Wikipedia stops accepting btc donations - “inherently predatory”

[bitmover]

https://fortune.com/2022/05/02/wikipedia-wikimedia-foundation-no-crypto-donations-environment-climate-bitcoin-ethereum/

In her proposal, White said accepting crypto donations was a tacit endorsement of “extremely risky investments” and technology that are “inherently predatory”—and, certainly when it comes to the leading virtual currencies Bitcoin and Ethereum, “extremely damaging to the environment.” She said that the environmental impact “may not align” with the project’s sustainability commitments and that the Wikimedia Foundation risked reputational damage from accepting donations in crypto form.

The decision to shun crypto won’t have a major impact on the donation-led organization, as only 0.08% of its revenue last year—or $130,100—came in that form. In recent years, only 347 donors used that option, mostly giving Bitcoin.

Sadly, Wikipedia is now against bitcoin, as bitcoin "may not align" with Wikipedia sustainability...

I was surprised. I always used a lot of Wikipedia in all kinds of researches.  I confess that I am disappointed.

I can see  now that Wikipedia doesn't align to my vision of an open internet, and borderless world.

This environmental discussion simple doesn't make any sense
Bitcoin’s energy use is just a rounding error compared to other industries



https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/bitcoin-energy-use-compare-industry

[jackg]

They might've just been looking for a reason to stop accepting it. Maybe they want more donors and have done this in an attempt to get more since not much comes from crypto...

The sustainability argument looks like less of a focus than the predatory high risk investment that bitcoin could be considered to be (a lot of exchanges in the sector seem to exhibit predatory behaviours as well as the large amount of unmoderated phishing sites on quite a few search engines that buy ads).

[m2017]

At first glance, this news sounds really sad. But the situation is actually a little different. Wikipedia stopped accepting donations at bitcoin because the share of BTC against the general background of all donations is very small (% of authors on wikipedia who accepted payment for their activities at BTC). Therefore, don't take this topic as a reason to be upset because refuse. If someone is not too lazy, study this issue in more depth. I can't seem to find a link right now to back up what I've said, but I think the problem voiced in this news is exaggerated.

[Ludmilla_rose1995]

I was surprised. I always used a lot of Wikipedia in all kinds of researches.  I confess that I am disappointed.

I can see  now that Wikipedia doesn't align to my vision of an open internet, and borderless world.

This environmental discussion simple doesn't make any sense
Bitcoin’s energy use is just a rounding error compared to other industries
***
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/bitcoin-energy-use-compare-industry

Honestly, this is shocking news for me too, I don't know if this news will affect the price of bitcoin in the market. The FUD about bitcoin, which is one of the biggest causes of environmental damage, seems to have resurfaced and is causing anxiety. the Wikipedia team must do research  first, on whether the accusations given to bitcoin are true or not.

[Wiwo]

The whole global impact of Bitcoin mining on the ecosystem crusade is a scam to me, many institutions are beginning to align to that discussion of the negative impact of Bitcoin mining on the energy and the waste created by miner activities which can not be compared to some of the industries around the world who are constantly realizing toxins into the air and consumption of high electricity. But for an online search engine source as Wikipedia moving against privacy and decentralization that offers total liberty shows how centralized Wikipedia is and how careless it will be on privacy and data protection.

[Charles-Tim]

The world are just been hash and most of them that against bitcoin PoW mining are just bitcoin critics, aside that bitcoin do not consume much of electricity if compared to other sectors, bitcoin miners are getting towards making almost all electricity used by bitcoin mining to be clean energy that do not produce greenhouse gasses that can result to global warming. Over 50% of electricity used for bitcoin mining are clean energy which produces no greenhouse gases.

According to the bitcoin mining network CoinShares research, the carbon remission through electricity used to mine bitcoin contributes 0.08% of the global CO2 emissions.


The bitcoin mining network, energy and carbon impact

In the grand scheme of things, the carbon emissions emitted by electricity providers supplying the Bitcoin mining network are inconsequential. At 0.08% of global CO2 emissions, removing the entire mining network from global demand—and thereby depriving hundreds of millions of people of their only hope for a fair and accessible form of money—would not amount to anything more than a rounding error.

