Bitcoin Forum

It seems as though bitcointalk is banned in wikipedia. Why is that?

It can't be added as a reference or otherwise linked. Edits with that won't go through.
Bitcointalk is a forum where significant announcements were made. Having it banned in wikipedia is quite unreasonable.

I believe that we should do something to change that. Anyone here with knowledge over how Wikipedia works that could provide advice on if there's something to be done?

https://i.imgur.com/vZiRW8o.png

What were you trying to edit? Maybe web discussion forums aren't counted valid sources? Anyone could edit their post at any time. I would take it up with wikipedia if you find it unreasonable.

First, wikipedia is not a trusted source for reference coz anyone can edit information so don't take wiki information too seriously.
2nd, we are well off without wiki, wiki is for old school pops  ;D

---

Update:

https://i.imgur.com/jxnWTtv.png
Click here, if unable to see image (https://i.imgur.com/jxnWTtv.png)

I like it by the way @hilariousetc
It's a round figure  ;D

Bitcointalk.org is banned WITHIN Wikipedia. If you try to add a link to the forum as reference when editing any article a message will pop-up saying it's banned. I'll add an image to the OP to make it more clear.

I don't know if this could lead to a ban or not in Wikipedia but if it could be tested and removed after, could you try to put a mirror link for bitcointalk.org (bitcointa.lk for example?) and check if it isn't allowed too? or you can check any other forums or even reddit.com/r/bitcoin.

Edit : i am aware that mirrors are phishing sites, what i meant is to see if only bitcointalk.org is blocked or every crypto forums (mirrors or even forum.bitcoin dot com) ofc before seeing the blacklist.

The answer can be found on Wikipedia's Spam blacklist (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist):
Considering the large amount of unmanageable spam on Bitcointalk, I can imagine Wikipedia articles have been spammed with links to this forum too.

The good thing about this is Bitcointalk can be removed from the blacklist of Wikipedia as stated in their Blocked External Links (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocked_external_links) page. And if you really want to add Bitcointalk as a source for your edits you must follow this steps as stated in the article, but I do think that a forum admin or moderator has more weight on the request based on the Bold text below.

Also in my opinion I do think that Bitcointalk is blacklisted as it is a forum site (a lot of forum sites are listed on the blacklist of wikipedia) and forum sites tend to have a lot of spam as well as unreliable sources that can't be used as sources (at least that is how Wikipedia views it). Just like why wikipedia is blocking off many blogspot sites as their information tends to be unreliable and is not worthy to become a source.

this is indeed an interesting find. i cant understand why this forum is "blocked". but there is a wiki page about the forum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcointalk

the content could be improved. its not much.

and there is a link to this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5.msg28#msg28

There was probably hundreds of shitcoins trying to add themselves wiki pages and using the ANN threads posted on this forum as a source. Or, as above, discussion forums just aren't a valid source.

What I tried to do was use an archive.org page for bitcointalk.org and it was also not allowed. I assume because of containing "bitcointalk.org" in the URL.

Try to use archive.is (http://archive.is) (there won't be any mention to bitcointalk in the URL).

That would still be against the rules.

That's weird because I can't find "bitcointalk.org" at the Wikipedia's 2007-2016 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log/Full_list), 2017 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log/2017) or 2018 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log) Spam Blacklist.

And one of the steps to ask for a review is to check the reason why it got blacklisted.

I couldn't find it also, which is very weird indeed.

At first I got to think that it might have been my fault for not knowing much about WikiPedia's backend.

funny how wikipedia considers bitcointalk a spamming site
while it doesn't hesitate to inundate you with donation requests:

https://i.imgur.com/lmJRbP0l.jpg

never trusted it as a source of information,anyone can edit it and it has been politically biased on so many cases I cannot count

This is the first I've heard of it. It seems inappropriate, since bitcointalk.org is the best source for several important things. hilariousandco's theory sounds plausible.

