Wikimedia is irrational in not accepting Bitcoin payment

[jinni]

To everyone suggesting to pay to someone who will then pay Wikimedia in USD, thanks for the tip!

However I think it is a shame that Wikimedia cannot set up a service like that on their methods to donate website.

Edit: I'm now proceeding to make a payment to Wikimedia through bitpay and to writing Wikimedia an email!

So now I have donated through the fresh looking Bitpay website and sent an email to donate@wikimedia.org.

This is the email I sent, and I urge you to send the same or a similar one. I will update here when I get a reply:

Dear Sir or Madam

I am a Bitcoin user and I wanted to donate money to you in Bitcoin. I read your FAQ and came upon this explanation of why it is not possible to donate to you with Bitcoin:

"The Wikimedia Foundation, as a donor-driven organization, has a fiduciary duty to be responsible and prudent with its money. This has been interpreted to mean that we do not accept "artificial" currencies – that is, those not backed by the full faith and credit of an issuing government. We do, however, strive to provide as many methods of donating as possible and continue to monitor Bitcoin with interest and may revisit this position should circumstances change."

I completely understand and accept this explanation. But what I do not understand is that you won't allow a payment processor to accept payments in Bitcoin and convert them into USD sent to your account. This is pretty much the same thing happening when you allow users to use Paypal to processes payments for you with credit cards.

There are many Bitcoin payment processors, one of which is Bitpay, and if you go to Bitpay's website you will find a donate-to-wikipedia option.

So my question is this: why can't you make an option like that available on your Ways-to-Give website?

Yours Sincerely

[jinni]

[cdog]

Bitpay is cool and all, but big companies MUST accept BTC for it to survive and thrive. We need to start a campaign for Wiki to accept BTC!!!!

[kokojie]

Simply refuse to donate in anything other than crypto-currencies, everywhere. If they don't accept crypto, they don't need
money that urgently anyway.

[jinni]

Bitpay is cool and all, but big companies MUST accept BTC for it to survive and thrive. We need to start a campaign for Wiki to accept BTC!!!!

Agreed.

But Wikipedia official accepting Bitcoin donations through a Bitcoin payment processor is enough to gain the media hype of "Wikipedia accepts Bitcoin". That is step one.

Logic demands that Wikipedia should pay for their hosting in Bitcoin if possible, but then we are talking about a hosting facility able to sort out one of the world's most popular websites. Hence it is better to talk to the hosting provider that Wikimedia already uses and ask them if they are willing to accept Bitcoin if Wikimedia is willing to do it. Then we are talking about step two (and three).

[jinni]

Simply refuse to donate in anything other than crypto-currencies, everywhere. If they don't accept crypto, they don't need
money that urgently anyway.

I disagree right now. Wikipedia is too important and useful not to fund, regardless of how slow they are to accept Bitcoin. Your argument would probably be a lot more valid in a year or two.

[tclo]

They are retarded if they don't take BTC donations.

[tinus42]

Wikipedia just sucks. Did you ever try making a change? Someone who considers themself in charge of the article will soon revert your changes and claim you are spamming.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

You can donate with bitcoins, just not directly: http://blog.bitpay.com/2012/11/donate-to-wikipedia-with-bitcoin.html

I consider this the next best thing. Ideally, I, perhaps others, would love to see a dedicated Bitcoin address, possibly a vanity one, specifically used for this purpose.

I do not mean this to be set up as such as some sort of nefarious check, but a way for bitcoiners to easily point out to others another case study.

I have the utmost respect for Team BitPay.

[charleshoskinson]

I'm a bit confused what is an artificial currency? As opposed to a natural one? Currencies are consensus driven products that serve as a means of exchange, a store of value and a unit of account. It's utterly nonsensical to me that they have taken a position that only sovereign nations are capable of creating such a product.

The citizens of Zimbabwe would probably prefer Bitcoin anyday to their local currency. In fact, many in Africa use cell phone minutes as a local money supply. Prisoners have used cigarettes. Michael Unterguggenberger proved that as long as the social contract of money was maintained that any authority could create a functional money (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Unterguggenberger).

