Bitcoin Forum

tl;dr: Make the bitcoin wiki official; make this forum unofficial.

This is prompted by three recent threads...

• Should drugs be listed at bitcoin.it? (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6602.0)
• Should pr0n be listed at bitcoin.it? (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6649.0)
• Should bitcoin wiki allow links to christian religious services? (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6708.0)

...and also my ongoing confusion as to why we have an official forum and an unofficial wiki.

Before going further, I'll set out my stall: I'm very much in the "ban nothing" camp, tempered slightly by the "don't do harm to forum administrators" camp. However, I'm also mindful that not every bitcoin user shares my views, and that we want - presumably - to build up bitcoin's userbase. This latter point means that public relations needs to be a consideration.

I mentioned my confusion as to why the wiki is unofficial. This is, I realise, an accident of history. The wiki was set up by some kind soul at bitcoin.it, it's utility was recognised, and it became - effectively - semi-official. All well and good, and the person or people who set up the wiki should be applauded. However, the wiki is such a key part of bitcoin education, and, by and large, so uncontroversial, that I believe it should be brought under the umbrella of the official site. Or, alternatively, a new wiki be set up here, and the content ported over - with attribution.

What does this have to do with drugs, porn and Christian religious services?

I believe that the official site should focus on bitcoin itself, not the views of thousands of forum posters, and not the controversies posts sometimes stir up. I think it's reasonable, from a PR perspective, for the official site to discuss some of the things bitcoins can be used to purchase. I also think it's reasonable to acknowledge that - like cash - bitcoins can be used for things many people might disapprove of. I'm not convinced, anymore, that granting some sort of official status to those things is helpful. For that matter, promoting the purchase of anything might be seen as favouring one supplier - i.e. as biased.

My proposal as regards the forum is that it be moved from the official site, but linked from the main site in the same way that the wiki is now. The forum would, presumably, still be governed by some jurisdiction, so allowing discussion on certain topics would remain problematic, but the argument that it's bad PR for bitcoin would no longer apply. We would, in some ways, be more free than we are now.

Thoughts? Am I right? What have I missed out? Is this feasible from a technical standpoint? Should I find more productive ways to spend a bank holiday? :-)

Should we ban meta meta discussions in meta discussions?  ;)

I agree that having an official forum is a liability.  I don't know whether the wiki should be official, but I think, if there's an official anything, there ought to be at least some sort of official support system.  (Closest there is right now other than the forum, I would guess, is reporting a bug on the sourceforge project page.)

The userbase that is going to build up, don't even care enough to express their opinion and vote. They will be the first leaving the sinking ship instead of repairing it, while the rest who really care will suffer.
I don't think there was any pressure from wiki or any other legal threats against those links. It is clearly a decision made in someone's personal interest. All and any information should be free. THIS DECISION IS A LOAD SHIT!

There was a decision?

https://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=6602.msg103057#msg103057 (https://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=6602.msg103057#msg103057)

I still think trade will need to move elsewhere, for a number of reasons. Of course, then you get the question of whether it's good for bitcoin.org to link to trade sites that have links to sites where people trade controversial goods and services...

Yep, turtles all the way down. This is what happens when a bullshit idea is implemented. A fractal question gets generated.

Trade IS elswhere. Nobody's trading on the wiki. It's just a god damn link! A piece of INFORMATION.

Gotcha, thanks for the link.  In keeping with the meta discussion theme, I saw all those threads but never read any of them... I just assumed that the debate was still ongoing.  ::)

The wiki is currently throwing a mysql error.  Hoping this isn't another DDoS directed at MagicalTux.

EDIT:  Nope.  It's back after a few minutes.  Apologies in advance if this starts any conspiracy theories.

The reverse happened. There was an official wiki (http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php), but it was ported over to the unofficial wiki with attribution (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Template:Fromold). It was decided (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2321.0) that decentralization of the community is a good thing.

Nothing is really official. Maybe some people view weusecoins.com as the "official" Bitcoin page. If you don't like existing policies, start a competing site.

But until there are major forks of the software, there will still be "official" head developers, and they're inevitably going to be forced into the role of spokespeople for Bitcoin until they pull a Satoshi and vanish.  For the time being, officialness of some sort is unavoidable.  When bitcoin.org becomes just a "fansite" and is owned by someone who isn't involved in the development of Bitcoin, then we'll be on our way toward decentralization of representation.

Sorry, I edited that sentence to something more precise before you replied.

Bitcoin.org is owned by uninvolved people. Sirius does not code, and Satoshi is no longer involved.

Sirius, eh?  Just assumed it was Gavin who took over from Satoshi...  My bad.

Sirius has always hosted bitcoin.org, and Satoshi has always held the domain. Gavin is an administrator, of course.

Ah, that's interesting. I'm OK with the wiki staying where it is, it's less of an issue I think than...

But rightly or wrongly, bitcoin.org is seen as the official site at the moment. I think weusecoins.com has potential to be seen like this, and they seem to be mindful of that, and keen to avoid controversial topics (I think, based on discussions about video content for example). If bitcoin.org isn't "official" (and it's difficult to see how it could be, now I think about it and knowing a bit more about its history and who's involved) it's probably worth making that clear - it plays well to bitcoin's decentralised nature, as well - "the community, like bitcoin itself, is decentralised - this is but one site, there's also [insert useful list here]".

I'm fine with existing policies - I mentioned in my original post that I'm very definitely in the "no banning topics, except to keep the site admins safe"-camp. My concern is the folk here who don't agree with that - and the numerous threads debating what should and should not be allowed on this forum as a result. Shifting the forum elsewhere serves two purposes - it makes debate on the forum more free, and - and thanks for pointing this out ;-) - it serves to decentralise the community.

Fully in his right to do this, but I do hope somebody makes a new free wiki and that his changes its name to The Bitcoin Neoconservative wiki.

It's not exactly a wiki, but allows user-generated content:  Feel free to submit sites to http://bitcoinsites.witcoin.com/ without fear of censorship from witcoin.

Perhaps this thread should be moved to the new meta board?

Agreed - done!