Bitcoin Forum

I just search about BitcoinTalk in wikipedia. It shows BitcoinTalk Launched in 2011 and registered in August 2011.
Heres I'm providing Wikipedia link along with a screenshot

But I found a topic made on BitcoinTalk Forum in Bitcoin Discussion sector which is created in January 01 ,2010
 Here's the post Link - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=17.0 Created By AgoraMutual (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=21)
Then why wikipedia showing it's date wrong or it needs to be updated?

I just get curious about it . Is it wrong or anything else

Here's the first thread of the forum- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5.0
First 4 threads are off limit. I think they are some test post which has been off limited.
Whoever have edited that article doesn’t know exactly. That's why they used the wrong info. You can create account and edit the article, see if they approve your edition.

You have the exact history here:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BitcoinTalk
or here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=33393.0

Indeed bitcointalk.org didn't exist prior to 2011, all the topics were moved here when the domain was registered.

As for the other things on that Wikipedia page...triple facepalm  :-X


Half of that page is about theymos.

Whoever edited that had the clear intention to discredit bitcointalk.
The most prominent reference is the overly inflated scandal for epochtalk costing too much and not being in use yet at bitcointalk. Also news[dot]bitcoin[dot]com is one of the references.
Nothing about satoshi, nothing about the current reality.

Maybe somebody takes some time to make it right, although I don't know how Wiki decides what version is well intended and which is not.

That's what I thought. Someone who knows a lot about the history of the forum could edit the article. Normally to take one version over another they rely on the sources you can provide.

I'm not an expert but this is what I have faced with Wikipedia-
There's one article on bitcoin in my local language (Bengali). The article was good enough of course without any doubt but good for a pro. For newbies, I would say it was hard as hell. I tried to edit the article with some good references. For unknown reason, the original author didn’t approve my edition. It seems that in wikipedia, topic starter has the power of attorney. He can deny any edition if he thinks it's not good. This is what I have observed but as I said I'm not 100% sure if there's something else too.

Notorious fake humanrightsfoundation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5179710.0) was making some of this wikipedia pages and edits, and people may remember him for his multiple ban evasions from bitcointalk forum because of his death threats.
He is also obsessed with theymos and he tried to extort and blackmail him several times.

Bitcointalk, as a trademark title, was registered in August 2011. The forum's domain began as a directory of bitcoin dot org. Specifically, bitcoin.org/smf. Then, in 2010, it changed to forum.bitcoin.org and in August 2011, they moved it to bitcointalk.org after a long email discussion.

See: Forum moved to bitcointalk.org (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=33393.msg417531#msg417531)

---

I'm disappointed no one has taken the time to write a little bit more about our forum, but indeed left an article that only describes really summarily its history and scams...

As far as I know anyone can update information in Wikipedia. And I have also told that information in Wikipedia are not something you really should relay on. So who cares?

Whoever wrote the contents surly do not know the entire history. theymos is one of the important character for the forum obviously. May be some one can try to edit the information.

The signs for this were there in another topic, less than one month ago. The original was removed because the topic creator was banned. Here's the topic (https://ninjastic.space/topic/5367216), but it's not a pleasure to read.
Nobody from here seem to have been acting since then on that matter. Unfortunately more people read wiki than Bitcoin wiki...


Actually most take Wiki as granted. Hence that page has quite a potential to hurt.

The first four threads were created in the staff section of the forum. Apparently, all but one are still there.


Btw, does anyone have an archive of topic=3.0?  ;D

I fixed the Wikipedia page and am going to clean it up of all these childish attacks too.

Fun fact: the last Wiki editor of that page before me was banned for vandalism  ::)

But, lots read it. Yes, it's not a trustworthy source of information, but most of the readers won't question the author for false presumptions. Besides, the article wasn't wrong at all; it just wasn't neat enough. A forum so big, with such history deserves a long read.

Nice! I saw you added the “HODL” reference. Maybe adding some others such as the 10,000 BTC pizzas, the Wall Observer, Satoshi design of the first logo, the first exchange etc.

See this for more: Caption results (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5206366.msg53243849#msg53243849).

I would say noobs who really are not experienced in internet space then will take anything as granted which is on Wikipedia.

LOL
Go ahead brother. Make it worth reading.

What I meant was to make it worth reading. It needs constant update.

I did not add the HODL reference, it was already there.

I'm adding info about hacks but I can't cite this post because bitcointalk.org is blacklisted: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1067985.msg11445725#msg11445725 so as a workaround I'm going to make an article about it on my site and I'll cite (wordplay not intended) that instead.

