Someone or some group is disturbed by Bitcoin. Vandalism on Wikipedia.

[Atlas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&action=history

People have been adding statements such as "Not a real currency". Additionally, someone felt the need to include every exchange hacking in existence on the Bitcoin article as if Bitcoin is flawed.

Tell me, why are people so bothered by Bitcoin now?

[1714833974]

1714833974

[1714833974]

1714833974

[1714833974]

1714833974

[jimbobway]

Who knows but this is an incorrect statement:

"In June 2011, Mt. Gox, the most popular BitCoin exchange at that time, has been compromised, affecting accounts with equivalent of more than USD 8'750'000. It has resulted in a severe drop in Bitcoin exchange rates."

I think Mt. Gox only lost 1000 BTC in the incident due to withdraw limit safeguards.

[phatsphere]

Look at the peak in the stats of this month: http://stats.grok.se/en/201209/Bitcoin

... attracting all sorts of "experts" for sure.

[bg002h]

I think people are intrinsically repulsed by the concept of intrinsically worthless money...they just don't realize that that is precisely what they use...people don't quite see that Bitcoin, while still intrinsically worthless, can't be created ad infinitum.

[salty]

Bitcoin is a distributed electronic cash protocol and virtual comedy.

I must admit to lols when I read that.

[bitcoinBull]

Tell me, why are people so bothered by Bitcoin now?

All the press from the Romney taxes hoax, obviously.

[iCEBREAKER]

Tell me, why are people so bothered by Bitcoin now?

These people hate Bitcoin for the same reasons they hate gold, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, and libertarians.

They know they are second-handers.  They know they are parasitic leeches.  They know they are useless tax eaters, living off the productivity of virtuous rational value holders.

They hate anything and anyone that threatens to dispel the illusion that they are moral, and superior to their betters via the sanction of the victim and death worship of altruism.

They know their time is limited, and the day of reckoning draws nigh.  They know they will perish when the IRS agents' US dollar paychecks cease and the welfare checks stop.

They hate this reality, and will strain with every misguided ounce gram of self-preservation to prevent or delay the inevitable.

They are ashamed of their own worthlessness, and have created this entire world order dedicated to hiding their shortcomings behind a tissue of lies and a wall of coercion.

[totaleclipseofthebank]

Tell me, why are people so bothered by Bitcoin now?

These people hate Bitcoin for the same reasons they hate gold, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, and libertarians.

They know they are second-handers.  They know they are parasitic leeches.  They know they are useless tax eaters, living off the productivity of virtuous rational value holders.

They hate anything and anyone that threatens to dispel the illusion that they are moral, and superior to their betters via the sanction of the victim and death worship of altruism.

They know their time is limited, and the day of reckoning draws nigh.  They know they will perish when the IRS agents' US dollar paychecks cease and the welfare checks stop.

They hate this reality, and will strain with every misguided ounce gram of self-preservation to prevent or delay the inevitable.

They are ashamed of their own worthlessness, and have created this entire world order dedicated to hiding their shortcomings behind a tissue of lies and a wall of coercion.

B I T C O I N T A L K

[GernMiester]

Big deal.. tools who thing their gubernment prints money and gives it value are posting of halftruthapedia. YAWN!

[Rassah]

Added my bit. Let's see how long it lasts.

[Portnoy]

What I would like to know is why are people allowed to revive the usernames of members who have been banned, like the name "Atlas" ?

I see the potential for not only confusion but abuse.     

[FlipPro]

What I would like to know is why are people allowed to revive the usernames of members who have been banned, like the name "Atlas" ?

I see the potential for not only confusion but abuse.     

Atlas was let back in by the admins.

[Portnoy]

What I would like to know is why are people allowed to revive the usernames of members who have been banned, like the name "Atlas" ?

I see the potential for not only confusion but abuse.     

Atlas was let back in by the admins.

And Immanuel Go as well?     

[FlipPro]

What I would like to know is why are people allowed to revive the usernames of members who have been banned, like the name "Atlas" ?

I see the potential for not only confusion but abuse.     

Atlas was let back in by the admins.

And Immanuel Go as well?     

He was only allowed to have 1 account. That was the deal..

Atlas?

[Strider Hiryu]

Tell me, why are people so bothered by Bitcoin now?

These people hate Bitcoin for the same reasons they hate gold, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, and libertarians.

They know they are second-handers.  They know they are parasitic leeches.  They know they are useless tax eaters, living off the productivity of virtuous rational value holders.

They hate anything and anyone that threatens to dispel the illusion that they are moral, and superior to their betters via the sanction of the victim and death worship of altruism.

They know their time is limited, and the day of reckoning draws nigh.  They know they will perish when the IRS agents' US dollar paychecks cease and the welfare checks stop.

They hate this reality, and will strain with every misguided ounce gram of self-preservation to prevent or delay the inevitable.

They are ashamed of their own worthlessness, and have created this entire world order dedicated to hiding their shortcomings behind a tissue of lies and a wall of coercion.

This is awesome.

As for the OP, it's not even vandalism, it's Wikipedia working as intended.  The coterie running things over there kept Bitcoin off Wikipedia for a very long time (you might be able to google the record of that drama).

Things like the debate over global warming are purged, and Wikipedia presents one side of an argument as 'consensus'.  What Wikipedia's insistence on 'consensus' means is that only one view will ever be presented and the most aggressive group purges all dissent.  And the most aggressive group over there is an authoritarian left-wing - that hates sound money.  Knowledge is power and their goal is to limit and shape everyone else's.  NPOV is of course totally Orwellian, they've simply declared their POV as 'neutral'.

[Rassah]

Re - Wikipedia: the quote "Facts have a liberal bias" comes to mind...

[Tyrion]

It makes me wonder... could we pay people in bitcoin to curate bitcoin related pages? It could certainly help with our PR.

[Littleshop]

Things like the debate over global warming are purged, and Wikipedia presents one side of an argument as 'consensus'.  What Wikipedia's insistence on 'consensus' means is that only one view will ever be presented and the most aggressive group purges all dissent.  And the most aggressive group over there is an authoritarian left-wing - that hates sound money.  Knowledge is power and their goal is to limit and shape everyone else's.  NPOV is of course totally Orwellian, they've simply declared their POV as 'neutral'.

Wikipedia may have a left wing bent to it.  If you don't like it, participate in it and if that does not work start your own.  The wikipedia people are even kind enough to give you all of the tools for free!   You can even with a little more effort populate it with the current version from wikipedia, lock it so only you and people with opinions you like can edit it, and create your own version of the truth.

I have disagreements with how they operate and therefore do not contribute, but in general they are a valuable source of information.

(que all of the users who will quote errors in wikipedia.....)

[kiba]

Wikipedia may have a left wing bent to it.  If you don't like it, participate in it and if that does not work start your own.  The wikipedia people are even kind enough to give you all of the tools for free!   You can even with a little more effort populate it with the current version from wikipedia, lock it so only you and people with opinions you like can edit it, and create your own version of the truth.

I have disagreements with how they operate and therefore do not contribute, but in general they are a valuable source of information.

(que all of the users who will quote errors in wikipedia.....)


[/quote]

They are also the most increasingly dysfunctional bureaucratic organization known to mankind. Yes, they produce good work, but their glory day is long past.

[tvbcof]

Things like the debate over global warming are purged, and Wikipedia presents one side of an argument as 'consensus'.

The common case in the real world is that one side of an argument does indeed have 'consensus'.  More often than not 'consensus' indicates a more solid argument.  Sometimes not, but in the cases of the generally spherical shape of planet earth and anthropomorphic climate change it is pretty clearly true.

What Wikipedia's insistence on 'consensus' means is that only one view will ever be presented and the most aggressive group purges all dissent.  And the most aggressive group over there is an authoritarian left-wing - that hates sound money.  Knowledge is power and their goal is to limit and shape everyone else's.  NPOV is of course totally Orwellian, they've simply declared their POV as 'neutral'.

The two annoyances I've had with Wikipedia are when a group of editors were caught red handed trying to color Zionist projects in the Middle East favorably, and when an editor was extraordinarily heavy-handed in making sure that information about strategic failure to deliver (aka, 'naked short selling') was minimized and controlled.  Neither of these are remotely left wing.  I'm a hard core lefty, and most of the Wikipedia stuff seems pretty even to me.  Plus people can challenge info they don't like and readers can make up their own minds.  Usually...I guess...never tried it.