Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 02:30:20 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Should we ban X on Y - the meta discussion  (Read 3211 times)
LMGTFY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644



View Profile
May 02, 2011, 04:32:27 PM
 #1

tl;dr: Make the bitcoin wiki official; make this forum unofficial.

This is prompted by three recent threads...
...and also my ongoing confusion as to why we have an official forum and an unofficial wiki.

Before going further, I'll set out my stall: I'm very much in the "ban nothing" camp, tempered slightly by the "don't do harm to forum administrators" camp. However, I'm also mindful that not every bitcoin user shares my views, and that we want - presumably - to build up bitcoin's userbase. This latter point means that public relations needs to be a consideration.

I mentioned my confusion as to why the wiki is unofficial. This is, I realise, an accident of history. The wiki was set up by some kind soul at bitcoin.it, it's utility was recognised, and it became - effectively - semi-official. All well and good, and the person or people who set up the wiki should be applauded. However, the wiki is such a key part of bitcoin education, and, by and large, so uncontroversial, that I believe it should be brought under the umbrella of the official site. Or, alternatively, a new wiki be set up here, and the content ported over - with attribution.

What does this have to do with drugs, porn and Christian religious services?

I believe that the official site should focus on bitcoin itself, not the views of thousands of forum posters, and not the controversies posts sometimes stir up. I think it's reasonable, from a PR perspective, for the official site to discuss some of the things bitcoins can be used to purchase. I also think it's reasonable to acknowledge that - like cash - bitcoins can be used for things many people might disapprove of. I'm not convinced, anymore, that granting some sort of official status to those things is helpful. For that matter, promoting the purchase of anything might be seen as favouring one supplier - i.e. as biased.

My proposal as regards the forum is that it be moved from the official site, but linked from the main site in the same way that the wiki is now. The forum would, presumably, still be governed by some jurisdiction, so allowing discussion on certain topics would remain problematic, but the argument that it's bad PR for bitcoin would no longer apply. We would, in some ways, be more free than we are now.

Thoughts? Am I right? What have I missed out? Is this feasible from a technical standpoint? Should I find more productive ways to spend a bank holiday? :-)

This space intentionally left blank.
1480905020
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480905020

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480905020
Reply with quote  #2

1480905020
Report to moderator
1480905020
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480905020

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480905020
Reply with quote  #2

1480905020
Report to moderator
1480905020
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480905020

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480905020
Reply with quote  #2

1480905020
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
epii
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196



View Profile
May 02, 2011, 04:46:50 PM
 #2

Should we ban meta meta discussions in meta discussions?  Wink

I agree that having an official forum is a liability.  I don't know whether the wiki should be official, but I think, if there's an official anything, there ought to be at least some sort of official support system.  (Closest there is right now other than the forum, I would guess, is reporting a bug on the sourceforge project page.)

Vires In Numeris.
mewantsbitcoins
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
May 02, 2011, 04:50:09 PM
 #3

The userbase that is going to build up, don't even care enough to express their opinion and vote. They will be the first leaving the sinking ship instead of repairing it, while the rest who really care will suffer.
I don't think there was any pressure from wiki or any other legal threats against those links. It is clearly a decision made in someone's personal interest. All and any information should be free. THIS DECISION IS A LOAD SHIT!
epii
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196



View Profile
May 02, 2011, 04:53:21 PM
 #4

The userbase that is going to build up, don't even care enough to express their opinion and vote. They will be the first leaving the sinking ship instead of repairing it, while the rest who really care will suffer.
I don't think there was any pressure from wiki or any other legal threats against those links. It is clearly a decision made in someone's personal interest. All and any information should be free. THIS DECISION IS A LOAD SHIT!
There was a decision?

Vires In Numeris.
mewantsbitcoins
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
May 02, 2011, 04:55:19 PM
 #5

The userbase that is going to build up, don't even care enough to express their opinion and vote. They will be the first leaving the sinking ship instead of repairing it, while the rest who really care will suffer.
I don't think there was any pressure from wiki or any other legal threats against those links. It is clearly a decision made in someone's personal interest. All and any information should be free. THIS DECISION IS A LOAD SHIT!
There was a decision?

https://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=6602.msg103057#msg103057
rebuilder
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1618



View Profile
May 02, 2011, 04:55:30 PM
 #6

I still think trade will need to move elsewhere, for a number of reasons. Of course, then you get the question of whether it's good for bitcoin.org to link to trade sites that have links to sites where people trade controversial goods and services...

Selling out to advertisers shows you respect neither yourself nor the rest of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Too many low-quality posts? Mods not keeping things clean enough? Self-moderated threads let you keep signature spammers and trolls out!
sortedmush
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


The geek shall inherit the earth.


View Profile
May 02, 2011, 04:58:02 PM
 #7

I still think trade will need to move elsewhere, for a number of reasons. Of course, then you get the question of whether it's good for bitcoin.org to link to trade sites that have links to sites where people trade controversial goods and services...

Yep, turtles all the way down. This is what happens when a bullshit idea is implemented. A fractal question gets generated.
mewantsbitcoins
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
May 02, 2011, 04:58:13 PM
 #8

I still think trade will need to move elsewhere, for a number of reasons. Of course, then you get the question of whether it's good for bitcoin.org to link to trade sites that have links to sites where people trade controversial goods and services...

