Original, biased:
Quote
A large share of such commercial use is believed to be for illicit drug and gambling transactions.
New:
Quote
Illicit drug and gambling transactions are believed to constitute a share of such usage.
Topic: Bitcoin article on Wikipedia - page 2. (Read 3272 times)
I rewrote the disputed sentence to have a NPOV. WP:UNDUE does not apply here because Bitcoin is commonly, even if incorrectly, associated with illicit transactions.
Original, biased:
New:
Original, biased:
New:
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
It has already been reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_dollar&diff=554353401&oldid=554252666
Now use this as a precedent and ask for a resolution on the matter of "bitcoin".
It has already been reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_dollar&diff=554353401&oldid=554252666
It was a bad idea mentioning bitcoin in your edit comment - this shows that you're making the edit as a 'statement' rather than as a fact. Even with a valid reference, it will get reverted and won't last long because of this lack of neutral point of view.
Will
Will
With a reference to back it up too! Legend!
They say that what we're selling is illegal.
Ask them to explain to you fully what they mean by this.
If they mean selling currency on their website is illegal then they're making a fair point. If their reasoning is...
Quote
...they quotes this line from the Wikipedia article on Bitcoin: "A large share of such commercial use is believed to be for illicit drug and gambling transactions."
...then ask them to explain why that's relevant.
If they can't explain, ask them to get their lawyers to explain it to you.
I'd be very interested to hear their reply.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
So someone very (un)kindly reported one of our Bitcoin listings on the local auction/shopping site (basically an eBay clone, but they've been around for like 10 years). They say that what we're selling is illegal. In defense of their report they quotes this line from the Wikipedia article on Bitcoin: "A large share of such commercial use is believed to be for illicit drug and gambling transactions."
Despite ongoing discussions in the Talk section of that article, and despite the quoted references simply not saying that, it seems that the sentence stands and is not going to be modified or removed. In disagreement with this, I've updated the Wikipedia article on the US Dollar and added in this line a few days ago: "A significant share of the commercial use of U.S. dollar bills is believed to be for illicit drug and gambling transactions." I do not think that the Bitcoin article should list such a specious "fact" without any evidence to support it, and most definitely not in the opening paragraphs.
So...does anybody have any sway as a Wikipedia editor that can either remove this "fact" or at least move it to a different part of the article and make it clear that it is supposition?
Despite ongoing discussions in the Talk section of that article, and despite the quoted references simply not saying that, it seems that the sentence stands and is not going to be modified or removed. In disagreement with this, I've updated the Wikipedia article on the US Dollar and added in this line a few days ago: "A significant share of the commercial use of U.S. dollar bills is believed to be for illicit drug and gambling transactions." I do not think that the Bitcoin article should list such a specious "fact" without any evidence to support it, and most definitely not in the opening paragraphs.
So...does anybody have any sway as a Wikipedia editor that can either remove this "fact" or at least move it to a different part of the article and make it clear that it is supposition?
You've done exactly what I would have done. Shove people's hypocrisy right in their faces by using these tactics to set precedents.
Brilliant!
We should add it to every currency's wikipedia page. Because, well, it's probably true. And wikipedia is all about stuff that is probably true.
I had to go look up the US dollar on Wikipedia to see that for my own eyes. Its really there, and that is really awesome.
Well, it isn't wrong.
Brilliant! 
LOL! Win
So someone very (un)kindly reported one of our Bitcoin listings on the local auction/shopping site (basically an eBay clone, but they've been around for like 10 years). They say that what we're selling is illegal. In defense of their report they quotes this line from the Wikipedia article on Bitcoin: "A large share of such commercial use is believed to be for illicit drug and gambling transactions."
Despite ongoing discussions in the Talk section of that article, and despite the quoted references simply not saying that, it seems that the sentence stands and is not going to be modified or removed. In disagreement with this, I've updated the Wikipedia article on the US Dollar and added in this line a few days ago: "A significant share of the commercial use of U.S. dollar bills is believed to be for illicit drug and gambling transactions." I do not think that the Bitcoin article should list such a specious "fact" without any evidence to support it, and most definitely not in the opening paragraphs.
So...does anybody have any sway as a Wikipedia editor that can either remove this "fact" or at least move it to a different part of the article and make it clear that it is supposition?
Despite ongoing discussions in the Talk section of that article, and despite the quoted references simply not saying that, it seems that the sentence stands and is not going to be modified or removed. In disagreement with this, I've updated the Wikipedia article on the US Dollar and added in this line a few days ago: "A significant share of the commercial use of U.S. dollar bills is believed to be for illicit drug and gambling transactions." I do not think that the Bitcoin article should list such a specious "fact" without any evidence to support it, and most definitely not in the opening paragraphs.
So...does anybody have any sway as a Wikipedia editor that can either remove this "fact" or at least move it to a different part of the article and make it clear that it is supposition?
Jump to: