They want to delete the Wikipedia article

[Giulio Prisco]

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

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.

This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources.

The recent Slashdot article should be considered as a reliable reference:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/07/11/1747245/Bitcoin-Releases-Version-03

I cannot edit at this moment, can you guys save the WP artcile?

[Stone Man]

Thanks for the heads up. I added a section titled "Recent appearance in the news."

[joechip]

The WP page should discuss the maintenance cost of the p2p network.  Not only are there costs associated with the generation of the bitcoins, but their value can only be maintained as long as the 'proof-of-work' network is available and stable.

This cost, of course, is difficult to calculate but it is non-zero, though it may be trivial.  There is opportunity cost associated with the storage and maintenance of the network itself.  This could be seen as analogous to third-party gold storage fees.

[RHorning]

This is mainly a notice to the Bitcoin community that the article about Bitcoins on Wikipedia is being deleted.

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

From my own perspective, I think that the rationale for its deletion is valid, as there is little in the way of 3rd party discussions of Bitcoins and their role in alternate currencies, other than discussions on this forum.  On the other hand, if there is anybody in the Bitcoin community that is aware of a presentation about Bitcoins at a scholarly conference, some sort of published scholarly paper, or something that perhaps is even in a "mainstream" news source.... it would be appreciated to either note that link here or on that Wikipedia article.

The reason for the deletion is non-notability.  In other words, nobody outside of the Bitcoin community is really paying attention to the currency or saying much about it.  There needs to be some better public relations and discussion beyond personal blogs and such.  Yes, I get that this is a chicken or egg situation where if an article like this is deleted that nobody will hear about it either, but it is an issue.

On the other hand, if you are a student (or better yet a professor) and want to make a splash about an interesting topic, this could be something useful to not just the project but also to help spread the word about this project.  There is a need to do some real scholarship about Bitcoins, the people involved with getting it going, and how it is different (or the same) from other alternative currencies.  Such a paper wouldn't hurt, and could be useful for a number of reasons... not just writing Wikipedia articles.

[Bitcoiner]

Once deleted, are the contents of the article lost forever, or can they be restored at some point?

[mtgox]

Once deleted, are the contents of the article lost forever, or can they be restored at some point?

They can be restored.

[Traktion]

Haven't there been articles on slashdot, ronpaul.com and other places? I've found quite a few links on Googling.

[RHorning]

Haven't there been articles on slashdot, ronpaul.com and other places? I've found quite a few links on Googling.

None of which are considered credible sources on Wikipedia.  ronpaul.com is about as good as it gets, and that still is just an ordinary blog entry from a site participant than something that is a credible independent source.

Slashdot in particular was something generated by fans of Bitcoins and was talked about extensive on this forum before it was even posted.  Not that it was something bad for Slashdot, but that isn't how Wikipedia works.  Essentially Bitcoins still hasn't become a part of the larger world culture yet.

The purpose of this work for credible sources of information and insistence on reliable 3rd party accounts is in part to keep people like "UFO Researchers" and others with fringe theories from taking over Wikipedia.  Anybody can come up with some theory that may seem credible, but nobody is really taking seriously.  You need to demonstrate that others outside of your immediate community at least consider the concept to be credible and at least worth criticism.  None of this is happening with Bitcoins at the moment.

[FreeMoney]

I don't really get it, if there was a group of 11,000 UFO researchers who called themselves UFORO and spent hours every night searching would they get no article unless someone who did not want to join took them seriously enough to write peer reviewed papers?

I think BitCoin has great potential, blah blah, but that doesn't matter. Thousands of people are doing something that's at least moderately interesting. I can't see what the harm of putting a neutrally worded article in the worlds largest encyclopedia is. It isn't like the thing is going to get to heavy to sit on a shelf.

[NewLibertyStandard]

The idea behind bitcoin has been around in research white papers for years. I imagine we should be able to list such research papers as a source. Bitcoins is the first time this theoretical idea which has been around for quite a while, has actually been implemented. I don't have sources available at the moment, but if I get some time, I'll try to look around. If anybody can find these historical research papers and discussions from before Bitcoin was started, please post links to them.

[bdonlan]

I don't really get it, if there was a group of 11,000 UFO researchers who called themselves UFORO and spent hours every night searching would they get no article unless someone who did not want to join took them seriously enough to write peer reviewed papers?

I think BitCoin has great potential, blah blah, but that doesn't matter. Thousands of people are doing something that's at least moderately interesting. I can't see what the harm of putting a neutrally worded article in the worlds largest encyclopedia is. It isn't like the thing is going to get to heavy to sit on a shelf.

The thing is, if they allow an exception to the policy once, then people will ask for exceptions _all the time_. The rule is really quite simple: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Independent means the papers on bitcoin are out, as is the forum - after all, anything can have lots of non-independent sources. And a single slashdot article is clearly not 'significant coverage' (or reliable coverage .

The idea behind bitcoin has been around in research white papers for years. I imagine we should be able to list such research papers as a source. Bitcoins is the first time this theoretical idea which has been around for quite a while, has actually been implemented. I don't have sources available at the moment, but if I get some time, I'll try to look around. If anybody can find these historical research papers and discussions from before Bitcoin was started, please post links to them.