Trade IS elswhere. Nobody's trading on the wiki. It's just a god damn link! A piece of INFORMATION.
epii
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196



View Profile
May 02, 2011, 04:58:41 PM
 #9

The userbase that is going to build up, don't even care enough to express their opinion and vote. They will be the first leaving the sinking ship instead of repairing it, while the rest who really care will suffer.
I don't think there was any pressure from wiki or any other legal threats against those links. It is clearly a decision made in someone's personal interest. All and any information should be free. THIS DECISION IS A LOAD SHIT!
There was a decision?

https://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=6602.msg103057#msg103057
Gotcha, thanks for the link.  In keeping with the meta discussion theme, I saw all those threads but never read any of them... I just assumed that the debate was still ongoing.  Roll Eyes

Vires In Numeris.
kgo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 548


View Profile
May 02, 2011, 05:32:54 PM
 #10

The wiki is currently throwing a mysql error.  Hoping this isn't another DDoS directed at MagicalTux.

EDIT:  Nope.  It's back after a few minutes.  Apologies in advance if this starts any conspiracy theories.
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492


View Profile
May 02, 2011, 08:43:54 PM
 #11

Or, alternatively, a new wiki be set up here, and the content ported over - with attribution.

The reverse happened. There was an official wiki, but it was ported over to the unofficial wiki with attribution. It was decided that decentralization of the community is a good thing.

Nothing is really official. Maybe some people view weusecoins.com as the "official" Bitcoin page. If you don't like existing policies, start a competing site.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
epii
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196



View Profile
May 02, 2011, 08:49:35 PM
 #12

There shouldn't be any "official" anything
But until there are major forks of the software, there will still be "official" head developers, and they're inevitably going to be forced into the role of spokespeople for Bitcoin until they pull a Satoshi and vanish.  For the time being, officialness of some sort is unavoidable.  When bitcoin.org becomes just a "fansite" and is owned by someone who isn't involved in the development of Bitcoin, then we'll be on our way toward decentralization of representation.

Vires In Numeris.
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492


View Profile
May 02, 2011, 08:56:54 PM
 #13

Sorry, I edited that sentence to something more precise before you replied.

Bitcoin.org is owned by uninvolved people. Sirius does not code, and Satoshi is no longer involved.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
epii
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196



View Profile
May 02, 2011, 08:59:31 PM
 #14

Sorry, I edited that sentence to something more precise before you replied.

Bitcoin.org is owned by uninvolved people. Sirius does not code, and Satoshi is no longer involved.
Sirius, eh?  Just assumed it was Gavin who took over from Satoshi...  My bad.

Vires In Numeris.
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492


View Profile
May 02, 2011, 09:01:43 PM
 #15

Sirius, eh?  Just assumed it was Gavin who took over from Satoshi...  My bad.

Sirius has always hosted bitcoin.org, and Satoshi has always held the domain. Gavin is an administrator, of course.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
LMGTFY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644



View Profile
May 02, 2011, 09:16:11 PM
 #16

Or, alternatively, a new wiki be set up here, and the content ported over - with attribution.

The reverse happened. There was an official wiki, but it was ported over to the unofficial wiki with attribution. It was decided that decentralization of the community is a good thing.
Ah, that's interesting. I'm OK with the wiki staying where it is, it's less of an issue I think than...

Nothing is really official. Maybe some people view weusecoins.com as the "official" Bitcoin page. If you don't like existing policies, start a competing site.
But rightly or wrongly, bitcoin.org is seen as the official site at the moment. I think weusecoins.com has potential to be seen like this, and they seem to be mindful of that, and keen to avoid controversial topics (I think, based on discussions about video content for example). If bitcoin.org isn't "official" (and it's difficult to see how it could be, now I think about it and knowing a bit more about its history and who's involved) it's probably worth making that clear - it plays well to bitcoin's decentralised nature, as well - "the community, like bitcoin itself, is decentralised - this is but one site, there's also [insert useful list here]".

I'm fine with existing policies - I mentioned in my original post that I'm very definitely in the "no banning topics, except to keep the site admins safe"-camp. My concern is the folk here who don't agree with that - and the numerous threads debating what should and should not be allowed on this forum as a result. Shifting the forum elsewhere serves two purposes - it makes debate on the forum more free, and - and thanks for pointing this out ;-) - it serves to decentralise the community.

This space intentionally left blank.
reigjrigjeri
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1


View Profile
May 03, 2011, 02:01:12 AM
 #17

Fully in his right to do this, but I do hope somebody makes a new free wiki and that his changes its name to The Bitcoin Neoconservative wiki.
mizerydearia
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574



View Profile
May 04, 2011, 10:17:48 PM
 #18

It's not exactly a wiki, but allows user-generated content:  Feel free to submit sites to http://bitcoinsites.witcoin.com/ without fear of censorship from witcoin.
eMansipater
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile WWW
May 04, 2011, 10:20:23 PM
 #19

Perhaps this thread should be moved to the new meta board?

If you found my post helpful, feel free to send a small tip to 1QGukeKbBQbXHtV6LgkQa977LJ3YHXXW8B
Visit the BitCoin Q&A Site to ask questions or share knowledge.
0.009 BTC too confusing?  Use mBTC instead!  Details at www.em-bit.org or visit the project thread to help make Bitcoin prices more human-friendly.
LMGTFY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644



View Profile
May 04, 2011, 10:22:23 PM
 #20

Perhaps this thread should be moved to the new meta board?
Agreed - done!


This space intentionally left blank.
Pages: [1]
  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!