Topic: I never thought I would say this, but... - page 2. (Read 267 times)

Wikipedia is a old site, don't expect they want to accept fast update based on the current situation, see the last sentence of the first paragraph where they still demand a citation when this case was happen from the last few years.

1) There are many wikis alternative e.g. citizendium, conservapedia etc, but I don't see they're talk about tumblers.
2) We can't expect anything when it comes to centralization.

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.

Cryptocurrencies are like the rebellious teenagers of finance. Bitcoin's the cool kid aiming to be the global rockstar reserve currency, while governments play concerned parents at a wild party. Ethereum is the artsy sibling, Litecoin is the overlooked middle child, and Dogecoin is the lovable goofball pet. It's a wild, unpredictable family reunion in the financial neighborhood, and we're all trying to figure out who brought the blockchain casserole.

I don't personally have issues with Wikipedia but maybe you can mention that it is the idea of the article creator or the contributors that reviewed your changes or as well as the style at which you wrote the contributions you have made to correct whatever wrong impression that was given earlier. I don't want to believe Wikipedia as an organization is anti-crypto per say.

Similar to how you can categorize Bitcoin as an open-source community of transactions, so you can categorize Wikipedia as an open-sourced editing encyclopedia where everyone with knowledge, verifiable information and internet access can create or modify articles like you tried to improve on the aforementioned article. Nevertheless, there are policies and guidelines following how such things can be done successfully to ensure accuracy and a neutral point of view, also referred to as (NPOV).

Since it is an open editing platform where me and you can contribute, it makes it difficult for me to believe that Wikipedia can be tagged as not a reliable source for information, especially as there guidelines have help to shape the level of accurate information you can put out there through the references you are tasked to provide to back up any claims, contributions or improvements.

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.

However, unfortunately, people still take advantage of this to pursue ill-fated agenda against things they dislike or disagree with, this matter can be an example, which Wikipedia have given the opportunity for me and you to correct and right the wrong.

Let me also know how I can assist in the process of correcting whatever wrong impressions or false information that article is spreading but we will need references from reputable and reliable information and news sources.

....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:


Here is after my edits:


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.