4 ms·

So this is not great news at all, a totally inconsequential and pointless move for signaling virtue (look at the arguments given), which is contrary to wikipedi

by jdrc 4y ago

So this is not great news at all, a totally inconsequential and pointless move for signaling virtue (look at the arguments given), which is contrary to wikipedia's aim to be neutral

Gigachad 4y ago
Removing the payment method simplifies the donations system. And since it’s not generating any value, it’s not worth keeping.
- jdrc 4y ago
  that was not one of the arguments made in the RFC > Common arguments in support include: issues of environmental sustainability, that accepting cryptocurrencies constitutes implicit endorsement of the issues surrounding cryptocurrencies, and community issues with the risk to the movement’s reputation for accepting cryptocurrencies. it looks 100% ideological
  - aaronbrethorst 4y ago
    Accepting cryptocurrencies is equally ideological
    - CryptoPunk 4y ago
      The ideology of people not needing a central government's permission to privately interact? What I would concede is that it does challenge the dominant ideology of the establishment. As this former Federal Reserve economist describes, the Federal Reserve system is extremely centralized: https://twitter.com/gordonliao/status/1484605701435523072?s=20&t=NpU-wAnoZ5736jOsrE_v6A https://twitter.com/gordonliao/status/1484605701435523072?s=... This is just one aspect of centralized economic control cryptocurrency threatens to upend. Centralization will inevitably engender rent-seeking, so the dominant ideological framework being one that glorifies that centralized gatekeeping, and villifies a free market, is entirely predictable.
    - derevaunseraun 4y ago
      since when?
      - jeltz 4y ago
        Since many years ago. The cryptocurrency movement has always been very ideological.
        jdrc 4y ago
        so has the anti-crypto so we are at an impasse
        tablespoon 4y ago
        >> Since many years ago. The cryptocurrency movement has always been very ideological. > so has the anti-crypto so we are at an impasse No on both counts. Also, the "cryptocurrency movement" isn't just regular ideological, it's particularly ideological. Cryptocurrency wasn't made to fill any practical need, it was made to fit certain peculiar ideological obsessions.
        throwawaw741741 4y ago
        You're wrong. It was definitely made to fill a practical need: avoiding the middle man. Why do you think it's so popular in corrupt authorarian thirld-word countries? And if you live in the US/Europe, you'll get there eventually.
        tablespoon 4y ago
        > You're wrong. It was definitely made to fill a practical need: avoiding the middle man. No I'm not. Also, with cryptocurrency you still have middlemen. To whom are you paying fees to clear your transactions on your dog-slow, unscalable, extremely inefficient network? And why do these systems have the negative characteristics I just mentioned? The peculiar ideological obsessions I referred to earlier. > Why do you think it's so popular in corrupt authorarian thirld-word countries? And if you live in the US/Europe, you'll get there eventually. I'll believe it when I see it. And frankly, those use cases are nonsensical. How exactly is someone supposed to convert their Syrian Pounds into cryptocurrency, and after they do that, what use is it? It's not like it's an actual currency that you can buy things with. It's mainly speculative investment surrounded by enormous hype.
    - 0xRolex 4y ago
      Common arguments in opposition include: the existence of less energy-intensive cryptocurrencies (proof-of-stake), that cryptocurrencies provide safer ways to donate and engage in finance for people in oppressive countries I don't see how energy efficient currencies and allowing safer ways for people in oppressive countries to donate is ideological
    - ea550ff70a 4y ago
      Accepting the war-driven petro-dollar is equally ideological.
tablespoon 4y ago
> So this is not great news at all, a totally inconsequential and pointless move for signaling virtue (look at the arguments given), which is contrary to wikipedia's aim to be neutral WP:NPOV is about article content, not payment systems.
- jdrc 4y ago
  > NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. > Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    That applies to article content, not stuff like this RFC. Maybe an example would be clearer: OK: The community doesn't like cryptocurrency, so decides not to accept it for donations. NOT OK: The community doesn't like cryptocurrency, so turns the Bitcoin article into a hit-piece that only covers criticisms.
    - jdrc 4y ago
      what about the second statement from wikipedia's principles: it is not a soapbox. It would be interesting to put banks to a vote with the same kind of arguments as well
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        > what about the second statement from wikipedia's principles: it is not a soapbox. It would be interesting to put banks to a vote with the same kind of arguments as well Let me just put this this way: you are interpreting the text wrong, and repeatedly circling back to your wrong interpretation won't make it right. Pithy texts usually don't impart a full, correct understanding when read in isolation. It's
jraph 4y ago
Accepting cryptocurrencies is not neutral neither. Neutral hardly exists.
- jdrc 4y ago
  accepting bitcoin is as legal and regulated as banks and paypal. as if banks don't spend billions in pointless air travel and (empty in past 2 years) concrete highrises. When WP goes down the ideological rabbit hole everyone loses. maybe someone will follow up with an RFC to remove banks Then paypal
  - lxgr 4y ago
    It seems pretty clear that ethics, not legality, was the main consideration here.
  - depaya 4y ago
    Accepting bushels of corn is also legal, but why would Wikipedia want to get into the business of accepting them?
drak0n1c 4y ago
According to Wikipedia's co-founder, it hasn't aimed to be neutral in a long while. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
- JaimeThompson 4y ago
  That article itself isn't exactly free of bias nor is it fully accurate, some of the things listed as not being mentioned are.

