Wikipedia suppression of cryptocurrencies

[plasmodesmata]

Have any of you been banned from wikipedia for posting cryptocurrency pages?

I have just had the most curious experience. Just wondering if anyone else has gone through this?

I posted the following for Beancash's proposed wiki:

{{Infobox currency
| Name = Bean Digital Cash
| image_1 =
| image_title_1 =
| issuing_authority_title = Administration
| issuing_authority = [[Decentralised system|Decentralized]] <br /> [[peer-to-peer]] consensus.
| date_of_introduction = 13 February 2015 <ref>www.beancash.org</ref>
| date_of_introduction_source =https://github.com/nokat/bitbean/commit/54a5f052cea02bdda3b24b6b5c7836b2d3455667
| using_countries = Global
| inflation_rate = Disinflationary
| issuing_authority_website = [www.beancash.org]
| symbol = BEAN
| nickname = Beans
| plural = Beans
| subunit_ratio_1 = 1
| subunit_name_1 = Bean<ref>www.beancash.org</ref>
| subunit_ratio_2 = 1000
| subunit_name_2 = SPROUT
| subunit_ratio_3 = .00000001
| subunit_name_3 = ADZUKI


}}

'''Bean Digital Cash''' or "Bean Cash", for short,  is an [[open source]] [[cryptocurrency]] and [[payment network]] launched in February 2015 based on the proposal of  [[Gavin Andresen]]'s  to fix Bitcoin's scalability limitations.<ref>https://bravenewcoin.com/news/gavin-andresen-tests-bitcoin-block-size-increase/</ref> Namely the 1MB block size that hampers transaction speeds and resulted in many unconfirmed transactions.<ref>https://www.ccn.com/700-million-stuck-115000-unconfirmed-bitcoin-transactions/</ref> Bean Cash, formerly Bitbean, solved this issue by using the recommended 20MB block size resulting in almost instantaneous transaction speeds for Bean Cash. It’s so fast people have actually complained about its speed.  <ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/BitBean/comments/6muiz5/bitbean_is_too_fast/</ref>



Bean Cash uses [[proof-of-stake]] to reach consensus for transactions unlike [[Bitcoin]] which uses [[proof-of-work]] Proof of work systems are very energy consumptive <ref>https://www.rt.com/business/411777-bitcoin-mining-electricity-states-power/</ref> and requires specialized equipment  <ref>https://bravenewcoin.com/news/the-bitcoin-mining-hardware-race-is-on/</ref>. Meanwhile Bean Cash can be ‘sprouted’ from any home computer thus making it truly decentralized, unlike Bitcoin. <ref>https://medium.com/@bonpay/is-decentralized-bitcoin-really-decentralized-a3215467e1d5
</ref>


==Mission==
To be an enduring digital currency, with high integrity, a store of value and a means of exchange for everyday transactions -- that stands the test of time! <ref>http://www.beancash.org/downloads/bean-cash-merchant-whitepaper.pdf</ref>


==Monetary System==
Bean Cash was always meant to fulfill Satoshi Nakamoto’s vision REF: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/bitcoin/ to be a peer to peer version of electronic cash to be used for online payments. It offers benefits to merchants such as: it saves on transaction fees, it protects their consumers from identity theft, no chargebacks and Beans accrue more Beans in sprouting wallets at a higher interest rate than bank savings accounts.  <ref>http://www.beancash.org/downloads/bean-cash-merchant-whitepaper.pdf</ref>



