Jump to content

Talk:Axie Infinity

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

Reliability of sources

[edit]

@Nintendoswitchfan: Hello. Please cite reliable independent sources for any information that it not routine and could be seen as promotional. It is not enough for this info to be technically true, it has to be encyclopedicially significant, and the way to show this is with an independent source that explains why it's significant. This is the standard across Wikipedia.

Axie Infinity's Medium account hasn't been updated in over a year, and it's not clear if this is even WP:RS, but it certainly isn't independent. Using primary sources for specific features of a video game can be construed as promotional, and since Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, it is always better to summarize based on independent sources. Primary sources can be used for routine information, or in some other cases, but always with caution. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: Hello. This is noted. I was unable to find a more reliable source than the Medium account of Axie Infinity itself for the particular statement, so I thought it would work to use that as a primary source. I have instead rephrased the line item altogether to use an independent source and disregard the launch date and instead focus on the land feature as a whole.Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The only reason I did not remove the line completely was because it seemed like it might be something a reliable source would talk about. If neither of us could find a decent source, it's probably safe to discard it as trivia. We should not assume that anything in particular belongs, so we have to be willing to discard content that is unsupported. That is editing, after all.
My recent revert re-added a copy/paste of the sentence. I will hold off on removing that to avoid H:ECs. Grayfell (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a compromise, I have added template:better source needed. Tech Times doesn't appear reliable, either. Several of the articles on that site are obvious advertorials in praise of specific products or services, but the site completely fails to disclose this. This outlet may need to be raised at WP:RSN if it hasn't already, but that will have to wait. Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

forkast.news

[edit]

@Nintendoswitchfan: If you really think it's important to include forkast.news, please discuss it here first. Per many prior discussions at WP:RSN, crypto outlets generally have very poor reputations for maintaining editorial oversight, disclosing conflicts, etc., and this one doesn't appear to be an exception. It's far from the worst site I've seen, but since this article is just a "fast facts" style summary of basic facts with almost no original analysis, it does a very poor job of explaining why this bit about a big number is even significant at all.

Further, the site's about page includes several very poor signs, including this paragraph:

Forkast.News is an independent news platform open to working with companies and brands to better reach their customers by educating our audience about their products and services through our creative arm, Forkast.Studio. Our sponsors and partners are a mix of startups, established brands, and those that we helped become established brands.

This is basically an admission that they are producing a mix of "native advertising" and churnalism, and the site fails to distinguish between this and any actual reporting that might be produced. If you want to restore this source, or site it elsewhere on Wikipedia, I recommend getting another opinion at WP:RSN first. Grayfell (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood on this. My initial thought was because Tech In Asia is considered as reliable and cited them as the initial source, that it would be okay too still have forkast.news there as they were the main source of the Tech In Asia source. But you are right about the note on advertising, and I will keep that in mind for any sites that I cite. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Sky Mavis "startup" info

[edit]

I removed a paragraph under the game description section that was full of fintech puff related to Sky Mavis' valuation and whatnot. If that was notable, it would be in the page for Sky Mavis. This article should remain on the topic of the video game, not on the "startup" behind it. Mewnst (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add opinion pieces, positive or negative

[edit]

Wikipedia had a big problem with crypto puff pieces, so much so that there is a WP:GS (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies) still in effect for this topic. However, it seems like editors are overcorrecting in the other direction here, using no sources or much less reputable sources to talk about specialized topics if they are in negative light. This is a strong no-go. The goal of Wikipedia is not to "be against crypto", it is to be an encyclopedia for all things, including crypto.

An example here is a biased opinion piece being repeatedly added by an editor to this article. The "reference" is https://kotaku.com/axie-infinity-nft-crypto-hack-landlord-scholar-pokemon-1848800557, a strongly worded opinion piece from a non-RS. Just as you could find puff pieces about Axie extolling the virtues of what they are doing, there are opinion pieces in the opposite direction. None of them are relevant to an encyclopedia article. This is not a blog.

To the user @ApLundell - do not add unsourced opinions to crypto articles, especially under general sanctions and especially without a reference. The statement " They acted as workers for "bosses" who rented out Axies to them so they could play the game on the bosses' behalf" absolutely does not belong in the article lead. This is a watered down version of a much stronger version that you have been repeatedly adding to the article. It is incorrect and unsourced.

There is a separate issue of nuance here. I'll assume good faith but the repeated vandalized edits seem like agenda-driven editing. If you look at RSes like the CNBC piece from 2021, it talks about making money post-pandemic in a poor economy. There are lots of real RSes like from Bloomberg that talk about the same. Reducing it to disgruntled articles based on a market cycle is not the way to edit an encyclopedia article.