by jdrc 4y ago

So this is not great news at all, a totally inconsequential and pointless move for signaling virtue (look at the arguments given), which is contrary to wikipedia's aim to be neutral

Gigachad 4y ago

Removing the payment method simplifies the donations system. And since it’s not generating any value, it’s not worth keeping.

jdrc 4y ago
that was not one of the arguments made in the RFC > Common arguments in support include: issues of environmental sustainability, that accepting cryptocurrencies constitutes implicit endorsement of the issues surrounding cryptocurrencies, and community issues with the risk to the movement’s reputation for accepting cryptocurrencies. it looks 100% ideological
- aaronbrethorst 4y ago
  Accepting cryptocurrencies is equally ideological
  - CryptoPunk 4y ago
    The ideology of people not needing a central government's permission to privately interact? What I would concede is that it does challenge the dominant ideology of the establishment. As this former Federal Reserve economist describes, the Federal Reserve system is extremely centralized: https://twitter.com/gordonliao/status/1484605701435523072?s=20&t=NpU-wAnoZ5736jOsrE_v6A https://twitter.com/gordonliao/status/1484605701435523072?s=... This is just one aspect of centralized economic control cryptocurrency threatens to upend. Centralization will inevitably engender rent-seeking, so the dominant ideological framework being one that glorifies that centralized gatekeeping, and villifies a free market, is entirely predictable.
  - derevaunseraun 4y ago
    since when?
    - jeltz 4y ago
      Since many years ago. The cryptocurrency movement has always been very ideological.
      - jdrc 4y ago
        so has the anti-crypto so we are at an impasse
        tablespoon 4y ago
        >> Since many years ago. The cryptocurrency movement has always been very ideological. > so has the anti-crypto so we are at an impasse No on both counts. Also, the "cryptocurrency movement" isn't just regular ideological, it's particularly ideological. Cryptocurrency wasn't made to fill any practical need, it was made to fit certain peculiar ideological obsessions.
        throwawaw741741 4y ago
        You're wrong. It was definitely made to fill a practical need: avoiding the middle man. Why do you think it's so popular in corrupt authorarian thirld-word countries? And if you live in the US/Europe, you'll get there eventually.
        tablespoon 4y ago
        > You're wrong. It was definitely made to fill a practical need: avoiding the middle man. No I'm not. Also, with cryptocurrency you still have middlemen. To whom are you paying fees to clear your transactions on your dog-slow, unscalable, extremely inefficient network? And why do these systems have the negative characteristics I just mentioned? The peculiar ideological obsessions I referred to earlier. > Why do you think it's so popular in corrupt authorarian thirld-word countries? And if you live in the US/Europe, you'll get there eventually. I'll believe it when I see it. And frankly, those use cases are nonsensical. How exactly is someone supposed to convert their Syrian Pounds into cryptocurrency, and after they do that, what use is it? It's not like it's an actual currency that you can buy things with. It's mainly speculative investment surrounded by enormous hype.
  - 0xRolex 4y ago
    Common arguments in opposition include: the existence of less energy-intensive cryptocurrencies (proof-of-stake), that cryptocurrencies provide safer ways to donate and engage in finance for people in oppressive countries I don't see how energy efficient currencies and allowing safer ways for people in oppressive countries to donate is ideological
  - ea550ff70a 4y ago
    Accepting the war-driven petro-dollar is equally ideological.

tablespoon 4y ago

> So this is not great news at all, a totally inconsequential and pointless move for signaling virtue (look at the arguments given), which is contrary to wikipedia's aim to be neutral WP:NPOV is about article content, not payment systems.

jdrc 4y ago
> NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. > Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  That applies to article content, not stuff like this RFC. Maybe an example would be clearer: OK: The community doesn't like cryptocurrency, so decides not to accept it for donations. NOT OK: The community doesn't like cryptocurrency, so turns the Bitcoin article into a hit-piece that only covers criticisms.
  - jdrc 4y ago
    what about the second statement from wikipedia's principles: it is not a soapbox. It would be interesting to put banks to a vote with the same kind of arguments as well
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > what about the second statement from wikipedia's principles: it is not a soapbox. It would be interesting to put banks to a vote with the same kind of arguments as well Let me just put this this way: you are interpreting the text wrong, and repeatedly circling back to your wrong interpretation won't make it right. Pithy texts usually don't impart a full, correct understanding when read in isolation. It's

jraph 4y ago

Accepting cryptocurrencies is not neutral neither. Neutral hardly exists.

jdrc 4y ago
accepting bitcoin is as legal and regulated as banks and paypal. as if banks don't spend billions in pointless air travel and (empty in past 2 years) concrete highrises. When WP goes down the ideological rabbit hole everyone loses. maybe someone will follow up with an RFC to remove banks Then paypal
- lxgr 4y ago
  It seems pretty clear that ethics, not legality, was the main consideration here.
- depaya 4y ago
  Accepting bushels of corn is also legal, but why would Wikipedia want to get into the business of accepting them?

drak0n1c 4y ago

According to Wikipedia's co-founder, it hasn't aimed to be neutral in a long while. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

JaimeThompson 4y ago
That article itself isn't exactly free of bias nor is it fully accurate, some of the things listed as not being mentioned are.