Topic: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit - page 2. (Read 1356 times)
What's wrong with that?
Many people are posting misleading and degrading articles about bitcoins. It's really disappointing.
I think many wikipedist editors are not profesional with the articles
Well if that is a popular opinion, it should in the article I think. Maybe under "discussion" or something where they present different views.
On the other hand, that statement has 4 citations. To modify it significantly (and have your edit accepted) you'd probably have to cite at least twice as many similarly-famous "commentators" that say otherwise. Bloomberg and Krugman are pretty big names, and there aren't that many opinion writers of their reputation that have endorsed Bitcoin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin
"Although bitcoin was initially promoted as a virtual currency, commentators have largely rejected that claim due to bitcoin's volatile market value, relatively inflexible supply, and minimal use in trade."
"Although bitcoin was initially promoted as a virtual currency, commentators have largely rejected that claim due to bitcoin's volatile market value, relatively inflexible supply, and minimal use in trade."
Jump to: