Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin => Bitcoin Discussion => Topic started by: Giulio Prisco on July 14, 2010, 07:21:08 AM



Title: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: Giulio Prisco on July 14, 2010, 07:21:08 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.

This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources.

The recent Slashdot article should be considered as a reliable reference:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/07/11/1747245/Bitcoin-Releases-Version-03

I cannot edit at this moment, can you guys save the WP artcile?


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: Stone Man on July 14, 2010, 07:57:43 AM
Thanks for the heads up. I added a section titled "Recent appearance in the news."


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: joechip on July 14, 2010, 11:07:26 AM
The WP page should discuss the maintenance cost of the p2p network.  Not only are there costs associated with the generation of the bitcoins, but their value can only be maintained as long as the 'proof-of-work' network is available and stable.

This cost, of course, is difficult to calculate but it is non-zero, though it may be trivial.  There is opportunity cost associated with the storage and maintenance of the network itself.  This could be seen as analogous to third-party gold storage fees.


Title: Deletion of Bitcoin Wikipedia Article
Post by: RHorning on July 19, 2010, 03:32:02 AM
This is mainly a notice to the Bitcoin community that the article about Bitcoins on Wikipedia is being deleted.

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

From my own perspective, I think that the rationale for its deletion is valid, as there is little in the way of 3rd party discussions of Bitcoins and their role in alternate currencies, other than discussions on this forum.  On the other hand, if there is anybody in the Bitcoin community that is aware of a presentation about Bitcoins at a scholarly conference, some sort of published scholarly paper, or something that perhaps is even in a "mainstream" news source.... it would be appreciated to either note that link here or on that Wikipedia article.

The reason for the deletion is non-notability.  In other words, nobody outside of the Bitcoin community is really paying attention to the currency or saying much about it.  There needs to be some better public relations and discussion beyond personal blogs and such.  Yes, I get that this is a chicken or egg situation where if an article like this is deleted that nobody will hear about it either, but it is an issue.

On the other hand, if you are a student (or better yet a professor) and want to make a splash about an interesting topic, this could be something useful to not just the project but also to help spread the word about this project.  There is a need to do some real scholarship about Bitcoins, the people involved with getting it going, and how it is different (or the same) from other alternative currencies.  Such a paper wouldn't hurt, and could be useful for a number of reasons... not just writing Wikipedia articles.


Title: Re: Deletion of Bitcoin Wikipedia Article
Post by: Bitcoiner on July 19, 2010, 05:20:53 PM
Once deleted, are the contents of the article lost forever, or can they be restored at some point?


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: mtgox on July 19, 2010, 05:36:03 PM
Quote
Once deleted, are the contents of the article lost forever, or can they be restored at some point?

They can be restored.



Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: Traktion on July 19, 2010, 05:48:04 PM
Haven't there been articles on slashdot, ronpaul.com and other places? I've found quite a few links on Googling.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: RHorning on July 19, 2010, 06:57:19 PM
Haven't there been articles on slashdot, ronpaul.com and other places? I've found quite a few links on Googling.

None of which are considered credible sources on Wikipedia.  ronpaul.com is about as good as it gets, and that still is just an ordinary blog entry from a site participant than something that is a credible independent source.

Slashdot in particular was something generated by fans of Bitcoins and was talked about extensive on this forum before it was even posted.  Not that it was something bad for Slashdot, but that isn't how Wikipedia works.  Essentially Bitcoins still hasn't become a part of the larger world culture yet.

The purpose of this work for credible sources of information and insistence on reliable 3rd party accounts is in part to keep people like "UFO Researchers" and others with fringe theories from taking over Wikipedia.  Anybody can come up with some theory that may seem credible, but nobody is really taking seriously.  You need to demonstrate that others outside of your immediate community at least consider the concept to be credible and at least worth criticism.  None of this is happening with Bitcoins at the moment.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: FreeMoney on July 19, 2010, 10:13:49 PM
I don't really get it, if there was a group of 11,000 UFO researchers who called themselves UFORO and spent hours every night searching would they get no article unless someone who did not want to join took them seriously enough to write peer reviewed papers?

I think BitCoin has great potential, blah blah, but that doesn't matter. Thousands of people are doing something that's at least moderately interesting. I can't see what the harm of putting a neutrally worded article in the worlds largest encyclopedia is. It isn't like the thing is going to get to heavy to sit on a shelf.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: NewLibertyStandard on July 19, 2010, 10:27:32 PM
The idea behind bitcoin has been around in research white papers for years. I imagine we should be able to list such research papers as a source. Bitcoins is the first time this theoretical idea which has been around for quite a while, has actually been implemented. I don't have sources available at the moment, but if I get some time, I'll try to look around. If anybody can find these historical research papers and discussions from before Bitcoin was started, please post links to them.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: bdonlan on July 20, 2010, 02:30:38 AM
I don't really get it, if there was a group of 11,000 UFO researchers who called themselves UFORO and spent hours every night searching would they get no article unless someone who did not want to join took them seriously enough to write peer reviewed papers?

I think BitCoin has great potential, blah blah, but that doesn't matter. Thousands of people are doing something that's at least moderately interesting. I can't see what the harm of putting a neutrally worded article in the worlds largest encyclopedia is. It isn't like the thing is going to get to heavy to sit on a shelf.
The thing is, if they allow an exception to the policy once, then people will ask for exceptions _all the time_. The rule is really quite simple: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Independent means the papers on bitcoin are out, as is the forum - after all, anything can have lots of non-independent sources. And a single slashdot article is clearly not 'significant coverage' (or reliable coverage ;).

