reasonably going to want to know why this matters. As a comparison, stories about big-budget real estate deals tend to mention who the seller is, not just who the buyer is. For example, New York apartment sells for $190 million mentions that the seller is "scandal-tainted American billionaire Daniel Och" and the buyer is "anonymous". High-end real estate transactions are complex and prone to legal issues that make this a matter of public interest. With the Tokens.com purchase, none of this context has been provided by the source currently cited...
 * At least, not the source which is currently used for that sentence. The Wired article that's already cited goes into a lot more detail about this sale. That source specifically links the sale to Mana's volatility. By placing the volatility in a separate section, lower in the article, you were implying to readers that this was unrelated to the history of the platform, but sources directly dispute this interpretation. When the [Tokens.com] press release was issued, the price of mana was around $4.10. Two days later, the price of mana had risen just over 41 percent to an all-time high of $5.79. The reason this sale is significant is because it demonstrates the platform's insane volatility. The source isn't saying this is market manipulation, but it's not not saying it.
 * To put it another way, if the sale is part of the platform's history, then mana's volatility must also be part of its history. The article currently fails to explain this properly, but downplaying this, or isolating these events as factoids, is fundamentally less neutral. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you Grayfell! Agree with the insane volatility and I thought its own section was making it more relevant, making it show up in the table of contents. I wasn't factoring in that "placing it below in the article" was downplaying it. The phrase also felt slightly out of context with the rest of the paragraph, but I see now the commentary/link you mention in the Wired article GiovanniO (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)