The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit

[LoveWisdomPower]

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

"Although bitcoin was initially promoted as a virtual currency, commentators have largely rejected that claim due to bitcoin's volatile market value, relatively inflexible supply, and minimal use in trade."

[1713454936]

1713454936

[1713454936]

1713454936

[1713454936]

1713454936

[anonymous_hero]

On the other hand, that statement has 4 citations.  To modify it significantly (and have your edit accepted) you'd probably have to cite at least twice as many similarly-famous "commentators" that say otherwise.  Bloomberg and Krugman are pretty big names, and there aren't that many opinion writers of their reputation that have endorsed Bitcoin.

[proper_pizza]

Well if that is a popular opinion, it should in the article I think. Maybe under "discussion" or something where they present different views.

[johnmatrix]

I think many wikipedist editors are not profesional with the articles

[ReCat]

Many people are posting misleading and degrading articles about bitcoins. It's really disappointing.

[naphto]

What's wrong with that?

[bb113]

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

"Although bitcoin was initially promoted as a virtual currency, commentators have largely rejected that claim due to bitcoin's volatile market value, relatively inflexible supply, and minimal use in trade."

"Although bitcoin has been promoted as a virtual currency, some commentators have largely rejected that claim due to their belief that bitcoin's relatively inflexible supply and history of volatile market value will lead to minimal use in trade."

This would be ok.

[anonymous_hero]

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

"Although bitcoin was initially promoted as a virtual currency, commentators have largely rejected that claim due to bitcoin's volatile market value, relatively inflexible supply, and minimal use in trade."

"Although bitcoin has been promoted as a virtual currency, some commentators have largely rejected that claim due to their belief that bitcoin's relatively inflexible supply and history of volatile market value will lead to minimal use in trade."

This would be ok.

It seems as though that statement has been removed altogether from the article.  I think some of those additions/changes you made are implied, but I suppose making it explicit doesn't hurt anything, except perhaps for conciseness/readability.

Interestingly, the page now has a warning that it contains too much "intricate detail" that may be of interest only to a few people... heh.  I sort of see what they mean, but on the other hand I'm not sure how that's not true for almost every Wikipedia article.  :-P

[lmotaku]

Anyone and everyone has access to change/modify wikipedia articles, and these so called "commentators" and the like can be pretty dubious, and can actually be competitive.

One business I had put up online, and tried to make a wikipedia page for after 2 years operation was removed by a competitor's friend who has such access, which is no more than a conflict of interest.
Since I had followed all guidelines of making the page in the first place, but nope, removed, for an illegitimate reason.

You can't trust it with a grain of salt, except for things predated, bigger, and irrefutable.

[Crypto Canary]

What's with the need to get defensive every time someone makes a criticism of bitcoin? No need to get all upset about it.

[alexuk]

Brilliant.

Who has admin access to change this?

[NO2squik]

"minimal use"

That's the part I have problems with. More places should start accepting bitcoins. That way more people will start buying them. Popularity, usage, etc.

[JimmiesForBitcoins]

On the other hand, that statement has 4 citations.  To modify it significantly (and have your edit accepted) you'd probably have to cite at least twice as many similarly-famous "commentators" that say otherwise.  Bloomberg and Krugman are pretty big names, and there aren't that many opinion writers of their reputation that have endorsed Bitcoin.

A couple of Keynesians who believe that the economy needs a constant pumping of artificial credit to avoid coming to a screeching halt don't like a currency with a fixed limit? That's a shocker.

[ineedyourhelp]

 

[Vandroiy]

From the 2011 section:

Some claimed the crash was due to a lower cost in producing bitcoins through cheaper computing power.

Right, because that makes Bitcoins appear by the bucket!

From the 2013 section:

Suggested reasons for the rise in price included

NOBODY CARES ABOUT RANDOM NEWSFLASH SPAM M'KAY?

From "central bank":

The majority of the bitcoin peer-to-peer network regulates transactions and balances.

And miners are the botnet's bitches, hahahaha!!!

servers called bitcoin miners

Yes! Them mining servers host the network! Nodes connect to them for all their banking needs!!!

In April 2013, 1 BTC traded from $100–$260

Historical stuff before it's history: smart

Edit wars are annoying. If anyone has time to wage this one, I'd appreciate it.

[bitpar]

Except there are services to instantly convert BTC to USD if that's what a merchant wants. And all currencies have a certain level of volatility, some even greater than BTC.

[anonymous_hero]

On the other hand, that statement has 4 citations.  To modify it significantly (and have your edit accepted) you'd probably have to cite at least twice as many similarly-famous "commentators" that say otherwise.  Bloomberg and Krugman are pretty big names, and there aren't that many opinion writers of their reputation that have endorsed Bitcoin.

A couple of Keynesians who believe that the economy needs a constant pumping of artificial credit to avoid coming to a screeching halt don't like a currency with a fixed limit? That's a shocker.

I didn't say it was shocking, and I certainly don't agree with them, but to my knowledge I've hardly seen any libertarian/conservative economists endorse Bitcoin, which is why I was saying in the mainstream press right now it's still not regarded very highly.  If you do know of any well-known economists who have praised Bitcoin, I'd be sincerely interested in reading their opinions.  Perhaps I just haven't looked hard enough.

[alexh]

That article is one of the most active and edited ones in Wikipedia right now.

[jimafternoon]

Wikipedia isn't really known for it accuracy or thoroughness.

[JimmiesForBitcoins]

On the other hand, that statement has 4 citations.  To modify it significantly (and have your edit accepted) you'd probably have to cite at least twice as many similarly-famous "commentators" that say otherwise.  Bloomberg and Krugman are pretty big names, and there aren't that many opinion writers of their reputation that have endorsed Bitcoin.

A couple of Keynesians who believe that the economy needs a constant pumping of artificial credit to avoid coming to a screeching halt don't like a currency with a fixed limit? That's a shocker.

I didn't say it was shocking, and I certainly don't agree with them, but to my knowledge I've hardly seen any libertarian/conservative economists endorse Bitcoin, which is why I was saying in the mainstream press right now it's still not regarded very highly.  If you do know of any well-known economists who have praised Bitcoin, I'd be sincerely interested in reading their opinions.  Perhaps I just haven't looked hard enough.

I think the problem is that
1. There aren't as many Austrians to begin with because that's not the form of economics that colleges teach. Since government subsidized colleges get the vast majority of students, most of them are going to turn out Keynesians; because we all know how impartial and well-read most government school teachers are, right?
2. Famous economists aren't young guys. Younger/more computer adept adults are more swift to adopt or entertain the idea of Bitcoin because the idea of virtual currencies makes perfect sense to them. To pre-internet folks, it really doesn't make much sense and sounds either completely ridiculous or very risky business.

Not that it isn't risky in certain ways, but it's not just going to suddenly implode without warning. That would be ridiculous. Unless of course people believe the Discovery Channel when they talk about a mega solar flare wiping out the power grid and all electronic devices that aren't shielded by Faraday cages in 2013.