So once again, I am forced to revert your edits. I am not sure how much clearer to be at this point. Do not add unsourced, highly opinionated statements, whether positive or negative, to an encyclopedia article. Please also remember that crypto topics are still under general sanctions. You can reference the link above. Molochmeditates (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like an explanation for how a fact with two sources is "unsourced", "opinion", or "false"?
You keep repeatedly asserting this, but never explaining it.
Moreover, I don't think it's over-emphasized. Quite the opposite. Before the hack, this was one of the most reported on aspects of the product. It's difficult to understand why the article didn't even mention it.
Given the fact that I'm trying to add a fact that is undeniably a major component of all reliable coverage about the product, it really does not seem that you are "assuming good faith" while also clearly describing my edits as vandalism that "seem" "agenda driven" in the same sentence. If nothing else, you were being dishonest in that sentence. ApLundell (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can look up your last edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axie_Infinity&oldid=1111931254. The statement that you added is "They acted as workers for "bosses" who rented out Axies to them so they could play the game on the bosses' behalf." without a reference. It is unsourced because it does not have any sources backing it up.
Your previous versions used a single Kotaku reference to back up the statement. This is the reference: https://kotaku.com/axie-infinity-nft-crypto-hack-landlord-scholar-pokemon-1848800557. You can find it in previous versions where you reverted my edits, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axie_Infinity&oldid=1111588774. That reference is not an acceptable RS for an encyclopedia.
If you want to get into game mechanics, the game is played with a team of 3 axies per player. There are generally three ways to do this: buy, breed, rent. The statement that you are asserting as a fact could only apply to one of the ways, i.e. rent. Even then, describing players as "workers" is not accurate. Describing people who lend assets as "bosses" is not appropriate. Saying the players play the game on behalf of "bosses" is not appropriate. Literally none of the assertions of that statement are rooted in fact, much less backed up by a reliable source. Therefore they do not belong in an encyclopedia article. What you are trying to add is absolutely not "undeniably" a major component of the game. There is more nuance in the rest of the article on how the game mechanics work, including renting of assets. There are sources that talk about how it helped people and how it hurt them during the crash which is all appropriate to discuss. Molochmeditates (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Molochmeditates Based on the logs, it seemd to be a certain @Amezque who added the line on the ""They acted as workers for "bosses" who rented out Axies to them so they could play the game on the bosses' behalf." statement that is unsourced. I do agree that this statement should not be kept as there's no reference that explicitly states this and it's a mere opinion on how the game mechanics work. Notice how the other reliable sources don't explicitly call it like that. Though I do agree that @ApLundell can take an approach that focuses more on the reliable source's content rather than just assuming that because the source seemed to hint at a certain way the game is played, that it's fair to keep the statement on the worker-boss relationship. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept that the removed sentence was inherently non-neutral, nor that it was unsourced. It may have been uncited, but that's not the same thing. Both Kotaku and Vice refer to "managers" as bosses, which appears to be a central point of those sources. Both explain that this terminology is somewhat euphemistic, or is at least that it is jargon that needs to be clarified, which tells us that we, as editors, should instead use simpler language. As for Kotaku being "biased", I think that's a distraction. While we don't specifically seek out sources because they are critical, we do actively want sources which are willing to look critically at the topics they cover. To put it another way, a source which repeats company talking points and refuses to look deeper is less reliable than one which looks at available information and forms conclusions accordingly. Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also, as for "opinion pieces", this is an article about a video game / commercial service. Reviews are a subcategory of opinion piece, after all, and readers expect that kind of thing in articles about pop culture and media. We cite opinions all the time on Wikipedia. The important thing is to cite reliably published opinions and attribute them as opinions, similar to any other independent primary source. But specifically, I do not accept that the Kotaku article is meaningfully an "opinion" in this situation. Context matters here, as everywhere. Something is not an "opinion piece" merely because it summarizes information and uses strong language to express that conclusion. Sources are not required to be neutral, editors are. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: History and Theory of New Media

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Patvil24 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jnolan27, WutUpJut, DJWellaaa, Queenones87.

