Re - Wikipedia: the quote "Facts have a liberal bias" comes to mind...
Some call them by their other name: Wikidpedia.
Topic: Someone or some group is disturbed by Bitcoin. Vandalism on Wikipedia. (Read 3288 times)
September 14, 2012, 05:46:52 PM
Some call them by their other name: Wikidpedia.
September 14, 2012, 05:34:12 PM
Wow there are alot of nutjobs in here.
Welcome aboard!
Please stick around. Libertarians have some fantasy that Bitcoin (and a lot of the more decent of the belief patterns that they pretend to hold) are somehow their baby and they have a monopoly on them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I sense that a lot of the more effective movers and shakers in Bitcoin-land don't consider themselves Libertarian nutters and reject some of the more repulsive philosofantasies of that group.
September 14, 2012, 02:29:45 PM
Wow there are alot of nutjobs in here.
September 14, 2012, 02:28:21 PM
Tell me, why are people so bothered by Bitcoin now?
These people hate Bitcoin for the same reasons they hate gold, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, and libertarians.
They know they are second-handers. They know they are parasitic leeches. They know they are useless tax eaters, living off the productivity of virtuous rational value holders.
They hate anything and anyone that threatens to dispel the illusion that they are moral, and superior to their betters via the sanction of the victim and death worship of altruism.
They know their time is limited, and the day of reckoning draws nigh. They know they will perish when the IRS agents' US dollar paychecks cease and the welfare checks stop.
They hate this reality, and will strain with every misguided
They are ashamed of their own worthlessness, and have created this entire world order dedicated to hiding their shortcomings behind a tissue of lies and a wall of coercion.
+10
September 14, 2012, 09:45:26 AM
more libertarian conspiracy theories
Be specific as to what you are replying to please.
September 14, 2012, 04:09:02 AM
Tell me, why are people so bothered by Bitcoin now?
These people hate Bitcoin for the same reasons they hate gold, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, and libertarians.
They know they are second-handers. They know they are parasitic leeches. They know they are useless tax eaters, living off the productivity of virtuous rational value holders.
They hate anything and anyone that threatens to dispel the illusion that they are moral, and superior to their betters via the sanction of the victim and death worship of altruism.
They know their time is limited, and the day of reckoning draws nigh. They know they will perish when the IRS agents' US dollar paychecks cease and the welfare checks stop.
They hate this reality, and will strain with every misguided
They are ashamed of their own worthlessness, and have created this entire world order dedicated to hiding their shortcomings behind a tissue of lies and a wall of coercion.
B I T C O I N T A L K
LOLOL
September 14, 2012, 03:21:40 AM
Quote
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
September 14, 2012, 03:10:12 AM
more libertarian conspiracy theories
September 14, 2012, 02:51:54 AM
Things like the debate over global warming are purged, and Wikipedia presents one side of an argument as 'consensus'. What Wikipedia's insistence on 'consensus' means is that only one view will ever be presented and the most aggressive group purges all dissent. And the most aggressive group over there is an authoritarian left-wing - that hates sound money. Knowledge is power and their goal is to limit and shape everyone else's. NPOV is of course totally Orwellian, they've simply declared their POV as 'neutral'.
UNACCEPTABLE. Nuke them until they glow. I am very willing to pay good BTC to make it happen.
For the Lulz; Viva Satoshi!
September 13, 2012, 11:51:38 PM
Things like the debate over global warming are purged, and Wikipedia presents one side of an argument as 'consensus'.
The common case in the real world is that one side of an argument does indeed have 'consensus'. More often than not 'consensus' indicates a more solid argument. Sometimes not, but in the cases of the generally spherical shape of planet earth and anthropomorphic climate change it is pretty clearly true.
What Wikipedia's insistence on 'consensus' means is that only one view will ever be presented and the most aggressive group purges all dissent. And the most aggressive group over there is an authoritarian left-wing - that hates sound money. Knowledge is power and their goal is to limit and shape everyone else's. NPOV is of course totally Orwellian, they've simply declared their POV as 'neutral'.
The two annoyances I've had with Wikipedia are when a group of editors were caught red handed trying to color Zionist projects in the Middle East favorably, and when an editor was extraordinarily heavy-handed in making sure that information about strategic failure to deliver (aka, 'naked short selling') was minimized and controlled. Neither of these are remotely left wing. I'm a hard core lefty, and most of the Wikipedia stuff seems pretty even to me. Plus people can challenge info they don't like and readers can make up their own minds. Usually...I guess...never tried it.