You can reference them, but they don't count for notability, as they either don't discuss bitcoin itself (and instead discuss the general concept), or they are not independent (ie, they're written by Satoshi).

[FreeMoney]

Clearly the wiki community knows how to run an open encyclopedia, and clearly I'm biased. I still feel the need to say though that the "human race" has not been independent verified. It's only those damn humans ever talk about it.

[dwdollar]

Would Wikipedia have ignored the airplane until it was independently verified an explained by "professionals" who weren't smart enough to invent it in the first place?

[satoshi]

Bitcoin is an implementation of Wei Dai's b-money proposal http://weidai.com/bmoney.txt on Cypherpunks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunks in 1998 and Nick Szabo's Bitgold proposal http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html

The timing is strange, just as we are getting a rapid increase in 3rd party coverage after getting slashdotted.  I hope there's not a big hurry to wrap the discussion and decide.  How long does Wikipedia typically leave a question like that open for comment?

It would help to condense the article and make it less promotional sounding as soon as possible.  Just letting people know what it is, where it fits into the electronic money space, not trying to convince them that it's good.  They probably want something that just generally identifies what it is, not tries to explain all about how it works.

If you post in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin please don't say "yeah, but bitcoin is really important and special so the rules shouldn't apply" or argue that the rule is dumb or unfair.  That only makes it worse.  Try to address how the rule is satisfied.

Search "bitcoin" on google and see if you can find more big references in addition to the infoworld and slashdot ones.  There may be very recent stuff being written by reporters who heard about it from the slashdot article.

I hope it doesn't get deleted.  If it does, it'll be hard to overcome the presumption.  Institutional momentum is to stick with the last decision.  (edit: or at least I assume so, that's how the world usually works, but maybe Wiki is different)

[NewLibertyStandard]

Bitcoin is an implementation of Wei Dai's b-money proposal http://weidai.com/bmoney.txt on Cypherpunks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunks in 1998 and Nick Szabo's Bitgold proposal http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html

The timing is strange, just as we are getting a rapid increase in 3rd party coverage after getting slashdotted.  I hope there's not a big hurry to wrap the discussion and decide.  How long does Wikipedia typically leave a question like that open for comment?

It would help to condense the article and make it less promotional sounding as soon as possible.  Just letting people know what it is, where it fits into the electronic money space, not trying to convince them that it's good.  They probably want something that just generally identifies what it is, not tries to explain all about how it works.

If you post in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin please don't say "yeah, but bitcoin is really important and special so the rules shouldn't apply" or argue that the rule is dumb or unfair.  That only makes it worse.  Try to address how the rule is satisfied.

Search "bitcoin" on google and see if you can find more big references in addition to the infoworld and slashdot ones.  There may be very recent stuff being written by reporters who heard about it from the slashdot article.

I hope it doesn't get deleted.  If it does, it'll be hard to overcome the presumption.  The institutional momentum is to stick with the last decision.

The last comment (--American Antics (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)) mentions that the theory has been around for years and that Bitcoin is the first implementation, but it doesn't provide sources. You or somebody should add those two sources to the discussion to back up the claim.

Concerning the timing, one of the comments in the discussion makes it sound like it's a regular occurrence. Article gets written and nobody notices it, even to delete it. Then it starts to get some publicity and the editors notice it just enough to say it's not notable enough. And then they delete it until it really becomes notable.

The comment I mentioned just a moment ago points out that according to Wikipedia's guidelines, something being special is reason to ignore the rules. But the comment has already been made, so I agree that additional comments of 'Bitcoin is the best thing ever' are probably more detrimental than useful.

It seems that some people have been listing some occurrences in the news within the article itself. It might be useful for someone who articulate and charismatic to write to some news organizations and review sites to give them the idea of writing news articles about Bitcoin or just reviewing it. Writing a short opinion article to your local newspaper might also result in a news story. Come to think of it, I know two people who work in Journalism. I think I'll mention it to them and ask them to tell me if they publish a story about it.

Edit: Added additional text.

[theymos]

How long does Wikipedia typically leave a question like that open for comment?

7 days from the listing (so pretty soon). More if the closing administrator doesn't feel that a consensus has been reached.

I doubt the article will survive the AfD, but it will be easy to recreate once it appears in a real news source.

[Marlsfarp]

Would Wikipedia have ignored the airplane until it was independently verified an explained by "professionals" who weren't smart enough to invent it in the first place?

Will Wikipedia ignore my claims of inventing a teleporter?

The reasons for Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards are various and good, learned from long experience. Anything that is just the say-so of the person contributing will get deleted. Anything that resembles advertising or other self-promotion will get deleted. And rightly so.

[RHorning]

Would Wikipedia have ignored the airplane until it was independently verified an explained by "professionals" who weren't smart enough to invent it in the first place?

An encyclopedia article in the early 1900's about an airplane likely would have included more material about Robert Langley than the Wright Brothers, and the Wright Flier likely wouldn't have been recognized as notable or noteworthy for some time after its initial flight.

Wikipedia works off of scholarly publications for proof of notability, and the quality of the source is of importance.  For myself, I also support the "No Original Research" philosophy as it keeps discussions serious and from drifting into glowing advertisements for a topic.

Please, don't take this personally... and keep in mind that Wikipedia is reflective of popular recognition of a topic rather than the source of that recognition.  There is a reason for what it is that they are doing, and there are some valid points being brought up on the deletion request.  Also note that there is a discussion going on, so if you want to save the article try to at least satisfy the policies that have already been established.  In terms of Wikilawyering, I've done my best to save the article.  The only move I can possibly make is to try and convince the admins to prolong the discussion (aka "re-list") for another week due to a "lack of consensus" on the topic.  That is a delay tactic rather than a rational to keep.

I have no doubt that there will be articles about Bitcoins in the near future that can provide the reliable independent sources that the Wikipedia admins are looking for.  If the article is deleted, it would be useful to re-create the article adding the new sources.  BTW, I don't think it will be as hard to undelete as is suggested by another comment here, but I wouldn't make a request for undeletion until after several new sources come out and at least a month or two passes.  Be patient.

[bdonlan]

Would Wikipedia have ignored the airplane until it was independently verified an explained by "professionals" who weren't smart enough to invent it in the first place?

No, it would have covered the airplane once it had been written up in two or three major newspapers (no, social link sites don't count, there needs to be a significant article written on the topic). Alternately, significant research papers from multiple, independent parties on the airplane specifically (not, say, Icarus's wings, or philosophical treatises on wouldn't it be nice to fly) would do well too. Etc.

[NewLibertyStandard]

Security auditing software Nmap added Bitcoin to their recognized signature or whatever.

I imagine it wouldn't hurt to post a link to this thread within the deletion discussion along with a note that some sources and arguments are being posted here that aren't all getting added to the deletion discussion page. I'll probably mention it there if nobody else does in the next little while.

Bitcoin is listed as a link to a half baked idea for a Distributed Computing Anonymous Currency.

Marginal Revolution posted a link to the Bitcoin Wikipedia article.

Other References

• Step Three: Profit! Notability of Brandon Wiley: I have worked for the last ten years in open source and peer-to-peer software, both in community projects and tech startups. I founded a number of open source peer-to-peer software projects, including Freenet, Tristero, Alluvium, and Project Snakebite. I've also worked in peer-to-peer Interent video delivery at Swarmcast as Senior Engineer and then at BitTorrent as the Director of Product Management.
• Is it time for digital-only dollars? at Fairfield County Weekly - Dr. Phil Maymin is an Assistant Professor of Finance and Risk Engineering at the Polytechnic Institute of New York University. The views represented are his own.
• A Unique Way to Make Money By David Bolton of About.com, a software developer who develops trading applications for a global investment bank in London, England. Here are additional qualifications of David Bolton. About.com is a A New York Times Company
• BitCoin and the “Wild West” - Niklas Blanchard is a Ph.D candidate in Human Capital Management at Bellevue University. He is generally a huge econonerd, and spends a lot of his time analyzing everyday phenomena from an economic perspective. His interests include monetary economics, complexity theory, network theory, and behavior economics.
• The Monetary Future - Notability of Jon Matonis: I am an Austrian School economist from George Washington University focused on expanding the circulation of nonpolitical digital currencies. My career has included senior influential posts at Sumitomo Bank, VISA, VeriSign, and HushMail.
• Paying with bits Looks well written from glancing at it.
• Four short links: 13 July 2010 by Nat Torkington at oreilly.com - Notability of Nat Torkington
• Bitcoin on Softpedia
• Bitcoin and the Libertarian Individual at Copyvillain
• Bitcoins a cryptocurrency, free bitcoins and a rigged casino at stealthcopter.com
• BitCoin, Open Source P2P Digital Cash at The Command Line by Thomas Gideon
• Bitcoin vs Dollar / Euro at Hablando Solo
• 点对点匿名数字货币Bitcoin发布V0.3版 at cnBeta.com - cnBeta.com is a news organization
• Bitcoins at Sydius
• Bitcoin: Open Source P2P eCash is here! at Organic Design
• Bitcoin, nueva moneda para redes P2P at Venturada ¡ LIBRE !
• Cryptocurrency: pushing at the fourth wall at Gameify
• P2P Foundation Bitcoin wiki article
• Money, Fixed by Gavin Andresen
• Bitcoin (฿): пиpингoвaя кpиптoвaлютa
• Bitcoin – alternativ digital valuta at Hedegaard
• ¿BitCoin, el futuro dinero digital basado en la criptografía? at LinuxParty Group
• Bitcoin - бycы для coвpeмeнныx aбopигeнoв или гaлaктичecкиe импepcкиe кpeдиты? at OpenLife
• Bitcoin: una red de dinero digital P2P basado en criptografía
• Shout out by a DGC Magazine editor.
• Open source innovation on the cutting edge - InfoWorld article. I think someone else may have already mention this one.