— Assignment last updated by Jnolan27 (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

Regarding this block of edits, I had first attempted to piecemeal revert some of problems recently added to the article, but it's too much. Too many WP:EDITORIALIZING claims, and too many red flags with these sources. Just as one example among many, this source was used for the sentence The popularity of the game has also led to the formation of new digital communities in connection with it. A study conducted by de Jesus et al. came to the conclusion that large parts of the player base also associate the game with the social ties it forges and are thus motivated to participate from a purely communal perspective. - but the source says explicitly emphasizes that Axie Infinity is a source of stress and that many players forgo sleep and study in order to meet their quota. Any use of a source for flattering content like this which ignores the less flattering content is cherry picking.

Further, the study itself is not good. I am not familiar with the International Journal of Psychology and Counseling, nor with its apparent publisher, Research India Publications, nor with the institution of the authors, the Jesus Is Lord Foundation Colleges (which is presumably part of the Jesus Is Lord Church Worldwide). All sources need to be evaluated in context. This source is not reliable for this content, nor would it likely be reliable for any content.

Again, this is just one example. Grayfell (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same source was used in creating an entire section on criticism, including a subsection on potential psychological distress of players. The source was used due to it's relevance in the field as shown by citations in other peer-reviewed works.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, this isn't a reliable source. Using that source multiple times isn't helping. All sources must be judged in context, and adding comically lengthy quotes from multiple extremely obscure sources is damaging to the article, and combined with your many, many WP:TONE issues, especially vague WP:EDITORIALIZING language and WP:WEASEL words, your activity here is wildly inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand and sympathize with your intention to keep out any promotional or otherwise harmful attempts to abuse Wikipedia. But as I’ve already mentioned elsewhere: this is not such an attempt. I’m trying to improve this encyclopaedia in order to depict the current state of affairs in research on these topics, including (and so far mostly) regarding negative aspects of crypto. In my opinion, the article in its current form fails to achieve that objective. Hence my changes and additions based on peer-reviewed literature that took me weeks of research.
I’ve seen no indication in any way that De Jesus and her co-authors are trying to promote religious ideas, nor does the article try to promote the game as far as I was able to ascertain. It rather extensively depicts issues surrounding it, which was reflected in my edits. You're dismissing the paper based off an alleged religious affiliation of one of its six co-authors (Ceejay Ocampo) due to his/her alma mater's name. My selection of sources for this article was rather based on their relevance in the field measured by citations in other peer-reviewed works while keeping an eye on the impact factor and h-index of the journals in comparison to other journals containing articles on the topic(s) in question. In the case of De Jesus et al. the paper is quoted in nine peer-reviewed works, three of which were used in my edits, while the content is on par with the general consensus of the literature available on the topic – to the best of my knowledge, at least. That is the sole reason I chose to include its content in my edits.
I’d honestly prefer if we were to give clear, concrete and concise reasons when reverting instead of vague general statements about wordings and intentions. I know it’s a hassle, but would you please be more concrete, i.e. give me your exact objections to each of the changes in question, so I can try to improve upon the text?
"Using that source multiple times isn't helping." – My point was another one: you‘ve accused me of cherrypicking content by ignoring critical statements made in the paper. I've tried to show you that I've explicitly quoted those exact statements, thus attempting to show you that I'm in fact not cherrypicking content.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any signs that the church has a conflict-of-interest or anything like that, but I don't think it's a reputable journal or publisher, nor is the school unambiguously reputable. I don't care about the religious affiliations of the school, I care about the source's status as an WP:RS, which depends on its reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Per the paper, all six authors are affiliated with Jesus Is Lord Colleges Foundation, Inc. It's not just one "alma mater's name". The professor is a Ph.D candidate at Jesus Is Lord Colleges Foundation, Inc, and the student authors appear to be undergrads. This isn't an insult to them, but the source is poor by Wikipedia's standards, and you cited it 12 times. There are additional problems here. I have responded at Talk:Non-fungible token#Recent reverts. This specifically includes this source as an additional example. Grayfell (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned elsewhere: you can't justify mass-reverts of extensively sourced contributions with vaguely formulated objections based one 1-2 single examples. I've already given you very specific details about this source's status with regard to WP:RS. I'm once again asking you for your exact objections to each of the changes in question, so I can try to improve upon the text. Anything else that is noteworthy has already been said on your user talk page.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You edits damaged the article by introducing non-neutral filler language propped up by poor sources. As I said, I dispute that the International Journal of Psychology and Counseling, its publisher Research India Publications, or the Jesus Is Lord Foundation Colleges have enough of a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking to be reliable in general, and specifically this poorly-written paper is not a useful addition to this article specifically. Using this source once is bad, and using it twelve times is also bad.
The burden is on you to gain consensus for this content. Grayfell (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grayfell, I don't see you justifying your opinion that a study published in an academic journal of phychology doesn't have enough reputation to be considered reliable. How are you coming to the conclusion that it doesn't have "enough reputation"? As JasonKryptonite mentioned, you can't simply make vague statements like that and then say someone else has the burden of proving you wrong. Fresheneesz (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really? We're doing this? Neither the journal, nor its publisher, nor the authors, nor the authors' school have a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking, which is the standard set by WP:RS. I've already explained my concerns in detail, both here, and at Talk:Non-fungible token#Recent reverts. Considering your comments a few minutes ago about being "pissed off" by my behavior, pinging an editor to revive a dispute that died-out months ago is disruptive and WP:POINTed. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are making claims but you aren't giving any evidence of those claims, neither in your most recent comment nor in the previous comments you cited. If I missed them, please give your evidence here. All I see is you saying "I am not familiar with" the journal. Your familiarity with it is 100% irrelevant.