Edit: The unofficial rules post can't be cited either so as a result I got no citations to use for the "bitcointalk does not moderate scams" section.

IMO that's the worst part !

Must be the consequence of the ICO spam from 4-5 years ago... saw there were 2 requests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Bitcointalk&prefix=MediaWiki+talk%3ASpam-blacklist&fulltext=Search+all+Spam-blacklist+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1) made to remove it from the spam-blacklist in 2018 but were denied. pity ...

I just made a request (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Request_to_whitelist_page_on_bitcointalk.org) to whitelist the unofficial rules and FAQ thread.

My additions about the bitcointalk hacks were deleted because the citations (from coindesk and others) are not considered reliable sources.

I have no qualms about Coindesk in particular but given most bitcoin news is grossly inaccurate, it makes quite hard to find a reliable (by their standards) source.

Once upon a time I found several articles on Wikipedia, and due to inaccuracies tried to correct them.
I thought I succeeded in that but later the admin, a person with more authority, came and canceled my changes.
Wikipedia is very popular as a source of information and is often the first result on Google search engine.
Therefore, it is important that the information on Wikipedia is accurate, but on Wikipedia the problem is often not the facts itself but the interpretation of these facts, because of worldview and other reasons.
This is especially true of sensitive historical and political topics.
I hope you will succeed in your action but unfortunately in Wikipedia ordinary contributors do not have much power to change anything, only administrators.
If the administrators have a negative attitude towards crypto then it will be very difficult to change anything.

Nice ! Hope it gets approved soon !


Based on what I saw on their "reliable sources page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources)" coindesk is definitely not considered a reliable source. Did not see one single "reliable" crypto website in that list...


The fact that they tend to be anti-crypto is pretty obvious:

Fair enough I'd say, but would they consider a post  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1067985.0)from the site admin to be credible enough? I'd like to think you can't get anymore credible than the website themselves posting information about compromises.

I'm guessing they're going to be rather picky about it being specifically a third party that has reported on it. Which would be weird, since most third party reports are grossly inaccurate (not specifically Bitcointalk's, but in general).

Anything involving investments should probably be considered for bias. I'm not sure what their take is on other investments that may be deemed risky.

This is how the page looked like right before some salty scammer whose multiple accounts been banned several times in this forum edited it - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcointalk&diff=1047515294&oldid=1047515176

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/07/19/ZqblH.png

He has been so obsessed about Theymos for whatever reason it is. Maybe because he was banned.

He came again to revert my edits (which were counter-revered by an admin)  LOL  :D

Apparently, he has been reverting several edits over the course of several months, behind IP addresses.

I'm going to make an application to edit-protect the bitcointalk page to prevent this behavior (there are way too many speedy deletion notices added and removed if you take a look at the edit history).

Edit: done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Bitcointalk just waiting for this request to be approved and that vandal can go take a hike.

Edit 2: It was declined:


AIV appears to be some administrator intervention service.

---

The warnings progressively range from ridiculous to actually serious. There are 4 of them and I'm assuming I have to use them in order:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:179.125.142.194# This is the first one We're allowed to start with  Vandalism2 if it's not a good faith violation (seriously, we know humanrightsfoundation is not going to adhere to a "hey please stop your vandalism" warning).

I don't have the nerves to do what you are doing and I don't have wikipedia account, but you are teasing him a lot to come back in forum yet again with his new account and with same old complains :D
User 179.125.142.194 = humansrightfoundation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Bitcointalk

There is also another version .. There is a very high probability that information was published in one of the deleted threads that hypothetically violated Satoshi's confidentiality. Unfortunately, I have only a travel laptop at hand, so it is not possible to back up my words with links and quotes, ^{[maybe I'll do it later]}.

The "teasing" is actually the official template message (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-vandalism1) Wikipedia requires us to use to warn people before reporting them to an administrator (as you can see, level 4im is the most severe warning I can fire before getting an admin's attention. He is on level 2.)

After yet another content assault on the Wikipedia article, it got speedy-deleted by an admin and I'm now in the process of convincing the admin who deleted it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deb#Bitcointalk) to recreate it with page protections. Stand by  8)

Edit: as you can see in the conversation, admin said I have to make a new draft of the Bitcointalk article before t can be protected (the article with its revision history was deleted so I don't have access to those anymore). I will most likely use Bitcoin Wiki, stuff on this forum, and old copies on the Wayback Machine as inspiration for the new, protected version.