In my opinion, it's utter ignorance and perhaps even politically bent. In any event, i've lost a great deal of respect for Wikimedia. They attack a currency that was built by an open sourced community while their own products were cut from the same cloth. Recall the established encyclopedias attacking the credibility of Wikipedia?  

[crumbs]

I'm a bit confused what is an artificial currency? As opposed to a natural one? Currencies are consensus driven products that serve as a means of exchange, a store of value and a unit of account. It's utterly nonsensical to me that they have taken a position that only sovereign nations are capable of creating such a product.

The citizens of Zimbabwe would probably prefer Bitcoin anyday to their local currency. In fact, many in Africa use cell phone minutes as a local money supply. Prisoners have used cigarettes. Michael Unterguggenberger proved that as long as the social contract of money was maintained that any authority could create a functional money (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Unterguggenberger).

In my opinion, it's utter ignorance and perhaps even politically bent. In any event, i've lost a great deal of respect for Wikimedia. They attack a currency that was built by an open sourced community while their own products were cut from the same cloth. Recall the established encyclopedias attacking the credibility of Wikipedia?  

Imagine that real currency is a currency backed by a country's economy & military might, and a fake currency is a currency backed by... backed by nothing.
The real currency isn't backed by the nice men who make the plates and run the presses that print the bills -- that's just how money is printed.  Bitcoin is similarly not backed by the nice miners who run their rigs 24/7 -- that's just how bitcoins are made.  Get it now?

[LordMeowMeow]

i wrote this to them. Feel free to just copy paste it.


Hello,

I wish WikiMedia accepted Bitcoins donations. As a fierce supporter of free and transparent information and a shining example of what groups of people can achieve together, it seems to me like supporting Bitcoins would make sense. Not only financially (there are no fees involved) but also ideologically.

I hope you will re-consider your position on Bitcoins. The future of cryptocurrencies and all of the benefits it brings forth for everyone in the world depends on pioneers such as yourself to legitimize it in the eyes of the masses.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Simply refuse to donate in anything other than crypto-currencies, everywhere. If they don't accept crypto, they don't need
money that urgently anyway.

This.  I am a long time donator to both EFF and wikipedia. 

A while back EFF came out with some dubious reasons for not accepting Bitcoin.  Worse those reasons were often used by other organizations for not accepting Bitcoins.  I stopped my donations to the EFF.  They called/emailed me a couple times in their annual fund raising drives and I simply reiterated I would donate once they accepted Bitcoins but not before.

https://supporters.eff.org/donate

EFF now accepts Bitcoins again. 

Vote with your wallets.  No need to get angry, or outraged.  Just calming indicate to wikipedia why you will not ever donate until they accept Bitcoin donations.  When millions of people do that they will get with the program.

[charleshoskinson]

Imagine that real currency is a currency backed by a country's economy & military might, and a fake currency is a currency backed by... backed by nothing.
The real currency isn't backed by the nice men who make the plates and run the presses that print the bills -- that's just how money is printed.  Bitcoin is similarly not backed by the nice miners who run their rigs 24/7 -- that's just how bitcoins are made.  Get it now?

Your condescending attitude is not appreciated. You have yet to address any single concern or point I made in my OP. Bitcoin, like the USD, is backed by both consensus and utility. It, like every other currency that has established a social contract with its users, does not require an army. In fact, if a currency requires an army to maintain, then I would argue it is a failed instrument. As for the scope of the economy, Wikimedia has the option of accepting Bitcoins converted to the fiat of their choice thus they are not exposed to the volatility of the markets.

You also have chosen to completely ignore the hypocrisy of their actions. Wikipedia was a product that received years of criticism from an elite cadre of companies who had controlled encyclopedias and peer reviewed knowledge. They said only special people and trusted organizations could be capable of producing a credible encyclopedia. Now the leadership at Wikimedia are taking the same position with money? We open sourced money and this effort somehow is wrong while open sourcing knowledge is right? It's beyond defense.   