I'm tired of your wikilawyering Grayfell. I checked your previous edits to see if you have a pattern of blanket reverts, vague reasoning, and harassing of people until they give up defending their edits. And as it happens, I see you do have a history of doing that. JasonKryptonite seems a lot more polite and patient than I am, and yet you refused to give him the benefit of the doubt or work with him in a cooperative way. Your aggressive antagonism is not acceptable behavior on wikipedia. So don't give me your wikilawyering BS and just address the issues. I repeat: where is your evidence? Fresheneesz (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You want evidence that this one source is not reliable? In addition to the issues with proving a negative, that's not how WP:RS works. The burden of proof is on the person citing a source to demonstrate that it has a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking. If you have any indication that this journal/school/publisher/author has such a reputation, the burden is on you to present it or at least explain why these red flags should be ignored. If you sincerely wish to defend this source for these broad claims take it to WP:RSN. If, instead, you wish to make this a proxy-battle for another dispute, see WP:POINT, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:BOOMERANG first. Grayfell (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You made a claim: "Neither the journal, nor its publisher, nor the authors, nor the authors' school have a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking". Were you just making that up? Or did you actually mean that you couldn't find any evidence of such things? That would be a very different statement. The burden of proof related to statements YOU make is very much on YOU. So are you going to take it back or are you going to share with the class what evidence you have that the statement you made is true?
Your claims of cherrypicking are bogus, as JasonKryptonite explained to you. You mentioned only a *single* "red flag" that I can see is your claim that their conclusion somehow contradicts some other statement made. The claim of contradiction is not at all clear to me. What other red flags are there? You're acting as if you've exhaustively listed off a number of clear and obvious red flags, but I only see one dubious claim. That is not sufficient evidence either.
And I see references to the publication, for example here: https://www.ripublication.com/ijpc.htm as well as a reference to an active member of the journal here: https://chp.mercer.edu/bio/mark-stillman/ . Its used as references in other papers, eg here: https://juniperpublishers.com/pbsij/PBSIJ.MS.ID.555673.php . I suspect your standard of evidence for reliability would disqualify 99% of the sources used on wikipedia. Fresheneesz (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, if you sincerely believe this is a reliable source, feel free to take it to RSN.
There are an overwhelming number of journals in existence, and not all of them are reliable just because they are academical.
That link to the journal's own website does not demonstrate a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, since it does not say anything at all about its reputation. From that website, it appears that of the publisher's 100-ish journals, two are indexed by Web of Science while one is "UGC approved" (I assume that refers to University Grants Commission (India), but I may be wrong). No other journals are highlighted in any way. IJCP is not one of the three.
As for "Dr. Mark A. (Tony) Stillman", I don't know who that is nor why it would matter.
As for the link to another paper, that one is by Juniper Publishers, which is a potentially predatory publisher. If you wanted to cite "Gender Differences in Academic Resilience and Academic Achievement among Secondary School Students in Kiambu County, Kenya" (2017) I would assume it would be for some other article, so that article's talk page would be the place to discuss how reliable that source is. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't know who that is nor why it would matter." Again, who you know doesn't matter. However it shows that there are external references to the journal and its not some kind of fake journal. You're making more claims without presenting any evidence whatsoever. You claim Juniper Publishers is "potentially" predatory with no evidence. YOu claim the journal isn't reliable without evidence (and again, there is evidence to the contrary). If YOU want to dispute this, you can take this to RCN. You are not the gatekeeper here. Given that you've failed to provide any kind of evidence for your claims related to this source, I'm going to work on seeing what I can restore from what you reverted. Fresheneesz (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained in detail the problems with these sources. In response, you have presented a link to one or maybe two predatory journals. The wikilink to Juniper Publishers explains that it was on Beall's List. Further, you haven't even addressed the WP:POINT issue. You came back to this discussion months later to wikilawyer in defense of dodgy sources, and strains credulity to think this isn't an extension of your disagreement at Talk:Environmental effects of bitcoin#Revert of my edits. Putting the burden on my to yet again re-explain the problem as an extension of some other dispute is... an interesting approach, but not a good one. Grayfell (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have not explained in detail. I have asked you to show me where and you have not done it. I'm only familiar with the conversation under this subheading, so if there is other relevant conversation, please point me to it. But I do not see, under this subheading, any "detail" from you that is sufficient to revert an entire giant block of well sourced writing. Point taken about Juniper Publishers, but nothing from that publisher is used as sources in the content in question. And if its "potentially" predatory, its potentially not. That still requires evidence if you're going to press your claim - evidence you have not given. And I gave 2 other references to the journal. You are cherry picking just the things you can find issue with and ignoring the rest. That is not an acceptable way to discuss. That is simply obstructionism.
Re: WP:POINT You are the one disrupting wikipedia with your obstructive and destructive edits. I am not disrupting, I'm correcting your error. I'm not going to discuss POINT with you further. It has nothing to do with the edit in question.
"wikilawyer" HAH, you call ME a wikilawyer? Look in the mirror.
You have not explained justification for your blanket reversion even once, so I can't be asking you to REexplain it then can I? If you'd care to point me to where you've explained things, I'll read it there. But you still have not, even tho I have asked you to multiple times now. You leave this without any additional explanation. You are simply being a mean-spirited time-wasting obstructionist. If you have no further evidence in support of your claims, or if you have no further claims you wish to discuss, then the edit will stand. Your claim of "no consensus" for the edit is incorrect. It is only you who are standing in the way of what to my eyes seems like a well sourced well written edit. You alone are not consensus Grayfell. There is almost never justification for blanket reverting an edit like you did, and you gave precious little justification for it. Discuss the edits or stop wasting everyone's time. Fresheneesz (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat, yet again, per WP:REPUTABLE: Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If the International Journal of Psychology and Counseling, its publisher Research India Publications, the authors' school Jesus Is Lord Foundation Colleges, have such a reputation, please explain it here. I cannot provide evidence that it doesn't have a reputation, nor am I obligated to. I have pointed out why I don't think it does, so the ball is in your court, here. I remind you that you are the one who brought up Juniper Publications. That some other article was once cited in a predatory journal is not a useful demonstration of a positive reputation, which is why I'm explaining that it is predatory. I said "potentially" because, as I've been saying this whole time, if you have any reason to suggest the International Journal of Psychology and Counseling is a legitimate, reputable journal, please present it here.