I'd appreciate it if someone would appeal it. Wikipedia is the ultimate bureaucracy, with arcane rules and endless layers of appeals for everything. There's probably some "Request for unblacklisting" process, and if that fails, there will be appeals above that.

Please do not use any "mirror" sites (other than general mirror sites like archive.is), since there are no official mirrors, and the existing ones are likely to be phishing sites in disguise.

Welp, I tried...

https://i.imgur.com/3qOmTu3.png

The request was declined. The suggestions is saying that in essence if anyone wants to add reference to bitcointalk in any article he'd have to request specific white-listing for that article.

I've seen discussion in the whitelist page but I don't know if there'd be any point trying to bring up counter-arguments to the decision. From what I understand, the pages for blacklist removal requests are archived on a monthly basis. Perhaps someone with an account having more prestigious edit history could try next month.

Personally, I don't think the reason given for declining is good. I haven't seen instances of bitcointalk being spammed/abused on wikipedia and the fact that it's a forum doesn't mean it's a de facto bad source... Requiring a request for white-listing every time one'd want to add a reference could deter many editors from adding valuable information in the first place, but it seems like that's willing to be discounted for any potential spam.

I'd be willing to bet the spamming/abuse was by people submitting their crapcoins and various other scams for pages only citing this forum as a source. Also, this forum probably doesn't count as an acceptable source just like wikipedia usually can't be used as a valid source for writing articles/essays etc. This is why we can't have nice things.

I checked last night and it looks like the bitcointalk.org domain was banned in early 2016 and about 700 links were submitted as of the banning.

I know that Greg maxwell has had runins with the Wikipedia admins in the past, including them describing him harshly, I forget what exactly they said, but there was an incident in which he apparently used multiple sock puppets to make edits to Wikipedia pages after he was banned personally from making edits. Maybe this is somewhat related.

The forum really is not an appropriate source for Wikipedia articles anyway, so anything that is backed up by a forum post should probably be edited out even if there was no ban.

Thanks for trying.

I think that if one was persistent enough, the blacklisting could probably be overturned. But I don't have time for that.


Greg was (maybe still is) a Wikipedia admin. He has good relations with them.

Wikipedia is very selective when it's about adding a forum discussion and consider it as a "reliable" source, I don't remember to find any or it was long ago.. Sometimes you can have a better luck to add a link source on wiki page in another language as the people moderating are less strict or lenient. Bitcointalk is banned for a long time now you can thank to 1) the SEO spammers 2) the crapycoins
You can have a better luck to win some bucks in the lottery than getting the domain white listed.
And if a mod lets you add a link from archive.org or archive.is then he is dumb


what is your point?
wikipedia is free and needs huge resources to keep the site alive, such projects often ask for donations. And to tell you people usually prefer to donate some money instead to pay a service

This discussion implies that Greg was at one point close to getting the equivalent of a permaban on Wikipedia. His peers were calling Greg’s behavior “vandalism” and suspected him of using a bit to do what they described as vandalizing pages. I’m not sure if their relationship has subsequently improved or if the incident is in any way related to the issue in the OP.  (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=36639732#User:Gmaxwell)

Yes like others pointed out, since its an open forum any one can post "shit" here and later link it in Wikipedia as a credible source.

However if you go to Bitcointalk wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcointalk, there is a link to bitcointalk.org, pointing to Satoshi's first post. So if link is present here it should not be banned (note this pages was created very recently 30 January 2018‎). So its possible ban is applicable in certain specific cases, and depends on the page you are editing.

https://i.imgur.com/tiNyRe9.jpg
https://imgur.com/tiNyRe9

I think I’m going to be the only one disagreeing here but, how can Bitcointalk in its current state be a reliable source?

If it was the Ivory Tower board, I would understand it, but with all the spam going on, I am not surprised. I am sure most forums are on the blacklist, and if there are some in the white list it is because they are low-traffic, very specialized ones.

I find it reasonable that they may accept specific articles.