Bitcoin article on Wikipedia

[fluffypony]

So someone very (un)kindly reported one of our Bitcoin listings on the local auction/shopping site (basically an eBay clone, but they've been around for like 10 years). They say that what we're selling is illegal. In defense of their report they quotes this line from the Wikipedia article on Bitcoin: "A large share of such commercial use is believed to be for illicit drug and gambling transactions."

Despite ongoing discussions in the Talk section of that article, and despite the quoted references simply not saying that, it seems that the sentence stands and is not going to be modified or removed. In disagreement with this, I've updated the Wikipedia article on the US Dollar and added in this line a few days ago: "A significant share of the commercial use of U.S. dollar bills is believed to be for illicit drug and gambling transactions." I do not think that the Bitcoin article should list such a specious "fact" without any evidence to support it, and most definitely not in the opening paragraphs.

So...does anybody have any sway as a Wikipedia editor that can either remove this "fact" or at least move it to a different part of the article and make it clear that it is supposition?

[BitcoinBarrel]

LOL! Win

[Ephebus]

Brilliant!

[AzureEngineer]

Well, it isn't wrong.

[Philj]

I had to go look up the US dollar on Wikipedia to see that for my own eyes. Its really there, and that is really awesome.

[SgtSpike]

We should add it to every currency's wikipedia page.  Because, well, it's probably true.  And wikipedia is all about stuff that is probably true.

[Technomage]

Brilliant!

[Matthew N. Wright]

So someone very (un)kindly reported one of our Bitcoin listings on the local auction/shopping site (basically an eBay clone, but they've been around for like 10 years). They say that what we're selling is illegal. In defense of their report they quotes this line from the Wikipedia article on Bitcoin: "A large share of such commercial use is believed to be for illicit drug and gambling transactions."

Despite ongoing discussions in the Talk section of that article, and despite the quoted references simply not saying that, it seems that the sentence stands and is not going to be modified or removed. In disagreement with this, I've updated the Wikipedia article on the US Dollar and added in this line a few days ago: "A significant share of the commercial use of U.S. dollar bills is believed to be for illicit drug and gambling transactions." I do not think that the Bitcoin article should list such a specious "fact" without any evidence to support it, and most definitely not in the opening paragraphs.

So...does anybody have any sway as a Wikipedia editor that can either remove this "fact" or at least move it to a different part of the article and make it clear that it is supposition?

You've done exactly what I would have done. Shove people's hypocrisy right in their faces by using these tactics to set precedents.

[Inedible]

They say that what we're selling is illegal.

Ask them to explain to you fully what they mean by this.

If they mean selling currency on their website is illegal then they're making a fair point. If their reasoning is...

...they quotes this line from the Wikipedia article on Bitcoin: "A large share of such commercial use is believed to be for illicit drug and gambling transactions."

...then ask them to explain why that's relevant.

If they can't explain, ask them to get their lawyers to explain it to you.

I'd be very interested to hear their reply.

[Rodyland]

With a reference to back it up too!  Legend!

[willphase]

It was a bad idea mentioning bitcoin in your edit comment - this shows that you're making the edit as a 'statement' rather than as a fact.  Even with a valid reference, it will get reverted and won't last long because of this lack of neutral point of view.

Will

[R2D221]

It has already been reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_dollar&diff=554353401&oldid=554252666

[Matthew N. Wright]

It has already been reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_dollar&diff=554353401&oldid=554252666

Now use this as a precedent and ask for a resolution on the matter of "bitcoin".

[dree12]

I rewrote the disputed sentence to have a NPOV. WP:UNDUE does not apply here because Bitcoin is commonly, even if incorrectly, associated with illicit transactions.

Original, biased:

A large share of such commercial use is believed to be for illicit drug and gambling transactions.

New:

Illicit drug and gambling transactions are believed to constitute a share of such usage.

[CasinoBit]

They have already removed it.

Funny thing is that people claim BTC is associated with crime yet cybercrime decreases "real" crime, there has been virtually no violence associated with the illicit trade in BTC as far as I know. No stories of nerds chopping bodies up to deliver a message etc.

Most of the bills are contaminated with cocaine too (it's not a myth), so it's kind of terrifying that you would give your child a dollar bill to purchase lemonade and it would have trace amounts of dangerous narcotics on it.

[R2D221]

Has anyone suggested the correction in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bitcoin ?
I want to know to avoid duplicating requests.

[astutiumRob]

so it's kind of terrifying that you would give your child a dollar bill to purchase lemonade and it would have trace amounts of dangerous narcotics on it.

*trace* being the key word - trace in that context means *almost undetectable*

It's probably got trace amounts of fecal matter on it as well, and 87,412 other things you don't want to know about.

[fluffypony]

They say that what we're selling is illegal.

Ask them to explain to you fully what they mean by this.

If they mean selling currency on their website is illegal then they're making a fair point. If their reasoning is...

...they quotes this line from the Wikipedia article on Bitcoin: "A large share of such commercial use is believed to be for illicit drug and gambling transactions."

...then ask them to explain why that's relevant.

If they can't explain, ask them to get their lawyers to explain it to you.

I'd be very interested to hear their reply.

Unfortunately I can only reply to the compliance department and not the person that lodged the complaint, and I already replied to them a few days ago. Since our listing stands I figure they just ignored the complainant.

[fluffypony]

It was a bad idea mentioning bitcoin in your edit comment - this shows that you're making the edit as a 'statement' rather than as a fact.  Even with a valid reference, it will get reverted and won't last long because of this lack of neutral point of view.

Will

It already got reverted once and I had to change the phrasing, so it wouldn't have lasted long. Still, the article history from my original edit onwards is pretty hilarious now:

:-P

[miningusa]

I couldn't help but laugh when I saw this!!