[TippingPoint]

You also have chosen to completely ignore the hypocrisy of their actions. Wikipedia was a product that received years of criticism from an elite cadre of companies who had controlled encyclopedias and peer reviewed knowledge. They said only special people and trusted organizations could be capable of producing a credible encyclopedia. Now the leadership at Wikimedia are taking the same position with money? We open sourced money and this effort somehow is wrong while open sourcing knowledge is right? It's beyond defense.  

An excellent point.  Wikipedia speaks with forked tongue.  They have become death, the destroyer of worlds.

[crumbs]

Imagine that real currency is a currency backed by a country's economy & military might, and a fake currency is a currency backed by... backed by nothing.
The real currency isn't backed by the nice men who make the plates and run the presses that print the bills -- that's just how money is printed.  Bitcoin is similarly not backed by the nice miners who run their rigs 24/7 -- that's just how bitcoins are made.  Get it now?

Your condescending attitude is not appreciated. You have yet to address any single concern or point I made in my OP.

On the contrary, I pointed out that what you claimed to be impossible was, in reality, rather trivial.  I then outlined the steps you should take for success.
In your following post, you stated that "[you are] a bit confused what is an artificial currency?"  Since you chose to end that statement with a question mark, i assumed sincere ignorance on your part, offering to resolve your confusion.  I now see that a word to the wise doesn't apply here.  I'll try again.

Bitcoin, like the USD, is backed by both consensus and utility.

Unlike the dollar, the consensus is limited to a handful of people, of which wikipedos are obviously not a part.  The utility has also been shown as lacking, as you have found out by trying to donate to wikip.  Thank goodness i was able to partially compensate for the lacking utility by pointing you to the BitPay page & further guiding you with pictograms.

It, like every other currency that has established a social contract with its users, does not require an army.

You don't understand the contract part of "social contract."  A contract is meaningless if it can not be enforced.  That's how bitcoin is unlike any currency.

In fact, if a currency requires an army to maintain, then I would argue it is a failed instrument.

You could, and you seem to be, though you'd be dead wrong.

As for the scope of the economy, Wikimedia has the option of accepting Bitcoins converted to the fiat of their choice thus they are not exposed to the volatility of the markets.

Yes they could, but they chose not to.  They also didn't want to accept my old sneakers, which are perfectly good & you could sell them for like 5 bucks.  They're picky that way.  Their right -- Freedomz!

You also have chosen to completely ignore the hypocrisy of their actions. Wikipedia was a product that received years of criticism from an elite cadre of companies who had controlled encyclopedias and peer reviewed knowledge. They said only special people and trusted organizations could be capable of producing a credible encyclopedia. Now the leadership at Wikimedia are taking the same position with money? We open sourced money and this effort somehow is wrong while open sourcing knowledge is right? It's beyond defense.   

I'm not going to argue about the meaning of life or the meaning of wikip -- both have been done to death & played out.  Suffice it to say that wikip's stance regarding Bitcoin is not only defensible, but so commonplace that even questioning it is absurd.

TL;DR: Start your own wiki, and accept every clone coin -- no one will step on UR Freedomz.   

[crumbs]

An excellent point.  Wikipedia speaks with forked tongue.  They have become death, the destroyer of worlds.

Lol.  First part: American Indian (native american), second: Indian Indian.  BitcoinDrama.

[charleshoskinson]

Yes they could, but they chose not to.  They also didn't want to accept my old sneakers, which are perfectly good & you could sell them for like 5 bucks.  They're picky that way.  Their right -- Freedomz!

You first compare Bitcoin to old sneakers?

You could, and you seem to be, though you'd be dead wrong.

Then have no concept of history. How's that 1920s German money working out for you? I'm sure the army can force you to accept it for goods and services.

You don't understand the contract part of "social contract."  A contract is meaningless if it can not be enforced.  That's how bitcoin is unlike any currency.

Because if I promise to give someone a gold bar for services rendered and I don't give them the gold bar an American court won't enforce our agreement? It's a social contract and I can enforce it within my sovereignty. I will concede that Bitcoin is intrinsically global, but just like an American business working with a Chinese entity, there is limited governmental enforcement of these contracts. Yet we still trade productively with China.

I'm not going to argue about the meaning of life or the meaning of wikip -- both have been done to death & played out.  Suffice it to say that wikip's stance regarding Bitcoin is not only defensible, but so commonplace that even questioning it is absurd.