The idea behind bitcoin has been around in research white papers for years. I imagine we should be able to list such research papers as a source. Bitcoins is the first time this theoretical idea which has been around for quite a while, has actually been implemented. I don't have sources available at the moment, but if I get some time, I'll try to look around. If anybody can find these historical research papers and discussions from before Bitcoin was started, please post links to them.
You can reference them, but they don't count for notability, as they either don't discuss bitcoin itself (and instead discuss the general concept), or they are not independent (ie, they're written by Satoshi).


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: FreeMoney on July 20, 2010, 09:11:53 AM
Clearly the wiki community knows how to run an open encyclopedia, and clearly I'm biased. I still feel the need to say though that the "human race" has not been independent verified. It's only those damn humans ever talk about it.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: dwdollar on July 20, 2010, 05:49:45 PM
Would Wikipedia have ignored the airplane until it was independently verified an explained by "professionals" who weren't smart enough to invent it in the first place?


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: satoshi on July 20, 2010, 06:38:28 PM
Bitcoin is an implementation of Wei Dai's b-money proposal http://weidai.com/bmoney.txt on Cypherpunks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunks in 1998 and Nick Szabo's Bitgold proposal http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html

The timing is strange, just as we are getting a rapid increase in 3rd party coverage after getting slashdotted.  I hope there's not a big hurry to wrap the discussion and decide.  How long does Wikipedia typically leave a question like that open for comment?

It would help to condense the article and make it less promotional sounding as soon as possible.  Just letting people know what it is, where it fits into the electronic money space, not trying to convince them that it's good.  They probably want something that just generally identifies what it is, not tries to explain all about how it works.

If you post in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin please don't say "yeah, but bitcoin is really important and special so the rules shouldn't apply" or argue that the rule is dumb or unfair.  That only makes it worse.  Try to address how the rule is satisfied.

Search "bitcoin" on google and see if you can find more big references in addition to the infoworld and slashdot ones.  There may be very recent stuff being written by reporters who heard about it from the slashdot article.

I hope it doesn't get deleted.  If it does, it'll be hard to overcome the presumption.  Institutional momentum is to stick with the last decision.  (edit: or at least I assume so, that's how the world usually works, but maybe Wiki is different)


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: NewLibertyStandard on July 20, 2010, 06:49:32 PM
Bitcoin is an implementation of Wei Dai's b-money proposal http://weidai.com/bmoney.txt on Cypherpunks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunks in 1998 and Nick Szabo's Bitgold proposal http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html

The timing is strange, just as we are getting a rapid increase in 3rd party coverage after getting slashdotted.  I hope there's not a big hurry to wrap the discussion and decide.  How long does Wikipedia typically leave a question like that open for comment?

It would help to condense the article and make it less promotional sounding as soon as possible.  Just letting people know what it is, where it fits into the electronic money space, not trying to convince them that it's good.  They probably want something that just generally identifies what it is, not tries to explain all about how it works.

If you post in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin please don't say "yeah, but bitcoin is really important and special so the rules shouldn't apply" or argue that the rule is dumb or unfair.  That only makes it worse.  Try to address how the rule is satisfied.

Search "bitcoin" on google and see if you can find more big references in addition to the infoworld and slashdot ones.  There may be very recent stuff being written by reporters who heard about it from the slashdot article.

I hope it doesn't get deleted.  If it does, it'll be hard to overcome the presumption.  The institutional momentum is to stick with the last decision.

The last comment (--American Antics (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)) mentions that the theory has been around for years and that Bitcoin is the first implementation, but it doesn't provide sources. You or somebody should add those two sources to the discussion to back up the claim.

Concerning the timing, one of the comments in the discussion makes it sound like it's a regular occurrence. Article gets written and nobody notices it, even to delete it. Then it starts to get some publicity and the editors notice it just enough to say it's not notable enough. And then they delete it until it really becomes notable.

The comment I mentioned just a moment ago points out that according to Wikipedia's guidelines, something being special is reason to ignore the rules. But the comment has already been made, so I agree that additional comments of 'Bitcoin is the best thing ever' are probably more detrimental than useful.

It seems that some people have been listing some occurrences in the news within the article itself. It might be useful for someone who articulate and charismatic to write to some news organizations and review sites to give them the idea of writing news articles about Bitcoin or just reviewing it. Writing a short opinion article to your local newspaper might also result in a news story. Come to think of it, I know two people who work in Journalism. I think I'll mention it to them and ask them to tell me if they publish a story about it.

Edit: Added additional text.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: theymos on July 20, 2010, 07:36:20 PM
Quote from: satoshi
How long does Wikipedia typically leave a question like that open for comment?

7 days from the listing (so pretty soon). More if the closing administrator doesn't feel that a consensus has been reached.

I doubt the article will survive the AfD, but it will be easy to recreate once it appears in a real news source.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: Marlsfarp on July 20, 2010, 08:15:42 PM
Would Wikipedia have ignored the airplane until it was independently verified an explained by "professionals" who weren't smart enough to invent it in the first place?

Will Wikipedia ignore my claims of inventing a teleporter?

The reasons for Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards are various and good, learned from long experience. Anything that is just the say-so of the person contributing will get deleted. Anything that resembles advertising or other self-promotion will get deleted. And rightly so.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: RHorning on July 20, 2010, 09:28:53 PM
Would Wikipedia have ignored the airplane until it was independently verified an explained by "professionals" who weren't smart enough to invent it in the first place?

An encyclopedia article in the early 1900's about an airplane likely would have included more material about Robert Langley than the Wright Brothers, and the Wright Flier likely wouldn't have been recognized as notable or noteworthy for some time after its initial flight.

Wikipedia works off of scholarly publications for proof of notability, and the quality of the source is of importance.  For myself, I also support the "No Original Research" philosophy as it keeps discussions serious and from drifting into glowing advertisements for a topic.

Please, don't take this personally... and keep in mind that Wikipedia is reflective of popular recognition of a topic rather than the source of that recognition.  There is a reason for what it is that they are doing, and there are some valid points being brought up on the deletion request.  Also note that there is a discussion going on, so if you want to save the article try to at least satisfy the policies that have already been established.  In terms of Wikilawyering, I've done my best to save the article.  The only move I can possibly make is to try and convince the admins to prolong the discussion (aka "re-list") for another week due to a "lack of consensus" on the topic.  That is a delay tactic rather than a rational to keep.

I have no doubt that there will be articles about Bitcoins in the near future that can provide the reliable independent sources that the Wikipedia admins are looking for.  If the article is deleted, it would be useful to re-create the article adding the new sources.  BTW, I don't think it will be as hard to undelete as is suggested by another comment here, but I wouldn't make a request for undeletion until after several new sources come out and at least a month or two passes.  Be patient.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: bdonlan on July 21, 2010, 12:03:10 AM
Would Wikipedia have ignored the airplane until it was independently verified an explained by "professionals" who weren't smart enough to invent it in the first place?
No, it would have covered the airplane once it had been written up in two or three major newspapers (no, social link sites don't count, there needs to be a significant article written on the topic). Alternately, significant research papers from multiple, independent parties on the airplane specifically (not, say, Icarus's wings, or philosophical treatises on wouldn't it be nice to fly) would do well too. Etc.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: NewLibertyStandard on July 21, 2010, 06:45:22 AM
Security auditing software Nmap added Bitcoin to their recognized signature (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=507.0) or whatever.

I imagine it wouldn't hurt to post a link to this thread within the deletion discussion along with a note that some sources and arguments are being posted here that aren't all getting added to the deletion discussion page. I'll probably mention it there if nobody else does in the next little while.

Bitcoin is listed as a link to a half baked idea for a Distributed Computing Anonymous Currency (http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Distributed_20Computing_20Anonymous_20Currency).

Marginal Revolution posted a link to the Bitcoin Wikipedia article (http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/06/assorted-links-24.html).

Other References
  • Step Three: Profit! (http://www.stepthreeprofit.com/2010/06/original-introduction-problem-in-p2p.html) Notability of Brandon Wiley: I have worked for the last ten years in open source and peer-to-peer software, both in community projects and tech startups. I founded a number of open source peer-to-peer software projects, including Freenet, Tristero, Alluvium, and Project Snakebite. I've also worked in peer-to-peer Interent video delivery at Swarmcast as Senior Engineer and then at BitTorrent as the Director of Product Management.
  • Is it time for digital-only dollars? (http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/news/featured-news/the-ultimate-currency) at Fairfield County Weekly (http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/) - Dr. Phil Maymin is an Assistant Professor of Finance and Risk Engineering at the Polytechnic Institute of New York University. The views represented are his own.
  • A Unique Way to Make Money (http://cplus.about.com/b/2010/07/13/a-unique-way-to-make-money.htm) By David Bolton of About.com, a software developer who develops trading applications for a global investment bank in London, England. Here are additional qualifications of David Bolton (http://cplus.about.com/bio/David-Bolton-20620.htm). About.com is a A New York Times Company
  • BitCoin and the “Wild West” (http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/06/30/bitcoin-and-the-wild-west/) - Niklas Blanchard is a Ph.D candidate in Human Capital Management at Bellevue University. He is generally a huge econonerd, and spends a lot of his time analyzing everyday phenomena from an economic perspective. His interests include monetary economics, complexity theory, network theory, and behavior economics.
  • The Monetary Future (http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com/2010/03/bitcoin-peer-to-peer-electronic-cash.html) - Notability of Jon Matonis: I am an Austrian School economist from George Washington University focused on expanding the circulation of nonpolitical digital currencies. My career has included senior influential posts at Sumitomo Bank, VISA, VeriSign, and HushMail.
  • Paying with bits (http://mwolf.net/archive/paying-with-bits/) Looks well written from glancing at it.
  • Four short links: 13 July 2010 (http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/07/four-short-links-13-july-2010.html) by Nat Torkington at oreilly.com - Notability of Nat Torkington (http://radar.oreilly.com/nat/)
  • Bitcoin on Softpedia (http://www.softpedia.com/get/Others/Finances-Business/Bitcoin.shtml)
  • Bitcoin and the Libertarian Individual (http://www.copyvillain.org/?p=29) at Copyvillain
  • Bitcoins a cryptocurrency, free bitcoins and a rigged casino (http://www.stealthcopter.com/blog/2010/07/bitcoins-a-cryptocurrency-free-bitcoins-and-a-rigged-casino/) at stealthcopter.com
  • BitCoin, Open Source P2P Digital Cash (http://thecommandline.net/2010/06/16/bitcoin-open-source-p2p-digital-cash/) at The Command Line (http://thecommandline.net/) by Thomas Gideon (http://thecommandline.net/about/)
  • Bitcoin vs Dollar / Euro (http://porandor.com/blog/economia/bitcoin-vs-dolar-euro/) at Hablando Solo
  • 点对点匿名数字货币Bitcoin发布V0.3版 (http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/116156.htm) at cnBeta.com - cnBeta.com is a news organization (http://www.cnbeta.com/about.php)
  • Bitcoins (http://sydius.me/2010/07/bitcoins/) at Sydius
  • Bitcoin: Open Source P2P eCash is here! (https://www.organicdesign.co.nz/7_June_2010) at Organic Design
  • Bitcoin, nueva moneda para redes P2P (http://venturadalibre.blogspot.com/2010/07/bitcoin-nueva-moneda-para-redes-p2p.html) at Venturada ¡ LIBRE !
  • Cryptocurrency: pushing at the fourth wall (http://gameify.posterous.com/cryptocurrency-pushing-at-the-fourth-wall) at Gameify
  • P2P Foundation Bitcoin wiki article (http://p2pfoundation.net/Bitcoin)
  • Money, Fixed (http://gavinthink.blogspot.com/2010/06/money-fixed.html) by Gavin Andresen
  • Bitcoin (฿): пиpингoвaя кpиптoвaлютa (http://habrahabr.ru/blogs/crypto/99100/)
  • Bitcoin – alternativ digital valuta (http://jacobhedegaard.dk/2010/06/bitcoin-alternativ-digital-valuta/) at Hedegaard
  • ¿BitCoin, el futuro dinero digital basado en la criptografía? (http://www.linux-party.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6042/%C2%BFbitcoin,-el-futuro-dinero-digital-basado-en-la-criptograf%C3%ADa?) at LinuxParty Group
  • Bitcoin - бycы для coвpeмeнныx aбopигeнoв или гaлaктичecкиe импepcкиe кpeдиты? (http://open-life.org/blog/opensource/1181.html) at OpenLife
  • Bitcoin: una red de dinero digital P2P basado en criptografía (http://paspartus.blogspot.com/2010/07/bitcoin-una-red-de-dinero-digital-p2p.html)
  • Shout out by a DGC Magazine editor (http://twitter.com/dgcmagazine/status/18562074255).
  • Open source innovation on the cutting edge (http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source/open-source-innovation-the-cutting-edge-582?page=0,2) - InfoWorld article. I think someone else may have already mention this one.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: FreeMoney on July 21, 2010, 09:48:51 AM
Excellent work.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: D҉ataWraith on July 21, 2010, 10:23:20 AM
Excellent work.

