Pages:
Author

Topic: I never thought I would say this, but... (Read 267 times)

newbie
Activity: 15
Merit: 2
December 27, 2023, 04:20:46 AM
#25
....I no longer think Wikipedia is a reliable source for cryptocurrency topics.

This is crazy, because the Elongated Xmorons all say that Wikipedia is untrustworthy for anything. But I have a different reason for why this is true for any cryptocurrency topics on Wikipedia.

A few hours ago, I made four edits to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency_tumbler Each edit added new information to each section. In particular, one of the edits added a paragraph about Sinbad's seizing, and another provided information about law enforcement seizing stolen coins from the Atomic Wallet hack on exchanges.

Within minutes, all of these edits were reverted. Reason? "Unsourced or unreliable sources".

You can't make this up. This is what it looked like before my edits:

Quote
Tumblers take a percentage transaction fee of the total coins mixed to turn a profit, typically 1–3%.[3] Mixing helps protect privacy and can also be used for money laundering by mixing illegally obtained funds. Mixing large amounts of money may be illegal, being in violation of anti-structuring laws. Financial crimes author Jeffrey Robinson has suggested tumblers should be criminalized due to their potential use in illegal activities, specifically funding terrorism;[3] however, a report from the CTC suggests such use in terrorism-related activities is "relatively limited".[4] There has been at least one incident where an exchange has blacklisted "tainted" deposits descending from stolen bitcoins.[citation needed]

...

Another alternative to mixing services are "privacy wallets", allowing users to exchange bitcoin in an untraceable manner using so-called CoinJoin Bitcoin Mixer transactions. Since no central server is involved, this eliminates the problem of a mixing server stealing money or acting as a law enforcement honeypot. In recent years, criminals have increasingly moved from mixing services to privacy wallets.[citation needed]

Here is after my edits:

Quote
It is illegal to use mixers to hide money that comes from criminal activities, such as ransomware, controlled substances, and darknet marketplaces, as frequently these transactions are both large and in violation of anti-money laundering laws. Financial crimes author Jeffrey Robinson has suggested tumblers should be criminalized due to their potential use in illegal activities, specifically funding terrorism;[3] however, a report from the CTC suggests such use in terrorism-related activities is "relatively limited".[4] There has been at least one incident where an exchange has blacklisted "tainted" deposits descending from stolen bitcoins.[5]

The existence of tumblers has made the anonymous use of darknet markets easier and the job of law enforcement harder.[6] In response to this, blockchain analysis firms have used techniques to trace the transaction activity of many tumbler users.[7]

...

Privacy wallets that use CoinJoin technology are generally accepted to provide stronger anonymity than a crypto currency tumbler{{Cite web |title=Coin Mixing and CoinJoins Explained |url=https://academy.binance.com/en/articles/coin-mixing-and-coinjoins-explained |url-status=live |access-date=2023-12-26 |website=Binance Academy}}, especially if the wallet is open-source. Whereas it is often doubtful whether a tumbler keeps logs, despite many often claiming not to keep any, users are able to verify whether the wallet is sending personal information anywhere either by inspecting the codebase, or capturing [[Wireshark]] packets.

== Money laundering ==
Despite tumblers often providing legitimate services for users, they are frequently abused by cyber-criminals to launder cryptocurrencies, usually stolen bitcoin from exchanges. In response, many governments have taken action to seize tumblers suspected of helping, or attempting to help, facilitate money laundering.

...

In November 2023, the tumbler Sinbad.io was seized by [[Fiscal Information and Investigation Service|FIOD]], and its addresses were subsequently sanctioned by the Department of the Treasury. It was claimed that over 40% of its transactions were illegitimate and the service was used by [[North Korea]] to evade sanctions.{{Cite web |title=FIOD takes large crypto currency mixer off the air |url=https://www.fiod.nl/fiod-takes-large-crypto-currency-mixer-off-the-air/}}{{Cite web |title=Treasury Sanctions Mixer Used by the DPRK to Launder Stolen Virtual Currency |url=https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1933}}

Why do people want to keep clearly wrong information like "mixing large amounts of money may be illegal, being in violation of anti-structuring laws" and "In recent years, criminals have increasingly moved from mixing services to privacy wallets" on a public wiki? Not only that, but the article clearly looks like it was written 10 years ago with no updating of important subject material.

