Likely requiring a certain threshold, such as "above 95%".
Wikipedia article LK-99 mentions prediction markets in the following manner:
>A video from Huazhong University of Science and Technology uploaded on 1 August 2023 by a postdoctoral researcher on the team of Chang Haixin,[41] apparently showed a micrometre-sized sample of LK-99 partially levitating. This went viral on Chinese social media, becoming the most viewed video on Bilibili by the next day,[56][41] and a prediction market briefly put the chance of successful replication at 60%.[57] A researcher from the Chinese Academy of Sciences refused to comment on the video for the press, dismissing the claim as "ridiculous".[56]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99
>Prediction markets show very accurate forecasts of an election outcome. One example is the Iowa Electronic Markets. In a study, 964 election polls were compared with the five US presidential elections from 1988 to 2004. Berg et al. (2008) showed that the Iowa Electronic Markets topped the polls 74% of the time.[11] However, damped polls have been shown to top prediction markets. Comparing damped polls to forecasts of the Iowa Electronic Markets, Erikson and Wlezien (2008) showed that the damped polls outperform all markets or models.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_forecasting
>In 1995, Sale agreed to a public bet with Kevin Kelly that by the year 2020, there would be a convergence of three disasters: global currency collapse, significant warfare between rich and poor, and environmental disasters of some significant size. The bet was turned into a claim on the FX prediction market, where the probability has hovered around 25%.[2][18] Sale and Kelly agreed that William Patrick would be the judge of the outcome. Patrick stated that Kelly had won the bet. Sale then refused to acknowledge the loss, and did not pay the $1000 that had been previously agreed.[19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkpatrick_Sale
Some other potential inclusions:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuo_Jung-tsung#cite_ref-10 (a prediction market is used as a source for the likelihood of this politician winning)
>As of January 18, Brown led Coakley in the Intrade prediction market by high double-digit margins.[93][94] Statistician Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com projected on January 18 that there was a 75% chance that Brown would defeat Coakley.[95]
>The disaster occurred only seven weeks prior to the 2011 general election (which took place on 26 November 2011) and partially affected the campaign.[54] On 14 October it was reported that the disaster had caused a 4% drop in the governing National Party's polling on the iPredict prediction market.[55]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rena_oil_spill
In most of these cases, the usage of a prediction market as a source has persisted over numerous Wikipedia edits, for example the prediction in the LK-99 article has been there since Jan 2024. I believe this closely aligns with the example that
gave to clarify the resolution criteria: "Prediction markets indicate that the origin of Covid-19 was likely from an accidental laboratory release."
Also, even if citing prediction markets is not commonplace, Wikipedia editors clearly accept using them as a valid form of evidence to use for their articles, given the persistence of these examples.
Here's a Polymarket market being cited on Wikipedia as a primary source about itself.
@marvingardens It was added in September, meets the Wikipedia criteria for primary sources, and evidently didn't trip any bots that look for unapproved sources.
On the talk page, we can see ~10 active editors in good standing, including one former Wikipedia administrator, discussing various aspects of the article after the September edit. One section of discussion is dedicated to the exact portion of the article with the citation in question. At no point does anyone raise any questions or objections about the citation. At no point in the article's history has the citation been removed, while the aforementioned editors made various changes all around it.
@marvingardens based on the section linked and the list of references, I don’t see anything citing the market itself. I only see citations to news articles discussing the odds on polymarket.
@GleamingRhino The link is directly to the citation of a Polymarket market. You can see the citation number in the URL.
@marvingardens I think just ping @IsaacKing -- until the market is closed, moderators are unlikely to intervene here. Isaac shows up from time to time so keep pinging to get a review.
@marvingardens This doesn't seem to me like the question author's intention (especially given "likely requiring a certain threshold" in the description). I think the author meant citing markets themselves as a source of ground truth (e.g. "Ultimately, LK-99 was found to not be a room-temperature superconductor[1]" and then later "[1] [Link to Polymarket question about LK-99]".
(I also think that it's clear enough that this was the intention that the Polymarket citation should not cause the market to resolve YES.)
@EricNeyman Certainly we can agree that your example is one kind of citation that Isaac was thinking of. I do not see any reason to say it's the only kind of citation acceptable for this market resolution.