5 ms·

In response to these kind of stories, the comment sections online are always filled with crypto advocates upset about the organization not taking their money.

In response to these kind of stories, the comment sections online are always filled with crypto advocates upset about the organization not taking their money. This really makes clear who needs who. Crypto needs wikipedia much more than wikipedia needs crypto. Wikipedia is not hard up for cash (if you earnestly believe their begging ads, you must be naive. Give me a break.) But crypto is hard up for legitimacy.

jdrc 5y ago
its not just the crypto-buffs. This is a purely ideological decision that actually goes against the original libertarian ideas behind wikipedia. Keeping BTC payments costs nothing to wikipedia, and it actually meshes with the original idea of BTC as "native internet money" which has not yet been refuted. Wikipedia and BTC are a good match because of their nonaligned, distributed web 1.0 nature . Wiki&banks are not, wiki&paypal is not. The reasoning behind this decision is purely ideological, and rightfully people should be worried. This will open the floodgates that will eventually lead to the destruction of npov. We have seen this happening so many times with social media and payment platforms that it is laughable to suggest it won't happen this time. Occam's razor would suggest to do nothing, but ideological axes are being wielded. This will turn a lot of people off.
- robonerd 5y ago
  The 'original founding ideas' of wikipedia, whatever they may be, aren't relevant if they aren't actually encoded in the organizations rules. And since nobody can come up with a persuasive argument that wikipedia must accept crypto by wikipedia's own rules, this clearly isn't the case. Without that, the 'founding ideas' are just ideas wikipedians used to have, and are far less relevant than the ideas wikipedians presently have. Their present views are evidenced by this vote, which crypto advocates are clearly upset about.
  - jdrc 5y ago
    > Wikipedia has no firm rules > Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: (almost) every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars people who are looking for rules to manipulate perhaps should build their own projects
    - robonerd 5y ago
      Absent rules to manipulate to force wikipedia to accept crypto, crypto advocates who want to get their way must rely on their powers of persuasion to influence opinions in the present. The opinions of founders years ago, whatever they might have been, aren't relevant.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
ea550ff70a 5y ago
> if you earnestly believe their begging ads, you must be naive. Give me a break. wow you are such an enlightened individual aren't you? Give me a break.
- robonerd 5y ago
  If you don't believe me, go read the financial documents they publish. This topic has been beaten to death innumerable times on this forum and others. They're sitting on a huge pile of cash, far more than they need to operate their already massively bloated organization for many years to come. They earnestly do not need your funny money.
  - ea550ff70a 5y ago
    > They're sitting on a huge pile of cash, far more than they need to operate their already massively bloated organization for many years to come. This is the most ignorant comment I've ever read on an org that relies on donations. Cash runs out my friend (shit happens, operations change and scale, bad decisions occur). It's not like they are a for profit business that can rely on other methods.

jdrc 5y ago

its not just the crypto-buffs. This is a purely ideological decision that actually goes against the original libertarian ideas behind wikipedia. Keeping BTC payments costs nothing to wikipedia, and it actually meshes with the original idea of BTC as "native internet money" which has not yet been refuted. Wikipedia and BTC are a good match because of their nonaligned, distributed web 1.0 nature . Wiki&banks are not, wiki&paypal is not. The reasoning behind this decision is purely ideological, and rightfully people should be worried. This will open the floodgates that will eventually lead to the destruction of npov. We have seen this happening so many times with social media and payment platforms that it is laughable to suggest it won't happen this time. Occam's razor would suggest to do nothing, but ideological axes are being wielded. This will turn a lot of people off.

robonerd 5y ago
The 'original founding ideas' of wikipedia, whatever they may be, aren't relevant if they aren't actually encoded in the organizations rules. And since nobody can come up with a persuasive argument that wikipedia must accept crypto by wikipedia's own rules, this clearly isn't the case. Without that, the 'founding ideas' are just ideas wikipedians used to have, and are far less relevant than the ideas wikipedians presently have. Their present views are evidenced by this vote, which crypto advocates are clearly upset about.
- jdrc 5y ago
  > Wikipedia has no firm rules > Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: (almost) every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars people who are looking for rules to manipulate perhaps should build their own projects
  - robonerd 5y ago
    Absent rules to manipulate to force wikipedia to accept crypto, crypto advocates who want to get their way must rely on their powers of persuasion to influence opinions in the present. The opinions of founders years ago, whatever they might have been, aren't relevant.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

ea550ff70a 5y ago

> if you earnestly believe their begging ads, you must be naive. Give me a break. wow you are such an enlightened individual aren't you? Give me a break.

robonerd 5y ago
If you don't believe me, go read the financial documents they publish. This topic has been beaten to death innumerable times on this forum and others. They're sitting on a huge pile of cash, far more than they need to operate their already massively bloated organization for many years to come. They earnestly do not need your funny money.
- ea550ff70a 5y ago
  > They're sitting on a huge pile of cash, far more than they need to operate their already massively bloated organization for many years to come. This is the most ignorant comment I've ever read on an org that relies on donations. Cash runs out my friend (shit happens, operations change and scale, bad decisions occur). It's not like they are a for profit business that can rely on other methods.