[2022-05-02]Wikipedia has stopped accepting cryptocurrency donation

[safar1980]

Here’s why Wikipedia has stopped accepting cryptocurrency donation
The decision to stop accepting crypto as the donation was made based on a community request, which came out of a three-month-long discussion that wrapped up earlier this month.
Wikimedia Foundation–the non-profit organisation that runs Wikipedia– has decided to stop accepting donations in cryptocurrency, citing the impact cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum have on the environment. “The Wikimedia Foundation has decided to discontinue direct acceptance of cryptocurrency as a means of donating … we are making this decision based on recent feedback from [volunteers and donor] communities,” the foundation said in a statement.

“Cryptocurrencies are extremely risky investments that have only been gaining popularity among retail investors particularly in recent times, and I do not think we should be endorsing their use in this way. In accepting them, I believe we are mainstreaming the usage of “investments” and technology that are inherently predatory,” the proposal read.

source
https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/crypto/heres-why-wikipedia-has-stopped-accepting-cryptocurrency-donation-7897358/

[NeuroticFish]

The Wikimedia Foundation has decided to discontinue direct acceptance of cryptocurrency as a means of donating … we are making this decision based on recent feedback from [volunteers and donor] communities

You could have been quoting a little more from that news.

“Cryptocurrencies are extremely risky investments that have only been gaining popularity among retail investors particularly in recent times, and I do not think we should be endorsing their use in this way. In accepting them, I believe we are mainstreaming the usage of “investments” and technology that are inherently predatory,” the proposal read.

Although I find this overly harsh words against crypto (yet another naysayer), the actual points are clear:
* Wiki seems to have received very few donations in crypto (which is normal, since very small % of world population uses crypto, so it's imho not a valid problem)
* Wiki doesn't want to look like they would be endorsing cryptocurrencies, which actually I cannot argue

However, seeing Wiki as a pretty "hungry" organization - they do put big banners begging for money now and then - I think that's a losing move on their side. Although they've received "only" 130k worth of crypto as donations, it's much better than nothing.

[cr1776]

" technology that are inherently predatory,”

What a bunch of nonsense.  I suspect the real reason is more likely:  they have a far-left bias on many articles and fascists/totalitarians etc can't survive when people are free for long.  When there is free discourse and a monetary instrument that can't be as easily censored as bank accounts (see e.g. Canada) they, and their masters, lose.  A technology that allows people to is decentralized and censorship resistant is unacceptable.

[cr1776]

* Wiki doesn't want to look like they would be endorsing cryptocurrencies, which actually I cannot argue

It's not really good reason since they don't endorse specific country when they accept certain fiat. And it's rather ironic when Wikipedia promote similar ideology (free and open knowledge).

I would say that that was their stated goal, but it has been captured and is now peddling a highly skewed, non-independent, biased and non-objective form of "open knowledge."

[NeuroticFish]

It's not really good reason since they don't endorse specific country when they accept certain fiat. And it's rather ironic when Wikipedia promote similar ideology (free and open knowledge).

I didn't say it's the best reason, I said I can't argue. It's the same as they would have said "because we no longer want that".
And for the rest... there used to be a saying: "do what the priest says, not what de does".

I would say that that was their stated goal, but it has been captured and is now peddling a highly skewed, non-independent, biased and non-objective form of "open knowledge."

This is easily a feature of centralization and a result of getting far too popular.

[DaveF]

I was reading it as we got a bunch of BTC when it was $50000+ and sat on it hoping to get more money and now that it's been hovering around $40000 we don't want to admit we fucked up.
But that's just how I read it :-)

Seriously, the price movements have been an issue with me getting business to run their own nodes and take their own payments. Which is why so many go to a service to do it for them and convert to fiat on the fly.
I can see them sitting on the BTC for a bit before someone in accounting noticed when they took a look.

-Dave

[safar1980]

" technology that are inherently predatory,”

What a bunch of nonsense.  I suspect the real reason is more likely:  they have a far-left bias on many articles and fascists/totalitarians etc can't survive when people are free for long.  When there is free discourse and a monetary instrument that can't be as easily censored as bank accounts (see e.g. Canada) they, and their masters, lose.  A technology that allows people to is decentralized and censorship resistant is unacceptable.

They are dissatisfied with the large consumption of electricity that is spent on bitcoin and ethereum mining, so they made such a statement. Let's wait and see what happens when ethereum mining ends.

[UKprod]

" technology that are inherently predatory,”

What a bunch of nonsense.  I suspect the real reason is more likely:  they have a far-left bias on many articles and fascists/totalitarians etc can't survive when people are free for long.  When there is free discourse and a monetary instrument that can't be as easily censored as bank accounts (see e.g. Canada) they, and their masters, lose.  A technology that allows people to is decentralized and censorship resistant is unacceptable.

They are dissatisfied with the large consumption of electricity that is spent on bitcoin and ethereum mining, so they made such a statement. Let's wait and see what happens when ethereum mining ends.

Yeah, once Ethereum moves from POW to POS, I believe that should solve most of their concerns regarding Ethereum affecting the environment and they should continue the donations. While I am least bothered about whether they use cryptocurrencies or not, using this language makes me doubt whether they actually research about the topics or not.

[yhiaali3]

The reason is clear in my opinion, of course not as the Foundation claims that Bitcoin and Ethereum affect the environment or that investing in cryptocurrencies is risky, this is funny, the main reason in my opinion is that the Foundation does not want to anger the governments or government organizations that receive donations from them, while on the It appears that Wikipedia has received very few donations in cryptocurrency. These are all empty accusations of cryptocurrency.

[coupable]

The reason is clear in my opinion, of course not as the Foundation claims that Bitcoin and Ethereum affect the environment or that investing in cryptocurrencies is risky, this is funny, the main reason in my opinion is that the Foundation does not want to anger the governments or government organizations that receive donations from them, while on the It appears that Wikipedia has received very few donations in cryptocurrency. These are all empty accusations of cryptocurrency.

It's not yet a valid reason imo for wikipidia to stop accepting cryptocurrencies for donation. There should be a valid reason for this.
In any case, it is not surprising that a company of this size would join the trench opponents of decentralization. Even if this contradicts the general principle of the idea on which the Wikipedia platform was based in the first place.

[bbc.reporter]

The Wikimedia Foundation has decided to discontinue direct acceptance of cryptocurrency as a means of donating … we are making this decision based on recent feedback from [volunteers and donor] communities

You could have been quoting a little more from that news.

“Cryptocurrencies are extremely risky investments that have only been gaining popularity among retail investors particularly in recent times, and I do not think we should be endorsing their use in this way. In accepting them, I believe we are mainstreaming the usage of “investments” and technology that are inherently predatory,” the proposal read.

Although I find this overly harsh words against crypto (yet another naysayer), the actual points are clear:
* Wiki seems to have received very few donations in crypto (which is normal, since very small % of world population uses crypto, so it's imho not a valid problem)
* Wiki doesn't want to look like they would be endorsing cryptocurrencies, which actually I cannot argue

However, seeing Wiki as a pretty "hungry" organization - they do put big banners begging for money now and then - I think that's a losing move on their side. Although they've received "only" 130k worth of crypto as donations, it's much better than nothing.

However, it might help wiki collect more donations made in cryptocoins if they endorsed and encouraged their use. Similar to bitcoin, wikipedia exists through the collaboration of people around the world who work together as a community in an open environment and without a leader. I shake my head because it should be the wikipedia community that should be recognizing bitcoin as a medium of payment.

[Kakmakr]

In July 2014, the foundation announced it would be accepting Bitcoin donations via digital currency exchange Coinbase, which waives its processing fees for non-profit organizations.[92] In 2021, the foundation raised $130,100.94 in cryptocurrency, mostly in the form of Bitcoin, accounting for 0.08% of all donations.[93][94] On May 1, 2022, the foundation announced that it will stop accepting cryptocurrency donations. This decision was made after the Wikimedia community voted 232-94 against continuing to accept cryptocurrency donations. - Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation  

Now, it will be interesting to know who these people are.... right? ==> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement ==> https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/board/

Follow the money... and the people behind that and you will see why decisions like this is made. (Grants / Fundraising /Donations / Alliances...)  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising/Reports ==> https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/benefactors/#section-1

[NotATether]

Another day, another org giving up on crypto because they capitulated to the popular (misguided) demand.

It's so sad how we have a lot of critics (no shortage of them actually) dfinding different reasons to attack the decentalized crypto movement (just the other day my dad told me that Bitcoin is only used by criminals, FTW!). Equally disappointing is how there are very few fact-dissementers in proportion to the misinformers, for properly informing the public about them!

[cr1776]

It's not really good reason since they don't endorse specific country when they accept certain fiat. And it's rather ironic when Wikipedia promote similar ideology (free and open knowledge).

I didn't say it's the best reason, I said I can't argue. It's the same as they would have said "because we no longer want that".
And for the rest... there used to be a saying: "do what the priest says, not what de does".

I would say that that was their stated goal, but it has been captured and is now peddling a highly skewed, non-independent, biased and non-objective form of "open knowledge."

This is easily a feature of centralization and a result of getting far too popular.

Agreed.  The centralization and capture of wikipedia is problematic. 

They are dissatisfied with the large consumption of electricity that is spent on bitcoin and ethereum mining, so they made such a statement. Let's wait and see what happens when ethereum mining ends.

So they claim, but that is naivete, ignorance, or a conscious goal.  Without PoW, security becomes an issue which may be their goal.

[buwaytress]

NeutoricFish nailed on why the decision is both understandable and inconsequential. If Wikipedia accepting crypto didn't make such a huge impact (their donations of crypto insignificant to them), then them also no longer accepting crypto isn't something to cry about. Same as when Microsoft used to and then no longer accepted Bitcoin. If no one was using it in the first place, no one will cry about it now.

And yeah, I've never donated to them. Not that I don't think they're useful or worth donating, and I don't dismiss the possibility I will one day donate to them. Just the way they've asked hasn't rubbed well with me. If they've really needed the financial support as often and as direly as they appear to say, they've shot themselves in the foot by cutting off crypto.

Derisking? Probably. Bad move for business.

[cr1776]

NeutoricFish nailed on why the decision is both understandable and inconsequential. If Wikipedia accepting crypto didn't make such a huge impact (their donations of crypto insignificant to them), then them also no longer accepting crypto isn't something to cry about. Same as when Microsoft used to and then no longer accepted Bitcoin. If no one was using it in the first place, no one will cry about it now.

And yeah, I've never donated to them. Not that I don't think they're useful or worth donating, and I don't dismiss the possibility I will one day donate to them. Just the way they've asked hasn't rubbed well with me. If they've really needed the financial support as often and as direly as they appear to say, they've shot themselves in the foot by cutting off crypto.

Derisking? Probably. Bad move for business.

I have to agree it is inconsequential to bitcoin.  I just believe another reason is that a decentralized approach no longer comports with their current politics which is why the editorial oversight is now quite centralized and very skewed away from a liberty, decentralized approach.  Instead it skewed towards a concentrated authoritarian view.

[goldkingcoiner]

Here’s why Wikipedia has stopped accepting cryptocurrency donation
The decision to stop accepting crypto as the donation was made based on a community request, which came out of a three-month-long discussion that wrapped up earlier this month.
Wikimedia Foundation–the non-profit organisation that runs Wikipedia– has decided to stop accepting donations in cryptocurrency, citing the impact cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum have on the environment. “The Wikimedia Foundation has decided to discontinue direct acceptance of cryptocurrency as a means of donating … we are making this decision based on recent feedback from [volunteers and donor] communities,” the foundation said in a statement.

“Cryptocurrencies are extremely risky investments that have only been gaining popularity among retail investors particularly in recent times, and I do not think we should be endorsing their use in this way. In accepting them, I believe we are mainstreaming the usage of “investments” and technology that are inherently predatory,” the proposal read.

source
https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/crypto/heres-why-wikipedia-has-stopped-accepting-cryptocurrency-donation-7897358/

Well, too bad for them. As the crypto community we should not donate to Wikipedia anymore until they decide that crypto is a good idea. They do not want our money? Thats fine. But they should not pretend to understand the nature of crypto. They really have no idea.

I assume what this is likely about is that Bitcoin and other crypto started dumping and they could not handle it. So just like a newbie coiner they ragequit and are now pretending like its cryptos fault that they panicked about the price.

Oh well. Their loss.

[JakobFugger]

This was a political decision, not a technical one. Clearly the Wiki foundation has more bureaucrats and people from the humanities than people from math, finance, technical and engineering. They are fearful people who throughout their lives avoid any kind of risk.

There are several possibilities to avoid any damage to the foundation, such as directly converting the amounts into dollars. But with all this shit that goes on with shitcoin Luna, it's quite likely that several other organizations also feel this fear and avoid this type of donation.

[PrimeNumber7]

However, seeing Wiki as a pretty "hungry" organization - they do put big banners begging for money now and then - I think that's a losing move on their side. Although they've received "only" 130k worth of crypto as donations, it's much better than nothing.

Wikipedia often puts up banners that I think amount to begging. As such, I think it would make sense to have as broad of payment options as possible. The rationale behind the decision really does not matter IMO -- they are making it incrementally more difficult for people to donate, which is a negative for Wikipedia.

" technology that are inherently predatory,”

What a bunch of nonsense.  I suspect the real reason is more likely:  they have a far-left bias on many articles and fascists/totalitarians etc can't survive when people are free for long.  When there is free discourse and a monetary instrument that can't be as easily censored as bank accounts (see e.g. Canada) they, and their masters, lose.  A technology that allows people to is decentralized and censorship resistant is unacceptable.

Unfortunatley, the far-left has a strong hold on many institutions.

[Betwrong]

~
However, seeing Wiki as a pretty "hungry" organization - they do put big banners begging for money now and then - I think that's a losing move on their side. Although they've received "only" 130k worth of crypto as donations, it's much better than nothing.

I used to see those banners pretty often in the past, and, frankly, they were annoying. But I have stopped seeing them since a year ago, or maybe even earlier. I'd forgotten I even had them until I saw this topic today. So I went to the Wikipedia front page and clicked "Donate" here



and here's what I saw then



It turns out that they have stopped accepting not only cryptocurrency donations. It's strange. Does anyone else have the same result after clicking "Donate" on Wiki?