11 ms·

Honestly the reasoning is weird. Don't get me wrong, I think crypto currencies are for the most part a scam, a ponzi scheme or a platform for pump and dumps. Y

Honestly the reasoning is weird. Don't get me wrong, I think crypto currencies are for the most part a scam, a ponzi scheme or a platform for pump and dumps. Yet the whole thing just does not make sense imo. It's one thing to be against crypto, but refusing it when you are a charity for the most asinine moral purity tests is absurd. This 100% reminds me of the almost cultist like extremely negative reaction to anything related to crypto on some parts of twitter. Now I have been active in crypto mocking groups for years , but this feels more like some people have incorporated "anticrypto" to their daily culture war routine. So it must be purged from everywhere. Also, I'm semi active in the wiki community and I have never heard anyone talk about the climate impact of their wiki mania meetups and the hundreds of flights that it requires. Or jimbo going to davos in private planes... etc. Well maybe this is signaling that climate change will actually be taken in consideration by the foundation and the wiki editors for their future policy decisions and RFCs , but I somehow doubt it. The other reasons are even less relevant to wikimedia's mission.

qeternity 5y ago
> when you are a charity They are a non-profit only in the most technical sense these days, but have never been a charity.
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  Yes you are right! I always mix charity and non profit. But yeah, Wikimedia became a huge organization with an annual budget of 150M$ (of which a lot goes to completely unrelated pet projects), so it is a non profit only in a technical sense as you said. But it still feels the need to plead (or almost beg) for 3-5$ donations yearly with huge call to action banners on every wiki page. Which is okay, I get that they need funds. But to then throw away 140 000$ worth of donations on a whim completely contradicts the "every dollar counts, please help" message of their fundraising banners.
  - jackvalentine 5y ago
    Where is the line for what they should accept as payment?
    - 0xRolex 5y ago
      It should be the same line regarding fiat so kinda low i'd say
      - jackvalentine 5y ago
        Should they accept anything that can be exchanged for fiat without too much fuss?
        0xRolex 5y ago
        I don't know, do they really check who donated fiat comes from and refuse donations when it comes from, let's say, anyone involved in anything against their values ?
        Liquid_Fire 5y ago
        Checking this may be impractical. But for crypto donations, you don't need to check - you _know_ that it was generated in an environmentally-unfriendly way (at least for the currencies currently accepted).
        wahnfrieden 5y ago
        eth is moving to proof of stake imminently
        topranks 5y ago
        If I was waiting on a bus that was supposed to arrive “imminently” for this long I’d be well pissed off. https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2020/05/11/vitalik-buterin-says-much-delayed-ethereum-20-still-on-track-for-july-launch/ https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2020/05/11/vitalik-buterin-say...
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    > But to then throw away 140 000$ worth of donations on a whim completely contradicts the "every dollar counts, please help" message of their fundraising banners. The former is a community decision, the latter is done by the WMF. Many in the community, probably a majority, are very annoyed by WMF's yearly dishonest begging runs, and WMF's interference in WP operations in general.
  - topranks 5y ago
    I’m not sure how scale affects whether something is “non profit” or not. This decision has been taken by the community, aka users. This isn’t a decision the WMF has taken, nor have they responded thus far.
ohgodplsno 5y ago
>So it must be purged from everywhere. Yes.
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  I guess to each his own religion.
  - doliveira 5y ago
    You know, it's also quite a cult-ish thing to accuse your critics of being fanatics.
0xRolex 5y ago
Even though the arguments in support of the ban are to be taken into account it's right that the arguments in opposition make a lot of sense and it doesn't seem like they've been taken into account. When you're begging for money you don't spit on a way to get some more because you disagree with some stuff it's related, you look for solutions to please everyone. As you said a lot of what's actually done with cryptocurrencies and blockchain based applications is wrong/pernicious but it doesn't mean that nothing good can come out of it. The all out war from some people you describe can also be seen here and is killing the efforts of serious people trying to build great things.
- josefx 5y ago
  > When you're begging for money But that is just it, Wikipedia isn't that desperate for money that it has to do tricks for con artists and scammers. Now if Wikipedia was tethering at the edge of non existence it might be excusable, but it isn't, it is making enough to keep running without pandering to the scum of the earth.
