Bitcoin Forum

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

"This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

10:42, 30 July 2010 Polargeo (talk | contribs) deleted "Bitcoin" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin)"

Boohoo. They don't like us. Big deal.

Wiki-who? Never heard of it!

Is it some sort of ukulele band?

It is ironic that wikipedia itself isnt accepted as a reliable source when you quote from  it in an argument. ::)  Apparently you are only notable if a celebrity mentions you.

I didn't suggest reading ae's Wikipedia page  ;)  And I definitely didn't link to it.

I definitely didnt read it  :)

I've started the undelete request here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Bitcoin

If anyone wants to participate, just edit my undelete request and add more reasons why you think it wasn't fair to delete the article.

The admin who deleted the article is an expert on glaciers .

Does this make him an ice-hole?
 :)

That would explain why he's got the time to admin for wikipedia.

I cant believe bitcoin got hit by an ice berg. :D

Instead of wasting with them (they do frustrate me sometimes), why not create a new article at a more "friendly" place like
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium

Well, wikipedia is not a public driven project. It is driven by a limited community of it's editors,
that is for a long time. Wikipedia represent collective and often inconsistent point of view
of a small (compared to society) group of people.
"Playing by the rules" is a favorite game of them. Don't play that game, do not entertain them.

I believe, it is some form of sexual perversion, wikipedism or like that...  :-X

Just find another wikipedia editor and he will play instead of you.

There is Wikipedia and its hierarchy, just like government and their hierarchy. The idea that the government could represent the people is laughable.

Similarly, the Wikipedia hierarchy devolved into politicking, no sexual perversion needed.

When they moved to that model the outcome was inevitable.... personal empire building.  If it continues to a point where it destroys the product, something else will rise to challenge it, as long as they don't use the gov't to enforce their 'right' to be the arbitrators of 'editorial standards.'

Ta,

Agree.
I just count politicking itself as some form of sexual perversion, or like that... ;)

Anyway, contacting wikipedia editor, who is external to this situation, will help a lot.

Wanted to add another reference here that I found via http://scholar.google.com/ http://yuumei.co.uk/files/dissertation.pdf. It is a paper Titled "The Impact of Decentralization on Networked Computer Games" Written by Ashley Vaughan Smith of School of Computing, University of Derby. The paper mentions bitcoins as a good currency for online games. It is only about a paragraph but, I think a research paper for a University would count as an independent 3rd party and may be more of what Wikipedia would like to see.

I beat ya to it by almost two weeks. (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=342.msg5152#msg5152) ;D Not that anyone looks through my rambling lists. :'(

Somebody (possibly knightmb?) should request Userfication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userfication) of the deleted article, to preserve the content.

I just saw that myself, I haven't had time to dig through all the links to see what the process is since the Administrators don't have a direct "contact me" button anywhere.  :(

Google cache has it: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hyQZi6xkulEJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin+bitcoins&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us and Message_From_Xenu(not sure who that is on the forums) has it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Message_From_Xenu/Bitcoin

the deleter's stats:
Pages deleted   839
Pages restored   1

It should be pointed out that "User:Message_From_Xenu/Bitcoin" currently has the full edit history of the previous Bitcoin article, and IMHO should be what gets "moved back" if there is some substantial improvement in the article that might pass muster if another AfD were to be offered again.

Rather than fighting the tide of those supporting the deletion of this article, finding those 3rd party references would be a much better act to perform and then restore the article when an act of deletion would seem over the top.  If the community wants to continue to refine the article, that is a good place to start.

Should we try submitting bitcoin wikipedia articles in several different languages?

I don't think it's worth sweating over the Wikipedia deletion.

Just leave it a month or two until there is some good third-party coverage then try again. The article should stick then.

We could let the community decide the importance of a wikipedia article by offering a bounty for the article to be undeleted in English.  You might even consider bribing the original deletist with bitcoins.  He would either a) refuse it b) accept it on the basis that third party coverage had reached sufficient wikipedia standards or c) accept it controversially which would create publicity for bitcoin.  I would offer 500 bitcoins towards that end.