Indeed. Added to the deletion discussion page on Wikipedia.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: RHorning on July 22, 2010, 01:51:56 PM
I imagine it wouldn't hurt to post a link to this thread within the deletion discussion along with a note that some sources and arguments are being posted here that aren't all getting added to the deletion discussion page. I'll probably mention it there if nobody else does in the next little while.

While I like many of the sources you've come up with here, many of them really don't meet the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source.  Even the ones that do are quite weak in terms of providing any real information or constructive criticism of Bitcoins, or are using 3rd party sources of information. 

As was pointed out in the Wikipedia deletion discussion, many of these articles are circular references that use the Wikipedia article as the source of information that was used in the creation of the article.  If you don't understand the problems with that kind of reference, then I'm a bit helpless to go further in the discussion.

I did find a couple of references that meet a rough approximation of a legitimate source of information about the project from somebody who actually looked at the software.  The Hartford Advocate article is perhaps the best of these, but that gives really just one source for the article.

If any of you have written a term paper for school, I've got to ask you if your teachers would have let you get away with these kind of sources?  That is the kind of standard Wikipedia is looking for, where it would have to be something that would ultimately get you an "A" in the class for the quality of the writing and the sources you were able to find.  So far, that isn't the case and the current article is worthy of a "D" or a "C" grade at the moment.  Perhaps passing as it got the concept down right, but really doesn't work and needs a whole lot of improvement.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: NewLibertyStandard on July 22, 2010, 10:26:06 PM
I imagine it wouldn't hurt to post a link to this thread within the deletion discussion along with a note that some sources and arguments are being posted here that aren't all getting added to the deletion discussion page. I'll probably mention it there if nobody else does in the next little while.

While I like many of the sources you've come up with here, many of them really don't meet the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source.  Even the ones that do are quite weak in terms of providing any real information or constructive criticism of Bitcoins, or are using 3rd party sources of information.  

As was pointed out in the Wikipedia deletion discussion, many of these articles are circular references that use the Wikipedia article as the source of information that was used in the creation of the article.  If you don't understand the problems with that kind of reference, then I'm a bit helpless to go further in the discussion.

I did find a couple of references that meet a rough approximation of a legitimate source of information about the project from somebody who actually looked at the software.  The Hartford Advocate article is perhaps the best of these, but that gives really just one source for the article.

If any of you have written a term paper for school, I've got to ask you if your teachers would have let you get away with these kind of sources?  That is the kind of standard Wikipedia is looking for, where it would have to be something that would ultimately get you an "A" in the class for the quality of the writing and the sources you were able to find.  So far, that isn't the case and the current article is worthy of a "D" or a "C" grade at the moment.  Perhaps passing as it got the concept down right, but really doesn't work and needs a whole lot of improvement.
That's why I listed them here and not on the official discussion page. I was just going through what I could find quickly and listed the more valid ones toward the top. For notability, as opposed to authenticity, circular reference should be considered completely valid if it's coming from a notable source or if there is a huge amount of non-notable, but real sources. If the President of the United States mentions the Bitcoin Wikipedia article in passing during his State of the Union address, that alone would make Bitcoin very notable. And likewise, if every poor third world person mentions it, but not a single first world mega news conglomerate, it should still be considered notable. And while I'm at it, I don't think that the single link to this page was canvassing. I'm not a Wikipedia editor and I didn't want to spam you with all my references, but I had come up with enough sources to demonstrate that real articles from notable sources/authors do exist and to demonstrate that there has been extensive worldwide exposure in many languages. I stopped posting because it was time for bed, but I assure you, I can go on all day posting similar articles and while most of them aren't significant, a certain percentage are significant and given enough time, I can find many more significant articles and hundreds and hundreds of insignificant exposure from real people, not just spam bots. The quality of the article may be C or D quality, but not all of us are English majors and for many of us a C is just fine and dandy. And while the sources might not be up to your high standards, it has been demonstrated very surely that Bitcoin is authentically what it claims to be and absolutely and without equivocation, verifiably notable. Excuse me for not posting this on your website, but I don't want to have my IP address blocked for "canvassing" since I am clearly biased, but also clearly correct.