== History ==
Bean Cash, formerly Bitbean, was launched without ICO ([[Initial coin offering]]) or premine.  The first 10,000 blocks were a mixture of [[ASIC]] mined and ‘sprouted’ coins totaling about 606 million after which all new coins resulted from Proof-of-stake, affectionately referred to as ‘sprouting’ by the Bean Community.
Bean Cash claims to realize Satoshi's vision by starting from onset with 20MB maximum block sizes. It was designed with the intent of being Bitcoin’s “big little brother” since it built on the Satoshi whitepaper with Satoshi's intention to lift the block size limit above 1MB in order to scale on-chain as needed. <ref>https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf</ref>
== Supply ==
There are, as of 18th. of July 2018, 2.606 Billion Beans in circulation.  <ref>https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bean/</ref>
Eventual circulation can reach up to 50 Billion Beans.  <ref>www.bitbean.org</ref> but it will take 93 years to reach this potential  <ref>https://steemit.com/bitbean/@havardtan/what-do-you-need-to-know-about-bitbean</ref>
=== Local economies ===
There are Bean Cash nodes in 44 countries with the bulk of those being in the United States, Canada, Germany, United Kingdom, Korea, Netherlands and Japan. Every continent has active ‘Sprouters’ (Sprouters are full nodes that verify transactions, can build blocks and able to sign for them.) except Antarctica <ref>https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bean/#!network</ref>  The number of  active nodes fluctuate as they come online or go offline. There are some nodes hosted in EMP proof and nuclear hardened facilities.


== Community ==
===BeanCore===
Bean Core are the developers, they maintain the code base and are responsible for github submissions. Bean Core was established on March 19th, 2015 by active members and [[Stakeholder (corporate)]] of the BitBean Community. Bean Core is a virtual company comprised of the largest Stakeholders (investors and developers), organized for the continued development, marketing and stewardship of the digital currency and network. A "Stakeholder" is defined as someone that has a significant investment in Bean Digital Cash (1% or more of current monetary supply).

The Bean Core operates much like a traditional company, with a [[board of directors]], who also act in an executive capacity, managing core development and network infrastructure. Stakeholders accepted into Bean Core will have a voice in the direction of Bean, and be able to take an active role in its development and stewardship. The organization of Bean Core is based on a consensus and an ownership model. Large Stakeholders who have invested more in Bean Cash and remain actively involved, have a bigger voice in its management and stewardship. Bean Core maintains the privacy of its members for those wishing to remain anonymous and to maintain core security. <ref>http://www.beancash.org/beancore.html</ref>

===TeamBean===
Team Bean are a group of individuals that help people new to the Bean community with their common problems. They hang out in the “Farm” which is their group chat on Mattermost <ref>https://live.beancash.org/teambean/channels/town-square</ref> The Team Bean fields many matters that would take the developers away from the tasks only they can do.
The developers are also accessible through the Team Bean chat. There they resolve issues with exchanges and answer technical and difficult questions.

== Features ==
Bean Cash has fast, almost instantaneous transactions.
Static block rewards, while other proof of stake coins fluctuate, Bean Cash rewards always remain 1000 Beans for any Sprout (Bean's version of a stake. 1000 Beans equals 1 Sprout.) found.
Pseudo anonymity, to the extent that an address on the Bean Cash network is not linked to any specifically named individual elsewhere.

===Blockchain Integrity ===
Bean Cash has a target block time of one minute www.beancash.org This makes for a large blockchain. Blockchain bloat <ref>https://themerkle.com/what-is-blockchain-bloat/</ref> is dealt with in Bean cash with an already large, 20MB. Some coins employ chain pruning <ref>https://news.bitcoin.com/pros-and-cons-on-bitcoin-block-pruning/</ref> which could potential lead to invalidated blocks and unwanted [[block chain forks]] Beancash has kept its blockchain integrity intact. Another strategy some other coins have used is to fork the blockchain on purpose in order to either make a new coin entirely  <ref>https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/bitcoin-gold-the-latest-bitcoin-fork-explained/</ref> or to make drastic changes in the way the coin works <ref>https://atozforex.com/news/ethereum-casper-hardfork-details/</ref> Beancash developers have instead chosen to maintain the blockchain as is (Bean Cash had no swap; block chain integrity is a core value of Bean Core developers.) during their rebrand from Bitbean to Bean Cash.

== Innovations ==
Bean Cash pioneered Static Block rewards and was the first "POS" v3.0 <ref>https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=969676.0</ref> This is why Bean Cash refers to its version of Proof of Stake as instead, "Proof of Bean".
Bean Cash can handle over 1,300 transactions per minute and due to its large block size is not subject to massive transaction backlogs, such as Ethereum which slowed to a crawl by Cryptokitties. <ref>https://media.consensys.net/the-inside-story-of-the-cryptokitties-congestion-crisis-499b35d119cc</ref>

== Proof-of-stake==
Bitcoin uses [[proof-of-work|hashing power as proof]] for verifying transactions, Bean Digital Cash works with [[proof-of-stake|stake-size]] affectionately known as “Proof of Bean” by the Bean Community,  Blocks are rewarded in a practically random manner (Sprouting is non-deterministic), with greater amounts of stake, “Beanweight”, increasing the likelihood of adding a block to the chain.  Block rewards are 1000 Beans or “Sprouts”.  The typical return is as of July 2018, about 3% per month. The network has been growing, and difficulty has reached new heights. Previously one could acheive about 4% return per month, according to the Sprouting Calculator  <ref>http://sproutingcalculator.com/</ref> but results will vary in relation to equipment and network. . The sprouting calculator assumes a 4% sprouting reward but as difficulty has increased the calculator has become less accurate and needs to be updated. As more users join the network and more Beans are actively being Sprouted, Sprouters will see less Sprouts. This is very much the same as when Bitcoin become more popular, as the hash rate increased, so did the difficulty, resulting in less rewards for individual miners.
Because Sprouts are a reward for securing the network, wallets need to be open (see [[cryptocurrency wallet]]) and unlocked.






==Exchange==
Beans are available on several [[crypto currency exchange]]s  <ref>https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bean-cash/#markets</ref>

Bittrex

Cryptopia

Bleutrade

Yobit

Coinexchange

Upbit

There is also an exchange that allows users to purchase Bean Cash using Fiat currency, with Bitcoin Cash as an intermediator. <ref>https://localbitcoincash.org/index.asp</ref>
A 10 January tweet warned investors away from using both Yobit and Cryptopia due to market manipulation and extended wallet maintenance by the sites which prevents moving Beans between exchanges and [[arbitrage]]. <ref>https://twitter.com/BitBeanCoin/status/951119146921742337</ref> By far most of the volume is traded on Bittrex. <ref>https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bean-cash/#markets</ref>
==Memes==
Bean Cash, formerly Bitbean, has an active community with respect to meme development.   <ref>https://www.google.com/search?q=bitbean+memes&rlz=1C2GGRV_enUS762US763&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimoOD91NHYAhVQzGMKHTtiDeMQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=662#imgrc=_</ref>
These memes are full of whimsy, absurdity or even express regret over not investing in beans. These irreverent manifestations  <ref>https://i.warosu.org/data/biz/img/0029/30/1501692813085.jpg</ref> of fan loyalty have served to pique the interests of new investors. The proliferation of Bean Memes is bolstered by periodic contests on [[steemit]] <ref>https://steemit.com/giveaway/@official-bitbean/10k-bitbean-meme-give-away-post-your-best-bitbean-meme</ref> or from the Bean Core on the Mattermost channel.
==Forthcoming==
As of 18 July 2018, the current sprint includes:
Bean Cash Core v1.1.3 (Windows, Linux, and MacOS)
Bean Cash Android Keychain app (light wallet)
Desktop Bean Cash keychain apps for Linux, Windows and Mac OS
Updated website and launch portal
Bean Cash Core v1.2 Beta deployed on testnet
Bean Cash v1.2RC




== Controversy==
Bean Digital Cash’s code was used to develop POS v3 but an article by Earlz.net claims that the origin of POS v3 is missing and they exclude Bean Cash’s (then Bitbean’s) pioneering work. <ref>http://earlz.net/view/2017/07/27/1904/the-missing-explanation-of-proof-of-stake-version</ref>

Bean cash started out as Bitbean. Bitbean’s developer no-name nokat  <ref>https://www.ccn.com/bean-grew-two-stalks-story-bitbean/</ref> attempted to fork the coin and dump his holdings. This threat was averted by the current developer Shawn K. and his partner.

Bean cash is sometimes criticized by enthusiasts and cryptoauthorities for not having a ‘roadmap’ <ref>https://microcapcrypto.com/bitb/</ref> Instead of road maps, which often times are unrealistic, Bean Cash publishes periodic snapshots of ‘sprints’ which can be found at: http://www.beancash.org/index.html

=== Nothing at stake attacks===
It is proposed that one could attack any proof-of-stake currency with zero costs.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Houy|first1=Nicolas|title=It Will Cost You Nothing to 'Kill' a Proof-of-Stake Crypto-Currency|ssrn=2393940|website=papers.ssrn.com|publisher=University of Lyon 2|accessdate=22 December 2014}}</ref> There are several proposed attack vectors. These include attempting to build blocks in every fork in the network, because doing so costs them almost nothing and ignoring any fork may mean losing out on the block rewards that would be earned if that fork were to become the chain with the largest cumulative difficulty.




==See also==
* [[Alternative currency]]
* [[Crypto asset]]
* [[Cryptocurrency]]
* [[Peer-to-peer computing]]
* [[Proof of Stake]]






== External links ==
{{Commons category|Bitbean}}
* {{Official website|http://www.beancash.org/}}
{{Cryptocurrencies}}
{{Portal bar|Cryptography|Economics|Free software|Numismatics}}

[[Category:Cryptocurrencies]]
[[Category:Free software programmed in Java (programming language)]]
[[Category:Currency introduced in 2015]]
[[Category:2015 software]]
[[Category:Volunteer computing]]
[[Category:Financial technology]]
[[Category:Alternative currencies]]
[[Category:Proof of Stake]]

==References==

[plasmodesmata]

They said it was blatantly promotional but it followed the same template as other cryptocurrencies and immediately blocked me. They came up with several several excuses but were unwilling to communicate with me clearly to me how to fix it.

[BADecker]

With laws the way that they are, if Wikipedia or any other website allows average people to place incorrect info onto the site, and if someone gets harmed through using that info, the site can be litigated because they did not scrutinize the "independent" info, and censor it.

The problem has to do with when government people form a State gang, and say that something false is true, or true is false, and then punish websites for contradicting them.

A simple example of this is income taxes. Most people don't know how to fight the taxing authorities correctly. They fight the IRS rather than the people who are using IRS laws incorrectly, against them. IRS law doesn't apply to anyone until he/she signs paperwork with the IRS one way or another.

But, if anyone promotes methods to fight the IRS on, say, Wikipedia, and somebody who doesn't know what he is doing uses the methods and winds up in prison, he might sue Wikipedia for harming him, even though it was the info of a third party.

Safety first. Get rid of any info that might be inflammatory against Wikipedia. And even get rid of the joker who placed the info there if prudent.

[mprep]

AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.

That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.

[criptix]

AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.

That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.

Shilling shitcoins for a pump and dump is not allowed 

[plasmodesmata]

AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.

That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.

I thought I was being pretty objective. how should I have stated it?

[Spendulus]

AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.

That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.

I thought I was being pretty objective. how should I have stated it?

Editing almost always requires an objective outsider.

[mprep]

AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.

That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.

I thought I was being pretty objective. how should I have stated it?

Looking at your avatar, you seem to be invested or at least interested in the coin. What you type out might look objective to you but to the outside observer (e.g. me) quite a few of your statements reek of positive bias (e.g. intro paragraph's "too fast" comment as well as the proof being a Reddit post with one reply and 2 upvotes, the entirety of the "Mission" section, other sections worded as promotional statements, etc.). As Spendulus pointed out, get someone who's not invested or interested in the coin (and preferably isn't a close friend or isn't afraid to speak their mind to someone they're close with) and has a generally good grasp of the English language, buy him lunch and ask him to list out all the specific issues in the article in terms of bias, language, structure, etc.

That or just shelve the article and come back to it when the coin has become more famous cause I really doubt it'll get past the "popularity" requirement at the moment.

[Spendulus]

AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.

That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.

I thought I was being pretty objective. how should I have stated it?

Looking at your avatar, you seem to be invested or at least interested in the coin. What you type out might look objective to you but to the outside observer (e.g. me) quite a few of your statements reek of positive bias (e.g. intro paragraph's "too fast" comment as well as the proof being a Reddit post with one reply and 2 upvotes, the entirety of the "Mission" section, other sections worded as promotional statements, etc.). As Spendulus pointed out, get someone who's not invested or interested in the coin (and preferably isn't a close friend or isn't afraid to speak their mind to someone they're close with) and has a generally good grasp of the English language, buy him lunch and ask him to list out all the specific issues in the article in terms of bias, language, structure, etc.

That or just shelve the article and come back to it when the coin has become more famous cause I really doubt it'll get past the "popularity" requirement at the moment.

I would pay a professional editor to go over it, then resubmit it. That might be a $100 job. It's not like editing a novel, in comparison it's short.

But that's just me....

[squatz1]

AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.

That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.

This right here, they're not going to let people plague Wikipedia with shitcoins to be able to peddle their own shitcoin to people. I don't really care what anyone in edu says about Wikipedia, but if there is an article about something on there I do give the topic some credibility as I do think that people peer-reviewing things give the topic some substance.

So, they're not suppressing crypto -- they're suppressing some random shitcoins that really don't even deserve to have a Wikipedia article. It's like posting a high school actors credentials for a biography on the site not needed and wasting peoples resources.

[plasmodesmata]

AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.

That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.

I thought I was being pretty objective. how should I have stated it?

Editing almost always requires an objective outsider.

good advice... lesson learned.

[KingScorpio]

AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.

That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.

This right here, they're not going to let people plague Wikipedia with shitcoins to be able to peddle their own shitcoin to people. I don't really care what anyone in edu says about Wikipedia, but if there is an article about something on there I do give the topic some credibility as I do think that people peer-reviewing things give the topic some substance.

So, they're not suppressing crypto -- they're suppressing some random shitcoins that really don't even deserve to have a Wikipedia article. It's like posting a high school actors credentials for a biography on the site not needed and wasting peoples resources.

nope wrong, these "shitcoins" are simply other cryptocurrencies, there is no reason to protect and empower the established bitcoin sect.

money of the people, means money of the people, not supporting the bitcoinsect.

[mprep]

AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.

That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.

This right here, they're not going to let people plague Wikipedia with shitcoins to be able to peddle their own shitcoin to people. I don't really care what anyone in edu says about Wikipedia, but if there is an article about something on there I do give the topic some credibility as I do think that people peer-reviewing things give the topic some substance.

So, they're not suppressing crypto -- they're suppressing some random shitcoins that really don't even deserve to have a Wikipedia article. It's like posting a high school actors credentials for a biography on the site not needed and wasting peoples resources.

nope wrong, these "shitcoins" are simply other cryptocurrencies, there is no reason to protect and empower the established bitcoin sect.

money of the people, means money of the people, not supporting the bitcoinsect.

I don't think they care about protecting "the established bitcoin sect" - they just have basic standards for objectivity and popularity. If there's very few people actually visiting the Wikipedia article (and the subject of the article doesn't have any significant popularity off-site or offline either) or it's worded as an ad, I see no reason why they're obliged to keep it on the site. Hell, if we start allowing random altcoins to have their article, why not get a Wikipedia page for every person in the world who wants one. In a perfect world where everyone is objective (or the mods are omnipotent beings operating on a different plane of existence, capable of modding billions of articles at the same time) and physical resources (storage space, bandwidth, CPU power, etc.) can scale to infinity with zero to very little extra cost, that might be possible. However, we do not live in a perfect world.

[seoincorporation]

Hell, if we start allowing random altcoins to have their article, why not get a Wikipedia page for every person in the world who wants one.

Precisely. Try to imagine that I start a T-shirts brand and that I pretend to write about the brand in Wikipedia. How stupid can that sound? Now imagine I want not only my T-shirts brand, by my cakes brand, my whatever brand to have its own article in Wkipedia. It shouldn`t be allowed, because wikipedia is not an announcement portal, but a public-created "encyclopedia".
So no, your ICO shouldn`t be there, as well as my own T-shirt brand, this is not relevant for humanity, this is just a random product.