This is why:

1) having alternate wikis is important
2) discussion about any kind of cryptocurrency topic, including ones you may not like, should not be censored.
Well, it's going to be a hot take. Personally, I don't use Wikipedia at all, mainly because I accidentally included false information in my uni paper a couple of years ago, and it's still a trauma for me haha. Seriously though, I don't really believe in community-monitored sources of information. Nobody pays people to find and edit false information on Wikipedia, so what's really the incentive?
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 672
Top Crypto Casino
December 26, 2023, 12:16:59 PM
#24
....I no longer think Wikipedia is a reliable source for cryptocurrency topics.
I think you're right Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for crypto-currencies and topics related to crypto-currencies because anyone can edit it and sometimes with wrong information. I have never been fan of Wikipedia and I don't really use that site anymore myself but most people still use Wikipedia to search for topics that are related to crypto-currencies.

I think we should create a good Wiki site where we may share information about all topics related to crypto-currencies but unfortunately none of the crypto-currency users are interested in creating a wiki like that and that's why Wikipedia will continue to share unreliable information with ctypto users. Even if we create a wiki site ourselves it will still be very hard to rank that wiki on Google or any other search engine. I hope to see such a site in future maybe.
copper member
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1280
https://linktr.ee/crwthopia
December 26, 2023, 12:04:16 PM
#23
I'm sorry that you had to go through that after the effort that you have made. You get to do edits and have it removed by the mods. It seems like in the post you are citing sources from sites that have a good reputation so far and even have the treasury sanctions on mixers etc. Maybe the one approving and handling it is biased and doesn't want to really "show" that it's illegal or something like that

Are there any alternatives out there that are reputable?
legendary
Activity: 3248
Merit: 1402
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
December 26, 2023, 11:55:45 AM
#22
Wikipedia can be okay as a starting ground for further research, but it's best to refer to a topic that is popular and not controversial. If it's a neutral but unpopular topic, someone may have written something that nobody really bothered to check and correct. If it's controversial, a lot depends on the admins, who can have their own biases and make different kinds of decisions.
It's unfortunate that reasonable edits are being reverted by someone. It's counterproductive.
The op's story is a good reminder that it's important to fact-check Wikipedia information.
sr. member
Activity: 1008
Merit: 366
December 26, 2023, 11:45:22 AM
#21
I know Wikipedia doesn't take blogs as a reliable source of information for references but prefer references cited from books, publications, and reputable international and local newspapers. So, if you had backed up your corrections with blog posts, they may likely revert it back to former since, the initial may have more backing.

At no point did I cite any blogs. All results were from news websites that apparently weren't "credible enough" according to the guy who was reading it, so what do they want me to do? Forage for articles from the New York Times? They don't have any about this topic.

Although it is generally accepted that (some) Atomic wallet hacked funds being frozen on exchanges is true, so maybe they are just looking at an internal list of allowed websites.
Don't worry mate. You did your job and someone else out there didn't like it so they change it to their own liking. You cannot satisfy everyone around you. The internet nowadays is a circus. People are spreading knowledge that are not even knowledge like crazy. It's hard to determine which one is legit and which one is fake. Not having hands-on experience will always lead to problems. Learning it from the main source is the best way to do it as you cannot find reliable source anywhere on the internet.
Maybe in the past it was a good thing. Anything you have no knowledge about all you need to do is do a little search on Wikipedia or something like that. But nowadays, everyone is so "knowledgeable". They just keep on spreading fake news based on their liking. And the governments are taking advantage of this scenario and leading people to believe whatever they want them to believe. There is no trust anymore.
You have done your part right, but someone out there didn't like it. It's not your problem but it's their problem. Let them have it. They will face the consequences when the time is right. Just wait and enjoy the show.

