5 ms·

So they excluded all the new accounts and unregistered voters, and only got 70% of the vote for reasons that are all solved with education. Thats… medieval.

Macha 5y ago
It turns out when you do allow anyone on the internet to sign up to your community to vote on what it does, you get the FCC net neutrality ballot stuffing, so I can't blame them
- vmception 5y ago
  Why was that an option? What was the voting results otherwise? So many questions
  - Macha 5y ago
    You can count it up yourself without the exclusions, voting on wikimedia is just editing the talk page to include your comment with the word Oppose/Support and a signature. The raw counts are: Strongly support: 35 (+1 with no icon, not sure if this got counted) Support: 192 (+1 with no icon) Weakly support: 4 Weakly oppose: 5 Oppose: 86 Strongly oppose: 20 So the "raw" figures are 233 to 111 or 68%, still a clear majority and not that different from the 72% "anti-astroturfing" figure. I'd also point out that voting on wikipedia is also non-binding.
    - vmception 5y ago
      Thanks! That makes me more comfortable with how they normalized the data. It wasnt like a “FCC Net Neutrality” result at all
TheDong 5y ago
> reasons that are all solved with education Reasons like "risk to the movement’s reputation for accepting cryptocurrencies", solvable with education, sure. People who use cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and other related stuff all have a vested interest in it succeeding. That has led to a lot of people who have annoyingly strong opinions about it. Things like "educating others" by cryptobro-splaining all over things is not going to solve the reputation of the movement. What's happening here is that you're seeing a peek into a different bubble. In your bubble, only a lack of education would be a valid reason to avoid bitcoin. In the bubble of wikipedia users who care enough to touch this poll, it is far less one-sided. I assure you all of those users who voted for or against have more than an average amount of education on the issues too, it's not like you can be the sort of person who votes on a wikipedia RFC without _also_ being a very online person.
- DocTomoe 5y ago
  The moment you understand your web project as a "movement" is the moment you need to take a step back and carefully consider which track you are really on. Very few good things ever came from organisations that self-described as a movement, but we got plenty of crime and sometimes genocides out of movements.
- vmception 5y ago
  Yes, exactly like that reason. Linked to the other reason about their environmental impact which is not relevant to most crypto currencies. And the problem of supposed implicit endorsement of the perceived environmental impact, which changes when people understand which crypto currencies to use or how to use them or what specific problems to solve or advocate against. All solved with education. If people that know this cant be a source then who can be a source, in your opinion?
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    > their environmental impact which is not relevant to most crypto currencies. It's very relevant to "most" cryptocurrencies by value, though - Bitcoin and Ethereum are still PoW, and these two make up most of the market anyway, especially when including other coins based on their chains, like Tether and USDC.
- sennight 5y ago
  > ...vested interest in it succeeding. That has led to a lot of people who have annoyingly strong opinions about it. Cryptobro-splainer here. Having been involved from the beginning, I can tell you that detractors (especially vocal ones) are far more invested than proponents. Imagine declaring bitcoin dead in 2014, and then again the next year, and then the next... and while this is going on you can't help but calculate how much potential profit your mistake has cost you. You are also going to be struggling with envy, and your offended sense of justice. What would such an experience do to a person? Well, it makes them very upset - and desperate for something that would shield their ego. The whole environmental impact cover is a perfect example: the papers people point to are always poorly executed, using outdated data and poorly justified guestimation... always without acknowledging the most important part - "relative to what?" But that isn't really the point, the point is to provide a moral justification for the costly shortsighted position.

Macha 5y ago

It turns out when you do allow anyone on the internet to sign up to your community to vote on what it does, you get the FCC net neutrality ballot stuffing, so I can't blame them

vmception 5y ago
Why was that an option? What was the voting results otherwise? So many questions
- Macha 5y ago
  You can count it up yourself without the exclusions, voting on wikimedia is just editing the talk page to include your comment with the word Oppose/Support and a signature. The raw counts are: Strongly support: 35 (+1 with no icon, not sure if this got counted) Support: 192 (+1 with no icon) Weakly support: 4 Weakly oppose: 5 Oppose: 86 Strongly oppose: 20 So the "raw" figures are 233 to 111 or 68%, still a clear majority and not that different from the 72% "anti-astroturfing" figure. I'd also point out that voting on wikipedia is also non-binding.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Thanks! That makes me more comfortable with how they normalized the data. It wasnt like a “FCC Net Neutrality” result at all

TheDong 5y ago

> reasons that are all solved with education Reasons like "risk to the movement’s reputation for accepting cryptocurrencies", solvable with education, sure. People who use cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and other related stuff all have a vested interest in it succeeding. That has led to a lot of people who have annoyingly strong opinions about it. Things like "educating others" by cryptobro-splaining all over things is not going to solve the reputation of the movement. What's happening here is that you're seeing a peek into a different bubble. In your bubble, only a lack of education would be a valid reason to avoid bitcoin. In the bubble of wikipedia users who care enough to touch this poll, it is far less one-sided. I assure you all of those users who voted for or against have more than an average amount of education on the issues too, it's not like you can be the sort of person who votes on a wikipedia RFC without _also_ being a very online person.

DocTomoe 5y ago
The moment you understand your web project as a "movement" is the moment you need to take a step back and carefully consider which track you are really on. Very few good things ever came from organisations that self-described as a movement, but we got plenty of crime and sometimes genocides out of movements.
vmception 5y ago
Yes, exactly like that reason. Linked to the other reason about their environmental impact which is not relevant to most crypto currencies. And the problem of supposed implicit endorsement of the perceived environmental impact, which changes when people understand which crypto currencies to use or how to use them or what specific problems to solve or advocate against. All solved with education. If people that know this cant be a source then who can be a source, in your opinion?
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  > their environmental impact which is not relevant to most crypto currencies. It's very relevant to "most" cryptocurrencies by value, though - Bitcoin and Ethereum are still PoW, and these two make up most of the market anyway, especially when including other coins based on their chains, like Tether and USDC.
sennight 5y ago
> ...vested interest in it succeeding. That has led to a lot of people who have annoyingly strong opinions about it. Cryptobro-splainer here. Having been involved from the beginning, I can tell you that detractors (especially vocal ones) are far more invested than proponents. Imagine declaring bitcoin dead in 2014, and then again the next year, and then the next... and while this is going on you can't help but calculate how much potential profit your mistake has cost you. You are also going to be struggling with envy, and your offended sense of justice. What would such an experience do to a person? Well, it makes them very upset - and desperate for something that would shield their ego. The whole environmental impact cover is a perfect example: the papers people point to are always poorly executed, using outdated data and poorly justified guestimation... always without acknowledging the most important part - "relative to what?" But that isn't really the point, the point is to provide a moral justification for the costly shortsighted position.