Topic: Restore bitcoin wikipedia page - todo inside (Read 2179 times)
well, they obviously find it note worthy now.
What we need is a good juicy bitcoin sex scandal. 
I've been very active with Bitcoins and a long time Wikimedia user (I've been an admin on several "sister projects" even if not on Wikipedia itself). This article isn't going to be restored into the "main namespace" of Wikipedia until it becomes more famous. Wikipedia uses the term "notability" but "fame" is perhaps a better word to use here.
Simply put, you need to show a "buzz" about the topic. For something like Bitcoins, you need to show that several people are talking about it and more significantly, there are reliable sources of information.
I know that there are people here who would like to perhaps use Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle. Wikipedia users hate it being used in that way, which is the problem here. Don't force this and make bad blood with the Wikipedia admins on this issue. Either Bitcoins will become "famous" and be talked about in a whole bunch of places, or it will fade away as another software experiment. It is still way too early to tell right now, but my gut feeling is that eventually there will be a Simpson's episode featuring Homer spending Bitcoins, a report about Bitcoins on Dateline: NBC, and other widespread discussion about the concept including perhaps an article in the New Yorker. I've seen this happen to other projects, including Wikipedia itself. I got involved with that project back when it was just a couple hundred people who got together as a result of a slashdot article. It wasn't even called Wikipedia at the time, but rather Gnupedia, which eventually folded into Wikipedia and a related effort called Nupedia.
I also saw a similar kind of gradual adopting to microcomputers, Linux, and many other things that most people are familiar with today. It takes time for the world to find out about what it is that is going on, even if it is the most impressive thing in the world.
This article not only went through a formal "deletion discussion", but it also has been through two formal "deletion reviews". This statement is perhaps the best one that sums up the general attitude of people on Wikipedia about Bitcoins:
The LWN article is certainly an excellent start towards that end, and with the article from Hartford Advocate (http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/commentary/is-it-time-for-digital-only-dollars-2) technically qualify as two formal and independent peer-reviewed sources of information. It would be really nice if there was more. The issue here is how to get Bitcoins publicized, and attempting to do that on administrator's notice boards on Wikipedia seems to be fighting a losing battle. There are many other much easier ways to get that accomplished.
Simply put, you need to show a "buzz" about the topic. For something like Bitcoins, you need to show that several people are talking about it and more significantly, there are reliable sources of information.
I know that there are people here who would like to perhaps use Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle. Wikipedia users hate it being used in that way, which is the problem here. Don't force this and make bad blood with the Wikipedia admins on this issue. Either Bitcoins will become "famous" and be talked about in a whole bunch of places, or it will fade away as another software experiment. It is still way too early to tell right now, but my gut feeling is that eventually there will be a Simpson's episode featuring Homer spending Bitcoins, a report about Bitcoins on Dateline: NBC, and other widespread discussion about the concept including perhaps an article in the New Yorker. I've seen this happen to other projects, including Wikipedia itself. I got involved with that project back when it was just a couple hundred people who got together as a result of a slashdot article. It wasn't even called Wikipedia at the time, but rather Gnupedia, which eventually folded into Wikipedia and a related effort called Nupedia.
I also saw a similar kind of gradual adopting to microcomputers, Linux, and many other things that most people are familiar with today. It takes time for the world to find out about what it is that is going on, even if it is the most impressive thing in the world.
This article not only went through a formal "deletion discussion", but it also has been through two formal "deletion reviews". This statement is perhaps the best one that sums up the general attitude of people on Wikipedia about Bitcoins:
Quote
This is an ultra-niche technology that, for whatever reason, hasn't taken off. That isn't our fault. The efforts expended trying to fight tooth and nail to get a Wikipedia article would be better used trying to get Bitcoin promoted. In other words, instead of desperately trying to fool us into thinking Bitcoin is notable when it's not, go out there and make it notable and then come back when you don't have to resort to such tactics.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_September_26#Bitcoin) - Andrew LenahanThe LWN article is certainly an excellent start towards that end, and with the article from Hartford Advocate (http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/commentary/is-it-time-for-digital-only-dollars-2) technically qualify as two formal and independent peer-reviewed sources of information. It would be really nice if there was more. The issue here is how to get Bitcoins publicized, and attempting to do that on administrator's notice boards on Wikipedia seems to be fighting a losing battle. There are many other much easier ways to get that accomplished.
seems that the deleter of the bitcoin article was bocked before for abusing his editing privilieges
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Polargeo_2/Archives/2010/October#A_good_start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Polargeo_2/Archives/2010/October#A_good_start
Interesting, perhaps his previous 'work' will be revisited now?
Contacted a wikimedia friend of mine, this is what she said:
Quote
Couple of ideas, though no guarantees (contrary to popular belief, neither Wikimedia Inc. or any shadowy oversight committee rules the community - they do what they want):
Do you know which admin deleted the page? You might try contacting him/her and politely explaining the situation. You could also post a request here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. But the best course of action is probably to go directly to an admin who's likely to be sympathetic to online communities in general and yours in particular -- i.e., find somebody who shares your interests (look on userpages for that) and has some barnstars (the unofficial wiki award system) for helping newbies or just being nice. Post a reasonable, well-argued case for the article on his/her talk page or send an email if you have a user account (and I'd get one if you don't, so you're not just some anonymous shmo).
I wish I could direct you to someone specific, but the only en.wikipedia admin I know is also a Community Fellow for the year and is super busy with fundraiser stuff at the moment, so he probably wouldn't be much help.
I'm sure you don't need this caveat, but whatever you do, don't be rude or condescending. Wikipedians are no different from members of any other hermetic online community: among them there are some awesome people and also some dicks, but if you piss any of them off, they will gang up on you and make your life unpleasant.
Hope this is helpful, and let me know how it turns out! I'll incorporate it into my research!
Do you know which admin deleted the page? You might try contacting him/her and politely explaining the situation. You could also post a request here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. But the best course of action is probably to go directly to an admin who's likely to be sympathetic to online communities in general and yours in particular -- i.e., find somebody who shares your interests (look on userpages for that) and has some barnstars (the unofficial wiki award system) for helping newbies or just being nice. Post a reasonable, well-argued case for the article on his/her talk page or send an email if you have a user account (and I'd get one if you don't, so you're not just some anonymous shmo).
I wish I could direct you to someone specific, but the only en.wikipedia admin I know is also a Community Fellow for the year and is super busy with fundraiser stuff at the moment, so he probably wouldn't be much help.
I'm sure you don't need this caveat, but whatever you do, don't be rude or condescending. Wikipedians are no different from members of any other hermetic online community: among them there are some awesome people and also some dicks, but if you piss any of them off, they will gang up on you and make your life unpleasant.
Hope this is helpful, and let me know how it turns out! I'll incorporate it into my research!
Wikipedia is very hard on notability these days.
Sometimes. It's pot luck, depending which Wikipedians happen to take an interest in the article.
It may be worth adding at least a small stub article to the Simple English Wikipedia and some of the non-English Wikipedias. Some of them will be very keen to have new articles on notable topics, even if those topics haven't yet been featured in the NYT or in an academic dissertation. Also, a SVG version of the bitcoin graphic could be donated to Wikimedia Commons. Satoshi has said that his images are Public Domain.
Also, there may be other Wikipedia articles where a mention of Bitcoin is appropriate, even though it can't be hyperlinked at this time. Something like "crypto currencies" I suppose, or even maybe EFF.
Meanwhile the LWN article will soon be fully published. I presume LWN counts as a multi-author publication with editorial oversight?
Wikipedia is very hard on notability these days. Better just let it be for a while, imo.
Basically they want a published peer-reviewed article on bitcoin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Message_From_Xenu/Bitcoin
The reason why this article has been deleted is because of notability problems. Simply put, nobody but the blogosphere is even talking about this topic. Perhaps that is because the idea is new or because it is so off the wall in terms of what is going on that nobody wants to take this idea on as a serious article. Many of the blog entries that I read included long quotes from this Wikipedia article, which is self-referential and something generally bad in terms of scholarly research.
BTW, I do think that eventually this concept is going to be notable because it certainly is noteworthy. It is an interesting idea that will be recognized by others eventually and that when that happens there will be numerous articles that can be used as reliable sources other than strictly the Bitcoins documentation on bitcoin.org. Insisting that this article become "undeleted" and posted as a regular Wikipedia article is not going to fly with the regular Wikipedia editors and administrators. If you know of a scholarly publication that accepts a peer-reviewed article, write one about Bitcoins and then let us know here that it has been published. There are things to be done and if you are as passionate about Bitcoins as I've seen here, spread the word and let others know about the concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Message_From_Xenu/Bitcoin
The reason why this article has been deleted is because of notability problems. Simply put, nobody but the blogosphere is even talking about this topic. Perhaps that is because the idea is new or because it is so off the wall in terms of what is going on that nobody wants to take this idea on as a serious article. Many of the blog entries that I read included long quotes from this Wikipedia article, which is self-referential and something generally bad in terms of scholarly research.
BTW, I do think that eventually this concept is going to be notable because it certainly is noteworthy. It is an interesting idea that will be recognized by others eventually and that when that happens there will be numerous articles that can be used as reliable sources other than strictly the Bitcoins documentation on bitcoin.org. Insisting that this article become "undeleted" and posted as a regular Wikipedia article is not going to fly with the regular Wikipedia editors and administrators. If you know of a scholarly publication that accepts a peer-reviewed article, write one about Bitcoins and then let us know here that it has been published. There are things to be done and if you are as passionate about Bitcoins as I've seen here, spread the word and let others know about the concept.
Jump to: