Wikipedia: "Some criticize Bitcoin for being a Ponzi scheme..."

[Gabi]

"Some have criticized Bitcoin for being a ham and cheese on rye, but a report issued by the owner of a large delicatessen states that Bitcoin lacks three core features of a ham and cheese on rye, namely ham, cheese, and rye."

+1

[1713282411]

1713282411

[1713282411]

1713282411

[1713282411]

1713282411

[1713282411]

1713282411

[1713282411]

1713282411

[Elwar]

I hope this whole Ponzi thing goes away so that people will be more likely to jump on the Bitcoin bandwagon and I can make money.

Then jump out of the market before it all crashes.

[Yuhfhrh]

After reading that talk page, I have never disliked a person as much as SudoGhost. Wikipedia should make sure their editors have an IQ of at least 80 IMO.

[HostFat]

I think that he has a good IQ, but he is NOT honest, that it's worse.

[MoonShadow]

After reading that talk page, I have never disliked a person as much as SudoGhost. Wikipedia should make sure their editors have an IQ of at least 80 IMO.

I have no doubts that his IQ is at least 80.  IQ isn't a measure of intelectual capacity, it's a (poor) metric intended to measure average learning comprehension rates.  For the developmentally delayed.  Any IQ number over 120 or so has no practical meaning.  From what I can see of SudoGhost he is more than capable of quickly learning to rationalize away his critics.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

After reading that talk page, I have never disliked a person as much as SudoGhost. Wikipedia should make sure their editors have an IQ of at least 80 IMO.

He is not dumb, my guess is he just prefers sticking to the rules instead of using logic and common sense.

Does anybody know if there are well-described criteria for judging if a source is reliable or not to wikipedia? (EDIT: NVM, I should learn to do some more googling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources )

[chmod755]

With that said, I can see where "Some criticize Bitcoin for being a Ponzi scheme" can be assumed to have an issue. On the one hand, it is a factual sentence; there are sources that criticize it for this reason, that does not imply that it is a Ponzi scheme, that would be jumping to a conclusion not given by the text. It has been criticized for this, and that's something that is sourced, you can't "un-source" that; no matter what sources you present, it's going to somehow un-criticize Bitcoin, the criticisms are still there, it doesn't matter if you can "prove" with your personal logic and with sources that don't actually support your argument that it isn't one; you're disproving something not relevant. On the other hand, that multiple Bitcoin enthusiasts have misread this sentence thereby repeating the same flawed arguments over and over does indicate that a clarification would help. Perhaps the statement can be clarified to read "Some criticize Bitcoin, accusing it of being a Ponzi scheme." or something similar.

That's much better, because doesn't say "for BEING a Ponzi scheme".

After reading that talk page, I have never disliked a person as much as SudoGhost. Wikipedia should make sure their editors have an IQ of at least 80 IMO.

I have no doubts that his IQ is at least 80.  IQ isn't a measure of intelectual capacity, it's a (poor) metric intended to measure average learning comprehension rates.  For the developmentally delayed.  Any IQ number over 120 or so has no practical meaning.  From what I can see of SudoGhost he is more than capable of quickly learning to rationalize away his critics.

Are we talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence ? (CAUTION: non-RS)

[Yuhfhrh]

After reading that talk page, I have never disliked a person as much as SudoGhost. Wikipedia should make sure their editors have an IQ of at least 80 IMO.

He is not dumb, my guess is he just prefers sticking to the rules instead of using logic and common sense.

Does anybody know if there are well-described criteria for judging if a source is reliable or not to wikipedia? (EDIT: NVM, I should learn to do some more googling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources )

I assumed his lack of logic and common sense was the result of a low IQ.

[Serith]

my guess is he just prefers sticking to the rules instead of using logic and common sense.

Not really, because he applies those rules with bias.

[Gabi]

I should add

Some criticize gold, accusing it of being a Ponzi scheme

to the gold page

because it's exactly the same thing. 

[Yuhfhrh]

I should add

Some criticize gold, accusing it of being a Ponzi scheme

to the gold page

because it's exactly the same thing. 

But you have enough intelligence to know that it would be silly to do right?

[Gabi]

Well, it is silly for bitcoin too. So if in the bitcoin page there is that phrase, i want it in the gold page too, since bitcoin and gold have tons of similarities

[Roger_Murdock]

I don't know why everyone's so upset about what wikipedia says. Everyone knows that site is just a Ponzi scheme.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

I don't know why everyone's so upset about what wikipedia says. Everyone knows that site is just a Ponzi scheme.

, thank you sir, for giving me a good laugh.

Is there any reasoning given for not adding the fact that bitcoin does not match several properties of a Ponzi scheme?

[Syke]

I think that he has a good IQ, but he is NOT honest, that it's worse.

SudoGhost is simply a coward. He hides behind the "reliable sources" and refuses to allow any intelligent discussion take place.

[Richy_T]

I tried to make an edit to the talk page suggesting a change in wording that wouldn't attempt to remove the Ponzi scheme accusation but to clarify the text so that it didn't directly imply that Bitcoin *is* a Ponzi scheme.

But the page is locked so I needed to create an account

Which is a big pain in the butt. It took about 10 times to create an account since not only are duplicate IDs (hard to avoid) disallowed but also "too similar" user IDs.

Then new users don't get to make changes to locked pages unless they appeal (kinda like the newbie whitelist here)

So I appealed.

And I got denied and told to put my requested change on some page which didn't exist.

So I did.

I got blown off and told that I "wouldn't be a newbie long".

So I gave up.

[giszmo]

I tried to make an edit to the talk page suggesting a change in wording that wouldn't attempt to remove the Ponzi scheme accusation but to clarify the text so that it didn't directly imply that Bitcoin *is* a Ponzi scheme.

But the page is locked so I needed to create an account

Which is a big pain in the butt. It took about 10 times to create an account since not only are duplicate IDs (hard to avoid) disallowed but also "too similar" user IDs.

Then new users don't get to make changes to locked pages unless they appeal (kinda like the newbie whitelist here)

So I appealed.

And I got denied and told to put my requested change on some page which didn't exist.

So I did.

I got blown off and told that I "wouldn't be a newbie long".

So I gave up.

I did hundreds of edits and dozens under my username that I forgot my password for. As more and more articles turned elite-only, I registered a new account that still has only 7 edits (5 in articles, 2 in talk pages discussing why my changes got reverted ). Maybe I should edit some 3 more pages logged in? Are we that short in WP-users here?

[smickles]

I don't know why everyone's so upset about what wikipedia says. Everyone knows that site is just a Ponzi scheme.

http://www.encyclopediabitcoinica.com/wiki/Wikipedia

[Roger_Murdock]

I don't know why everyone's so upset about what wikipedia says. Everyone knows that site is just a Ponzi scheme.

http://www.encyclopediabitcoinica.com/wiki/Wikipedia

  You are my new hero!

[Yuhfhrh]

I don't know why everyone's so upset about what wikipedia says. Everyone knows that site is just a Ponzi scheme.

http://www.encyclopediabitcoinica.com/wiki/Wikipedia

Thanks for that lol