"Industry Context" section biased

This article is growing rapidly and has evolved into a valid and informative essay. The section on the "Industry context" however appears a bit biased to me. It talks about one investment company and presents musicians like Snoop Dogg. To me that sounds like spam entries and links. I suggest to delete that section or enhance it by more relevant information. Any comment on that?

ScienceGuard (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

note number 2 refers to a definition from National Digital Research Centre, but link doesn't match, thus it's either incorrect or obsolete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celerati (talk • contribs) 11:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IOSCO report on Financial Technologies (FinTech), February 2017

The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) just published a long-form report on Financial Technologies (FinTech). The report is here: https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD554.pdf The report title is IOSCO Research Report on Financial Technologies (Fintech).

Chapter 5, which makes up about a quarter of the overall report, covers "Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT), including application of the blockchain technology and shared ledgers to the securities markets." It squarely places blockchain technology in the context of DLT and distributed databases more generally.

It seems to me that this broad industry report on FinTech could help address some of the concerns of the editor in the previous section who was concerned about spam entries and links. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

The definition of Fintech is highly ambiguous and it is being used in many different contexts. However, the latest, most comprehensive, and scientifically most solid definition stems from this 2016 article: "Taming the Beast: A Scientific Definition of Fintech". It was published in the double blind reviewed scientific journal, the Journal of Innovation Management. Moreover, Wikipedia users can verify the source by retrieving the full-text article online at http://www.open-jim.org/article/view/322 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underscorer (talk • contribs) 07:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is incomprehensible why the primary definition provided in this article should be a random one, i.e. why it should be from the article "Infinite Financial Intermediation", published in the Wake Forest Law Review 643, 2015. The Wake Forest Law Review is NOT a peer reviewed academic journal and therefore not of scientific standing. The far more authoritative, comprehensive and up-to-date definition is therefore the one published in the Journal of Innovation Management, see above. Publishing an accidental definition from non-scientific source is detrimental to the quality and thus credibility of Wikipedia. It is certainly not in the interest of its users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underscorer (talk • contribs) 14:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is your agenda here? The opening definition looks fine to me, not overly impressed with your link ither, that links wouldnt make a good ref. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "agenda" other than providing most sound knowledge. Could you please demonstrate why chosing a random opening statement provides the reader with better quality information than a scientifically proven statement? Moreover, please make yourself familiar with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.96.77.116 (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but who is the IP here? If that is Underscorer, you need to make that clear. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RichardWeiss, would you please be more specific about your objections? Please do not question motivation but focus on content and sources per the policies and guidelines. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RichardWeiss, The defintion "Fintech is an industry composed of companies that use new technology and innovation with available resources in order to compete in the marketplace of traditional financial institutions and intermediaries in the delivery of financial services." is a non-scientific, pure randomly chosen statement among thousands on that topic. Why should this statement be used as introductory definition of Fintech? Underscorer
Jytdog, the over and over again, the reference to the "Taming the Beast: A Scientific Definition of Fintech" gets deleted. I do not understand why and by whom... Deleting reference certainly doesn not help advancing the discussion. Underscorer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underscorer (talk • contribs) 20:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So here is the article, as you edited it. You are new here in WP and there are a few things you are doing wrong.
  • First of all, the part of the article above the table of contents, is called the "lead" and is described in WP:LEAD. If you read that, you will see that all the lead does, is summarize the body of the article, giving space and emphasis (what we call "weight" (see WP:WEIGHT) to the same extent things are found in the body . There should be nothing ( no content, and no reference) that is not discussed in more depth in the body of the article. Your edits don't follow that. A lot of new editors make that mistake, no big deal.
  • Second, the content based on the Schueffel reference goes wrong in a few ways:
    • First, it ignores the very first sentence of that reference, which is that there is no consensus on the definition. Leaving that out, is not OK.
    • Second, the content assumes that Schueffel's definition has indeed become widely accepted. But for a Wikipedia article to say that, you would actually need a source that says that. What you have done there is what we call original research which is not allowed here. I am guessing that you come from academia or the like, and you are writing in Wikipedia as you would in say a review article, where you read the literature, and synthesize it, and provide references showing what you synthesized. But what we do here, is summarize what other sources say. This is enyclcopedia writing, which is a different genre. This is described some in the essay, WP:EXPERT, which you might find helpful.
    • Finally, in actually naming Schueffel, the content comes across as promoting him, all the work he did, and his conclusions. (which is ~probably~ what drew the question from RichardWeiss above... and please see your Talk page for a question about this). The way we write here, is that if something is really accepted knowledge, we just say it in Wikipedia's voice, and if something is more contentious, we attribute it (something like this: "According to Peter Steuffel, fintech is blah blah blah") But we almost never say more than that.
Those are just some quick thoughts. There is a learning curve to working in Wikipedia - everybody needs to be patient with each other. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Financial technology definition

Why does "financial technology" need a definition beyond the obvious, "new financial technology". It isn't an industry. The industry is the "financial technology industry" or fintech industry. Volunteer1234 (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories