Topic: Matonis article, Wikipedia hypocrisy, and FeedZeBirds campaign (Read 1685 times)

^this^

I think the outrage is because they're accepting corrupt currencies from extremely dubious states with long track records of human rights violations to their own citizens and other nations versus Bitcoin.

Update:

271,000 impressions served via 72 Tweets. Over 500,000 impressions still remaining with current funds

Thank you all for donating, this campaign will continue for a while muahahaha

http://www.feedzebirds.com/zgzsb

What about  request in "talk" page offering btc for improving wikipedia articles.

That'd be a way to donate to wikipedia.

I'm not surprised at all that they don't accept bitcoins,  they're simply too big and too popular, they understand it would mostly be free advertising for Bitcoins. and they don't need the $

aye, and they are well aware of those options. Their reasoning is quite certain to be bullshit and one that is more politicaly motivated than that which they state.

Considering they can use paysius or bitpay and never have to touch bitcoin its  a little weird they flat out refuse to take money....

Although they don't say they do not understand they so obviously don't, which is a real shame Who decides that btw? Why is that not crowd based?

Anyway: I endorse this campain!

Birds fed, let's see how it goes

  Best ad ever 

Jimmy Wales is an inveterate statist so its no surprise really.

Fed. Birds.

I share you frustration with Wikipedia, Erik.
Topics on economy seem to be controlled mostly by academics, supporters of the current system.
No innovators there.
Let's keep in mind that bitcoin is a DoS attack on security experts and keynesian economists.

Then again it's an encyclopedia, albeit crowd sourced.
Encyclopedia are uneasy with innovations because they force them to rewrite entire sections

This is slightly off topic but it might be a good idea to allow FeedZeBirds users to do more than one retweet of any particular feeding, say after they get more followers or something?

I had contributed to wikipedia every year. One of my assumptions was that Wikipedia should be greater than any state around the world. If Wikipedia does not place itself in that position then I shall find a better end to my money.

here is a small contribution to the cause Erick.

Great idea I've RTd it! 
It's hard to believe!

Hey all,

Hopefully you've all seen Matonis' (https://twitter.com/jonmatonis) latest article on Wikipedia's terrible hypocrisy - accepting donations from currencies backed by free-speech-stifling nations, yet refusing to accept the open, honest, non-political Bitcoin currency (calling it "artificial," unlike USD I guess).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/06/29/wikipedia-accepts-enemies-of-the-internet-currencies/

Anyway, this made me mad. Wikipedia is one of the bastions of free speech on the internet, and for them to so callously reject Bitcoin because a government has not approved it, that bothers me greatly. It'd be okay if they simply said, "we don't understand Bitcoin yet, so we'll revisit it later" or something... but to explicitly state they won't accept it because governments don't sponsor Bitcoin, well that is not acceptable.

Indeed, are they not aware of all the articles on their site that are as "artificial" as Bitcoin? Few Wikipedia articles were approved or endorsed by any state, yet they accept them (and rightly so). Why is the payment of funds, which serves in tandem with free speech, being censored? If Bitcoin is invalid because it is "artificial," so too is every article in Wikipedia's library. And of course, they don't even need to hold the Bitcoin after receiving them - Bitcoins can be exchanged instantly and automatically for USD upon receipt, exposing Wikipedia to zero currency exchange risk.

And here's a crucial point: for you to currently donate to Wikipedia, you must use a credit card or paypal that is attached your identity. That means any government that wants to know who is funding Wikipedia can find out. Not ideal. With Bitcoin, donors can be anonymous, so even controversial speech can be supported and defended. Consider the Chinese citizen who works behind the scenes to further free speech... if he donates to Wikipedia, he puts himself in danger. If he had Bitcoin as a donation option, he is safe. Wikipedia is actually forcing donors to put themselves at risk with their current policy.

So to prove the inextricable link between free speech and free transfer of money, I've created a FeedZeBirds Twitter campaign:

"#Wikipedia #hypocrisy - censoring #bitcoin, accepting tyrant currencies onforb.es/MEGiCS"

Please help fund and retweet this campaign to your Twitter followers via http://www.feedzebirds.com/zgzsb!! Let's show Wikipedia what real free speech looks like. Literally millions of eyes will see the message.

See and retweet the campaign here:
http://www.feedzebirds.com/zgzsb

Donate to fund this campaign here (1 btc buys 900,000 impressions):
1BJQiePWJhcHZjDs3RwSh69SkgkkEDTFxY