More Sources
  • The Impact of Decentralisation on Networked Computer Games (http://yuumei.co.uk/files/dissertation.pdf) Dissertation by Ashley Vaughan Smith, School of Computing, University of Derby
  • The FED’s Real Monetary Problem (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/luongo7.1.1.html) - Thomas Luongo is a professional chemist, amateur economist and obstreperous recovering Yankee residing in North Florida.
  • Times of Change (http://times-of-change.blogspot.com/2010/06/bitcoin.html)
  • Ludwig von Mises Institute (http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/9853.aspx)
  • Project for New Natural Autonomous Citizens (http://www.pnnac.org/?page=donate)
  • Hideki's Random Stuff (http://hideki.hclippr.com/)
  • F.A. Hayek Institute of Canada (http://hayekinstitute.ca/donate.php)
  • Alloscomp (http://www.alloscomp.com/donate.html)
  • ATS (http://snufflenose.com/)
  • Bitcoin Networked Economy Specification (http://bcspec.org/)
  • Climate Action Camp (http://klimaatactiekamp.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=126&Itemid=93)
  • Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/)
    • Electronic money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_money)
    • Anonymous internet banking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_internet_banking)
    • Crypto-anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism)
    • Peer-to-peer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer)
    • Alternative currency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_currency)
    • Assassination market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market)
    • eCache (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECache) Stellar references here! ::)
    • Yodelbank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodelbank) Its references blow Bitcoin out of the water! ::)
    • Hashcash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash) Sooo notable! ::)
    • Private currency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_currency)
    • Proof-of-work system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-work_system)

Examples of Wikipedia's Standard of References
Be sure to subtract press releases, related websites, blog entries, forum threads, documentation, Slashdot and most everything else.
  • AdvFS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdvFS)
  • Ataxx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataxx)
  • BDS C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDS_C)
  • Bitstream Vera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitstream_Vera)
  • C*Base (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C*Base)
  • CuneiForm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CuneiForm_%28software%29)
  • Fish Fillets NG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_Fillets_NG)
  • Free Download Manager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Download_Manager)
  • Gentium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentium)
  • id Tech 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_2)Slashdot!
  • Marathon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_%28computer_game%29)
  • Netscape Communicator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Communicator)
  • Open Sound System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Sound_System)
  • Performance Co-Pilot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_Co-Pilot)
  • Quake engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_engine)
  • Synfig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synfig)
  • TurboCASH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TurboCASH)
  • Watcom C/C++ compiler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watcom_C_compiler)
  • Compiere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiere)
  • Grisbi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grisbi)
  • HomeBank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomeBank)
  • JFin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFin)
  • jGnash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JGnash)
  • JQuantLib (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JQuantLib)
  • KMyMoney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KMyMoney)
  • LedgerSMB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LedgerSMB)
  • Mifos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifos)
  • Octopus Micro Finance Suite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus_Micro_Finance_Suite)
  • Openbravo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openbravo)
  • OpenERP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenERP)
  • Postbooks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postbooks)
  • Quasar Accounting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar_Accounting)
  • QuickFIX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickFIX/J)
  • SQL-Ledger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_Ledger)
  • Tryton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tryton)
  • 99.99% of Wikipedia Software Articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_software)


Wikipedia will have articles about 0.01% of software as soon as the editors can catch up on their backlog. But hey, we all need to know about iTunes and Windows! It'd be faster to just delete the whole encyclopedia and just start over.

Is it hard to get rights to start marking these articles for deletion? I've got time, as you can see. It'll greatly improve Wikipedia to have only 15 articles about software. Anyone else have spare time? They obviously have a large back log. They really could use our help.

Remember, objectivity. You're welcome to let this post affect you if you're not an editor, but once you become an editor, you have to ignore it. I mean at this point if you delete the article, it's obvious retaliation or a personal agenda. Can't have that kind of behavior from a Wikipedia editor!

I guess it's perfectly fine to have non-notable articles on Wikipedia so long as they're obscure. But if anyone is going to look at the article or heaven forbid, read it, then it has to be up to Wikipedia's official standards or really liked by an editor. How about you make better use of your time by focusing on software that really is lacking. You can start with the article about Mifos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifos) because if the Bitcoin article is a C or a D in Advanced Cryptography and Economics, then the Mifos article is an F- in the special needs class. The Mifos article has been around since 2007, two years longer than the Bitcoin article, surely they've had time to provide some sources. I guess the benefit of not being slashdotted is that it doesn't matter how craptastic an article is, because an editor will never notice it, so it'll just keep chugging along as a secondary press release as more notable software articles get deleted for not being notable. >:( Oтличнaя paбoтa! Пpocтo мoлoдeц, чyвaк!


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: Anonymous on July 24, 2010, 04:32:32 AM

Does this qualify?

https://www.governmentsecurity.org/latest-security-news/bitcoin-p2p-cryptocurrency-bitcoin.html (https://www.governmentsecurity.org/latest-security-news/bitcoin-p2p-cryptocurrency-bitcoin.html)


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: FreeMoney on July 24, 2010, 06:05:03 AM

Does this qualify?

https://www.governmentsecurity.org/latest-security-news/bitcoin-p2p-cryptocurrency-bitcoin.html (https://www.governmentsecurity.org/latest-security-news/bitcoin-p2p-cryptocurrency-bitcoin.html)

No, sorry. See the information is accurate so they must have got it from here or the wiki, so it doesn't count. /sarcasm


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: D҉ataWraith on July 24, 2010, 05:16:29 PM

Does this qualify?

https://www.governmentsecurity.org/latest-security-news/bitcoin-p2p-cryptocurrency-bitcoin.html (https://www.governmentsecurity.org/latest-security-news/bitcoin-p2p-cryptocurrency-bitcoin.html)

No, sorry. See the information is accurate so they must have got it from here or the wiki, so it doesn't count. /sarcasm

WTF. Well, a direct copy of the Bitcoin homepage can't really be claimed as independant, no matter where it appears. I don't know that site, so despite the sophisticated layout I'll just have to assume some kind of spambot harvested the homepage and pasted a copy there.  >:(

I realize it's kind of bitter to see something that is of interest to oneself declared non-notable, but Wikipedia's policies are there for a reason, and we can always try again later. Although it sure would be a shame to break all those outside links to the Wikipedia article...