The source's publisher, Research India Publications, has come up on Wikipedia before, such as at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 280#Help cleaning up 'remainder' of predatory journals cited on Wikipedia, part 2 where it was presumed to be predatory. This makes sense, because it has many of the red-flags one would expect, such as publishing over a hundred journals in a broad range of totally unrelated fields, most of which have names as blandly nondescript as this one.

So why, exactly, are you defending this source? Do you still think it's a good source which belongs in this article? Refusing to address WP:POINT doesn't make your behavior any less pointed.

But no, I don't accept your starting premise that this was a "a well sourced well written edit". I have been focusing on the source because that is sufficient for removing this content. As I indicated, the broad, uninformative filler language which was added with this source was a form of editorializing. The goal isn't just to pick bad sources and use them to pad-out the article, it's to use good sources to summarize the topic. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, the site is "Statista", not "Statistica", and it is not, by itself a reliable source per WP:STATISTA. If that website explains any of this, it does so by citing other sources, which would, themselves, have to be evaluated for reliability. I don't have a Statista account. If you do have such an account, cite the original sources. If you don't have an account, you should not be citing sources you haven't confirmed merely because they are convenient. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure it interesting that we have a megachurch from the Philippines where its members are promoting an NFT that was hacked by North Korea. Thanks Grayfell for bringing me to this page, never heard of it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Axie Infinity is not an NFT. The paper in question is in fact quite critical of Axie Infinity with regard to psychological issues surrounding any involvement with the game, which I’ve tried to represent in my additions to this article. I haven’t, at any point, been under the impression that the authors are trying to promote the game (be it due to religious or for any other reasons) while reading their article, but would welcome any pointers toward something I might have missed if that’s the case.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axie_Infinity&oldid=1199234567"