[bitbollo]

I think that in the end they realized that from this kind of donation they received nothing more then "peanuts" ... that is. we are talking about 0.08 percent, a truly negligible amount.
the real sadly part is the story based on metropolitan legend of "bitcoin pollutes" as the main reason for this story ...

[Oilacris]

This environmental discussion simple doesn't make any sense
Bitcoin’s energy use is just a rounding error compared to other industries

Only dumb people would really believing into this bullshit kind of reasoning for those institution/companies/government who do really take blame or put some emphasis  with
this energy issue against Bitcoin.

Its pretty obvious that they do really just dont like it due to further other reasons or simply they do just get in line on what the majority is being seeing on it.
Wikipedia just really doing the same but i actually agree into those points that they might not able to get on what they are expecting. 

[serjent05]

They might've just been looking for a reason to stop accepting it. Maybe they want more donors and have done this in an attempt to get more since not much comes from crypto...

This might be one of the reasons.  probably some institutions promised a deal that outweighs the income from the crypto donation if they announced something against it.  This move of disabling crypto payment is more likely political to gather sympathizers and gain much from it by taking Bitcoin's critics' good side.

[RickDeckard]

It's always funny to see companies dropping a channel of donations in the favor of good omens (in this case "environmental" ones). I advise anyone who has the time to read the discussion that ensued over at Wikimedia regarding the banning of cryptocurrencies here[1]. If this was a debate of banning the donation channel due to environmental causes I would assume that the discussion would start by that argument. Yet the first question of the discussion is "How much in crypto has been donated to date?" - this directly applies that probably if the income was higher than it currently is, perhaps the decision would be other. I've searched the all the Fundraiser reports ever since 2014 to see if they gave any insight of the revenue that came from crypto donations and while there wasn't any information regarding that point, in the last discussion[1] we got a glimpse of the last fiscal year (2021):

Hi @GorillaWarfare,

Thank you for your questions. Please see the answers below:

    -> The total $ value of donations made in cryptocurrencies
        In the last financial year we received $130,100.94 worth of donations in cryptocurrencies. Crypto was around 0.08% of our revenue last year, and it remains one of our smallest revenue channels.
    -> The total number of donors who opted to donate cryptocurrency
        In the last financial years we had 347 donors who used the cryptocurrency option.
    -> Which cryptocurrencies were donated (preferably with information about total value and number of donors using each)
        In the last financial year the most used cryptocurrency was Bitcoin. We have never held cryptocurrency, and spot-convert donations daily into fiat currency (USD), which doesn’t have a significant environmental impact.

Considering that they amassed a total sum of $154,763,121 USD in donations, the 0,08 % of income that the crypto donation represents is nothing compared to the other sources - it makes them easier to slash the system. There's really good arguments from users where they try to demonstrate that the system that makes "banking" work and that fuels the Oil Industry (for example) consume much more than the BTC network and yet all the attention is on BTC side. Quoting:

To provide a more balanced view on this RFC, please refer to these resources that provide an alternative lens on the environmental impact of Bitcoin (for example, did you know McDonald's spends more energy making Happy Meal toys than the entire global Bitcoin network?) as well as Bitcoin as a tool for social, gender and racial activism from a progressive point of view. The environmental question of Bitcoin is a lot more complex than "it uses too much energy". It is a multi-dimensional problem, and energy usage is just one variable in the equation. I urge everyone to understand more about Bitcoin as a whole package beyond its energy footprint (negligible when compared to the cost in oil and warfare of backing the US Dollar) as well as the continual exponential progress that has been made in making Bitcoin greener and greener.

I suggest reading this report (https://nydig.com/research/report-bitcoin-net-zero) from NYDIG and this piece (https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-energy/) before making snap judgements about the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies, and more specifically, Bitcoin. It's energy use is relatively small, on the scale of miscellaneous industrial activities such as zinc production, whose energy usage we do not point to as "useless".

In the end of the section they just argue that those weren't peer reviewed papers and such, and the discussion ensures elsewhere. Still it's good to see that such a discussion ensued and it's great to see the numerous points that were talked and discussed between the voting members. Sadly in the end the majority of votes ended up being 319 Supporters vs 134 (this may not be an exact match since I basically did CTRL+F) which means that the channel is now removed from their website.

I really do wonder what they would do if the % was higher, but I guess we'll never know...
[1]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Stop_accepting_cryptocurrency_donations

[Upgrade00]

Only dumb people would really believing into this bullshit kind of reasoning for those institution/companies/government who do really take blame or put some emphasis  with
this energy issue against Bitcoin.

Sadly, there are a lot of such people in the world today and Wikipedia may be looking to pander to the general public by this action. I could interpret this action to mean; "we were not getting enough Bitcoin donations for the gamble we took to attract Bitcoin users and have decided to drop it in a way that makes us look good"
Would be nice if they actually returned the little donations received in cryptocurrencies.

If half the energy and awareness put into the perceived danger of PoW mining was directed to actual climate dangers, it would truly benefit the planet.

[n0ne]

Only dumb people would really believing into this bullshit kind of reasoning for those institution/companies/government who do really take blame or put some emphasis  with
this energy issue against Bitcoin.

Sadly, there are a lot of such people in the world today and Wikipedia may be looking to pander to the general public by this action. I could interpret this action to mean; "we were not getting enough Bitcoin donations for the gamble we took to attract Bitcoin users and have decided to drop it in a way that makes us look good"
Would be nice if they actually returned the little donations received in cryptocurrencies.

According to a news article only 400 Wikipedia editors participated, out of which 232 users - 71.7 per cent were in support of the proposal against crypto donations and 94 editors voted for crypto donations, others (75 users) were excluded from voting. I don't know on what basis this is being done. Another this it has received just $130k donation in the form of cryptocurrencies from 347 donars, which is less than 0.1% of what is being got as revenue. This is the prime reason for stopping bitcoin donations. But Wikipedia have wrapped it with the energy issue and have given different statement that they're the saviours of the planet earth.

[DooMAD]

Our response should just take the same form Wikipedia themselves are notorious for:

and, certainly when it comes to the leading virtual currencies Bitcoin and Ethereum, “extremely damaging to the environment.”

[ Citation needed ] .

Followed by "VFD: Unsourced claims".   

[kryptqnick]

Op, thanks a lot for the image of comparison of mining to other industries. I haven't seen it before, and it's certainly more helpful than all those talks of Bitcoin mining energy consumption being compared to energy consumption of certain countries. If the data is accurate, Bitcoin mining is really not taking that much power. It's taking less than gold mining & jewelry which are not getting cancelled for that and which certainly aren't more essential than Bitcoin, and then there's the finance and insurance sector which is significantly bigger as well. It's sad that Wikipedia took this stance.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Yes. Bitcoin, just like any other useful innovation, uses energy. But, why now, Wikipedia?

Bitcoin’s energy use is just a rounding error compared to other industries

Agreed, but there's no point to compare bitcoin or gold mining with healthcare, the building sector and land, air & sea transport; this is clearly a mixed bag. One might say reckless whataboutism.

[ Citation needed ]

Perhaps a tidy email can work? It's ironic that most of the links in their bitcoin page state the opposite.

"Bitcoin mining isn't nearly as bad for the environment as it used to be, new data shows". CNBC. Retrieved 16 January 2022.

"Is Bitcoin Inherently Bad For The Environment?". Forbes. Retrieved 16 January 2022. "Mining and transacting cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin, do present energy and emissions challenges, but new research shows that there are possible pathways to mitigate some of these issues if cryptocurrency miners are willing to operate in a way to compliment the deployment of more low-carbon energy."

"Green Bitcoin Does Not Have to Be an Oxymoron". news.bloomberglaw.com. Retrieved 16 January 2022. "One way to invest in Bitcoin that has a positive effect on renewable energy is to encourage mining operations near wind or solar sites. This provides a customer for power that might otherwise need to be transmitted or stored, saving money as well as carbon."

"Climate change and the legitimacy of Bitcoin". Rochester, NY. SSRN 3961105. "In responding to these pressures and events, some miners are providing services and innovations that may help the viability of clean energy infrastructures for energy providers and beyond, including the data and computing industry. The paper finds that if Bitcoin loses legitimacy as a store of value, then it may result in lost opportunities to accelerate sustainable energy infrastructures and markets."

[stompix]

Bitcoin’s energy use is just a rounding error compared to other industries

But whatabout the....

Does it feel like a good comparison of the energy used by 8 billion people to cook, heat, watch tv, listen to music while having sex,watching tv while having sex, use air conditioning (after sex), keep food cold, wash clothes with the 45 million addresses with a  balance and 300k transaction a day? Does it feel right to compare it with the freight industry that took just one hiccup during covid and nearly grdined the entire world economy to a halt?
Let's assume tomorrow everyone uses bitcoin, prices jump to 100x and since the rewards will also follow the same path as well as energy consumption what will we compare it by then? Why have we jumped from comparing it with Visa and the bank system to things that would destroy the economy is stopped?

I can see  now that Wikipedia doesn't align to my vision of an open internet, and borderless world.

Why so? Everyone is free to make their own choice and be wrong or right about it.
This thing might come back and bite them in the ass or not, what's next are we going to make people who don't like bitcoin wear some armbands with the $ symbol, but green not yellow like in the 30's.

[Gyfts]

Wikipedia's also has been censoring a lot of content as of the last few years. They seem to taking the woke stance most corporations are, placing sustainability and "green energy" above all else.

It's always funny to see companies dropping a channel of donations in the favor of good omens (in this case "environmental" ones). I advise anyone who has the time to read the discussion that ensued over at Wikimedia regarding the banning of cryptocurrencies here

Seems to be the root of most virtue signaling. Displaying sanctimony to create a false impression that they're the good guys. Meanwhile, the financial hit they take from eliminating cryptocurrency is <0.10%. Give it some time and I'm sure they will reverse their position as crypto becomes more mainstream and acceptable as a payment method.

Wikipedia still accepts paypal, by the way. Talk about "inherently predatory."

[Welsh]

Yes. Bitcoin, just like any other useful innovation, uses energy. But, why now, Wikipedia?

Unfortunately, we are in a day, and age where truth doesn't matter, and not many companies/organisations, have much integrity, and it does seem like Wikipedia might actually be one of them, which to be honest is rather disheartening, and annoying considering the type of content that they provide.

I say the above, and I understand that it might sound a little hostile, however I'm not intentionally being hostile to the companies that do this sort of thing, I'm just annoyed that political pressure, and what we actually think is much more important than the truth these days. Personally, I consider a company or organisation standing up against the status quo, and sticking to the actual facts a little more respectable, than sucking up to the public or their shareholders, just to secure more money.

Does Bitcoin use energy, Yeah. Does it use more than fiat? No. Does that excuse the energy use? Probably not. Should we be looking to improve where ever practical? Yeah, however I think it's being blown way out of proportion, and to me it seems there's a clear bias among the media now, and public perception has definitely changed over the last year or so. I'm not hearing people say Bitcoin is fake money, and you can't use it as much now, I'm seeing them say it's detrimental to the environment.

Honestly, I believe this is the next stumbling block for Bitcoin. We've proven to overcome them in the past, like the previous example of being fake money, and not being able to use it, I think we've largely overcome that public perception, however this might just be the biggest challenge we've faced. Everything these days is being about as green, and socially acceptable as possible, which when the news seems to be against Bitcoin, might just be a hard thing to overcome.

[hatshepsut93]

Yes. Bitcoin, just like any other useful innovation, uses energy. But, why now, Wikipedia?

Bitcoin energy use had grown in recent years, and it attracted attention of climate change activists.

This environmental discussion simple doesn't make any sense
Bitcoin’s energy use is just a rounding error compared to other industries

In global context, energy consumption of Bitcoin is a very low priority, so climate activists shouldn't spend disproportionately high amount of time on it, but this doesn't cancel the fact that Bitcoin energy consumption is high compared to its utility - our civilization won't notice if Bitcoin disappeared tomorrow, and even Bitcoiners would continue living their lives as normal.

[Darker45]

It is unfortunate that Wikipedia stops accepting Bitcoin donations, but it is a lot more unfortunate that the reasons provided are either fallacious or simply outright wrong.

But I think this is more of Wikipedia's loss than Bitcoin's. After all, it is Wikipedia and not Bitcoin that will benefit from keeping such donation option.

Well, it is their free decision. Wikipedia remains helpful to the public, but so is Bitcoin. And time will tell whether Wikipedia's false impression on Bitcoin will last longer than its need to put such option back.