Bitcoin Forum
October 01, 2016, 04:55:01 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.0 (New!) [Torrent]. Make sure you verify it.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: BitCoin Wikipedia page DELETED!!!  (Read 17949 times)
Anonymous
Guest

December 13, 2010, 09:15:27 PM
 #61

Is it notable that the person who deleted the article came to the forum and trolled it?
 Cheesy




1475297701
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475297701

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475297701
Reply with quote  #2

1475297701
Report to moderator
1475297701
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475297701

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475297701
Reply with quote  #2

1475297701
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1475297701
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475297701

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475297701
Reply with quote  #2

1475297701
Report to moderator
1475297701
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475297701

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475297701
Reply with quote  #2

1475297701
Report to moderator
1475297701
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475297701

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475297701
Reply with quote  #2

1475297701
Report to moderator
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
December 13, 2010, 09:31:15 PM
 #62

Article is no longer deleted, this topic should be good for closure.

jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
December 13, 2010, 09:38:09 PM
 #63

Article is no longer deleted, this topic should be good for closure.

?   According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin it remains deleted.

Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
RHorning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
December 13, 2010, 10:23:11 PM
 #64

Well, wikipedia is not a public driven project. It is driven by a limited community of it's editors,
that is for a long time. Wikipedia represent collective and often inconsistent point of view
of a small (compared to society) group of people.
"Playing by the rules" is a favorite game of them. Don't play that game, do not entertain them.

I believe, it is some form of sexual perversion, wikipedism or like that...  Lips sealed

Just find another wikipedia editor and he will play instead of you.

This is easy for you to say if you have no clue as to the history of Wikipedia or the headaches that admins and editors on that project have been involved with.  I don't care to go into an exhaustive history lesson at the moment, but note that with only a couple of exceptions (that have also turned out awfully for the Wikipedia community I might add too) most of the policies have been created mainly to deal with trolls, vandals, and other folks who tend to do more harm to Wikipedia than good.  Harm in this case is destroying the quality of existing content or discouraging other people to contribute to the project.

Are there trollish admins?  Absolutely, and the guy who performed the deletion here is certainly being trollish with his comments in this most recent deletion review.  Still, I don't see that comment having any impact upon the undeletion.

Article is no longer deleted, this topic should be good for closure.

?   According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin it remains deleted.

Have patience young grasshopper.  These things take time, and unfortunately it is going to take a very experienced admin doing some custom work to clean up the mess left behind by other admins trying to salt this article.  It is something I could do in about 2 minutes if I had the tools, but I'll leave that to somebody else.  I never wanted to be a Wikipedia admin, which is why I don't have the tools.

If this article doesn't get undeleted within a week and moved back as a "regular article", there is a series of increasing actions I can get involved with that will force the issue.  There are some admins in favor of "restoring" the article, so I seriously doubt I'll have to pull out all of the stops of Wikilawyering that I can do if I really cared.

1FLK3uUT3Vup5JtkGJVXKHAoS3AZWPcKdv
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
December 14, 2010, 12:16:56 AM
 #65

yeah lots of people work hard on wikipedia. stop bitching. it must be doing something right since its the best source of info on the web.

Yes.  Wikipedia is the first place I usually go to get relatively unbiased info on anything.  And I get my unbiased news from Wikinews (has replaced google news).  And my search engine, Duck Duck Go usually puts a snippet of a Wikipedia article as the first search result...and that is most often all I need to get the jist of some new topic I am unfamiliar with.  In the long run, as more and more editors from different backgrounds and different knowledge bases come across some new topic, it will eventually converge to an accurate and unbiased result.  Patience is key.

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
December 14, 2010, 02:09:07 AM
 #66

Article is no longer deleted, this topic should be good for closure.

?   According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin it remains deleted.

I meant it is in the incubator and meets all criteria for inclusion, so it should be back on main wiki soon.

kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
December 14, 2010, 02:20:41 AM
 #67

We are now back on Wikipedia.

grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


View Profile
December 14, 2010, 02:39:34 AM
 #68

We are now back on Wikipedia.

It really does way too much look like a advertisement.  I'll try to make it sound more neutral when I get some time.
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
December 14, 2010, 04:26:25 AM
 #69

The first sentence is no good  Sad

The software isn't required to use the currency.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
December 14, 2010, 04:28:15 AM
 #70

The first sentence is no good  Sad

The software isn't required to use the currency.

You mean the second sentence?

grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


View Profile
December 14, 2010, 04:28:59 AM
 #71

The first sentence is no good  Sad

The software isn't required to use the currency.

It is.

I know you can use a service such as mybitcoin, but this is different.  Any currency can be "used" with a service like that.

But indirectly, the bitcoin is necessary *at some point*.  Mybitcoin.com does use the bitcoin software.  It is just behind the scene.
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
December 14, 2010, 05:28:18 AM
 #72

The first sentence is no good  Sad

The software isn't required to use the currency.

You mean the second sentence?

Yes, counting is hard for me.


The first sentence is no good  Sad

The software isn't required to use the currency.

It is.

I know you can use a service such as mybitcoin, but this is different.  Any currency can be "used" with a service like that.

But indirectly, the bitcoin is necessary *at some point*.  Mybitcoin.com does use the bitcoin software.  It is just behind the scene.


Ah, that is true. The software is required to be used by someone, having someone else do it for you doesn't really change that.

See this is why I didn't just change it myself.  Smiley

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
genjix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
December 14, 2010, 10:16:43 AM
 #73

article is back now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

thanks to everyone that took part Wink pat on our backs.

Donate to DarkWallet
Polargeo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7


View Profile
December 14, 2010, 05:31:33 PM
 #74

article is back now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

thanks to everyone that took part Wink pat on our backs.

Congrats, there are a bunch of sections that still need sources. It can only get better. But better to be back in the database then left out because of an ego.

Umm reality check. It was left out because of lack of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. I am sorry for the wikispeak but please don't delude yourself into thinking anyone had anything against Bitcoin. Wikipedia has very low standards for inclusion and Bitcoin did not meet those standards until recently.
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
December 14, 2010, 05:53:48 PM
 #75

What is with all those self-published source? The best source of how bitcoin work is the project's documentation itself.

Those media reporters are liable to get the details wrong.

Polargeo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7


View Profile
December 14, 2010, 06:01:51 PM
 #76

What is with all those self-published source? The best source of how bitcoin work is the project's documentation itself.

Those media reporters are liable to get the details wrong.

Yes self published is fine for completely uncontroversial technical details and opinions of the person self publishing. I have only tagged when the details fall outside of this. You cannot fill an article with self published information just because the article exists. It is best to just leave the stuff out. Remember it is wikipedia not the bitcoin tech page. For example "This mechanism is highly tamper-resistant." says who? Ah bitcoin.org hmmm. Wikipedia is really reliable hey. Smiley
Cdecker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 487



View Profile WWW
December 14, 2010, 08:37:39 PM
 #77

Yes self published is fine for completely uncontroversial technical details and opinions of the person self publishing. I have only tagged when the details fall outside of this. You cannot fill an article with self published information just because the article exists. It is best to just leave the stuff out. Remember it is wikipedia not the bitcoin tech page. For example "This mechanism is highly tamper-resistant." says who? Ah bitcoin.org hmmm. Wikipedia is really reliable hey. Smiley
I myself banged my head against Wikipedia not allowing self published articles as references, but I understand the reason. I for one would love to have a respected expert take a look at it and actually put it under test, at least we'd know what we're all putting time and money into Cheesy

Want to see what developers are chatting about? http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/
Bitcoin-OTC Rating
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!