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 wikipe
by tablespoon 5y 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 5y 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 5y agoThat 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 5y agowhat 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 5y 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