I think you might find that offering a bribe would be the surest way to prevent the article from being re-included.

reviving this post.  anyone want to try creating the article in Russian? Пoжaлyйcтa, coздaйтe cтaтью.  or maybe that catalan speaker is around and he can start an article.  wikipedia articles are key to credibility, so i'm not letting this go.  and where are the french?  the swiss?  the germans?  let's go, people.

Can we just make different language versions of a deleted page without getting them removed? Let's do it if we can. I can write a version in Finnish.

If you do, I think it should be a very brief, single paragraph article like 100 words or less that simply identifies what Bitcoin is.

I wish rather than deleting the article, they put a length restriction.  If something is not famous enough, there could at least be a stub article identifying what it is.  I often come across annoying red links of things that Wiki ought to at least have heard of.

The article could be as simple as something like:
"Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer decentralised /link/electronic currency/link/."

The more standard Wiki thing to do is that we should have a paragraph in one of the more general categories that we are an instance of, like Electronic Currency or Electronic Cash.  We can probably establish a paragraph there.  Again, keep it short.  Just identifying what it is.

I'm not a huge fan of the notability rules, but they do serve a purpose in terms of culling out content that is meaningless.  If you don't put in some standards, then you will find Wikipedia articles on all 80+ billion people who have ever lived in history and an article on literally everybody's house, bedroom, or even piece of tile in your bathroom.

To keep people from literally just making stuff up, Wikipedia insists upon outside "2nd opinions" that talk about a particular topic.  This isn't happening with Bitcoins at the moment and the problem is that besides a few bloggers there isn't anybody really talking about Bitcoins.

If you want to help Bitcoins, spread the word to other outlets and let people know it exists.  If you can, write an article in The Economist or perhaps a journal that isn't so big of a deal but still will be seen by a whole bunch of people.  Write up something in the ACM Journal that talks about the issues involved with developing Bitcoins.  If you do this, it will not only let a larger group of people know about Bitcoins, but it will justify why Bitcoins deserves a Wikipedia entry.

Don't put the cart before the horse here.  What is being done with Wikipedia is to use it as a publicity forum when in fact that isn't the purpose of Wikipedia.  If you want to publicize the project, get it publicized.  Go out and spread the word and let people know about the idea.  But please don't piss everybody off in the process too.

Now that the EFF is accepting bitcoin donations, I wrote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JohnCD#It_might_be_time_to_review_the_Bitcoin_article_deletion) to the Wikipedia Admin who deleted the Bitcoin article:

Lets hope they come to their senses. I am starting to hear bitcoin mentioned in different podcasts now.

Can you name some of that podcasts ?

BTW,
nonagendamarket, I wonder where do You get all the info about new articles about bitcoin ? Do you just google bitcoin regularly, or is it something more ?

Twitter search (http://twitter.com/#search?q=bitcoin) brings up interesting stuff these days.

I monitor twitter constantly and answer questions about bitcoin.  I also have google alerts setup .

Here's one I heard about the recent bubble....
http://surkanstance.blogspot.com/2010/11/this-week-on-bear-radio-recent-bitcoin.html (http://surkanstance.blogspot.com/2010/11/this-week-on-bear-radio-recent-bitcoin.html)

Free Talk Live sometimes talk about alternative currencies. Ive heard them mention bitcoin twice.
http://www.freetalklive.com/ (http://www.freetalklive.com/)

 Mike Gogulski -The Stateless Man   (He also accepts bitcoin )
http://www.nostate.com/?s=bitcoin (http://www.nostate.com/?s=bitcoin)




http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/luongo7.1.1.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/luongo7.1.1.html) -also a podcast and Lew Rockwell is the largest liberty blog in the world.

This is a follow-up regarding the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_December_12

The Bitcoin article is up for deletion review again, this time I think the undeletion is going to stick.  I realize that there are many in the Bitcoin community who are not thrilled with the deletion process on Wikipedia, and that is understandable.  With the more recent articles that have come up, the "notability" of Bitcoin is not longer in dispute.

Help with the article would certainly be useful from this point on, or with related concepts as they come up from time to time, but the article is going back up, and is much better written this time around too.

Unless you are semi-regular on Wikipedia, I'd suggest you refrain from commenting on the deletion review and simply let it run its course.  Concentrate on the content of the article instead, and I give some extra kudos to those who have contributed to developing the article over the past couple of months.

It looks like the article will be restored. But one point that keeps being raised is that many of the article's references are to pages in this forum. If anyone can replace a forum reference with a reference to a page that has no perceived conflict of interest, that would help.

Unlikely since other sources don't go into as much technical depth as do the forums.

Shit, that Wikipedia admin is seriously starting to suffer from paranoia. Now he is even accusing us of hacking into dormant Wikipedia accounts to promote the subject. *rolls eyes*

Maybe we should just leave Wikipedia alone. Soner or later Bitcoin will appear there by itself anyhow.

An external discussion where you encourage each other to go and take action on wikipedia and then that happens is against wikipedia rules. No paranoia needed. And a discussion in which you call me an "ice-hole" meaning ass-hole is just amusing to me.

No, no, and no. We're just letting this deletion discussion run it course.

Yes. That is fine. The pile on at wikipedia is not fine. Please understand that. Wikipedia is not there to promote your favourite e-currency.

Yeah, you don't have to tell us. A couple of Wikipedians in this community told us that to get included in wikipedia, we must be "notable", which mean newspaper, academic source, etc al.

People write articles about what they care for.
If it wasn't the case I doubt it would have very much content.

Actually a lot of people care about the non-commercial no profit organisation wikipedia and the free sharing of quality information. I think take the number of people who care about bitcoin and multiply it by 1000000 and you are in the right ball park. actually 10000000 or even 100000000 might be a more acurate order of magnitude.

Dude, just be objective and do your job instead of being paranoid about a secret conspiracy by bitcoiners. You do realize that Bitcoin already received media coverage by PcWorld, IrishTime, and ComputerworldUk?

If that doesn't make Bitcoin notable, I don't know what will.

It makes bitcoin notable enough to have an article and I have said as much on wikipedia. If I was still an admin I would have put it back in the mainspace already. It is fairly obvious that the bitcoin media scrum took advantage of the wikileaks story to get a one off article in the major newspapers. That makes it notable enough for a wikipedia article. Please stop your socking on wikipedia that is all I ask.  However, trade in all of the bitcoins in existance and you wouldn't be able to buy my uncle's house.

Nobody cares whether wikipedia is more popular than bitcoin.


Feel free to leave if you dislike what is being said here.


Again, nobody cares.

ROFL. You think we are secretly sockpuppetting accounts on wikipedia. That is paranoia, pure and simple.

If you EVER BOTHER[edit] to read the discussion here on the forum, you would realize that the founder of the community DO NOT LIKE being associated with wikileak. That shut down the discussion of getting wikileak to accept bitcoin donation. Of course, that was moot. The gossip mills spread too far from our control.

This. Is. Hilarious.

No. http://tinyurl.com/2ee2u2x

If you ever brother to write English properly you can lecture me on brothering to read a discussion.

Oh please, you're the one wasting time here.

request to lock thread

Please leave.

That's very honorable, but I still think it's not the case for a vast majority. Just my opinion tho, I don't have any numbers to support that :)


I have no idea about the meaning of your acronyms  ::)
Anyway, I think things tend to sort themselves out when left to mature for a little bit.  :)

So I was wrong. These are well meaning bitcoiners who don't know much about the bureaucratic process try to get bitcoin up. That hinder our credibility. Even so, I think you have to concede that there isn't a concerted effort by mass of bitcoiners to try to get the article re-listed.

/me feels a bit foolish sometime.

I'm a Newbie and amazed by what I am seeing. Something new under the sun! Let wikipedia rant (I like their new header), wikileaks is irrelevant and once we hit 350gh? the chain is unhackable by anything less then quantum cryptology.
We should get small tantalizing bits of info out in the form of videos and posts other than here. Wikipedia will seem small potato soon enough.

Freddy. Now we are talking.

Let's forget about all those debates and bring bitcoin forward.

The time spent on this debate thread could have been invested in spreading / driving / promoting bitcoins.

I think my flash skills will come in handy. 45 second blurbs about bitcoin and his maddening adventures. I'll be posting a storyboard shortly to:
 http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=697.0
 :)

Is it notable that the person who deleted the article came to the forum and trolled it?
 :D

Article is no longer deleted, this topic should be good for closure.

?   According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin it remains deleted.

This is easy for you to say if you have no clue as to the history of Wikipedia or the headaches that admins and editors on that project have been involved with.  I don't care to go into an exhaustive history lesson at the moment, but note that with only a couple of exceptions (that have also turned out awfully for the Wikipedia community I might add too) most of the policies have been created mainly to deal with trolls, vandals, and other folks who tend to do more harm to Wikipedia than good.  Harm in this case is destroying the quality of existing content or discouraging other people to contribute to the project.

Are there trollish admins?  Absolutely, and the guy who performed the deletion here is certainly being trollish with his comments in this most recent deletion review.  Still, I don't see that comment having any impact upon the undeletion.


Have patience young grasshopper.  These things take time, and unfortunately it is going to take a very experienced admin doing some custom work to clean up the mess left behind by other admins trying to salt this article.  It is something I could do in about 2 minutes if I had the tools, but I'll leave that to somebody else.  I never wanted to be a Wikipedia admin, which is why I don't have the tools.

If this article doesn't get undeleted within a week and moved back as a "regular article", there is a series of increasing actions I can get involved with that will force the issue.  There are some admins in favor of "restoring" the article, so I seriously doubt I'll have to pull out all of the stops of Wikilawyering that I can do if I really cared.

Yes.  Wikipedia is the first place I usually go to get relatively unbiased info on anything.  And I get my unbiased news from Wikinews (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page) (has replaced google news).  And my search engine, Duck Duck Go (http://duckduckgo.com) usually puts a snippet of a Wikipedia article as the first search result...and that is most often all I need to get the jist of some new topic I am unfamiliar with.  In the long run, as more and more editors from different backgrounds and different knowledge bases come across some new topic, it will eventually converge to an accurate and unbiased result.  Patience is key.

I meant it is in the incubator and meets all criteria for inclusion, so it should be back on main wiki soon.

We are now back on Wikipedia.

It really does way too much look like a advertisement.  I'll try to make it sound more neutral when I get some time.

The first sentence is no good  :(

The software isn't required to use the currency.

You mean the second sentence?

It is.

I know you can use a service such as mybitcoin, but this is different.  Any currency can be "used" with a service like that.

But indirectly, the bitcoin is necessary *at some point*.  Mybitcoin.com does use the bitcoin software.  It is just behind the scene.

Yes, counting is hard for me.



Ah, that is true. The software is required to be used by someone, having someone else do it for you doesn't really change that.

See this is why I didn't just change it myself.  :)

article is back now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

thanks to everyone that took part ;) pat on our backs.

Umm reality check. It was left out because of lack of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. I am sorry for the wikispeak but please don't delude yourself into thinking anyone had anything against Bitcoin. Wikipedia has very low standards for inclusion and Bitcoin did not meet those standards until recently.

What is with all those self-published source? The best source of how bitcoin work is the project's documentation itself.

Those media reporters are liable to get the details wrong.

Yes self published is fine for completely uncontroversial technical details and opinions of the person self publishing. I have only tagged when the details fall outside of this. You cannot fill an article with self published information just because the article exists. It is best to just leave the stuff out. Remember it is wikipedia not the bitcoin tech page. For example "This mechanism is highly tamper-resistant." says who? Ah bitcoin.org hmmm. Wikipedia is really reliable hey. :)

I myself banged my head against Wikipedia not allowing self published articles as references, but I understand the reason. I for one would love to have a respected expert take a look at it and actually put it under test, at least we'd know what we're all putting time and money into :D