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: FreeMoney on July 24, 2010, 07:14:03 PM

Does this qualify?

https://www.governmentsecurity.org/latest-security-news/bitcoin-p2p-cryptocurrency-bitcoin.html (https://www.governmentsecurity.org/latest-security-news/bitcoin-p2p-cryptocurrency-bitcoin.html)

No, sorry. See the information is accurate so they must have got it from here or the wiki, so it doesn't count. /sarcasm

WTF. Well, a direct copy of the Bitcoin homepage can't really be claimed as independant, no matter where it appears. I don't know that site, so despite the sophisticated layout I'll just have to assume some kind of spambot harvested the homepage and pasted a copy there.  >:(

I realize it's kind of bitter to see something that is of interest to oneself declared non-notable, but Wikipedia's policies are there for a reason, and we can always try again later. Although it sure would be a shame to break all those outside links to the Wikipedia article...

Ah, when I made my comment I didn't realize it was cut and paste from here.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: RHorning on July 24, 2010, 07:30:57 PM
Examples of Wikipedia's Standard of References
Be sure to subtract press releases, related websites, blog entries, forum threads, documentation, Slashdot and most everything else.

Wikipedia will have articles about 0.01% of software as soon as the editors can catch up on their backlog. But hey, we all need to know about iTunes and Windows! It'd be faster to just delete the whole encyclopedia and just start over.

Quoting horrible examples on Wikipedia isn't good form for defending why it should be deleted.  I think the point is being missed here in terms of what is a quality reference, and no I don't think having President Obama mentioning Bitcoins is a quality reference. 

I will say, on the other hand, if some celebrity of note happened to mention Bitcoins in some substantial way and talked about how it is something to check out, that there would be some genuine investigative journalism and a pretty good writer who would likely try to check out what it is all about.  That reporter going to the Bitcoins.org website and writing up an exhaustive article, fact checking the details, and publishing that piece in a respectable newspaper or on the evening television news (published on the web for reference purposes) would count as notability.

All this says is that we have a long way to go in terms of letting people know about the currency, and in terms of setting up a situation where it could be accepted for everyday transactions.

For those in academia, it would be very useful to find even a minor conference and present a paper or give a talk about Bitcoins.  It is something I've done in the past (when I held official positions in a university instead of working in industry) and could be very useful for "spreading the word" about Bitcoins in a number of ways.  At the moment I'm still a "young grasshopper" and wouldn't feel comfortable to step up to that level to defend the concept... yet.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: kiba on July 24, 2010, 09:29:46 PM
They're assholes, but unfortunately, like all assholes, they don't give shit that they're assholes.

It's quite simple really. They will just delete things that they never heard of. This kind of behaviors have made people start quite a few encyclopedia wiki specializing in an area.

They're not out there to make people improve the article for them. They're out to delete shit that they think isn't notable for X crappy reasons.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: NewLibertyStandard on July 24, 2010, 09:34:13 PM
They're assholes, but unfortunately, like all assholes, they don't give shit that they're assholes.

It's quite simple really. They will just delete things that they never heard of. This kind of behaviors have made people start quite a few encyclopedia wiki specializing in an area.

They're not out there to make people improve the article for them. They're out to delete shit that they think isn't notable for X crappy reasons.
No, they're not going to delete 90% of their articles. They'll only do it as a means to pressure the community to contribute. Like I said in my previous post, if the goal was to delete non-notable articles, then they would start with the completely non-notable articles, of which there are a multitude.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: kiba on July 24, 2010, 10:27:10 PM
They're assholes, but unfortunately, like all assholes, they don't give shit that they're assholes.

It's quite simple really. They will just delete things that they never heard of. This kind of behaviors have made people start quite a few encyclopedia wiki specializing in an area.

They're not out there to make people improve the article for them. They're out to delete shit that they think isn't notable for X crappy reasons.
No, they're not going to delete 90% of their articles. They'll only do it as a means to pressure the community to contribute. Like I said in my previous post, if the goal was to delete non-notable articles, then they would start with the completely non-notable articles, of which there are a multitude.

If that is their goal, than it have backfired on many occasions. Perhaps this is not a systematic campaign by wikipedians, but rather the effort of a few.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: RHorning on July 25, 2010, 05:35:40 AM
I disagree. The Wikipedia policies are fine, but the way they are being implemented totally opposed to the spirit of their policies. I know perfectly well that it doesn't help the cause to say it, but if the editors are doing their job correctly, then it also shouldn't hurt to point out, here on our forum, that they're goatse assholes.

Calm down.  I'm on your side here and for myself I really don't see the harm in keeping the Wikipedia article.  Yes, there are jerks that run their own little domain on Wikipedia that sometimes let that power go to their head, and I've had numerous arguments about notability where I'm usually the one to assert that the article should stay instead of being deleted.

I've also spent my time as a Wikimedia administrator (not Wikipedia, but a couple of its sister projects), where I've had to deal with the problems that come from the real "assholes" that are constantly trying to wreck the projects.  Sometimes after being on the offensive for so long trying to stop people from vandalism and some flagrant "junk" that when somebody comes along to put something in that is legitimate but lacks some quality and seems a bit amateurish often gets mistaken for the blatant vandalism.  Seriously, unless you've spent the time trying to fight some of these real creeps that make it a game to wreck stuff out of spite, you don't know half of the problems that administrators deal with.  It is a mostly thankless job that is critical to the proper functioning of systems like this.  It also consumes a whole bunch of time, which is why I don't do it any more (that and I was "kicked off" due to inactivity).

If that is their goal, than it have backfired on many occasions. Perhaps this is not a systematic campaign by wikipedians, but rather the effort of a few.

One of the things that is impacting the Bitcoins article is a dispute between the "inclusionists" and the "deletionists".  It is hard to explain this other than to say that this is two major political factions on Wikipedia that has its roots to even before Wikipedia itself was started as a project.  The "inclusionists" (of which I'll admit I'm in that camp for the most part) feel that the efforts of volunteers is precious and that "good faith edits" ought to be preserved as much as possible, even if the quality suffers a bit.  There is much more to this philosophy, but a typical inclusionist would want to keep articles like Bitcoins in general.

The other camp, the "deletionists" feel that Wikipedia ought to be constantly raising its standards and that "cruft" needs to be eliminated to discourage poor quality edits.  At the extreme end, some editors and especially administrators get real punchy with the deletion button and start to smack nearly everything in sight that doesn't meet their definition of quality.  The most extreme are those who feel that only articles already at the quality of a "featured article" (something that appears on the "front page" of Wikipedia and represents the highest quality articles on the project) should remain and all else should be deleted.  I hate to say it, but the deletionists seem to have an upper hand right now on Wikipedia.  They can be fought back, but it turns into a political contest.

The problem here is that those joining into this fight for the first time are encountering some of the combatants in this war over policy, and unfortunately the two sides have been going at it for so long (and sometimes there is more than just the two sides) that collectively they dismiss the newcomers.  It is sort of like jumping into a floor fight in congress between the Democrats and the Republicans, without even knowing that political parties even exist in the first place, and seeing some legislation you care about get trashed in the process.  That is precisely what is happening on this particular deletion review, and it is unfortunate that the article got picked for that particular fight.  For myself, I don't think it would have been nominated except for the fact that it appeared on Slashdot and got the attention of the deletionists.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: RHorning on July 25, 2010, 07:05:47 PM
I know I'm biased, but from an objective perspective, Bitcoin is very clearly notable according to the dictionary definition of the word notable, and is much more notable, in the Wikipedia sense, than scores and scores and scores and scores and scores of other software articles.

Notability is something that, thankfully, becomes apparent over time.  I am suggesting that the word you are looking for is novelty, as the idea behind Bitcoins is certainly a very novel concept and something that easily could be patented.  I don't know if Satoshi has formally filed for a patent on Bitcoins, but it would be a good idea to at least formally express that the concept is "in the public domain" in terms of patentability or to have it patented and then have the patent given to some strong 501 (c) 3 non-profit that could keep patent trolls from claiming credit.

Anyway, the novelty of Bitcoins is that it does something unique and interesting that hasn't been done before, tying together several different ideas into one concept.  Being novel is certainly something noteworthy, but the question then becomes.... has it been noted or noticed by anybody other than the small community involved in its development?  That is the question that is being raised here.

Clearly having Slashdot note Bitcoins is something that brought a huge amount of attention to the project.  That implies that few people were even aware of it prior to that article publication.  If it were already notable, that wouldn't be happening.  I sincerely believe that over time, the fact that Bitcoins are noteworthy will make Bitcoins notable too.  This isn't something isolated to just Wikipedia but to other organizations too, but pushing ahead and letting people know about Bitcoins in a greater sense.  As word starts to spread, more people will notice.

I guess I'm trying to turn this experience into something positive for the Bitcoins community.  Trying to figure out how to spread the word about Bitcoins is certainly going to be useful for everybody involved.  If you want to call this evangalism, so be it.  If this article going up for deletion will get people motivated to write up scholarly papers, submit something to the ACM Journal, or to get more attention in scholarly/academic circles, I can see nothing but good coming from such efforts in general.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: Babylon on July 25, 2010, 07:29:29 PM
There are also other wiki's out there with a less deletionist approach.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: em3rgentOrdr on July 31, 2010, 02:19:31 AM
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)"

I made a new forum post to restart the discussion, now that it's official: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652.0


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: dwdollar on July 31, 2010, 03:13:37 AM
So it's official?  We are now popular enough to be recognized that we aren't noteworthy enough. :o

Oh, the irony.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: Anonymous on July 31, 2010, 04:32:28 AM
They're assholes, but unfortunately, like all assholes, they don't give shit that they're assholes.

It's quite simple really. They will just delete things that they never heard of. This kind of behaviors have made people start quite a few encyclopedia wiki specializing in an area.

They're not out there to make people improve the article for them. They're out to delete shit that they think isn't notable for X crappy reasons.
No, they're not going to delete 90% of their articles. They'll only do it as a means to pressure the community to contribute. Like I said in my previous post, if the goal was to delete non-notable articles, then they would start with the completely non-notable articles, of which there are a multitude.
A Wikinomics site?
-focusing on economics and currencies might be a nice thing to start up.It would be good for a number of reasons including an educational tool.A complete resource devoted to this one subject would be great.Oh just think of the arguments lol

Anyone want to witness a gigantic Austrian v Keynesian cage match ?  :)


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: NewLibertyStandard on July 31, 2010, 09:57:49 PM
This quoted post was deleted without notice or explanation. If it was deleted by a moderator, in the future please send me the original post in a private message and then edit it with in-line explanations instead of just deleting it. Please let me know if it was not deleted by a moderator or if there isn't an obvious technical explanation. I would really like to know whether my account has been compromised. Please send me a private message if the forum logs IP addresses which people use to access their account so that I can try to figure out whether an existing user accessed my account. If you accessed my account or deleted this quoted post, please fess up.

Edit: There is a chance that it somehow accidentally got deleted while I was editing it or at some other time, but I don't think that is what happened since the final version of it existed long enough for it to be cached by Google and then after that cache, RHorning replied to it. That all happened long after I stopped editing it.
Thanks for the previous post, RHorning. I skimmed through what you wrote and didn't much pay attention to it at first. After I wrote everything below, I skimmed through it again and appreciated it much more than at first. ;) I very rarely get upset, but on the rare occasion that something incenses me on the Internet, I don't see anything wrong with expressing myself. I figure that since it's such a rare occurrence, the cause must be worthy of my indignity. The video clip I posted below reinforced this view. :P Anyway, I'm only upset while I write about it. I don't really even think about it once I finish ranting and raving like a lunatic. :)

I know I'm biased, but from an objective perspective, Bitcoin is very clearly notable according to the dictionary definition of the word notable, and is much more notable, in the Wikipedia sense, than scores and scores and scores and scores and scores of other software articles. If Bitcoin was just some random program I really liked, I wouldn't really give a shit whether it got deleted according to the notability policy. But from a technical and economical perspective, Bitcoin is breaking so much ground, it's a complete joke to say that it's not notable. And all this while every little software side project sits undisturbed with links only to a press release and project website. I know I'm upset, but it really isn't because I'm in love with Bitcoin, it's because it offends me that something as notable as Bitcoin is getting deleted on the basis of notability from one of the most notable encyclopidias in the world because some jackass editor doesn't know shit about the significance of Bitcoin in regard to cryptography, general computer science, economics, currencies, sociology, money laundering, law enforcement, libertarianism, anarchism, democracy, general government influence and probably a dozen other notable topics.

Here are a few related articles for anyone who is interested.

  • Wikipedia, Notability, and Open Source Software (http://ubuntard.com/2010/03/wikipedia-notability-and-open-source-software/) This article led me to the source of the phrase "I'm as mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dib2-HBsF08) I'd heard the phrase before, but had never seen the source. If you haven't seen it, it's more worth watching than the rest of these articles are worth reading!  ;D or rather >:(
  • Deletionist Morons (http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/06/15/Deletionist-Morons)
  • Rescued by Wikipedia (http://www.slate.com/id/2160644)
  • Open Letter To Wikipedia Editors: Yes, Matt Cutts Is Notable (http://searchengineland.com/open-letter-to-wikipedia-editors-yes-matt-cutts-is-notable-10216)
  • On Wikipedia, storms, teacups, and _why's notability (http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/06/on-wikipedia-storms-teacups-an.html)
  • Wikipedia’s Notability Requirement (http://techliberation.com/2007/11/11/wikipedias-notability-requirement/)
  • Wikipedia’s Notability Requirement Fails for FLOSS (http://thecommandline.net/2010/02/25/wikipedias-notability-requirement-fails-for-floss/)
  • Proposal:Change Wikipedia Notability Guidelines (http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Change_Wikipedia_Notability_Guidelines)
  • Charles Matthews on Notability (http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/149/charles-matthews-on-notability)
  • And many more... (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=wikipedia+software+notability)

There should seriously be an article about the public acknowledgment of the idiocy of the Wikipedia notability policy. It would clearly be notable enough.  :D


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: FreeMoney on August 01, 2010, 07:21:08 AM
That post was deleted? I don't get why at all.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: NewLibertyStandard on August 01, 2010, 02:04:24 PM
That post was deleted? I don't get why at all.
It's certainly calmer and tamer than my previous post. The only controversial thing about it is that it is more pointed toward Wikipedia deletionists. I can imagine that if there was a moderator here who is a deletionist on Wikipedia, they might get upset and delete it. Or maybe a deletionist on Wikipedia who cracked my password in order to delete it. This second scenario actually isn't too far fetched if the forum doesn't temporarily lock out accounts after a few failed login attempts. I've since updated my rather weak password so that it hopefully doesn't happen again. Unless it was a technical glitch or a moderator who will speak up, it very much reinforces my recently acquired vile opinion of Wikipedia deletionists. Of course so long as I can't prove anything, it's just my word against nobody or anybody or Wikipedia deletionists or I'm just overly paranoid or something. :-\


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: knightmb on August 01, 2010, 07:55:42 PM
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

Quote
Citizendium is a wiki that seems to be a compromise between the free-for-all that is Wikipedia and the strict supervision that accompanies Scholarpedia. One of Wikipedia's founders, Larry Sanger, created Citizendium in the hopes of improving on Wikipedia's model. With what the site refers to as "gentle oversight", all articles are subject to approval by the site's editorial team. Articles that haven't been approved will have an accompanying disclaimer, which helps to prevent people from taking potentially false information to heart. Also, you must register under your real name to become a contributor, unlike Wikipedia. Although the site is still in beta form, it is quickly becoming a popular alternative to Wikipedia.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: kwukduck on August 02, 2010, 06:45:52 PM
Totaly rediculous that this gets removed... almost makes me feel there's pressure from third parties...


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: keystroke on March 08, 2016, 08:49:51 AM
Times have changed. ;) Sorry for the bump.


Title: Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Post by: the_poet on March 08, 2016, 10:16:21 AM
I couldn't believe my eyes when I read "They want to delete the Wikipedia article" in 2016.