Jump to content

Talk:Environmental impact of bitcoin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 00:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that bitcoin mining could support renewable energy development by increasing the profitability of wind and solar farms?
    • Sources:
      • Lal, Apoorv; Zhu, Jesse; You, Fengqi (November 2023). "From Mining to Mitigation: How Bitcoin Can Support Renewable Energy Development and Climate Action". ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering. 11 (45): 16330–16340. doi:10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c05445. ISSN 2168-0485. S2CID 264574360. (highly reputable author and journal, the title says it all, it's also explained in layman's terms in this related news article)
      • Bruno, August; Weber, Paige; Yates, Andrew J. (August 2023). "Can Bitcoin mining increase renewable electricity capacity?". Resource and Energy Economics. 74: 101376. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2023.101376. ISSN 0928-7655.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Capitol Hill mystery soda machine
  • Comment: I think this is my second DYK nomination.

Improved to Good Article status by A455bcd9 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Environmental effects of bitcoin; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Not a review: "was estimated to... represent 0.4% of global electricity consumption (!)" That's way more than I expected. I think the article is ripe for a lot of punchy hooks. Bremps... 01:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Thank you for this nomination! The article was surely very interesting and so is the hook. I've found no issues. This is my first time reviewing DYK, so I've marked this for a second look just to be sure. Regards, NotAGenious (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NotAGenious, thanks for taking the time to review this nomination! I'm available should you or the second reviewer have any question :) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination approved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a very misleading hook, given that bitcoin mining is in fact causing 0.2% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions all by itself. A more appropriate hook would be something along the lines of:
The article is not nearly so optimistic, hypothetically, as the original hook is; it seems more representative to give the actual contribution in terms of greenhouse gases. Pinging nominator A455bcd9 for their thoughts. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset, hi
  1. The hook is not "very misleading". It's not about being optimistic or pessimistic, just an interesting fact, well-sourced, that triggers the interest of readers and incites them to read the rest of the article. Basically, a hook. By the way, published this week in the Journal of Cleaner Production: Can bitcoin mining empower energy transition and fuel sustainable development goals in the US?: Therefore, integrating bitcoin mining with planned renewable installations offers a dual solution of bolstering investments in the renewable energy sector while addressing climate concerns associated with conventional mining operations.
  2. Per Talk:Bitcoin#Polling, the 0.2% GHG estimate comes from a single non-peer-reviewed commentary that might not even be RS, so your proposed hook is not acceptable. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a455bcd9 (Antoine), I had assumed that, being a Good Article, the sources in it were reliable and the facts established. Given how much play the 0.2% number is given in the nominated article, you can understand why I proposed the hook I did. Perhaps this nomination should be delayed, since if the source is ultimately deemed unreliable major surgery will be needed to the article to keep it at GA level. Regarding the hook, it still feels misleading to me, since the current environmental effects of bitcoin—the reason for the article existing—are clearly deleterious and a contribution to greenhouse gases and thus global warming; "could support" is what rang alarm bells for me: it read like a "see, this isn't so bad after all since this thing might help". BlueMoonset (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DYKINT: "The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest." This is exactly what this hook is doing. it read like a "see, this isn't so bad after all since this thing might help": actually, this is the opinion from the recent peer-reviewed articles on the subject published in high-quality engineering or environmental academic journals (the best of the field actually: ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, Resource and Energy Economics, and Journal of Cleaner Production). These papers led some to wonder whether Bitcoin could be an ESG investment during the COP28. All these points are already covered in the article. The authors of the source mentioning the 0.2% GHG estimate are actually about to publish a new paper (peer-review in progress) looking at the "climate benefits" of Bitcoin. Anyway, yes, the sources are reliable and the facts established that "bitcoin mining could support renewable energy development by increasing the profitability of wind and solar farms". So I don't see what's the problem with the hook.
Regarding the 0.2% estimate: I think I added it to Environmental effects of bitcoin. A debate about this source started after the GA review and after this DYK application. As I said there (Talk:Bitcoin#Polling): I still think that it is RS, because it is often cited, but it is not that strong. And probably not strong enough to be cited in the lead. I'm waiting for the community to reach a conclusion before changing the lead in "Environmental effects of bitcoin", but most likely we would mention that this estimate is not peer-reviewed (and a recent review even considers it non-rigorous, I'll add this to the article). How we present this source and whether or not we mention it in the lead does not affect the GA status. But per WP:DYKHOOKCITE, we shouldn't use a weakly sourced fact as a hook. Even though that weakly sourced fact might appear in the article, as it would then be presented as such with some caveats. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9 and BlueMoonset: are these issues resolved? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with A455bcd9.—Alalch E. 00:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this at Leek's talk page. Copying my comment from there:

