Bitcoin Forum

i wasn't clear about that.. i don't have a problem with wikipedia soliciting for donations. but it's just that they are too dumb or lazy to actually try out BTC. i mean they could get it converted to fiat easily, but they still won't do it.

Don't use it, then ...

Obviously, Wikipedia is not the place to learn if you're after some ideologically loaded topics. Otherwise it's fine

I was an active user in Wikipedia for the past many many years. I had more than 30,000 edits to my name. From 2011, most of the sections in Wikipedia were under the control of organized cabals. I wrote to Jimmy Wales many times warning against this. But many of the users who voiced against this were later banned. In the section I was following, the leader of the Cabal was from Manchester, known by his alibi "Simon Tushingham". Despite this guy committing all sorts of one-sided edits, Wales supported him. Tushingham frequently bragged in Wikipedia that he regularly talked to Wales in his cell phone and were good friends in real life. I had enough and quit Wikipedia in 2011. I know many more who did the same.

Wikipedia is similar to a ponzi scheme. They publicized themselves as a "free" and "unbiased" online encyclopedia. Once they had enough following, they kicked out the old users and showed their true colors.

They have been a source of much of my knowledge.

Wikipedia was probably a CFR/NSA/CIA front from the very beginning.

The whole premise of the site is to mix factual trivia with the many 'Big Lies' in falsified history, including major government black ops like the fake 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Norway, Boston marathon and Sandy Hook terror or serial shooting attacks.

Wikipedia is clearly aligned with the global fascist government drive. It appeared out of nowhere with massive bandwidth and server resources, with no adequate explanation of how it secured these. It continues to report fully debunked and discredited falsified events as real, to aid the UN plans for gun control, free trade open borders, international socialism on steroids, the attack on Christianity, attack on the family etc.

I understand that only reference links from the likes of the BBC, Reuters, AP and CNN are permissable on Wikipedia now. In other words, Wikipedia is nothing more than an echo chamber for the SIX companies that control the global media. Most of the editors are university professors, doctors, economists, civil servants, teachers etc. who are Fabian socialists. The site is a complete joke.

Personally I reckon it's time for a true anarchist/libertarian version of Wikipedia.

Very funny. I had a feeling somebody would do that. Do you refute that Sandy Hook was a fake serial shooting?

Or that the Boston marathon attack was a false flag carried out by NATO, the World Bank, Homeland Security, Israeli Mossad (Max Brenner/Strauss Israel/IDF Leadership School), Jardine Matheson, Mayor's Office, Rotary Club, Harvard Medical School etc.

The latter has been totally deconstructed but it seems Wikipedia supports the official government version of events still.

Can you provide an explanation of that, beyond posting images of Alex Jones?

Yes, I do refute all of the above, unless you can convince me otherwise. What evidence do you have that Sandy Hook was a 'fake' shooting, or Boston Bombing was a false flag attack carried out by Nato etc? And what was the reasons for them?

It's not rocket science. The only way this current bankrupt system may continue in north America, is by turning the average American citizen or resident into a 'terrorist.' This translates to billions of dollars spent on high tech security equipment (vendors who just happen to be part of Homeland Security itself), and the opportunity to levy all sorts of spurious fines, fees and extra charges, to keep the machine going for as long as possible before the final collapse.

The reason for all the false flags is that there is NO real terrorist threat, so the government has to fabricate it. It's called psychological warfare. Wikipedia is part of the same psychological warfare outfit.

If you're interested to know more and have a weekend to spare, check out cluesforum.info.

"American people don't believe anything until they see it on television.” Richard M. Nixon

Personally I reckon it's time for a true anarchist/libertarian version of Wikipedia.

A lot of people are currently trying. I have heard that Metapedia has improved quite a lot these days. Have idea about any other alternate Wiki sites?

What's to stop that not being taken over? When anything is open and free to use it's also free and easy to exploit it for your own gain.

If you’ve browsed Wikipedia for any length of time, you’re certainly familiar by now with the site’s periodic donation drives. In order to cover hosting and bandwidth costs without slathering every page in advertisements, the Wikimedia Foundation asks that its users donate as little as $3 to help the site continue to bring to the world its extensive knowledge of the minutiae of anime plots and lightsaber combat. As the site manages massive amounts of traffic, these drives are fairly frequent now, leading to what very well could be the mating call of the bitcoiner:

“Wikipedia should accept donations in Bitcoin!”

Every time a donation drive starts up, bitcoiners, especially those on reddit, drive themselves into a frenzy, pestering the website’s beleaguered administrative team via email and other messages, hounding them to take Bitcoin instead of things like credit cards or PayPal. This is rebuffed every single time with what has become a form letter:

    Thanks for your email and for your interest in supporting free knowledge. Unfortunately we do not accept bitcoin, however, we are aware of bitcoin and we will continue to monitor it with interest. For a full list of other donation options, please visit http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give/en. Thank you again for your interest!

For anyone who’s worked with the public, especially a segment of the public that is convinced that terrible ideas are in fact good, this is a pretty standard brush-off, meant to fool the recipient into thinking someone cares about their stupid ideas and that they may even be implemented some time in the near future. The reality is that nobody will do anything remotely close to something like “accepting Bitcoin,” “adding the requested feature” to software, or letting your WoW character have every spell in the game. It’s a meaningless message, meant to placate and nothing more.

Regardless, bitcoiners see this as a promise as well as a challenge, and often their subreddit is inundated with posts about Wikipedia as a result. Since they’re so intent on having Wikipedia take their funny money, we looked a little further into the situation.

So far every drive has been successful, and recent donation amounts totaled over $15 million, and according to the Wikimedia Foundation, the average donation was approximately $22. So, if Wikipedia were to directly accept Bitcoin donations, how much more would they stand to earn? As it turns out, not much at all.

In a ridiculously informal and totally unscientific poll, I discovered that the same bitcoiners clamoring for Wikipedia to take their money don’t want to give them much money at all, if anything. Answers ranged from the equivalent of a couple of dollars, with at least two people regurgitating South Park’s “tree fiddy” meme, one stipulating that Wikipedia could have ten entire bitcoins if they “apologize for being wankers about the whole thing,” and many more insisted that Wikipedia no longer deserves their “money” for giving them the cold shoulder for so long. The combined amount from people willing to answer my question comes up to about $23.01.  It took six people’s “generosity” to equal that of one average Wikipedian donator. Most of them wouldn’t donate at all; it’s all just grandstanding to proselytize for their cult.

That doesn’t stop them from sounding like a broken record every few months though:

http://buttcoin.org/stop-donating-wikipedia

why cant wikipedia simply put ads in their sites? they will make loads of money and will stop begging.

why cant wikipedia simply put ads in their sites? they will make loads of money and will stop begging.

No. It is against their policies. They claim that accepting ads will make them more vulnerable to cabal editing.

Change their policies... profit?

May be. They have expelled a large number of the old admins and senior editors. Most of the current admins are close to Jimmy Wales. So soon we can expect a change in the policies...... and ads in the Wiki.

Hahahahaha. Lold.

https://i.imgur.com/bZlnpd3.jpg

But I think we should just leave Wikipedia alone in regards to accepting bitcoin. Perhaps in a few years time they will realize what they're missing out and start accepting it.

Wikipedia is based in UK, right? With no banks supporting BTC there, it will be enormously difficult for them to convert those coins to cash. Also, there will be tax-related complexities as well.

I think it's based in Florida.

I agree with you that there is little-to-no worry for terrorist threats, and that the general public are easily mislead by the media, but you need some evidence other than pure speculation and assumption. Not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes people just like to shoot and kill and blow each other up.

wikipedia deserves te donation. all the beggars here do not

let me know when they take bitcoin, i will send them $13.37k usd worth.

I'm more than serious, but I'm not about to beg them to take BTC.

13k is a "big amount of money" ? Like policy changing?? Doubt it...

Anyway PM me if they ever take it, ill send a hand full of coin their way.

Hmm... you don't have to beg.  ;D

And regarding the policy change, I know people who paid $200 to get "harmful" sections removed from the Wikipedia article dealing with them or their companies. (It was done indirectly. The payment was not made to Wales. Rather it was made to some Wikipedia admins who removed the sections themselves).

Hmm... you don't have to beg.  ;D

And regarding the policy change, I know people who paid $200 to get "harmful" sections removed from the Wikipedia article dealing with them or their companies. (It was done indirectly. The payment was not made to Wales. Rather it was made to some Wikipedia admins who removed the sections themselves).

Anyway, here is his email ID:  jwales@wikia.com

Any evidence of this? $200 seems quite a little amount, and they could be just rogue admins.