  - 0xRolex 5y ago
    First i'd love it if out of pure courtesy you avoided using stuff like "the scum of the earth" to describe people you disagree with because it doesn't help in any way. Then with banners like "Help us save Wikipedia, Wikipedia is in danger, donate" on the website at least a month per year I have to disagree with your "Wikipedia isn't desperate for money"
    - josefx 5y ago
      > "the scum of the earth" to describe people you disagree with because it doesn't help in any way. The top comment was classifying crypto coins as mostly " part a scam, a ponzi scheme or a platform for pump and dumps". I was referring to that and if you identify with any of these points, you are most welcome otherwise I apologize for the confusion. > on the website at least a month per year I have to disagree with your "Wikipedia isn't desperate for money" They really aren't, they are even several years ahead of their own financial predictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti...
secretsatan 5y ago
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  Explain? I'm not trying to be offensive or mean, it's just that the reasons given for the RFC had little to do with Wikimedia and reminded me of a typical moral crusade. For example, when they say that it is a huge stain on wikimedia's reputation when the reality is that they started accepted crypto donations 8 years ago with absolutely no controversy (a part from this one)... that to me reeks of projection when almost no one actually cares a part from themselves. So there's no actual reputational damage, it's just a rhetorical argument to avoid saying "I don't like it so it shouldn't be accepted". Which is usually a pretty frowned upon argument in the wiki community
  - secretsatan 5y ago
    [flagged]
  - GoblinSlayer 5y ago
    And since when fiat money pass any moral test?
bb88 5y ago
> Honestly the reasoning is weird. Don't get me wrong, I think crypto currencies are for the most part a scam, a ponzi scheme or a a platform for pump and dumps. and > Yet the whole thing just does not make sense imo. It's one thing to be against crypto, but refusing it when you are a charity for the most asinine moral purity tests is absurd. It seems like the first paragraph you said would be enough of a reason to not accept it.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  Man, there's a baby in that bathwater Wiki RFC are throwing out. There are projects that are fair, were fairly distributed, that work and are secure, that are feeless and instant, all while being truly decentralized. Everything that Bitcoin promised to be and wasn't. So, when the scams die out the best projects willl still exist. It doesn't matter how much of their own face Wikipedia cuts off, but it's sad to see them do it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - zyuiop 5y ago
    Yes but Wikipedia only accepted BTC, BCC and ETH anyway. Maybe one day if what you say becomes true they will go back and accept these fancy new currencies.
  - psychoslave 5y ago
    Or maybe you don’t want to accept water from providers that are well known to have a very negative impact on environment in the first place. Your baby deserve that you don’t tacitly turn a blind eye to well known side impact, all the more when there no lack of clean water provider.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > I think crypto currencies are for the most part a scam > Man, there's a baby in that bathwater It takes a special kind of thinking to insist "yeah, crypto currencies are about 98% scammy, but there must be good in the last 2%!, I've just seen 98 scams in a row, this _increases_ the odds that the next 2 that I see are legit!" Well, * no it does not increase the odds, this is desperate wishful thinking clinging to a fixed belief * what if there is no baby, only bathwater? And where does the burden of proof that there is a baby or not, lie?
EdwardDiego 5y ago
I'm not surprised, Wikimedia can't use "free as in beer, not as in speech" software licences like the Confluent Community one. I guess that they have an ideological drive in what they work with, all power to them.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> It's one thing to be against crypto, but refusing it when you are a charity for the most asinine moral purity tests is absurd. Charities, unlike for-profit businesses, tend to be moral ventures. Refusing donations, modes of operation, etc., for reasons that seem to be “asinine moral purity tests” for anyone with different moral views than the decision-makers is...pretty par for the course.
Aachen 5y ago
Regarding flying people out to do things while citing cryptocurrency climate issues: the former is unavoidable given the goal while the latter has more efficient alternatives in the vast majority of relevant circumstances. That's not to say that I'm thus for or against this ban, or for or against flying people out to edit a website from a central location together (assuming that's what wiki mania meetups are), just that the flaw in the logic is that flying isn't practically avoidable if you want to meet up from across the world, while donations have a thousand other avenues (and for those who aren't able to make a donation now from North Korea or so, it's not to their disadvantage, it's not like Wikipedia was a VPN provider, or like you want to hide a Wikileaks donation from your government). This happens in a lot of the whataboutism around doing one thing for the climate while not being perfect because you still do this other thing.
ithinkso 5y ago
There was a vote, the majority (70%+) of those that voted voted to stop. I don't know why other arguments would matter
- mcherm 5y ago
  Because I didn't participate in that vote, along with huge numbers of people who are similarly situated. I am a user of Wikipedia and a regular donor, but I do not follow whatever list there is of issues to be voted on. This was not a vote of Wikipedia donors, it was a vote of politically active Wikipedia authors on the subject of which donations should be accepted.
  - ithinkso 5y ago
    I understand that but it was not a vote for Wikipedia users nor it was a vote for Wikipedia donors. It was a vote for Wikipedia and what payment do they accept - it has no impact for you as an user, and as a donor - they made their choice how and what they want to be donated to them It's an interesting topic in on itself, about rejecting donations. On one hand they are donations to you so you should be greatful but on the other hand, if they are from the party you're against... well, do you accept even if it helps your cause?
    - topranks 5y ago
      It’s a “community” vote so it’s very much for users (readers and editors). Anyone could participate.
      - ryan_lane 5y ago
        Readers have essentially never been given a vote. The votes are by editors.
  - topranks 5y ago
    It was posted here, on twitter , Reddit etc. There were significant numbers of pro-crypto people sharing it to get people to vote no.
marginalia_nu 5y ago
There's a case for considering crypto de facto blood money. I wouldn't accept crypto on the basis that I can't interact with it without contributing to its ecosystem. What sort of a terrible person would I be if I considered crypto to be a force for evil, but greased its machinery just because there was money in it for me? It's not about signalling moral purity, it's about holding myself to my own standards. How could I look myself in the mirror if I didn't? I don't care if other people accept crypto. I don't even care if they barter ivory, tiger hides, and congolese blood diamonds with Vladimir Putin himself. That's between them and their conscience to sort out.
- jimmydorry 5y ago
  By that token, shouldn't wikimedia be engaging in thorough KYC to ensure none of the money they accept is tainted or as you referred to it: "blood money"?
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    That's up to them. I do accept donations on good faith, but I can't in good faith accept crypto donations as there is no uncertainty about where they come from. I can't in good conscience ignore what I know because there are other things I don't.
    - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
      > I do accept donations on good faith, but I can't in good faith accept crypto donations as there is no uncertainty about where they come from. If I murder a drug dealer, steal his briefcase stuffed with 100-dollar bills, and eventually donate some of that money to you in USD, you will happily accept it "in good faith". But if I work hard as a nurse, exchange some of my hard-earned savings into Ether, and donate it to you, you will refuse because "there is no uncertainty about where they come from"? I'm confused. How are you certain that the USD donations are clean money, and certain that the Ether must be dirty money? I guess just the vague association with "crypto" is enough? Just admit that this is about ideological purity and nothing else.
smcl 5y ago
If someone thinks something is a scam, it makes sense for them to be against making money from the scam
topranks 5y ago
- It’s not significant in terms of the funds it brings in. - Crypto has been on a 10+ year long quest for “adoption”. So far it’s been fairly pathetic. Organisations who accept it provide a focal point for crypto advocates to point to, legitimising it and luring more retail investors into the Ponzi. - The environmental impact is massive, which makes accepting it ethically dubious and does not align with the Wikimedia Foundation’s values.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  > - It’s not significant in terms of the funds it brings in. > Crypto was around 0.08% of our revenue last year, and it remains one of our smallest revenue channels. This alone would be a sufficient reason to drop it if it requires extra accounting work, technical maintenance work, staff training, support work, etc.
- danamit 5y ago
  I worked and got paid in crypto in the past, which made me able to move out. Also I used crypto to pay for services, I just bought a GPU (for gaming, current one broke, I do not mine crypto) with crypto that's still shipping. I won't call the adoption pathetic, it is just that you are not in the circle of adoption/need. Just like I see people mentioning services here that they say they cannot live without and I do not care if they close tomorrow and I have no idea what those services do. Crypto is a needed option, it can be made to be more environmentally friendly. I personally *often* do not (and cannot) benefit from the global banking system despite all the waste it produce from electricity to wasted manpower to the carbon footprint of material for buildings and offices. Crypto as many other technologies have use cases, believe in the use case, don't be dogmatic. This is no different from "we only need Java in the world why other languages exist?".
  - dundarious 5y ago
    If you use almost any goods or services almost anywhere in the world, you at least indirectly benefit from or use the global banking system, as it is the de facto (and probably quite often de jure) system for payments. There are no alternatives that are as good as it, on pretty much any axis. This includes all crypto. I'm not trying to unfairly critique your personal choices, but that's just the reality. Just like how you basically can't possibly survive in a city without participating somehow in the global capitalist market economy, you can't claim to personally not partake in the global banking system. It's everywhere, and you might personally take issue with it and of course can critique it, but you can't claim to not partake or even partly benefit.
indymike 5y ago
> Yet the whole thing just does not make sense imo. It's one thing to be against crypto, but refusing it when you are a charity for the most asinine moral purity tests is absurd. Charities generally have the luxury of having core values superior to delivering a return to investors. To not accept crypto for moral reasons makes much more sense to a not for profit that a for profit business.
- roamerz 5y ago
  Yup core values. More often than not sticking to them come with some kind of cost. Kudos Wikepedia. This world would be a better place if more did the same and honored their core values at whatever cost.
  - ncann 5y ago
    Core values is just a vague concept. A lot of things considered backwards or even downright evil today used to be core values not too long and vice versa, e.g. racial segregation, LGBT, women's right, etc.
    - nemothekid 5y ago
      It’s used to be widely accepted that all light travelled through a luminiferous aether that encompasses the entire universe. Then we learned about special relativity. Societies learn and adapt.
      - varajelle 5y ago
        Strongly disagree. Science is based on fact and whether models fits observations. Politics and core values is more like fashion and there is no right or wrong. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem : science advance is about "is" statements, and core values are "ought" statements.
        otterley 5y ago
ls15 5y ago
> This 100% reminds me of the almost cultist like extremely negative reaction to anything related to crypto on some parts of twitter. This could as well be orchestrated by fiat enthusiasts.
RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
Its because wikipedia has been taken over by the same types that most other big tech companies have been taken over by. Just look at anything political and you'll realize they have for the most part won the war on information and are dutifully silencing and censoring and disagreeing thoughts or facts. The website is not as neutral as it was in its heyday, and that reflection comes in this headline alone.
- RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
  Seeing at least one downvote, expecting a lot more. Gonna have to say, wikipedia is free to do what it wants, I'm all for free markets and freedom to choose what they want, I'm not opposed to their choice. Having said that, there's a good population that exists that don't want to be lied to and we'll just choose somewhere else to get our information if censorship soft or hard continues to get in the way of truth. All I'm saying is people will recognize (and already have recognized) that wikipedia is no longer the source of truth ( and is in many ways controlled by the same personality type of people who are lvl 99 on world of warcraft whose life purpose is to pwn noobs and assert dominance with every living breath )
jancsika 5y ago
> It's one thing to be against crypto, but refusing it when you are a charity for the most asinine moral purity tests is absurd. How can you write that when you just called crypto a "scam, a ponzi scheme or a platform for pump and dumps?" If your characterization is in earnest then any charity would reflexively avoid such a thing. (Possibly excepting Sci-hub who cannot receive donations any other way-- at least that's the only positive edge case I can think of that warrants the "for the most part" hedge) Edit: clarification
w0de0 5y ago
I would balk at accusing any charity of "asinine moral purity tests." A charity explicitly prefers altruism over gain from moral conviction. One can hardly expect them to optimize for financial gain, even if there exists a compelling utilitarian argument that this would allow them to perform more altruism. Indeed, this in my view is preferable - one need only gesture towards the infamy of "the ends justify the means" to make an argument against strict utilitarian behavior.

qeternity 5y ago

> when you are a charity They are a non-profit only in the most technical sense these days, but have never been a charity.

mardifoufs 5y ago
Yes you are right! I always mix charity and non profit. But yeah, Wikimedia became a huge organization with an annual budget of 150M$ (of which a lot goes to completely unrelated pet projects), so it is a non profit only in a technical sense as you said. But it still feels the need to plead (or almost beg) for 3-5$ donations yearly with huge call to action banners on every wiki page. Which is okay, I get that they need funds. But to then throw away 140 000$ worth of donations on a whim completely contradicts the "every dollar counts, please help" message of their fundraising banners.
- jackvalentine 5y ago
  Where is the line for what they should accept as payment?
  - 0xRolex 5y ago
    It should be the same line regarding fiat so kinda low i'd say
    - jackvalentine 5y ago
      Should they accept anything that can be exchanged for fiat without too much fuss?
      - 0xRolex 5y ago
        I don't know, do they really check who donated fiat comes from and refuse donations when it comes from, let's say, anyone involved in anything against their values ?
        Liquid_Fire 5y ago
        Checking this may be impractical. But for crypto donations, you don't need to check - you _know_ that it was generated in an environmentally-unfriendly way (at least for the currencies currently accepted).
        wahnfrieden 5y ago
        eth is moving to proof of stake imminently
        topranks 5y ago
        If I was waiting on a bus that was supposed to arrive “imminently” for this long I’d be well pissed off. https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2020/05/11/vitalik-buterin-says-much-delayed-ethereum-20-still-on-track-for-july-launch/ https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2020/05/11/vitalik-buterin-say...
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  > But to then throw away 140 000$ worth of donations on a whim completely contradicts the "every dollar counts, please help" message of their fundraising banners. The former is a community decision, the latter is done by the WMF. Many in the community, probably a majority, are very annoyed by WMF's yearly dishonest begging runs, and WMF's interference in WP operations in general.
- topranks 5y ago
  I’m not sure how scale affects whether something is “non profit” or not. This decision has been taken by the community, aka users. This isn’t a decision the WMF has taken, nor have they responded thus far.

ohgodplsno 5y ago

>So it must be purged from everywhere. Yes.

mardifoufs 5y ago
I guess to each his own religion.
- doliveira 5y ago
  You know, it's also quite a cult-ish thing to accuse your critics of being fanatics.

0xRolex 5y ago

Even though the arguments in support of the ban are to be taken into account it's right that the arguments in opposition make a lot of sense and it doesn't seem like they've been taken into account. When you're begging for money you don't spit on a way to get some more because you disagree with some stuff it's related, you look for solutions to please everyone. As you said a lot of what's actually done with cryptocurrencies and blockchain based applications is wrong/pernicious but it doesn't mean that nothing good can come out of it. The all out war from some people you describe can also be seen here and is killing the efforts of serious people trying to build great things.

josefx 5y ago
> When you're begging for money But that is just it, Wikipedia isn't that desperate for money that it has to do tricks for con artists and scammers. Now if Wikipedia was tethering at the edge of non existence it might be excusable, but it isn't, it is making enough to keep running without pandering to the scum of the earth.
- 0xRolex 5y ago
  First i'd love it if out of pure courtesy you avoided using stuff like "the scum of the earth" to describe people you disagree with because it doesn't help in any way. Then with banners like "Help us save Wikipedia, Wikipedia is in danger, donate" on the website at least a month per year I have to disagree with your "Wikipedia isn't desperate for money"
  - josefx 5y ago
    > "the scum of the earth" to describe people you disagree with because it doesn't help in any way. The top comment was classifying crypto coins as mostly " part a scam, a ponzi scheme or a platform for pump and dumps". I was referring to that and if you identify with any of these points, you are most welcome otherwise I apologize for the confusion. > on the website at least a month per year I have to disagree with your "Wikipedia isn't desperate for money" They really aren't, they are even several years ahead of their own financial predictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti...

secretsatan 5y ago

mardifoufs 5y ago
Explain? I'm not trying to be offensive or mean, it's just that the reasons given for the RFC had little to do with Wikimedia and reminded me of a typical moral crusade. For example, when they say that it is a huge stain on wikimedia's reputation when the reality is that they started accepted crypto donations 8 years ago with absolutely no controversy (a part from this one)... that to me reeks of projection when almost no one actually cares a part from themselves. So there's no actual reputational damage, it's just a rhetorical argument to avoid saying "I don't like it so it shouldn't be accepted". Which is usually a pretty frowned upon argument in the wiki community
- secretsatan 5y ago
  [flagged]
- GoblinSlayer 5y ago
  And since when fiat money pass any moral test?

bb88 5y ago

> Honestly the reasoning is weird. Don't get me wrong, I think crypto currencies are for the most part a scam, a ponzi scheme or a a platform for pump and dumps. and > Yet the whole thing just does not make sense imo. It's one thing to be against crypto, but refusing it when you are a charity for the most asinine moral purity tests is absurd. It seems like the first paragraph you said would be enough of a reason to not accept it.

mandmandam 5y ago
Man, there's a baby in that bathwater Wiki RFC are throwing out. There are projects that are fair, were fairly distributed, that work and are secure, that are feeless and instant, all while being truly decentralized. Everything that Bitcoin promised to be and wasn't. So, when the scams die out the best projects willl still exist. It doesn't matter how much of their own face Wikipedia cuts off, but it's sad to see them do it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- zyuiop 5y ago
  Yes but Wikipedia only accepted BTC, BCC and ETH anyway. Maybe one day if what you say becomes true they will go back and accept these fancy new currencies.
- psychoslave 5y ago
  Or maybe you don’t want to accept water from providers that are well known to have a very negative impact on environment in the first place. Your baby deserve that you don’t tacitly turn a blind eye to well known side impact, all the more when there no lack of clean water provider.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > I think crypto currencies are for the most part a scam > Man, there's a baby in that bathwater It takes a special kind of thinking to insist "yeah, crypto currencies are about 98% scammy, but there must be good in the last 2%!, I've just seen 98 scams in a row, this _increases_ the odds that the next 2 that I see are legit!" Well, * no it does not increase the odds, this is desperate wishful thinking clinging to a fixed belief * what if there is no baby, only bathwater? And where does the burden of proof that there is a baby or not, lie?

EdwardDiego 5y ago

I'm not surprised, Wikimedia can't use "free as in beer, not as in speech" software licences like the Confluent Community one. I guess that they have an ideological drive in what they work with, all power to them.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> It's one thing to be against crypto, but refusing it when you are a charity for the most asinine moral purity tests is absurd. Charities, unlike for-profit businesses, tend to be moral ventures. Refusing donations, modes of operation, etc., for reasons that seem to be “asinine moral purity tests” for anyone with different moral views than the decision-makers is...pretty par for the course.

Aachen 5y ago

Regarding flying people out to do things while citing cryptocurrency climate issues: the former is unavoidable given the goal while the latter has more efficient alternatives in the vast majority of relevant circumstances. That's not to say that I'm thus for or against this ban, or for or against flying people out to edit a website from a central location together (assuming that's what wiki mania meetups are), just that the flaw in the logic is that flying isn't practically avoidable if you want to meet up from across the world, while donations have a thousand other avenues (and for those who aren't able to make a donation now from North Korea or so, it's not to their disadvantage, it's not like Wikipedia was a VPN provider, or like you want to hide a Wikileaks donation from your government). This happens in a lot of the whataboutism around doing one thing for the climate while not being perfect because you still do this other thing.

ithinkso 5y ago

There was a vote, the majority (70%+) of those that voted voted to stop. I don't know why other arguments would matter

mcherm 5y ago
Because I didn't participate in that vote, along with huge numbers of people who are similarly situated. I am a user of Wikipedia and a regular donor, but I do not follow whatever list there is of issues to be voted on. This was not a vote of Wikipedia donors, it was a vote of politically active Wikipedia authors on the subject of which donations should be accepted.
- ithinkso 5y ago
  I understand that but it was not a vote for Wikipedia users nor it was a vote for Wikipedia donors. It was a vote for Wikipedia and what payment do they accept - it has no impact for you as an user, and as a donor - they made their choice how and what they want to be donated to them It's an interesting topic in on itself, about rejecting donations. On one hand they are donations to you so you should be greatful but on the other hand, if they are from the party you're against... well, do you accept even if it helps your cause?
  - topranks 5y ago
    It’s a “community” vote so it’s very much for users (readers and editors). Anyone could participate.
    - ryan_lane 5y ago
      Readers have essentially never been given a vote. The votes are by editors.
- topranks 5y ago
  It was posted here, on twitter , Reddit etc. There were significant numbers of pro-crypto people sharing it to get people to vote no.

marginalia_nu 5y ago

There's a case for considering crypto de facto blood money. I wouldn't accept crypto on the basis that I can't interact with it without contributing to its ecosystem. What sort of a terrible person would I be if I considered crypto to be a force for evil, but greased its machinery just because there was money in it for me? It's not about signalling moral purity, it's about holding myself to my own standards. How could I look myself in the mirror if I didn't? I don't care if other people accept crypto. I don't even care if they barter ivory, tiger hides, and congolese blood diamonds with Vladimir Putin himself. That's between them and their conscience to sort out.

jimmydorry 5y ago
By that token, shouldn't wikimedia be engaging in thorough KYC to ensure none of the money they accept is tainted or as you referred to it: "blood money"?
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  That's up to them. I do accept donations on good faith, but I can't in good faith accept crypto donations as there is no uncertainty about where they come from. I can't in good conscience ignore what I know because there are other things I don't.
  - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
    > I do accept donations on good faith, but I can't in good faith accept crypto donations as there is no uncertainty about where they come from. If I murder a drug dealer, steal his briefcase stuffed with 100-dollar bills, and eventually donate some of that money to you in USD, you will happily accept it "in good faith". But if I work hard as a nurse, exchange some of my hard-earned savings into Ether, and donate it to you, you will refuse because "there is no uncertainty about where they come from"? I'm confused. How are you certain that the USD donations are clean money, and certain that the Ether must be dirty money? I guess just the vague association with "crypto" is enough? Just admit that this is about ideological purity and nothing else.

smcl 5y ago

If someone thinks something is a scam, it makes sense for them to be against making money from the scam

topranks 5y ago

- It’s not significant in terms of the funds it brings in. - Crypto has been on a 10+ year long quest for “adoption”. So far it’s been fairly pathetic. Organisations who accept it provide a focal point for crypto advocates to point to, legitimising it and luring more retail investors into the Ponzi. - The environmental impact is massive, which makes accepting it ethically dubious and does not align with the Wikimedia Foundation’s values.

