Bitcointalk at Wikipedia

[hosseinimr93]

Everyone knows how popular Wikipedia is.

Visit Bitcointalk page at Wikipedia. Does this page really represent our forum correctly?

There are only two sections. 1. History and 2. Topics.

Here is the "history" section.

Satoshi Nakamoto created the bitcointalk forum and posted the first message in 2009 under the pseudonym "satoshi".
The first bitcoin transaction took place at the forum, when software programmer Laszlo Hanyecz offered 10,000 bitcoins to purchase pizza, three days later a deal could be arranged to purchase two pizzas.
The commonly used cryptocurrency-trader meme "HODL" originated from a 2013 bitcointalk forum post.

And here is "Topics" section.

Initial coin offerings are sometimes announced at the forum.
A 2016 study by researchers from the University of New Mexico, and University of Tulsa, Oklahoma identified 1780 scams, based on forum reports.[6] There is a demand for more privileges for older user accounts. Traded accounts were reportedly used to scam people.

Icos, Scams and traded accounts are only things that have been talked about while all positive aspects of bitcointalk have been ignored.
This is how our forum has been introduced in Wikipedia. How many people have read this page? How many people have been discouraged from registering on the forum by Wikipedia page?

Bitcointalk is the biggest and best community of cryptocurrencies enthusiasts.
It's the best place for newcomers to ask their questions. Bitcointalk provides almost every thing people should know about bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

The wikipedia page should be edited. Our forum deserves a much better description.

There are many active local boards in the forum. Bitcointalk page can exist in other languages too.

[crwth]

I didn't know that there is a Wiki page for Bitcointalk, thanks for sharing. It's not that informative, though. I think there is a way you could add information to a particular subject. Maybe collectively, as users of BTCT, we could devise what should be shown in the Wiki. Possibly include everything good and bad. Transparency is important.

[hosseinimr93]

I didn't know that there is a Wiki page for Bitcointalk, thanks for sharing. It's not that informative, though. I think there is a way you could add information to a particular subject. Maybe collectively, as users of BTCT, we could devise what should be shown in the Wiki. Possibly include everything good and bad. Transparency is important.

That's exactly why I posted this topic.
We as owner of the forum should update this page and make it represent the forum correctly.

[Rengga Jati]

I agree with you. They shouldn't just write the bad side only, but also provides a positive side review.

For example, it will be nice if they wrote:
1. Research found that there are already many successful people by trading crypto assets (Bitcoin and altcoins).
2. Blockchain and crypto adoption developed quite massive and even come to campus already.

However, we cannot force them to write something like those good aspects. They may have own point of view. Or they just still don't update the information yet.

[rosezionjohn]

It has been edited at least 20 times since @jackg opened a thread about it in April (Bitcointalk on Wikipedia looks kinda sparse)

You can add more if you wish to.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I didn't know that there is a Wiki page for Bitcointalk, thanks for sharing.

Neither did I.  The thing is, bitcoin is way more important than bitcointalk, and I'm not sure how much can or even needs to be said about a discussion forum as far as encyclopedic data goes.  It's not like wikipedia needs to mention the merit or trust systems or the dramas or any of that, things we find important but that the average person would most definitely not. 

IMO the main thing is that Satoshi was one of the founding members, and some other useful data would be how many registered members there are here, but that's all I would care about if I wasn't already a member.  You can't write opinions on a wikipedia page, so the fact that this forum might be extremely helpful to newbies is irrelevant.

[jackg]

If things like the top topics and a few other history projects Theymos was churning out recently are accessible as a list anywhere (not sure what his plans were with them). They may be good to include on the wiki article.

There could be other things like legal battles over the years and ant controversies... The things with Mt gox and a few others.

[eddie13]

Wikipedia is a leftist propaganda tool..
Are you surprised they would try to put down the forum or portray it in a negative light?
They don't want people being free and informed..

[hosseinimr93]

Wikipedia is a leftist propaganda tool..
Are you surprised they would try to put down the forum or portray it in a negative light?
They don't want people being free and informed..

What do you mean by "They"?
As far as I know anyone can edit Wikipedia's articles. So I don't agree with you.
I think we (users of the forum) are at fault for not updating wikipedia page.

[jackg]

Wikipedia is a leftist propaganda tool..
Are you surprised they would try to put down the forum or portray it in a negative light?
They don't want people being free and informed..

What do you mean by "They"?
As far as I know anyone can edit Wikipedia's articles. So I don't agree with you.
I think we (users of the forum) are at fault for not updating wikipedia page.

Yeah I'd probably agree with that. No one has mentioned they've had an edit removed on there afaik.

I think it might just be the people that got burnt by scams posted about them there... They have moderators but afaik they're only supposed to determine if stuff is factually correct.

I don't think Wikipedia is left leaning but if it is I'd be happy with that, the left at least in the UK seem to actually fact check stuff but maybe we just have an awful right wing...

Edit: I'm referring to center lefts, not communists or socialists or crazy vegans.

[eddie13]

Wikipedia is a leftist propaganda tool..
Are you surprised they would try to put down the forum or portray it in a negative light?
They don't want people being free and informed..

What do you mean by "They"?
As far as I know anyone can edit Wikipedia's articles. So I don't agree with you.
I think we (users of the forum) are at fault for not updating wikipedia page.

So all this time only got 2 small paragraphs?
Or, is their not a bunch of "RM/Remove/Reverted" in the edits history?

"rm crypto sites - crypto sites are not WP:RSes, need mainstream sources"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcointalk&action=history

Mainstream sources... "Their" sources..

Wikipedia is part of the machine..

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/02/01/five-of-the-best-examples-of-left-wing-bias-on-wikipedia-in-2017/
https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
https://www.quora.com/Does-Wikipedia-have-a-strong-liberal-bias
https://www.heartland.org/topics/infotech-telecom/Wikipedia/index.html
https://creation.com/wikipedia
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/wikipedia-co-founder-calls-wikipedia-entry-on-intelligent-design-appallingly-biased/

And on and on..


Bitcoin is right wing, capitalist, and libertarian if not anarchistic, and so is this forum..  The enemy of "them"..

They are at war against freedom of speech and freedom in general.. They are at war against us..

[taufik123]

It has been edited at least 20 times since @jackg opened a thread about it in April (Bitcointalk on Wikipedia looks kinda sparse)

You can add more if you wish to.

But I can't make edits to the bitcointalk page.
Maybe only members who have many contributions can edit it, I don't understand about the wikipedia system.


theymos as the main administrator who is very influential on the bitcointalk forum is not listed and about bitcointalk which has reached the age of 10 years there are no articles that discuss it.
The last edit was made on November 12, 2019

[rhomelmabini]

The thing is wikipedia isn't trustable IMHO most people can edit the way they wanted the definition, history, etc. of something. Best is, just visit the forum if they wanted to get a reliable definition.

[AverageGlabella]

The thing is wikipedia isn't trustable IMHO most people can edit the way they wanted the definition, history, etc. of something. Best is, just visit the forum if they wanted to get a reliable definition.

It is still moderated and a lot of pages on Wikipedia are in a locked state when they think they are complete and factually accurate. Bitcointalk deserves to have a more in depth submission onto Wikipedia but it does look to be locked for whatever reason that might be and my assumption would be that the page has been vandalized by scammers and those that are pissed off with the forum. Members who have got banned and have tried to tarnish the name of the forum. That is the only reason I can think of why this might have been locked. theymos could probably email Wikipedia and add certain members as editors of the page.

[hosseinimr93]

I agree about the bias in many of wikipedia articles. But it's not impossible to have a better page for bitcointalk in wikipedia if we contribute to the bitcointalk page.
Personally, I am not able to edit the page for a same reason as taufik123. But I don't think there is a same thing for all the users.

Visit the Bitcoin page in wikipedia. Both positive and negative aspects of bitcoin have been talked about. So, having a page containing good aspects of bitcointalk is not impossible.

theymos could probably email Wikipedia and add certain members as editors of the page.

I am not sure if there is such a feature in Wikipedia.
Maybe we can have a contest for writing an article representing bitcointalk.
Perhaps Theymos consider such a contest in future.