Questioning a non-profit for taking a stance that an open sourced movement similar in nature to the one that created them is invalid? It's elitism and ignorance that you continue to broadcast. You don't need governments to enforce social contracts anymore. Globalization has eliminated such Westphalian notions.

TL;DR: Start your own wiki, and accept every clone coin -- no one will step on UR Freedomz.

Again with the condescending attitude. There doesn't appear to be anything productive in us debating any further. You obviously have an inflexible opinion and have decided to label anyone who opposes it as ignorant. This action by wikimedia is arrogant and belies the philosophy they were founded on. Bitcoins are not old sneakers. They are a new form of economic liberty that unchains our dependency on governments for stable commerce. Wikimedia could at the very least use a middleman to process Bitcoin donations. For them, and you, to label CCs are artificial is both hypocrisy and utter ignorance to the nature of money.  

[crumbs]

Yes they could, but they chose not to.  They also didn't want to accept my old sneakers, which are perfectly good & you could sell them for like 5 bucks.  They're picky that way.  Their right -- Freedomz!

You first compare Bitcoin to old sneakers?

If the shoe fits...

You could, and you seem to be, though you'd be dead wrong.

Then have no concept of history. How's that 1920s German money working out for you? I'm sure the army can force you to accept it for goods and services.

You overestimate my age -- i wasn't around back then.  What i *can* tell you is the US dollar has made me twice as rich as i would have been had i invested in Bitcoin.  Over a single month.   Making monyz without even trying. 

You don't understand the contract part of "social contract."  A contract is meaningless if it can not be enforced.  That's how bitcoin is unlike any currency.

Because if I promise to give someone a gold bar for services rendered and I don't give them the gold bar an American court won't enforce our agreement?

I have no idea, depends on the services   But let's say the court decides to enforce the contract.  The judge sez GUILTY! and you laugh & walk out of the courtroom, forgetting to tip the bailiff.  What happens then?  More words, or a show of force? (SPOILER: A show of force)

It's a social contract and I can enforce it within my sovereignty.

Lolz your wat 

I will concede that Bitcoin is intrinsically global, but just like an American business working with a Chinese entity, there is limited governmental enforcement of these contracts. Yet we still trade productively with China.

Did you consider that our chummy relationship with China might be a teensy bit influenced by potential for armed conflict?  Or is it just 'cos we Americans are such nice guys no one would evah think of ripping us off?  Just a thought.

I'm not going to argue about the meaning of life or the meaning of wikip -- both have been done to death & played out.  Suffice it to say that wikip's stance regarding Bitcoin is not only defensible, but so commonplace that even questioning it is absurd.

Questioning a non-profit for taking a stance that an open sourced movement similar in nature to the one that created them is invalid? It's elitism and ignorance that you continue to broadcast. You don't need governments to enforce social contracts anymore. Globalization has eliminated such Westphalian notions.

Slow down, sparky.  Non-profit means simply that -- non-profit.  They are not funded by you, they don't need to answer to you, and they certainly don't need to accept donations in quasi-currencies unless they wish to.  Which they do not. 

TL;DR: Start your own wiki, and accept every clone coin -- no one will step on UR Freedomz.

Again with the condescending attitude. There doesn't appear to be anything productive in us debating any further. You obviously have an inflexible opinion and have decided to label anyone who opposes it as ignorant. This action by wikimedia is arrogant and belies the philosophy they were founded on. Bitcoins are not old sneakers. They are a new form of economic liberty that unchains our dependency on governments for stable commerce. Wikimedia could at the very least use a middleman to process Bitcoin donations. For them, and you, to label CCs are artificial is both hypocrisy and utter ignorance to the nature of money.  

I get it.  Everyone who doesn't agree with you is bigoted, hypocritical, ignorant & rotten to the core -- me, wikip...  Well, i'm in good company   Wish you didn't call us all them nammeses, but

[johnyj]

"those not backed by the full faith and credit of an issuing government" 

[Cubic Earth]

Does anyone know what would be a good email address to send our thoughts to?