4 ms·

its not just the crypto-buffs. This is a purely ideological decision that actually goes against the original libertarian ideas behind wikipedia. Keeping BTC pay

by jdrc 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
      [deleted]

by jdrc 4y ago

robonerd 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
    [deleted]