I don't know why but I choose to do my research on Reddit more than Wikipedia. You can ask people and gather all kind of knowledge from everyone and then compare everything to come up with one single outcome. I think that's the best way you can do your research. There are other platforms but I mostly choose Reddit.
copper member
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1609
Bitcoin Bottom was at $15.4k
December 26, 2023, 10:41:01 AM
#20
I won't lie, I haven't visited Wikipedia for like 6 months now. I get my news from Twitter these days and it's much more reliable as you get community noted if you post false information.
Also, it depends which accounts you follow. I have been following some reliable sources and it's been easy to track stuff happening in Crypto.
sr. member
Activity: 1316
Merit: 356
December 26, 2023, 10:33:01 AM
#19
Wikipedia is a helpful website that has an abundance of knowledge. However, this does not imply that all of the information is correct and up to date, as this might be done manually. As you have stated, Wikipedia is not well established in terms of some cryptocurrency facts. I recognize that folks who don't know the full cause are more likely to react or condemn anything, and Wikipedia is exactly that in terms of crypto. I believe that there is a big guy behind that issue.
hero member
Activity: 1120
Merit: 887
Livecasino.io
December 26, 2023, 08:34:49 AM
#18
....I no longer think Wikipedia is a reliable source for cryptocurrency topics.
Even as undergrads our professors would often caution us not to use wikipedia during our research as it is not a reliable source of information. And when we talk about cryptocurrency, I thought everyone already knew this. Literally anyone can edit an article on Wikipedia. I can say that it is a site where non-experts, critics, haters, can edit any article. It looks like there are circles and groups of people who secretly get paid to sabotage and edit certain articles on Wikipedia for the sponsor's advantage. Obviously cryptocurrencies have not been spared.

sr. member
Activity: 1022
Merit: 277
★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!
December 26, 2023, 08:29:05 AM
#17
Wikipedia has been one of my most used sites for search and study, due to their reference and other abilities. I find them useful, though I have not found any misinformation from them before. However thanks for the observation, at least I will be judgemental now when using their site even if Majority of my search on crypto related topics are done on other platforms. Anyway there are other good platforms that can provide more accurate details, so all we need to do is to hit the search button and find the best solution to our desires, rather than using some bunch of misinformed site.

Yeah right, same here! wikipedia has been one of my go to sites when I'm studying before because I'm too lazy browsing my books. Just like you, I find it very useful and convenient for me during those days but I realized that sometimes, not everything we read on wikipedia is correct because it is edited by people who have the ability to do so, they can easily change the information and it is even possible to cause any bad things to the readers. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, content can be changed by anyone for any reason. Therefore, each article will most likely be written by someone who has a passion for the topic and therefore a bias for or against it.
sr. member
Activity: 686
Merit: 332
December 26, 2023, 08:14:24 AM
#16
Wikipedia is a site that needs a lot of confirmations and verifications, so I don't think relying on it for daily updates is a good idea. It's not just in cryptocurrency topics, but sports topics and other topics in general.
For example, if I check for the total stats of a soccer player, it's never accurate on Wikipedia.

That also doesn't mean it's not a reliable source though. Just that they're not always up to date like you said and that is something that can be fixed.

About your update that wasn't approved, are there any other channels you can communicate this to whoever is responsible for that?
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 254
DAKE.GG - CASINO AND SLOTS | UP TO 230% BONUS
December 26, 2023, 07:33:24 AM
#15
Wikipedia is never a reliable source. It can be a useful starting point for research and gathering general information on a topic, but it is generally not considered a reliable source for academic or critical research. This is because Wikipedia is a collaborative platform where anyone can edit and contribute to articles. While there are dedicated Wikipedia editors who strive to maintain accuracy, errors and biased information can still find their way into articles.

Mate, I want to learn from you, this is the first time am getting of this kind of information that Wikipedia is not a good platform for authentic information, but the truth is I can't doubt you because I don't know your level of research, when I was in school I consider Wikipedia as one of the platform to get information, I love learning all the time because learning is everyday thing and when you are not learning you become ignorant of what you don't know, I just learned something from you now, I now have the knowledge that Wikipedia information not very authentic, so I won't to ask can you recommend any other search platforms that is helpful, thanks.
hero member
Activity: 952
Merit: 555
December 26, 2023, 07:16:36 AM
#14
What i think is best for now is to make use of more than one source for anything we are getting online through a particular source, when it comes to crypto updates, some only make use of cointelegragh, coingecko, coinmarketcap or GitHub for any updates or information required, many thought about that Wikipedia is the best and most reliable but it's not streamlined towards the crypto aspect like the general scope it covers, thanks for giving us clue about this.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 6660
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
December 26, 2023, 07:01:06 AM
#13
We have bitcoin.it, good alternative to my mind. In overall, it's very hard to have a censorship-free website because it's human nature to favour certain opinions. To my mind, it will be the best to have dedicated Wiki with two articles, one which favours one opinion with arguments and proofs and another one which favours alternative opinion with alternative arguments and proofs. This will be the best solution to my mind.

I am actually an editor at Bitcoin Wiki so I might teleport my edits there, but it would be slightly difficult to adapt to the style of their Mixer entry which ironically I also created (most of the content).
hero member
Activity: 2352
Merit: 905
Metawin.com - Truly the best casino ever
December 26, 2023, 05:10:39 AM
#12
....I no longer think Wikipedia is a reliable source for cryptocurrency topics.
Was Wikipedia ever considered a reliable source for any information? I have been taught in university that Wikipedia isn't reliable and should never be quoted or used as a source of information.

This is why:

1) having alternate wikis is important
2) discussion about any kind of cryptocurrency topic, including ones you may not like, should not be censored.
We have bitcoin.it, good alternative to my mind. In overall, it's very hard to have a censorship-free website because it's human nature to favour certain opinions. To my mind, it will be the best to have dedicated Wiki with two articles, one which favours one opinion with arguments and proofs and another one which favours alternative opinion with alternative arguments and proofs. This will be the best solution to my mind.
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 268
DGbet.fun - Crypto Sportsbook
December 26, 2023, 04:33:10 AM
#11
Wikipedia has been one of my most used sites for search and study, due to their reference and other abilities. I find them useful, though I have not found any misinformation from them before. However thanks for the observation, at least I will be judgemental now when using their site even if Majority of my search on crypto related topics are done on other platforms. Anyway there are other good platforms that can provide more accurate details, so all we need to do is to hit the search button and find the best solution to our desires, rather than using some bunch of misinformed site.
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7490
Crypto Swap Exchange
December 26, 2023, 04:20:57 AM
#10
I just checked the revision history[1] and the page after your last edit[2]. While i can understand 'coinpaper.com' not 'milkroad.com' deemed as not reliable sources, it's crazy Wikipedia editor simply reverse your edits which add about Sinbad seizure with government website as a source.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cryptocurrency_tumbler&action=history
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cryptocurrency_tumbler&oldid=1191842369
full member
Activity: 1148
Merit: 158
★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!
December 26, 2023, 04:15:35 AM
#9
Wikipedia is never a reliable source. It can be a useful starting point for research and gathering general information on a topic, but it is generally not considered a reliable source for academic or critical research. This is because Wikipedia is a collaborative platform where anyone can edit and contribute to articles. While there are dedicated Wikipedia editors who strive to maintain accuracy, errors and biased information can still find their way into articles.
jr. member
Activity: 137
Merit: 2
December 26, 2023, 03:51:33 AM
#8
Well, I can't even remember the last time I visited Wikipedia in search of any information. There are other reliable platforms out there doing the same thing, we are the ones that have chosen not to give alternatives attention. When we realize this and start giving other platforms the attention they deserve, then Wikipedia will surely have opponents to compete with.
legendary
Activity: 2114
Merit: 2248
Playgram - The Telegram Casino
December 26, 2023, 03:40:19 AM
#7
1) having alternate wikis is important
2) discussion about any kind of cryptocurrency topic, including ones you may not like, should not be censored.
You can't guarantee the second point when using a largely centralized service which can very easily be manipulated. Using alternatives which allow more freedom and provides credible information irrespective of the source.

I have long stopped using Wikipedia as a source of information even for general topics.
full member
Activity: 2520
Merit: 214
Eloncoin.org - Mars, here we come!
December 26, 2023, 03:26:43 AM
#6
....I no longer think Wikipedia is a reliable source for cryptocurrency topics.


Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source for any kind of topics it is editable by anyone at any time as long as they have internet and whatever information they can put into the website they do not even need to have some kind of reputable source or credibility to edit the website

I have made researches and wikipedia is never an option for citation so i have made it into a habit to not use wikipedia as my primary source of information be it about cryptocurrency or other topics
Pages:
Jump to: