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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.