Oof. If Wikipedia's core purpose is to inform readers, then using a hook that gives an impression counter to the general thrust of an article hinders that purpose. I also agree that the use of "could" in the hook is part of the issue, given that we're talking about a purely hypothetical policy proposal. My view is that it would be irresponsible of us to run that hook given the lack of context, just as it would be irresponsible to run a negative BLP hook.

{{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sdkb, how is this "counter to the general thrust of [the] article"? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The general thrust of the article is that bitcoin mining has significant negative environmental impact. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the article? There's a reason why bitcoin mining benefits from tax breaks in 7 US states while being banned nowhere, e.g. The program could help Texas cut releases of stranded gas, a major source of CO2 emissions, methane, and pollutants resulting from burning gas. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, in that same section about tax breaks from those states, the article talks about New York banning new fossil fuel mining plants for two years, an in-progress 18-month ban for new crypto hookups in two Canadian provinces, and the EU urging member states to end tax breaks for crypto mining. The current environmental effects of bitcoin mining are clearly deleterious in a number of ways, as laid out in the article, and while there are any number of very interesting hooks that could be made from the article on those aspects, you've chosen one—and won't budge on it—that says it "could" support renewable energy development (even while, presumably, continuing to contribute significantly to climate change through heightened fossil fuel consumption and resulting pollution). Is the "0.4% of global electricity consumption" statement still true, or is that as suspect as the "0.2% of global greenhouse gas emissions" information? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about US states so by "banned nowhere" I implied "in the US". Indeed, the NYS 2y moratorium is only about new fossil fuel mining plants and new (renewable) bitcoin mines have opened since the moratorium. (I of course know the EU and Canadian measures as I added them to the article, although they were not based on environmental ground per se but on availability of resources, see for instance the recent Canadian ruling: "The court ruling emphasized that BC Hydro's ban was grounded on a cost-of-service basis, addressing the substantial energy demands associated with cryptocurrency mining, Coindesk reported. The ban aims to maintain affordable energy access for the wider population and prevent excessive strain on the power grid.") The 0.4% also comes from a non-peer-reviewed source, although I'd say of higher quality (Cambridge University) than the 0.2% one. Again, I added both estimates to the article, as I initially trusted them, but the ongoing debate in Talk:Bitcoin#Polling made me re-assess my position. (Same for the water footprint estimate btw, also a non-peer-reviewed commentary authored by the same data scientist at the Dutch central bank.) On the other hand, facing these isolated non-peer-reviewed commentaries/blog posts we have several recent high-quality peer-reviewed reliable sources by leading scholars (such as Fengqi You, h-index of 81!) in the most prestigious academic journals of this field:
(On a slightly different point, we also have the World Bank report on flaring mitigation using Bitcoin mining.)
That's why I chose this hook as I thought and still think that 1/ it was backed by the strongest possible reliable sources and 2/ it would "be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest" and "leave the reader wanting to know more" per WP:DYKINT.
Regarding the wording, I used the one from this Cornell University news report: Bitcoin could support renewable energy development (that I linked in my initial message above).
So yes, high-quality reliable sources say, literally, that it "could" support renewable energy development. You then added even while, presumably, continuing to contribute significantly to climate change through heightened fossil fuel consumption and resulting pollution but that's not what these RS say. RS tell us that "When Bitcoin miners provide grid management services in the form of demand response, their emissions impact is largely mitigated" and that bitcoin mining "can lead to combined positive effects on climate change mitigation". (Besides, RS estimate that renewables represent about half of bitcoin mining sources, whereas renewables represent about 1/7 = 14% of the global energy mix so by this account bitcoin mining might be the industry the lowest reliance on fossil fuels in the world.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to propose a hook based on something an editor found interesting above. It is sourced to here: [1].
Feel free to use or disregard, Rjjiii (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rjjiii, as I wrote yesterday, this is a non-peer-reviewed blog post published in the "Insight" section of the Cambridge Judge Business School ("Welcome to Cambridge Judge Business School’s insights, a hub of articles showcasing business thought leadership and expert opinion from our community."). It's better than nothing, but it's definitely not better than several high-quality peer-reviewed reliable sources published by some of the most famous scholars in the world in the most reputable academic journals in this field. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Also, regarding the article overall, if there are concerns about the quality of that particular source, its figures have been cited by several publications that should meet WP:RS: [2][3]. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rjjiii, I don't think this is how WP:BLOGS work. To say it simply, if a shitty source is cited by reliable sources, this does not suddenly make the shitty source reliable. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9 In this case I think the author clearly is a subject matter expert and the blog should be considered reliable per policy at WP:SELFPUBLISHED which states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". The bio of Alexander Neumülle at the bottom of this JSTOR article published by MIT clearly indicates Neumulle is a subject matter expert. Further in looking at the article, the author cites the statistics to United States government collected data with url links and then does a very basic readily viable analysis of that data that is readily viewable to everyone. I don't think there is anything controversial about some basic math that anyone could do to analyze publicly available data on global energy consumption. In other words, the blog is accurate on this point in the hook fact. In my opinion this hook should be approved and promoted.4meter4 (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 4meter4, I'm not sure to understand your point:
1/ This new JSTOR-hosted article you're pointing to is also not yet peer-reviewed. I emailed the authors and they told me that the peer-review was in progress and it should be published soon. Anyway this updated study by Alexander Neumüller indeed presents the "Climate benefits of Bitcoin mining".
2/ the author cites the statistics to United States government collected data and then does a very basic readily viable analysis of that data: which paper are you talking about? There's no US gov data on bitcoin mining around the world. That's the whole point, we don't know the energy consumption of bitcoin mining, nor do we know its emissions.
3/ I don't think there is anything controversial about some basic math that anyone could do to analyze publicly available data on global energy consumption.: looks like WP:OR to me, but again, the sources we're talking about here don't do "some basic math" on "publicly available data", they make a lot of assumptions and look at detailed network and energy data country by country. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point A455bcd9, which is the bio of the author. I would think a person with a research post doing research in the relevant field at Cambridge University is reasonably considered a subject matter expert. The author is also cited as a subject matter expert by CCN and the article in question is already being cited by other writers in the relevant field. We generally accept content in BLOGS written by subject matter experts as a matter of policy.4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that everything you said about the post only being "some basic math that anyone could do to analyze publicly available data" was totally wrong? (and yes, per WP:SELFPUBLISHED this blog post may be considered RS, but is it strong enough to be on the homepage vs several proper peer-reviewed articles?) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4: lol, what a joke, you mentioned CCN, I read too quickly and thought it was CNN but it's just another bullshit crypto website. CCN.com, owned and operated by Find.co, is a site focused on cryptocurrencies, business, finance and technology. Not RS per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#CCN. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get into an argument with you on data analysis. That is WP:OR on your part and is irrelevant. The blog in question is a Cambridge University blog with a target audience of academic researchers. The blog is written by a subject matter expert in a research post in the field at a major research university. The arguments being made here are not in keeping with the spirit of the policy language at WP:SELFPUBLISHED as it relates to subject matter experts. I further note that your attitude here is entirely WP:UNCIVIL and your choice of language is offensive. Swearing at people is not acceptable behavior in a DYK review.4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on your conclusion but swearing at people? Where did I swear? Because I said "lol, what a joke"? The joke was unfortunately on me as I read CNN instead of CCN and then realized the mistake! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've sworn twice in your comments above. I don't like that language. Find other words or don't be a reviewer. That kind of language isn't ok. It's overly hostile and can easily be misinterpreted as a personal attack even if it is being used as descriptor of your thoughts on a particular topic. It comes off as derisive towards people with different viewpoints and doesn't help when trying to reach a WP:CONSENSUS. It's intentionally rude.4meter4 (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I don't understand where I swore, but I guess as a non-native speaker, Pardon my French... Joking aside, I did not intend to attack you personally and I'll be more careful in the future, you're right, thanks for politely reminding me to do so. (Find other words or don't be a reviewer: I'm the nominator btw.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general the use of toilet words like "shit" and its various forms "shitty", "bullshit". etc. is rude to English language speakers. People use these words when they are hostile/angry and they are generally intended to communicate contempt.4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry. Again, this word was used to address the (lack of) quality of the source (per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#CCN: "sources that are so bad that they can't be trusted for anything"), but I understand that using it changed the tone of the debate and I apologize for my poor choice of word.
Anyway, coming back to the debate, as you noted, per WP:SELFPUBLISHED: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Here, the author is Alexander Neumueller and I cannot find a single previous peer-reviewed paper that he authored on Google Scholar. Whether on Bitcoin, climate, or anything else. It looks like he recently joined academia and/or did not produce any reliable work. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I can agree it is borderline. I'm still leaning on the its ok side given its a major research university's blog with an intended academic audience and the MIT article is likely to be published soon with a peer review. I put in a note for others to comment; so hopefully we can get some other opinions in order to arrive at a majority consensus. Have a good day.4meter4 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm commenting because of the request at WT:DYK.
  1. The original hook suggestion is not acceptable because DYK hooks should be definite facts and the proposition is not definite; it's a maybe.
  2. ALT1 is not acceptable as it stands because it doesn't give a year or timeframe for the statistic. As I understand it, bitcoin mining tends to be quite variable as it depends on the market price of bitcoin and energy, which are both quite volatile.
  3. The topic reminds me of one which I complained about at WP:ERRORS and that was pulled.
  4. As this is a contentious topic, we should err on the side of caution. As it's had plenty of consideration, the obvious conclusion is .
Andrew🐉(talk) 19:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but I don't understand why everyone is arguing over one or two hooks. If there's ever an issue, best practice is to come up with more hooks and to move on. I don't get what is happening here. To everyone: find a new hook and move on; this isn't rocket science. Viriditas (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas We can't promote articles with verifiability issues anywhere; not just in the hooks but in the body of the article as well. There was a difference of opinion over whether or not the source used should be considered reliable. Now that we have a more input from other people, WP:CONSENSUS opinion is that the source in question is unreliable. That would mean the nominator would need to substantially re-write the article and remove all content cited to that source before the article could be approved even if a verifiable hook were found. On top of this, the nominator was informed about the hook problem more than two weeks ago but failed to provide a new workable hook suggestion, and the nomination itself is now two months old. Plenty of time has been given already to fix problems, and with now a stronger consensus opinion against the WP:Verifiability of the article's current text it is time to reject the hook.4meter4 (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In view of this second opinion, and given the length of time since the nomination was made; I am ticking this hook as rejected. We can't wait forever for a new hook to be proposed and approved, and the concerns being raised here would require some additional trimming and re-writing of material from the article itself in order to be policy compliant. If the general consensus is this hook content isn't acceptable for the main page; then it isn't acceptable for the article either and should be tagged as unreliable. This has now timed out for DYK purposes. 4meter4 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idea to move the "could" parts to a smaller section since they don't describe the impact

[edit]

Since the page is about the "Environmental impact of bitcoin" would it makes sense to move the research talking about what cryptocurrency mining could to a later section in the article?

Talking about what bitcoin could do doesn't describe the actual impact of bitcoin, but rather describes possible ways its impact could be lessened in the future if conditions are met.

For example, this doesn't makes sense in the lead since there's no evidence that this is being done at scale.

Scholars argue that bitcoin mining could support renewable energy development by utilizing surplus electricity from wind and solar.

I feel like in general the could research is given too much weight here instead of focusing on the actual impact which is what the article is about. Sibshops (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much research on the topic of the environmental impact of bitcoin and overall all RS are cited in the article with about one sentence per RS (or less if some papers can be combined). So equal weight is given to equally important RS. There is no reason to weight things differently. It totally makes sense in the lead to give weight to what is in the article. About one sentence per "big" paragraph or section is the norm.
It's indeed unfortunate that research hasn't quantified the "could" but we have to deal with what we have. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But if there isn't enough research wouldn't it make sense to make the article should be shorter, instead of trying to find things to fill the page up with?
I'm saying that the hypothetical benefits of mining shouldn't be given equal weight as the current impact of mining.
It doesn't seem to follow how other "Environmental Impact of ..." pages go. Hypothetical benefits are not giving prominent weight in those articles, either. Sibshops (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We give equal weight to RS, that's it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the intent to give space to all reliable sources, but per WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT, it should reflect the current evidence, and not give equal space to speculative research.
Like the article is titled "Environmental impact of bitcoin" so it should summorize what is known to be happening rather than what could happen under certain assumptions.
Hypothetical or conditional studies (those using could or may) describe potential mitigation, not current impacts and may fit better at the end of the article in like a "Mitigation" or "Potential benefits" section later in the article.
It would match up with how other "Environmental impact of..." articles like Environmental_impacts_of_animal_agriculture#Mitigation_options or Environmental_impact_of_aviation#Mitigation handle speculative research, by separating it from actual measured impacts in the lead or even the body. Sibshops (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another idea would be to leave it in but also include the study which talks about how crypto mining isn't currency helping with environmental sustainability.

A 2025 study in Scientific Reports of ten major cryptocurrency-producing countries found that Bitcoin mining's electricity use was linked to worse environmental sustainability.

Sibshops (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That Romanian-Saudi-Azeri-Algerian-Qatari (lol) paper is a joke. Old datasets, wrong analytical scale (national vs local), and no causal identification. In a normal world it should go to the trash. Given how Wikipedia works I'm not sure we can remove it unfortunately. On the other side we have proper high-quality research by Fengqi You.
So we just give due weight to RS. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... That's fair, I'll see if there's another source.
I'm not against adding research by Fengqi You so the article is balanced, personally. Sibshops (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added another peer-reviewed source and the assessment by Fengqi You. Sibshops (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

@GenoV84 if you want to add links please discuss here. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GenoV84: "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)" a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @A455bcd9, links to things like Collapsology implies an association not included in any sources. Unless a RS discusses topics like Collapsology explicitly, it can be considered original research as it makes an implied association. Sibshops (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sibshops: Links in the "See also" section aren't considered WP:OR, so this policy doesn't apply here. They can be included as long as they are even tangentially related to the article (i.e., technology and the internet): Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. GenoV84 (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> WP:OR, so this policy doesn't apply here
As far as I'm aware, the WP:OR policy covers the entire document. Sibshops (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if you feel that WP:OR doesn't apply, here. It feels editorialized to include some of these links. Sibshops (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sibshops and @A455bcd9: In accordance with the aforementioned MOS, I propose to keep the links that I added before while removing Collapsology and Speculation; the other ones are fine. Let me know. GenoV84 (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9: According to the WP policy MOS:SEEALSO, the "See also" section is a useful way to organize internal links to related or comparable articles and "build the web". However, the section itself is not required; many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have one.
The section should be a bulleted list, sorted either logically (for example, by subject matter), chronologically, or alphabetically. Consider using {{Columns-list}} or {{Div col}} if the list is lengthy.
Contents: Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. For example, the article on Jesus might include a link to List of people claimed to be Jesus because it is related to the subject but not otherwise linked in the article. GenoV84 (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these links make sense. They're unrelated. Why not Energy in El Salvador? Quantum computing? Chernobyl disaster?
@A455bcd9: That's your own opinion, and I see nothing wrong with that. They can be included as long as they are even tangentially related to the article (i.e., technology and the internet): Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. GenoV84 (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the portals are already listed at the bottom of the article. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, those can be removed if they appear to be redundant. GenoV84 (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sibshops and @A455bcd9: In accordance with the aforementioned MOS, I propose to keep the links that I added before while removing Collapsology and Speculation; the other ones are fine. Let me know. GenoV84 (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think only the environmental impact of computers is the only one which is relevant as it's discussed in the body. The rest are not discussed anyway in the body of the article. The article has nothing to do with artificial intelligence, for example. Sibshops (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant, along with other tangentially related articles such as Cryptocurrency bubble, Digital Revolution, Environmental impact of artificial intelligence, Environmental impact of computers, and Fourth Industrial Revolution. There's no rule that prevents these topics to be included in the See also section. Quite the contrary, they are related to this topic as well as the one that you mentioned. The fact that these topics are not directly discussed in the article doesn't matter: we are talking about the See also section, which is supposed to include tangentially related topics, as the MOS clearly states. That's the whole point. GenoV84 (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm.. AI is two steps removed from bitcoin mining. They both are housed in a data center, but don't share any direct association. If you want to link to something, maybe you can link to Data_center#Water_consumption_and_environmental_impact? If we include everything two steps away from bitcoin mining it would be a very long list. Sibshops (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. In other words, it would be impossible to include everything in the See also section, so we have to collaborate and select a few WP articles that can be included in the list. GenoV84 (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I just don't understand the association. Could you go through each one and explain (using common sense) how they are related to the article? Sibshops (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed list:

