Wikipedia Raises 237 BTC Through Donations In One Week

[cosix]

how much is coinbase charging Wikipedia for this?

[pawel7777]

how much is coinbase charging Wikipedia for this?

I believe it's zero. They support charities free of charge.

[bryant.coleman]

I'd rather donate to wikileaks than wikipedia. It's quite an inspiring story if it's true that they survived on bitcoin.

My thoughts, exactly. Wikileaks stands for a noble cause. On the other hand, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of greedy people who survive on bribes from the organized cabals who control many of its articles (especially in the politics and religion sections).

[Sheldor333]

Glad to hear this. It will surely get some other sites to do the same because of this. It's a great way to help both Wikipedia stay up and get the news of Bitcoin across.

[$erver-X]

btc is becoming very popular as donations and i wish soon it becomes a legal currency and is accepted everywhere....

[Light]

On the other hand, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of greedy people who survive on bribes from the organized cabals who control many of its articles (especially in the politics and religion sections).

Really, I thought with Wikipedia it was free for the public to edit - although moderated to remove useless and incorrect material that hadn't had proper citing. Are you trying to say that the articles are designed to be biased towards specific causes?

[QuestionAuthority]

On the other hand, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of greedy people who survive on bribes from the organized cabals who control many of its articles (especially in the politics and religion sections).

Really, I thought with Wikipedia it was free for the public to edit - although moderated to remove useless and incorrect material that hadn't had proper citing. Are you trying to say that the articles are designed to be biased towards specific causes?

You're just figuring this out? You must live in a cave. Much of Wikipedia is massively skewed. Selective omission makes it almost useless. It's a small step above Urban Dictionary.

[factor280]

Impressive. Showing the power of BTC right here in full force.

[pawel7777]

I'd rather donate to wikileaks than wikipedia. It's quite an inspiring story if it's true that they survived on bitcoin.

My thoughts, exactly. Wikileaks stands for a noble cause. On the other hand, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of greedy people who survive on bribes from the organized cabals who control many of its articles (especially in the politics and religion sections).

Any proof/source of Wikimedia taking a bribes?

They may not be perfect, you can disagree with many entries (especially on sensitive subjects) but there's no question that Wikipedia is a great source of knowledge for the masses.

[odolvlobo]

I'd rather donate to wikileaks than wikipedia. It's quite an inspiring story if it's true that they survived on bitcoin.

My thoughts, exactly. Wikileaks stands for a noble cause. On the other hand, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of greedy people who survive on bribes from the organized cabals who control many of its articles (especially in the politics and religion sections).

I believe that as much as I believe the statement that Bitcoin is controlled by the criminals running the Bitcoin Foundation.

[QuestionAuthority]

There's no organized group ruining Wikipedia. That's total bullshit. The average contributor is ruining it. People make Wikipedia subjects because they want to support their own viewpoint. They put enough supporting evidence with citations (which are frequently left unverified) to support their idea and omit anything to the contrary. It's not reviewed and supervised by a university. This makes Wikipedia nothing more that an elaborate story board of half fiction.

[jjc326]

Wikipedia seems like a great thing to use bitcoins on. They arent like some massive corporation. They don't really run with a lot of overhead and they are completely digital. So it's great to see bitcoins being used for such a good purpose.

[bryant.coleman]

On the other hand, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of greedy people who survive on bribes from the organized cabals who control many of its articles (especially in the politics and religion sections).

Really, I thought with Wikipedia it was free for the public to edit - although moderated to remove useless and incorrect material that hadn't had proper citing. Are you trying to say that the articles are designed to be biased towards specific causes?

99% of the Wiki articles are fine. They are neutral. But there is the remaining 1% of the articles (especially in the religion and politics sections), which organized cabals are controlling. Even these articles are free to edit. But if you edit with unfavorable information, then those edits will be removed by the cabal and if you continue editing the page, you will be perma-banned using the most silly excuses. (I knew this because I was one of the most active editors with Wikipedia until 2011).

[Ilsk]

Where can I found the updated data about wikipedia btc donation?

[ajareselde]

I'd rather donate to wikileaks than wikipedia. It's quite an inspiring story if it's true that they survived on bitcoin.

My thoughts, exactly. Wikileaks stands for a noble cause. On the other hand, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of greedy people who survive on bribes from the organized cabals who control many of its articles (especially in the politics and religion sections).

I believe that as much as I believe the statement that Bitcoin is controlled by the criminals running the Bitcoin Foundation.

Hear everything, trust nothing..
One can only suspect, but to know is something else. Unlike wikileaks, wikipedia seams more "socialy acceptable", and for
that reason i believe there are many thing around it not as innocent as they appear.

[harles9]

I'm guessing they don't have one address to send to, so their information can't be verified.  I wouldn't be surprised if they got less, but are inflating the number to make it seem a more lucrative prospect to other potential donatees.

[zedicus]

On the other hand, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of greedy people who survive on bribes from the organized cabals who control many of its articles (especially in the politics and religion sections).

Really, I thought with Wikipedia it was free for the public to edit - although moderated to remove useless and incorrect material that hadn't had proper citing. Are you trying to say that the articles are designed to be biased towards specific causes?

Wiki articles are rarely moderated and only are in the most extreme of extreme examples. Even when they are moderated the moderation is so that only people with older accounts that have successfully edited many other articles over time can edit specific articles. It is almost like they are moderated by the community.

Wiki articles are suppose to be neutral and when they are not they are flagged to be updated.