BitCoin Wikipedia page DELETED!!!

[mpkomara]

the deleter's stats:
Pages deleted   839
Pages restored   1

[RHorning]

It should be pointed out that "User:Message_From_Xenu/Bitcoin" currently has the full edit history of the previous Bitcoin article, and IMHO should be what gets "moved back" if there is some substantial improvement in the article that might pass muster if another AfD were to be offered again.

Rather than fighting the tide of those supporting the deletion of this article, finding those 3rd party references would be a much better act to perform and then restore the article when an act of deletion would seem over the top.  If the community wants to continue to refine the article, that is a good place to start.

[mpkomara]

Should we try submitting bitcoin wikipedia articles in several different languages?

[ribuck]

I don't think it's worth sweating over the Wikipedia deletion.

Just leave it a month or two until there is some good third-party coverage then try again. The article should stick then.

[mpkomara]

We could let the community decide the importance of a wikipedia article by offering a bounty for the article to be undeleted in English.  You might even consider bribing the original deletist with bitcoins.  He would either a) refuse it b) accept it on the basis that third party coverage had reached sufficient wikipedia standards or c) accept it controversially which would create publicity for bitcoin.  I would offer 500 bitcoins towards that end.

[ribuck]

I think you might find that offering a bribe would be the surest way to prevent the article from being re-included.

[mpkomara]

reviving this post.  anyone want to try creating the article in Russian? Пoжaлyйcтa, coздaйтe cтaтью.  or maybe that catalan speaker is around and he can start an article.  wikipedia articles are key to credibility, so i'm not letting this go.  and where are the french?  the swiss?  the germans?  let's go, people.

[sirius]

Can we just make different language versions of a deleted page without getting them removed? Let's do it if we can. I can write a version in Finnish.

[satoshi]

If you do, I think it should be a very brief, single paragraph article like 100 words or less that simply identifies what Bitcoin is.

I wish rather than deleting the article, they put a length restriction.  If something is not famous enough, there could at least be a stub article identifying what it is.  I often come across annoying red links of things that Wiki ought to at least have heard of.

The article could be as simple as something like:
"Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer decentralised /link/electronic currency/link/."

The more standard Wiki thing to do is that we should have a paragraph in one of the more general categories that we are an instance of, like Electronic Currency or Electronic Cash.  We can probably establish a paragraph there.  Again, keep it short.  Just identifying what it is.

[RHorning]

If you do, I think it should be a very brief, single paragraph article like 100 words or less that simply identifies what Bitcoin is.

I wish rather than deleting the article, they put a length restriction.  If something is not famous enough, there could at least be a stub article identifying what it is.  I often come across annoying red links of things that Wiki ought to at least have heard of.

The article could be as simple as something like:
"Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer decentralised /link/electronic currency/link/."

The more standard Wiki thing to do is that we should have a paragraph in one of the more general categories that we are an instance of, like Electronic Currency or Electronic Cash.  We can probably establish a paragraph there.  Again, keep it short.  Just identifying what it is.

I'm not a huge fan of the notability rules, but they do serve a purpose in terms of culling out content that is meaningless.  If you don't put in some standards, then you will find Wikipedia articles on all 80+ billion people who have ever lived in history and an article on literally everybody's house, bedroom, or even piece of tile in your bathroom.

To keep people from literally just making stuff up, Wikipedia insists upon outside "2nd opinions" that talk about a particular topic.  This isn't happening with Bitcoins at the moment and the problem is that besides a few bloggers there isn't anybody really talking about Bitcoins.

If you want to help Bitcoins, spread the word to other outlets and let people know it exists.  If you can, write an article in The Economist or perhaps a journal that isn't so big of a deal but still will be seen by a whole bunch of people.  Write up something in the ACM Journal that talks about the issues involved with developing Bitcoins.  If you do this, it will not only let a larger group of people know about Bitcoins, but it will justify why Bitcoins deserves a Wikipedia entry.

Don't put the cart before the horse here.  What is being done with Wikipedia is to use it as a publicity forum when in fact that isn't the purpose of Wikipedia.  If you want to publicize the project, get it publicized.  Go out and spread the word and let people know about the idea.  But please don't piss everybody off in the process too.

[ribuck]

Now that the EFF is accepting bitcoin donations, I wrote to the Wikipedia Admin who deleted the Bitcoin article:

Hi JohnCD,

I think it may be time to consider undeleting the Bitcoin article.

The bitcoin economy has grown to over a million dollars, and the number of businesses using it has continued to grow. Indeed, the Electronic Frontier Foundation accepts Bitcoin donations - how ironic that the EFF uses a currency that is not able to be explained by a Wikipedia article.

Is there a way by which we can formally reopen the discussion about the Bitcoin article?

[Anonymous]

Now that the EFF is accepting bitcoin donations, I wrote to the Wikipedia Admin who deleted the Bitcoin article:

Hi JohnCD,

I think it may be time to consider undeleting the Bitcoin article.

The bitcoin economy has grown to over a million dollars, and the number of businesses using it has continued to grow. Indeed, the Electronic Frontier Foundation accepts Bitcoin donations - how ironic that the EFF uses a currency that is not able to be explained by a Wikipedia article.

Is there a way by which we can formally reopen the discussion about the Bitcoin article?

Lets hope they come to their senses. I am starting to hear bitcoin mentioned in different podcasts now.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Lets hope they come to their senses. I am starting to hear bitcoin mentioned in different podcasts now.

Can you name some of that podcasts ?

BTW,
nonagendamarket, I wonder where do You get all the info about new articles about bitcoin ? Do you just google bitcoin regularly, or is it something more ?

[sirius]

nonagendamarket, I wonder where do You get all the info about new articles about bitcoin ? Do you just google bitcoin regularly, or is it something more ?

Twitter search brings up interesting stuff these days.

[Anonymous]

Lets hope they come to their senses. I am starting to hear bitcoin mentioned in different podcasts now.

Can you name some of that podcasts ?

BTW,
nonagendamarket, I wonder where do You get all the info about new articles about bitcoin ? Do you just google bitcoin regularly, or is it something more ?

I monitor twitter constantly and answer questions about bitcoin.  I also have google alerts setup .

Here's one I heard about the recent bubble....
http://surkanstance.blogspot.com/2010/11/this-week-on-bear-radio-recent-bitcoin.html

Free Talk Live sometimes talk about alternative currencies. Ive heard them mention bitcoin twice.
http://www.freetalklive.com/

 Mike Gogulski -The Stateless Man   (He also accepts bitcoin )
http://www.nostate.com/?s=bitcoin




http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/luongo7.1.1.html -also a podcast and Lew Rockwell is the largest liberty blog in the world.

[RHorning]

This is a follow-up regarding the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_December_12

The Bitcoin article is up for deletion review again, this time I think the undeletion is going to stick.  I realize that there are many in the Bitcoin community who are not thrilled with the deletion process on Wikipedia, and that is understandable.  With the more recent articles that have come up, the "notability" of Bitcoin is not longer in dispute.

Help with the article would certainly be useful from this point on, or with related concepts as they come up from time to time, but the article is going back up, and is much better written this time around too.

Unless you are semi-regular on Wikipedia, I'd suggest you refrain from commenting on the deletion review and simply let it run its course.  Concentrate on the content of the article instead, and I give some extra kudos to those who have contributed to developing the article over the past couple of months.

[ribuck]

It looks like the article will be restored. But one point that keeps being raised is that many of the article's references are to pages in this forum. If anyone can replace a forum reference with a reference to a page that has no perceived conflict of interest, that would help.

[genjix]

It looks like the article will be restored. But one point that keeps being raised is that many of the article's references are to pages in this forum. If anyone can replace a forum reference with a reference to a page that has no perceived conflict of interest, that would help.

Unlikely since other sources don't go into as much technical depth as do the forums.

[Timo Y]

Shit, that Wikipedia admin is seriously starting to suffer from paranoia. Now he is even accusing us of hacking into dormant Wikipedia accounts to promote the subject. *rolls eyes*

Maybe we should just leave Wikipedia alone. Soner or later Bitcoin will appear there by itself anyhow.

[Polargeo]

An external discussion where you encourage each other to go and take action on wikipedia and then that happens is against wikipedia rules. No paranoia needed. And a discussion in which you call me an "ice-hole" meaning ass-hole is just amusing to me.