Feel free to suggest the addition of more related wikilinks to the list. Useful wikilinks can be found in the categories that include this article, as per MOS. GenoV84 (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think with this explanation, there's a good list for tangentially related topics.
Sibshops (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that the See also section cannot list articles that are already mentioned in the article itself, such as data centers and bitcoin; those additions would be redundant. GenoV84 (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm (reluctantly) OK with Environmental impact of artificial intelligence and Environmental impact of computers. The rest: irrelevant. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AI angle could even be developed in the article given the ongoing switch of some miners: AI Data Centers Are Banging on Crypto’s Door (WSJ) and Major Bitcoin mining firm pivoting to AI, plans to fully abandon crypto mining by 2027 as miners convert to AI en masse a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. If the other topic mentions this one then it could be considered related. Sibshops (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the implementation of these changes and additions to the article. GenoV84 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental benefits claim in wikivoice

[edit]

@Gjb0zWxOb I have some concerns with your edit. Because the stated environmental benefits of bitcoin mining are disputed, they need attribution and should not be stated in wikivoice. This includes usage of benefits in the headings and lead. For example, waste-coal use is contested by cited sources which discuss the environmental concerns. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sources reflect that the methods detailed in the Environmental benefits section are benefits as used by the terms in the sources (terms such as remediation, "positive results for the climate," "supports renewable energy transition," and other similar terms and phrasing). Additionally, the benefits of using coal waste for powering miners has been contested by one or two environmental groups. That contention is WP:DUE for the body (and exists in the body) but is WP:UNDUE for the lead. Meanwhile, the reliable sources and, importantly, the Pennsylvania government (through the issuing of environmental tax credits to eliminate the waste), indicate that repurposing the coal waste is an environmental benefit. Particularly, due to the fact that the sources highlight that this waste is highly volatile and often results in uncontrolled, unharnessed burns anyway.
Additionally, per MOS:LEAD, the lead must reflect a summary of the body. You had removed the summary of the environmental benefits section from the lead previously and I had to re-add it. Feel free to propose a different way of summarizing the content in the body so long as it adheres to what is in the sources for that section and does not violate WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, or MOS:LEAD. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not about dueness, but about NPOV and wikivoice. Statements that are seriously contested should not be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. The article currently presents one point of view in the heading and lead by describing these uses as "environmental benefits", while the body includes cited sources saying that at least some of those claimed benefits are disputed or involve environmental tradeoffs. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The lead also extensively covers the negative environmental externalities of bitcoin, utilizing wikivoice. The reliable sources used in the Environmental benefits section are reliable sources which qualifies them as being used in wikivoice. Policy requires that we treat reliable sources similarly unless consensus changes regarding if a source is reliable or not. Generally, reliable sources use wikivoice and sources that are moderately reliable require attribution. If we wish to make a policy change or change this across hundreds articles that is a different conversation but that is the current policy. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Contentious claims supported by one reliable source and disputed by another reliable source should not be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice just because the supporting source is reliable.
Per WP:NPOV

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements in wikivoice.

That is the issue here. The cited sources may support inclusion of the claimed benefits in the body, but where other reliable sources dispute those benefits or describe environmental tradeoffs, the article should avoid stating the "environmental benefits" in wikivoice. Adding attribution of who made these claims of environmental benefits would address this.
If you believe there are seriously contested assertions in the lead about negative environmental effects, I agree that those should be attributed as well. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the disputed sentence, which I've removed as a blatant misrepresentation of cited sources:

Bitcoin mining has also demonstrated environmental benefits through coal ash remediation, methane capture from oil wells, and the adoption of clean energy sources such as nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar.[1][2][3]

There are many serious issues that need to be fixed before this is restored. The phrasing is completely non-neutral. This is WP:SYNTH. One of the sources is just missing completely. One is a WP:PRIMARY source which doesn't directly support the attached claim. A related issue is that these sources are proposing benefits. They have not demonstrated benefits, nor is it even clear that would be possible. Further, at least one of these proposals is from a cryptocurrency mining company. Without context, which would have to come from reliable, independent sources, this is a mix of pseudoscience and delusional pseudo-economics for naked PR purposes. Cite reliable, independent sources. Do not misuse Wikipedia for advertising purposes. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that particular sentence is absolutely unacceptable, for the reasons Greyfell explains. We absolutely must not make assertions regarding actual environmental benefits based on poorly-sourced and promotional material regarding proposals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The section in the body is also a hot mess. Way too much WP:SYNTH here. Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_impact_of_bitcoin&oldid=1361278290"