[KingScorpio]

Hell, if we start allowing random altcoins to have their article, why not get a Wikipedia page for every person in the world who wants one.

Precisely. Try to imagine that I start a T-shirts brand and that I pretend to write about the brand in Wikipedia. How stupid can that sound? Now imagine I want not only my T-shirts brand, by my cakes brand, my whatever brand to have its own article in Wkipedia. It shouldn`t be allowed, because wikipedia is not an announcement portal, but a public-created "encyclopedia".
So no, your ICO shouldn`t be there, as well as my own T-shirt brand, this is not relevant for humanity, this is just a random product.

when someone crafts a table with wood its a table, when someone codes a cryptocurrency with the computer its also a cryptocurrency,

what wikipedia and many indexes are doing is basically surpressing new cryptocurrencies while supporting the situation of the earlier established ones, this is as corrupt as the bankster system, and should be ended, wikipedia team has no right to define information for the people, they arent some sort of god.

i hope we get movements, like new market movements, so the "money of the people" will be the "money of the people" and not what wikipedia and Co. are defining for others.

[KingScorpio]

AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.

That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.

This right here, they're not going to let people plague Wikipedia with shitcoins to be able to peddle their own shitcoin to people. I don't really care what anyone in edu says about Wikipedia, but if there is an article about something on there I do give the topic some credibility as I do think that people peer-reviewing things give the topic some substance.

So, they're not suppressing crypto -- they're suppressing some random shitcoins that really don't even deserve to have a Wikipedia article. It's like posting a high school actors credentials for a biography on the site not needed and wasting peoples resources.

nope wrong, these "shitcoins" are simply other cryptocurrencies, there is no reason to protect and empower the established bitcoin sect.

money of the people, means money of the people, not supporting the bitcoinsect.

I don't think they care about protecting "the established bitcoin sect" - they just have basic standards for objectivity and popularity. If there's very few people actually visiting the Wikipedia article (and the subject of the article doesn't have any significant popularity off-site or offline either) or it's worded as an ad, I see no reason why they're obliged to keep it on the site. Hell, if we start allowing random altcoins to have their article, why not get a Wikipedia page for every person in the world who wants one. In a perfect world where everyone is objective (or the mods are omnipotent beings operating on a different plane of existence, capable of modding billions of articles at the same time) and physical resources (storage space, bandwidth, CPU power, etc.) can scale to infinity with zero to very little extra cost, that might be possible. However, we do not live in a perfect world.

nope they are not because with the surpression of new articles they actively surpress the enterpreneuership of others, empowering the establishement basically the same like the banksters did with their billionaires.

bitcoin also was surpressed by the banking cartels, and their definition, shouldnt be a different for new cryptocurrencies then. when someone creates a cryptocurrency its also his right to name it that way, no point privileging someone, especially since this is a decentralisation movement.

if wikipedia wants to be neutral than they should rather remove all cryptocurrencies and not support the early established ones. or be corrupted by ripple and the bankster projects that throw around with money. to get their articles listed.

would be better to update wikipedias public image then, as a more private, more selfcentric, corrupt community and not an altruistic one.

btw i will give you 2 merit for this topic, i support the creation of an "open" financial market

[mprep]

AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.

That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.

This right here, they're not going to let people plague Wikipedia with shitcoins to be able to peddle their own shitcoin to people. I don't really care what anyone in edu says about Wikipedia, but if there is an article about something on there I do give the topic some credibility as I do think that people peer-reviewing things give the topic some substance.

So, they're not suppressing crypto -- they're suppressing some random shitcoins that really don't even deserve to have a Wikipedia article. It's like posting a high school actors credentials for a biography on the site not needed and wasting peoples resources.

nope wrong, these "shitcoins" are simply other cryptocurrencies, there is no reason to protect and empower the established bitcoin sect.

money of the people, means money of the people, not supporting the bitcoinsect.

I don't think they care about protecting "the established bitcoin sect" - they just have basic standards for objectivity and popularity. If there's very few people actually visiting the Wikipedia article (and the subject of the article doesn't have any significant popularity off-site or offline either) or it's worded as an ad, I see no reason why they're obliged to keep it on the site. Hell, if we start allowing random altcoins to have their article, why not get a Wikipedia page for every person in the world who wants one. In a perfect world where everyone is objective (or the mods are omnipotent beings operating on a different plane of existence, capable of modding billions of articles at the same time) and physical resources (storage space, bandwidth, CPU power, etc.) can scale to infinity with zero to very little extra cost, that might be possible. However, we do not live in a perfect world.

nope they are not because with the surpression of new articles they actively surpress the enterpreneuership of others, empowering the establishement basically the same like the banksters did with their billionaires.

bitcoin also was surpressed by the banking cartels, and their definition, shouldnt be a different for new cryptocurrencies then. when someone creates a cryptocurrency its also his right to name it that way, no point privileging someone, especially since this is a decentralisation movement.

if wikipedia wants to be neutral than they should rather remove all cryptocurrencies and not support the early established ones. or be corrupted by ripple and the bankster projects that throw around with money. to get their articles listed.

would be better to update wikipedias public image then, as a more private, more selfcentric, corrupt community and not an altruistic one.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. As all encyclopedias, it doesn't try to document every single thing about the world - it picks a barrier of entry and documents anything that's above it. Considering that the entire thing is run by mostly regular people (with a relatively small number of actual employees for a website this size), is free to submit to and access, doesn't have ads (runs off of donations) and is the number 5 most visited website in the world (according to https://www.alexa.com/topsites), I'd say that they're completely justified to document only the coins that have gained considerable amount of attention since every article not only takes up space but requires active contributors to maintain and, more importantly, moderate.

Wikipedia doesn't own any cryptocurrency the right to free promotion. If it can't take off on it's own, maybe it wasn't really that amazing in the first place. If you want a more traditional comparison, just because Wikipedia has an article on Coca-Cola, doesn't mean it has to have an article on every Coca-Cola inspired drink. They might include come similarly tasting drinks that have gained substantial popularity (like Pepsi), but including "Ivan's Rad Cola" (that's only sold in several towns in Siberia and made by a guy in his shed) just cause "mah entrepreneurship" doesn't make any sense.

Also, just cause you dislike Ripple doesn't change the fact that it's the number 3 coin in terms of marketcap (according to https://coinmarketcap.com/) clearly making it popular enough to have an article of it on Wikipedia.

[KingScorpio]

AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.

That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.

This right here, they're not going to let people plague Wikipedia with shitcoins to be able to peddle their own shitcoin to people. I don't really care what anyone in edu says about Wikipedia, but if there is an article about something on there I do give the topic some credibility as I do think that people peer-reviewing things give the topic some substance.

So, they're not suppressing crypto -- they're suppressing some random shitcoins that really don't even deserve to have a Wikipedia article. It's like posting a high school actors credentials for a biography on the site not needed and wasting peoples resources.

nope wrong, these "shitcoins" are simply other cryptocurrencies, there is no reason to protect and empower the established bitcoin sect.

money of the people, means money of the people, not supporting the bitcoinsect.

I don't think they care about protecting "the established bitcoin sect" - they just have basic standards for objectivity and popularity. If there's very few people actually visiting the Wikipedia article (and the subject of the article doesn't have any significant popularity off-site or offline either) or it's worded as an ad, I see no reason why they're obliged to keep it on the site. Hell, if we start allowing random altcoins to have their article, why not get a Wikipedia page for every person in the world who wants one. In a perfect world where everyone is objective (or the mods are omnipotent beings operating on a different plane of existence, capable of modding billions of articles at the same time) and physical resources (storage space, bandwidth, CPU power, etc.) can scale to infinity with zero to very little extra cost, that might be possible. However, we do not live in a perfect world.

nope they are not because with the surpression of new articles they actively surpress the enterpreneuership of others, empowering the establishement basically the same like the banksters did with their billionaires.

bitcoin also was surpressed by the banking cartels, and their definition, shouldnt be a different for new cryptocurrencies then. when someone creates a cryptocurrency its also his right to name it that way, no point privileging someone, especially since this is a decentralisation movement.

if wikipedia wants to be neutral than they should rather remove all cryptocurrencies and not support the early established ones. or be corrupted by ripple and the bankster projects that throw around with money. to get their articles listed.

would be better to update wikipedias public image then, as a more private, more selfcentric, corrupt community and not an altruistic one.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. As all encyclopedias, it doesn't try to document every single thing about the world - it picks a barrier of entry and documents anything that's above it. Considering that the entire thing is run by mostly regular people (with a relatively small number of actual employees for a website this size), is free to submit to and access, doesn't have ads (runs off of donations) and is the number 5 most visited website in the world (according to https://www.alexa.com/topsites), I'd say that they're completely justified to document only the coins that have gained considerable amount of attention since every article not only takes up space but requires active contributors to maintain and, more importantly, moderate.

Wikipedia doesn't own any cryptocurrency the right to free promotion. If it can't take off on it's own, maybe it wasn't really that amazing in the first place. If you want a more traditional comparison, just because Wikipedia has an article on Coca-Cola, doesn't mean it has to have an article on every Coca-Cola inspired drink. They might include come similarly tasting drinks that have gained substantial popularity (like Pepsi), but including "Ivan's Rad Cola" (that's only sold in several towns in Siberia and made by a guy in his shed) just cause "mah entrepreneurship" doesn't make any sense.

Also, just cause you dislike Ripple doesn't change the fact that it's the number 3 coin in terms of marketcap (according to https://coinmarketcap.com/) clearly making it popular enough to have an article of it on Wikipedia.

wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, everyone is allowed to add a piece of information to it, basically all of the established alts and bitcoin were added into wikipedia by its developers, same should be the case for following cryptocurrencies. open financial market means open,

[mprep]

-quote snip-

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. As all encyclopedias, it doesn't try to document every single thing about the world - it picks a barrier of entry and documents anything that's above it. Considering that the entire thing is run by mostly regular people (with a relatively small number of actual employees for a website this size), is free to submit to and access, doesn't have ads (runs off of donations) and is the number 5 most visited website in the world (according to https://www.alexa.com/topsites), I'd say that they're completely justified to document only the coins that have gained considerable amount of attention since every article not only takes up space but requires active contributors to maintain and, more importantly, moderate.

Wikipedia doesn't own any cryptocurrency the right to free promotion. If it can't take off on it's own, maybe it wasn't really that amazing in the first place. If you want a more traditional comparison, just because Wikipedia has an article on Coca-Cola, doesn't mean it has to have an article on every Coca-Cola inspired drink. They might include come similarly tasting drinks that have gained substantial popularity (like Pepsi), but including "Ivan's Rad Cola" (that's only sold in several towns in Siberia and made by a guy in his shed) just cause "mah entrepreneurship" doesn't make any sense.

Also, just cause you dislike Ripple doesn't change the fact that it's the number 3 coin in terms of marketcap (according to https://coinmarketcap.com/) clearly making it popular enough to have an article of it on Wikipedia.

wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, everyone is allowed to add a piece of information to it, basically all of the established alts and bitcoin were added into wikipedia by its developers, same should be the case for following cryptocurrencies. open financial market means open,

Yes, it's an open encyclopedia with rules. One of which is the requirement for the article's subject to be somewhat popular. Not everyone is allowed to participate either - if you get banned / blacklisted for breaking the rules, you can no longer participate.

You seem to have a skewed perspective of what "open market" means - it doesn't mean that Wikipedia must list any coin in existence, it means you are free to go to start your own wiki website (you can even use Wikipedia's script: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki) and list all the coins you want. The Internet is open and free. Singular services or websites have no obligation to adhere to the same principles. Some may do so to a certain degree but they are not obliged to host any content they don't want. And having a minimum popularity requirement IMO is completely reasonable.