September 13, 2012, 07:29:40 PM
Wikipedia may have a left wing bent to it. If you don't like it, participate in it and if that does not work start your own. The wikipedia people are even kind enough to give you all of the tools for free! You can even with a little more effort populate it with the current version from wikipedia, lock it so only you and people with opinions you like can edit it, and create your own version of the truth.
I have disagreements with how they operate and therefore do not contribute, but in general they are a valuable source of information.
(que all of the users who will quote errors in wikipedia.....)
[/quote]
They are also the most increasingly dysfunctional bureaucratic organization known to mankind. Yes, they produce good work, but their glory day is long past.
September 13, 2012, 07:23:00 PM
Things like the debate over global warming are purged, and Wikipedia presents one side of an argument as 'consensus'. What Wikipedia's insistence on 'consensus' means is that only one view will ever be presented and the most aggressive group purges all dissent. And the most aggressive group over there is an authoritarian left-wing - that hates sound money. Knowledge is power and their goal is to limit and shape everyone else's. NPOV is of course totally Orwellian, they've simply declared their POV as 'neutral'.
Wikipedia may have a left wing bent to it. If you don't like it, participate in it and if that does not work start your own. The wikipedia people are even kind enough to give you all of the tools for free! You can even with a little more effort populate it with the current version from wikipedia, lock it so only you and people with opinions you like can edit it, and create your own version of the truth.
I have disagreements with how they operate and therefore do not contribute, but in general they are a valuable source of information.
(que all of the users who will quote errors in wikipedia.....)
September 13, 2012, 05:14:12 PM
It makes me wonder... could we pay people in bitcoin to curate bitcoin related pages? It could certainly help with our PR.
September 13, 2012, 05:10:07 PM
Re - Wikipedia: the quote "Facts have a liberal bias" comes to mind...
September 13, 2012, 03:24:39 PM
Tell me, why are people so bothered by Bitcoin now?
These people hate Bitcoin for the same reasons they hate gold, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, and libertarians.
They know they are second-handers. They know they are parasitic leeches. They know they are useless tax eaters, living off the productivity of virtuous rational value holders.
They hate anything and anyone that threatens to dispel the illusion that they are moral, and superior to their betters via the sanction of the victim and death worship of altruism.
They know their time is limited, and the day of reckoning draws nigh. They know they will perish when the IRS agents' US dollar paychecks cease and the welfare checks stop.
They hate this reality, and will strain with every misguided
They are ashamed of their own worthlessness, and have created this entire world order dedicated to hiding their shortcomings behind a tissue of lies and a wall of coercion.
This is awesome.
As for the OP, it's not even vandalism, it's Wikipedia working as intended. The coterie running things over there kept Bitcoin off Wikipedia for a very long time (you might be able to google the record of that drama).
Things like the debate over global warming are purged, and Wikipedia presents one side of an argument as 'consensus'. What Wikipedia's insistence on 'consensus' means is that only one view will ever be presented and the most aggressive group purges all dissent. And the most aggressive group over there is an authoritarian left-wing - that hates sound money. Knowledge is power and their goal is to limit and shape everyone else's. NPOV is of course totally Orwellian, they've simply declared their POV as 'neutral'.
September 13, 2012, 12:01:55 PM
What I would like to know is why are people allowed to revive the usernames of members who have been banned, like the name "Atlas" ?
I see the potential for not only confusion but abuse.
Atlas was let back in by the admins.I see the potential for not only confusion but abuse.
And Immanuel Go as well?
Atlas?
September 13, 2012, 11:57:07 AM
What I would like to know is why are people allowed to revive the usernames of members who have been banned, like the name "Atlas" ?
I see the potential for not only confusion but abuse.
Atlas was let back in by the admins.I see the potential for not only confusion but abuse.
And Immanuel Go as well?
September 13, 2012, 11:52:57 AM
What I would like to know is why are people allowed to revive the usernames of members who have been banned, like the name "Atlas" ?
I see the potential for not only confusion but abuse.
Atlas was let back in by the admins. I see the potential for not only confusion but abuse.
September 13, 2012, 11:51:33 AM
What I would like to know is why are people allowed to revive the usernames of members who have been banned, like the name "Atlas" ?
I see the potential for not only confusion but abuse.
I see the potential for not only confusion but abuse.
September 13, 2012, 11:22:27 AM
Added my bit. Let's see how long it lasts.
Jump to: