Title: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: LoveWisdomPower on April 12, 2013, 09:05:26 PM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin
"Although bitcoin was initially promoted as a virtual currency, commentators have largely rejected that claim due to bitcoin's volatile market value, relatively inflexible supply, and minimal use in trade." Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: anonymous_hero on April 12, 2013, 09:34:28 PM On the other hand, that statement has 4 citations. To modify it significantly (and have your edit accepted) you'd probably have to cite at least twice as many similarly-famous "commentators" that say otherwise. Bloomberg and Krugman are pretty big names, and there aren't that many opinion writers of their reputation that have endorsed Bitcoin.
Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: proper_pizza on April 12, 2013, 10:37:39 PM Well if that is a popular opinion, it should in the article I think. Maybe under "discussion" or something where they present different views.
Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: johnmatrix on April 12, 2013, 10:40:17 PM I think many wikipedist editors are not profesional with the articles
Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: ReCat on April 12, 2013, 10:40:51 PM Many people are posting misleading and degrading articles about bitcoins. It's really disappointing.
Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: naphto on April 12, 2013, 10:52:45 PM What's wrong with that?
Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: bb113 on April 12, 2013, 11:01:09 PM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin "Although bitcoin was initially promoted as a virtual currency, commentators have largely rejected that claim due to bitcoin's volatile market value, relatively inflexible supply, and minimal use in trade." "Although bitcoin has been promoted as a virtual currency, some commentators have largely rejected that claim due to their belief that bitcoin's relatively inflexible supply and history of volatile market value will lead to minimal use in trade." This would be ok. Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: anonymous_hero on April 14, 2013, 05:06:46 AM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin "Although bitcoin was initially promoted as a virtual currency, commentators have largely rejected that claim due to bitcoin's volatile market value, relatively inflexible supply, and minimal use in trade." "Although bitcoin has been promoted as a virtual currency, some commentators have largely rejected that claim due to their belief that bitcoin's relatively inflexible supply and history of volatile market value will lead to minimal use in trade." This would be ok. It seems as though that statement has been removed altogether from the article. I think some of those additions/changes you made are implied, but I suppose making it explicit doesn't hurt anything, except perhaps for conciseness/readability. Interestingly, the page now has a warning that it contains too much "intricate detail" that may be of interest only to a few people... heh. I sort of see what they mean, but on the other hand I'm not sure how that's not true for almost every Wikipedia article. :-P Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: lmotaku on April 14, 2013, 05:40:03 AM Anyone and everyone has access to change/modify wikipedia articles, and these so called "commentators" and the like can be pretty dubious, and can actually be competitive.
One business I had put up online, and tried to make a wikipedia page for after 2 years operation was removed by a competitor's friend who has such access, which is no more than a conflict of interest. Since I had followed all guidelines of making the page in the first place, but nope, removed, for an illegitimate reason. You can't trust it with a grain of salt, except for things predated, bigger, and irrefutable. Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: Crypto Canary on April 14, 2013, 05:45:14 AM What's with the need to get defensive every time someone makes a criticism of bitcoin? No need to get all upset about it.
Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: alexuk on April 14, 2013, 07:43:53 AM Brilliant.