londons_explore 5y ago
> - It’s not significant in terms of the funds it brings in. > Crypto was around 0.08% of our revenue last year, and it remains one of our smallest revenue channels. This alone would be a sufficient reason to drop it if it requires extra accounting work, technical maintenance work, staff training, support work, etc.
danamit 5y ago
I worked and got paid in crypto in the past, which made me able to move out. Also I used crypto to pay for services, I just bought a GPU (for gaming, current one broke, I do not mine crypto) with crypto that's still shipping. I won't call the adoption pathetic, it is just that you are not in the circle of adoption/need. Just like I see people mentioning services here that they say they cannot live without and I do not care if they close tomorrow and I have no idea what those services do. Crypto is a needed option, it can be made to be more environmentally friendly. I personally *often* do not (and cannot) benefit from the global banking system despite all the waste it produce from electricity to wasted manpower to the carbon footprint of material for buildings and offices. Crypto as many other technologies have use cases, believe in the use case, don't be dogmatic. This is no different from "we only need Java in the world why other languages exist?".
- dundarious 5y ago
  If you use almost any goods or services almost anywhere in the world, you at least indirectly benefit from or use the global banking system, as it is the de facto (and probably quite often de jure) system for payments. There are no alternatives that are as good as it, on pretty much any axis. This includes all crypto. I'm not trying to unfairly critique your personal choices, but that's just the reality. Just like how you basically can't possibly survive in a city without participating somehow in the global capitalist market economy, you can't claim to personally not partake in the global banking system. It's everywhere, and you might personally take issue with it and of course can critique it, but you can't claim to not partake or even partly benefit.

indymike 5y ago

> Yet the whole thing just does not make sense imo. It's one thing to be against crypto, but refusing it when you are a charity for the most asinine moral purity tests is absurd. Charities generally have the luxury of having core values superior to delivering a return to investors. To not accept crypto for moral reasons makes much more sense to a not for profit that a for profit business.

roamerz 5y ago
Yup core values. More often than not sticking to them come with some kind of cost. Kudos Wikepedia. This world would be a better place if more did the same and honored their core values at whatever cost.
- ncann 5y ago
  Core values is just a vague concept. A lot of things considered backwards or even downright evil today used to be core values not too long and vice versa, e.g. racial segregation, LGBT, women's right, etc.
  - nemothekid 5y ago
    It’s used to be widely accepted that all light travelled through a luminiferous aether that encompasses the entire universe. Then we learned about special relativity. Societies learn and adapt.
    - varajelle 5y ago
      Strongly disagree. Science is based on fact and whether models fits observations. Politics and core values is more like fashion and there is no right or wrong. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem : science advance is about "is" statements, and core values are "ought" statements.
      - otterley 5y ago

ls15 5y ago

> This 100% reminds me of the almost cultist like extremely negative reaction to anything related to crypto on some parts of twitter. This could as well be orchestrated by fiat enthusiasts.

RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago

Its because wikipedia has been taken over by the same types that most other big tech companies have been taken over by. Just look at anything political and you'll realize they have for the most part won the war on information and are dutifully silencing and censoring and disagreeing thoughts or facts. The website is not as neutral as it was in its heyday, and that reflection comes in this headline alone.

RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
Seeing at least one downvote, expecting a lot more. Gonna have to say, wikipedia is free to do what it wants, I'm all for free markets and freedom to choose what they want, I'm not opposed to their choice. Having said that, there's a good population that exists that don't want to be lied to and we'll just choose somewhere else to get our information if censorship soft or hard continues to get in the way of truth. All I'm saying is people will recognize (and already have recognized) that wikipedia is no longer the source of truth ( and is in many ways controlled by the same personality type of people who are lvl 99 on world of warcraft whose life purpose is to pwn noobs and assert dominance with every living breath )

jancsika 5y ago

> It's one thing to be against crypto, but refusing it when you are a charity for the most asinine moral purity tests is absurd. How can you write that when you just called crypto a "scam, a ponzi scheme or a platform for pump and dumps?" If your characterization is in earnest then any charity would reflexively avoid such a thing. (Possibly excepting Sci-hub who cannot receive donations any other way-- at least that's the only positive edge case I can think of that warrants the "for the most part" hedge) Edit: clarification

w0de0 5y ago

I would balk at accusing any charity of "asinine moral purity tests." A charity explicitly prefers altruism over gain from moral conviction. One can hardly expect them to optimize for financial gain, even if there exists a compelling utilitarian argument that this would allow them to perform more altruism. Indeed, this in my view is preferable - one need only gesture towards the infamy of "the ends justify the means" to make an argument against strict utilitarian behavior.