Wrong information about BitcoinTalk history on Wikipedia

[Mahiyammahi]

I just search about BitcoinTalk in wikipedia. It shows BitcoinTalk Launched in 2011 and registered in August 2011.
Heres I'm providing Wikipedia link along with a screenshot

BitcoinTalk On Wikipedia

But I found a topic made on BitcoinTalk Forum in Bitcoin Discussion sector which is created in January 01 ,2010
 Here's the post Link - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=17.0 Created By AgoraMutual
Then why wikipedia showing it's date wrong or it needs to be updated?

I just get curious about it . Is it wrong or anything else

[Little Mouse]

Here's the first thread of the forum- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5.0
First 4 threads are off limit. I think they are some test post which has been off limited.
Whoever have edited that article doesn’t know exactly. That's why they used the wrong info. You can create account and edit the article, see if they approve your edition.

[stompix]

You have the exact history here:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BitcoinTalk
or here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=33393.0

Indeed bitcointalk.org didn't exist prior to 2011, all the topics were moved here when the domain was registered.

As for the other things on that Wikipedia page...triple facepalm  

Bitcointalk is a controversial
here is a demand for more privileges for older user accounts.
Traded accounts were reportedly used to scam people.
The same person "theymos" owns r/bitcoin on reddit which heavily criticized for censorship and personal attacks.

Half of that page is about theymos.

[NeuroticFish]

Whoever have edited that article doesn’t know exactly. That's why they used the wrong info. You can create account and edit the article, see if they approve your edition.

Whoever edited that had the clear intention to discredit bitcointalk.
The most prominent reference is the overly inflated scandal for epochtalk costing too much and not being in use yet at bitcointalk. Also news[dot]bitcoin[dot]com is one of the references.
Nothing about satoshi, nothing about the current reality.

Maybe somebody takes some time to make it right, although I don't know how Wiki decides what version is well intended and which is not.

[Poker Player]

Maybe somebody takes some time to make it right, although I don't know how Wiki decides what version is well intended and which is not.

That's what I thought. Someone who knows a lot about the history of the forum could edit the article. Normally to take one version over another they rely on the sources you can provide.

[Little Mouse]

Maybe somebody takes some time to make it right, although I don't know how Wiki decides what version is well intended and which is not.

I'm not an expert but this is what I have faced with Wikipedia-
There's one article on bitcoin in my local language (Bengali). The article was good enough of course without any doubt but good for a pro. For newbies, I would say it was hard as hell. I tried to edit the article with some good references. For unknown reason, the original author didn’t approve my edition. It seems that in wikipedia, topic starter has the power of attorney. He can deny any edition if he thinks it's not good. This is what I have observed but as I said I'm not 100% sure if there's something else too.

[dkbit98]

Whoever edited that had the clear intention to discredit bitcointalk.

Notorious fake humanrightsfoundation was making some of this wikipedia pages and edits, and people may remember him for his multiple ban evasions from bitcointalk forum because of his death threats.
He is also obsessed with theymos and he tried to extort and blackmail him several times.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I just search about BitcoinTalk in wikipedia. It shows BitcoinTalk Launched in 2011 and registered in August 2011.

Bitcointalk, as a trademark title, was registered in August 2011. The forum's domain began as a directory of bitcoin dot org. Specifically, bitcoin.org/smf. Then, in 2010, it changed to forum.bitcoin.org and in August 2011, they moved it to bitcointalk.org after a long email discussion.

See: Forum moved to bitcointalk.org


I'm disappointed no one has taken the time to write a little bit more about our forum, but indeed left an article that only describes really summarily its history and scams...

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Then why wikipedia showing it's date wrong or it needs to be updated?

As far as I know anyone can update information in Wikipedia. And I have also told that information in Wikipedia are not something you really should relay on. So who cares?

Half of that page is about theymos.

Whoever wrote the contents surly do not know the entire history. theymos is one of the important character for the forum obviously. May be some one can try to edit the information.

[NeuroticFish]

I'm disappointed no one has taken the time to write a little bit more about our forum, but indeed left an article that only describes really summarily its history and scams...

The signs for this were there in another topic, less than one month ago. The original was removed because the topic creator was banned. Here's the topic, but it's not a pleasure to read.
Nobody from here seem to have been acting since then on that matter. Unfortunately more people read wiki than Bitcoin wiki...

As far as I know anyone can update information in Wikipedia. And I have also told that information in Wikipedia are not something you really should relay on. So who cares?

Actually most take Wiki as granted. Hence that page has quite a potential to hurt.

[FatFork]

Here's the first thread of the forum- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5.0
First 4 threads are off limit. I think they are some test post which has been off limited.

The first four threads were created in the staff section of the forum. Apparently, all but one are still there.

What happened with topic 1,2,3 and 4?

1, 2, and 4 exist in the staff forum. 3 was permanently deleted at some point (it must have contained Satoshi's real name and address).

Btw, does anyone have an archive of topic=3.0? 

[NotATether]

I fixed the Wikipedia page and am going to clean it up of all these childish attacks too.

Fun fact: the last Wiki editor of that page before me was banned for vandalism 

[BlackHatCoiner]

And I have also told that information in Wikipedia are not something you really should relay on. So who cares?

But, lots read it. Yes, it's not a trustworthy source of information, but most of the readers won't question the author for false presumptions. Besides, the article wasn't wrong at all; it just wasn't neat enough. A forum so big, with such history deserves a long read.

I fixed the Wikipedia page and am going to clean it up of all these childish attacks too.

Nice! I saw you added the “HODL” reference. Maybe adding some others such as the 10,000 BTC pizzas, the Wall Observer, Satoshi design of the first logo, the first exchange etc.

See this for more: Caption results.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Actually most take Wiki as granted. Hence that page has quite a potential to hurt.

I would say noobs who really are not experienced in internet space then will take anything as granted which is on Wikipedia.

Fun fact: the last Wiki editor of that page before me was banned for vandalism 

LOL
Go ahead brother. Make it worth reading.

esides, the article wasn't wrong at all; it just wasn't neat enough. A forum so big, with such history deserves a long read.

What I meant was to make it worth reading. It needs constant update.

[NotATether]

I fixed the Wikipedia page and am going to clean it up of all these childish attacks too.

Nice! I saw you added the “HODL” reference. Maybe adding some others such as the 10,000 BTC pizzas, the Wall Observer, Satoshi design of the first logo, the first exchange etc.

See this for more: Caption results.

I did not add the HODL reference, it was already there.

I'm adding info about hacks but I can't cite this post because bitcointalk.org is blacklisted: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1067985.msg11445725#msg11445725 so as a workaround I'm going to make an article about it on my site and I'll cite (wordplay not intended) that instead.

Edit: The unofficial rules post can't be cited either so as a result I got no citations to use for the "bitcointalk does not moderate scams" section.

[Rizzrack]

I can't cite this post because bitcointalk.org is blacklisted

IMO that's the worst part !

Must be the consequence of the ICO spam from 4-5 years ago... saw there were 2 requests made to remove it from the spam-blacklist in 2018 but were denied. pity ...

[NotATether]

I can't cite this post because bitcointalk.org is blacklisted

IMO that's the worst part !

Must be the consequence of the ICO spam from 4-5 years ago... saw there were 2 requests made to remove it from the spam-blacklist in 2018 but were denied. pity ...

I just made a request to whitelist the unofficial rules and FAQ thread.

My additions about the bitcointalk hacks were deleted because the citations (from coindesk and others) are not considered reliable sources.

I have no qualms about Coindesk in particular but given most bitcoin news is grossly inaccurate, it makes quite hard to find a reliable (by their standards) source.

[Daniel91]

I can't cite this post because bitcointalk.org is blacklisted

IMO that's the worst part !

Must be the consequence of the ICO spam from 4-5 years ago... saw there were 2 requests made to remove it from the spam-blacklist in 2018 but were denied. pity ...

I just made a request to whitelist the unofficial rules and FAQ thread.

My additions about the bitcointalk hacks were deleted because the citations (from coindesk and others) are not considered reliable sources.

I have no qualms about Coindesk in particular but given most bitcoin news is grossly inaccurate, it makes quite hard to find a reliable (by their standards) source.

Once upon a time I found several articles on Wikipedia, and due to inaccuracies tried to correct them.
I thought I succeeded in that but later the admin, a person with more authority, came and canceled my changes.
Wikipedia is very popular as a source of information and is often the first result on Google search engine.
Therefore, it is important that the information on Wikipedia is accurate, but on Wikipedia the problem is often not the facts itself but the interpretation of these facts, because of worldview and other reasons.
This is especially true of sensitive historical and political topics.
I hope you will succeed in your action but unfortunately in Wikipedia ordinary contributors do not have much power to change anything, only administrators.
If the administrators have a negative attitude towards crypto then it will be very difficult to change anything.

[Rizzrack]

I just made a request to whitelist the unofficial rules and FAQ thread.

Nice ! Hope it gets approved soon !

My additions about the bitcointalk hacks were deleted because the citations (from coindesk and others) are not considered reliable sources.

I have no qualms about Coindesk in particular but given most bitcoin news is grossly inaccurate, it makes quite hard to find a reliable (by their standards) source.

Based on what I saw on their "reliable sources page" coindesk is definitely not considered a reliable source. Did not see one single "reliable" crypto website in that list...

There is consensus that CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability for article topics, and that it should be avoided in favor of more mainstream sources. Check CoinDesk articles for conflict of interest disclosures, and verify whether their parent company (Digital Currency Group) has an ownership stake in a company covered by CoinDesk

The fact that they tend to be anti-crypto is pretty obvious:

Quartz
Quartz is considered generally reliable for factual reporting, although some editors argue that caution should be used for science and bitcoin topics.

[Welsh]

My additions about the bitcointalk hacks were deleted because the citations (from coindesk and others) are not considered reliable sources.

I have no qualms about Coindesk in particular but given most bitcoin news is grossly inaccurate, it makes quite hard to find a reliable (by their standards) source.

Fair enough I'd say, but would they consider a post from the site admin to be credible enough? I'd like to think you can't get anymore credible than the website themselves posting information about compromises.

I'm guessing they're going to be rather picky about it being specifically a third party that has reported on it. Which would be weird, since most third party reports are grossly inaccurate (not specifically Bitcointalk's, but in general).

although some editors argue that caution should be used for science and bitcoin topics.

Anything involving investments should probably be considered for bias. I'm not sure what their take is on other investments that may be deemed risky.