Who has admin access to change this? :) Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: NO2squik on April 14, 2013, 07:52:51 AM "minimal use"
That's the part I have problems with. More places should start accepting bitcoins. That way more people will start buying them. Popularity, usage, etc. Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: JimmiesForBitcoins on April 14, 2013, 09:13:31 AM On the other hand, that statement has 4 citations. To modify it significantly (and have your edit accepted) you'd probably have to cite at least twice as many similarly-famous "commentators" that say otherwise. Bloomberg and Krugman are pretty big names, and there aren't that many opinion writers of their reputation that have endorsed Bitcoin. A couple of Keynesians who believe that the economy needs a constant pumping of artificial credit to avoid coming to a screeching halt don't like a currency with a fixed limit? That's a shocker.Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: ineedyourhelp on April 14, 2013, 10:00:05 AM ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: Vandroiy on April 14, 2013, 10:57:47 AM From the 2011 section:
Quote Some claimed the crash was due to a lower cost in producing bitcoins through cheaper computing power. Right, because that makes Bitcoins appear by the bucket! From the 2013 section: Quote Suggested reasons for the rise in price included NOBODY CARES ABOUT RANDOM NEWSFLASH SPAM M'KAY? From "central bank": Quote The majority of the bitcoin peer-to-peer network regulates transactions and balances. And miners are the botnet's bitches, hahahaha!!! Quote servers called bitcoin miners Yes! Them mining servers host the network! Nodes connect to them for all their banking needs!!! Quote In April 2013, 1 BTC traded from $100–$260 Historical stuff before it's history: smart Edit wars are annoying. If anyone has time to wage this one, I'd appreciate it. Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: bitpar on April 14, 2013, 11:24:02 AM Except there are services to instantly convert BTC to USD if that's what a merchant wants. And all currencies have a certain level of volatility, some even greater than BTC.
Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: anonymous_hero on April 14, 2013, 06:48:11 PM On the other hand, that statement has 4 citations. To modify it significantly (and have your edit accepted) you'd probably have to cite at least twice as many similarly-famous "commentators" that say otherwise. Bloomberg and Krugman are pretty big names, and there aren't that many opinion writers of their reputation that have endorsed Bitcoin. A couple of Keynesians who believe that the economy needs a constant pumping of artificial credit to avoid coming to a screeching halt don't like a currency with a fixed limit? That's a shocker.Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: alexh on April 14, 2013, 06:51:49 PM That article is one of the most active and edited ones in Wikipedia right now.
Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: jimafternoon on April 14, 2013, 07:46:56 PM Wikipedia isn't really known for it accuracy or thoroughness.
Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: JimmiesForBitcoins on April 15, 2013, 05:25:12 AM On the other hand, that statement has 4 citations. To modify it significantly (and have your edit accepted) you'd probably have to cite at least twice as many similarly-famous "commentators" that say otherwise. Bloomberg and Krugman are pretty big names, and there aren't that many opinion writers of their reputation that have endorsed Bitcoin. A couple of Keynesians who believe that the economy needs a constant pumping of artificial credit to avoid coming to a screeching halt don't like a currency with a fixed limit? That's a shocker.1. There aren't as many Austrians to begin with because that's not the form of economics that colleges teach. Since government subsidized colleges get the vast majority of students, most of them are going to turn out Keynesians; because we all know how impartial and well-read most government school teachers are, right? 2. Famous economists aren't young guys. Younger/more computer adept adults are more swift to adopt or entertain the idea of Bitcoin because the idea of virtual currencies makes perfect sense to them. To pre-internet folks, it really doesn't make much sense and sounds either completely ridiculous or very risky business. Not that it isn't risky in certain ways, but it's not just going to suddenly implode without warning. That would be ridiculous. Unless of course people believe the Discovery Channel when they talk about a mega solar flare wiping out (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crtWfbdGz-4) the power grid and all electronic devices that aren't shielded by Faraday cages in 2013. Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: Bitcoin Oz on April 15, 2013, 06:15:30 AM On the other hand, that statement has 4 citations. To modify it significantly (and have your edit accepted) you'd probably have to cite at least twice as many similarly-famous "commentators" that say otherwise. Bloomberg and Krugman are pretty big names, and there aren't that many opinion writers of their reputation that have endorsed Bitcoin. A couple of Keynesians who believe that the economy needs a constant pumping of artificial credit to avoid coming to a screeching halt don't like a currency with a fixed limit? That's a shocker.1. There aren't as many Austrians to begin with because that's not the form of economics that colleges teach. Since government subsidized colleges get the vast majority of students, most of them are going to turn out Keynesians; because we all know how impartial and well-read most government school teachers are, right? 2. Famous economists aren't young guys. Younger/more computer adept adults are more swift to adopt or entertain the idea of Bitcoin because the idea of virtual currencies makes perfect sense to them. To pre-internet folks, it really doesn't make much sense and sounds either completely ridiculous or very risky business. Not that it isn't risky in certain ways, but it's not just going to suddenly implode without warning. That would be ridiculous. Unless of course people believe the Discovery Channel when they talk about a mega solar flare wiping out (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crtWfbdGz-4) the power grid and all electronic devices that aren't shielded by Faraday cages in 2013. Bitcoin is backed by mathematics and fact. Economics is mostly theory and speculation. Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: pipensa on April 15, 2013, 08:02:31 AM I believe wikipedia will fix it!
Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: Wesly on April 15, 2013, 09:20:55 AM Wikipedia is not known for unbiased view either. I remembered reading there was a wikipedia scandals about how some of the writers are getting paid to write/edit articles for commercial entities to grant better search engine ranking.
Wikipedia isn't really known for it accuracy or thoroughness. Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: lostmyshit on April 15, 2013, 11:08:38 AM That article is one of the most active and edited ones in Wikipedia right now. that is a good sign for bitcoin Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: brinebold on April 15, 2013, 11:55:56 AM On the other hand, that statement has 4 citations. To modify it significantly (and have your edit accepted) you'd probably have to cite at least twice as many similarly-famous "commentators" that say otherwise. Bloomberg and Krugman are pretty big names, and there aren't that many opinion writers of their reputation that have endorsed Bitcoin. A couple of Keynesians who believe that the economy needs a constant pumping of artificial credit to avoid coming to a screeching halt don't like a currency with a fixed limit? That's a shocker.1. There aren't as many Austrians to begin with because that's not the form of economics that colleges teach. Since government subsidized colleges get the vast majority of students, most of them are going to turn out Keynesians; because we all know how impartial and well-read most government school teachers are, right? 2. Famous economists aren't young guys. Younger/more computer adept adults are more swift to adopt or entertain the idea of Bitcoin because the idea of virtual currencies makes perfect sense to them. To pre-internet folks, it really doesn't make much sense and sounds either completely ridiculous or very risky business. Not that it isn't risky in certain ways, but it's not just going to suddenly implode without warning. That would be ridiculous. Unless of course people believe the Discovery Channel when they talk about a mega solar flare wiping out (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crtWfbdGz-4) the power grid and all electronic devices that aren't shielded by Faraday cages in 2013. Bitcoin is backed by mathematics and fact. Economics is mostly theory and speculation. Title: Re: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit Post by: anonymous_hero on April 18, 2013, 12:28:15 AM On the other hand, that statement has 4 citations. To modify it significantly (and have your edit accepted) you'd probably have to cite at least twice as many similarly-famous "commentators" that say otherwise. Bloomberg and Krugman are pretty big names, and there aren't that many opinion writers of their reputation that have endorsed Bitcoin. A couple of Keynesians who believe that the economy needs a constant pumping of artificial credit to avoid coming to a screeching halt don't like a currency with a fixed limit? That's a shocker.1. There aren't as many Austrians to begin with because that's not the form of economics that colleges teach. Since government subsidized colleges get the vast majority of students, most of them are going to turn out Keynesians; because we all know how impartial and well-read most government school teachers are, right? 2. Famous economists aren't young guys. Younger/more computer adept adults are more swift to adopt or entertain the idea of Bitcoin because the idea of virtual currencies makes perfect sense to them. To pre-internet folks, it really doesn't make much sense and sounds either completely ridiculous or very risky business. Not that it isn't risky in certain ways, but it's not just going to suddenly implode without warning. That would be ridiculous. Unless of course people believe the Discovery Channel when they talk about a mega solar flare wiping out (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crtWfbdGz-4) the power grid and all electronic devices that aren't shielded by Faraday cages in 2013. I don't necessarily disagree; the original point (and only point) I was making is that from the view of the person who was editing that Wikipedia article, most "commentators" have written off Bitcoin. Also, brinebold, I agree -- Bitcoin itself is worth no more nor no less than what people are willing to pay for it. It's a fascinating sociological/economic experiment. |