Topic: Wikipedia founder asking for help to learn Bitcoin (Read 3788 times)

The account already has 18 BTC.

Keep sending him more, fools... I'm sure the guy is dying of starvation.

I think a lot of people have failed to see this post.

$11,711.66 to date.

$27,934.89 to date for Dorian Nakamoto: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-10/alleged-bitcoin-millionaire-nakamoto-gets-28-000-in-donations.html

But i'm lil skeptical about it..
Read this
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/201fa6/hello_from_jimmy_wales_of_wikipedia/cfyw1os

Cool news, this will probably boost bitcoin again.. ALso some good media attention More people will join as well!

Wikipedia averages daily donations around $105,000.

We contributed little over 10% to that so far today. Perhaps if Wikipedia officially accepted BTC donations they would see much more...

Almost couldn't have said it better myself. Look at the Bitcoin pseudo-science duck/quackery. The only reason that bankers don't use the word "Ponzi" with Bitcoin is that they don't even notice Bitcoin for the most part. Same said for modern medicine and MMS/Jim Humble. The evidence is out there for all to see.

Donate bitcoin to Wikipedia, but get a second opinion to see where the pseudo-science duck/quackery lies.



EDIT: Thanks for mentioning about Kevin Trudeau. Hadn't heard about him for years. Too bad someone who has so much good info, also has his share of larceny. Most of his info is available from many other sources. Much of it is good info. It would be interesting to hear a "translation" by a lawyer of the legal language of his conviction, into layman's terms. Often the media hides the FACTS, giving readers the info that they would like the readers to believe. And Wikipedia, of course, lists it as the media writers who have Wikipedia accounts write it.

Good job everybody.   18.2 BTC ($11,500) has been donated to Wikipedia from the Bitcoin community in the first 12 hours.

80 more BTC to go!

-B-

I applaud Wikipedia stand against pseudo-science .You know what they say" If it walks like a duck, acts like a duck and sounds like a duck it's probably all quackery ".Lest we want another "success" story like Kevin Trudeau or (heaven forbid) Leonard Coldwell.Seriously, these  scumbags faux medical practitioners and advice peddlers are are a a hazard to humanity.

I almost donated to Wikipedia a few months ago but I didn't. I guess this is a better time to donate than any.

*cofounder

People keep donating to internet millionaires!

Seems to me that Wikipedia can be deceptive. Here is an example of what I mean.

MMS, promoted by Jim Humble, is listed on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_Mineral_Supplement. The Wikipedia report there suggests that MMS is dangerous. And that would be okay if it were true.

So what is true? Who knows? But Jim Humble and his people report that it is curing all kinds of things. See http://mmsnews.org/, or Google "MMS Jim Humble."

So, why hasn't Jim Humble made a Wikipedia page that shows the good that MMS is doing? Ages ago Mr. Humble did just that. But whenever he would write up the Wikipedia article showing all the good MMS was doing, an hour or two later someone else had edited it into something showing that MMS was bad.

The point is, if Wikipedia starts using Bitcoin in a big way, we who help Jimmy Wales are promoting a lot of falsehood and deception right along with the good info. In other words, fiat currencies can be used for good or bad. But the major thing that they are being used for is to promote a centralized system that controls the economies of nations to the detriment of the little people. Wikipedia is being used the same way through the method that anyone can join and make changes to the articles there.

Agreed.

Also, I'm not donating to the 1%.  I am donating for the proliferation of decentralization.  If you think Wikipedia doesn't contribute to the overall goal of decentralization of information you are delusional.  He is giving all that money to Wikimedia/Wikipedia foundation.  He isn't pocketing a damn thing, and why would he?

If you don't donate to things like public radio, Wikipedia, and other services that keep information away from corporate influence then just go back to using your credit card at target while watching CNN.  I'm absolutely appalled that he hasn't received more funds and outpouring of support from this community, not only for Wikipedias sake, but for Bitcoins sake as well.  Imagine if he gets 100-200 BTCs?  You think that's going to come up in his meeting with the Wikimedia foundation?  You think a 6 figure size full of thousands of micropayments from all over the world is going to turn heads both in the media and at the Wikipedia foundation?

If you don't see how that benefits bitcoin as a whole whilst giving back to an organization that helped PIONEER digital open sources of information into the mainstream WHILST keeping corporate paws out of the cookie jar and maintaining an ad-less model is valuable, then please lets have a discussion, because I really want to be proven wrong on this one.  I just don't get it.

BTW, Someone should help Jimmy Wales set up a 1wiki........ vanity Bitcoin address.

I think most of us have utilized Wikipedia and throwing a $10 to $20 tip their way won't really hurt us.  They have provided a free and useful service to us all.  But unlike giving to some charities completely without selfish motives, there is something to be gained in doing this.  So it is could be looked at as a "win-win" situation to do so. 

And in a weird way we have more Bitcoin "wealth" than Jimmy Wales does. And if he keeps converting his coins to cash we probably will for quite a while.  I wonder when he will realize it would have been much better to just hold the coins? 

I have no problem with someone convincing a rich person that Bitcoin is useful to them.  I think it is utterly silly for people (who I imagine are not millionaires) deciding they need to help a millionaire like Bitcoin by giving him free money.  To each his own.

If the 1% decide to use Bitcoin it could be very beneficial to us don't you think?

I think it is a good idea to convince them to take a risk on Bitcoin.  They can learn first hand what it can do for them.  But I agree that it is pretty ridiculous in some ways.  But millionaires often become millionaires by not spending their money and making more in creative ways.  Otherwise they wouldn't have any money.

Yes sent money to a millionaire in the hopes that it will convince him to let you donate more money to his foundation which relies on donations?

Hell 0.1 BTC could have bought a lot of meals for homeless people but if you want to give money to the 1% to convince them to use Bitcoin well I guess that is your right.

The aim of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia with valid info in many of the world's languages. Having so many editors is a strong and also a weak point but surely is not centralisation. Not in the sense that some central authority is giving an ideological direction. The authority for example is exerted by administrators to stop/diminish neverending wars of words between editors with different opinions.

The way Wikipedia functions is much more complex (a good read for many) but at least for now I can't see nothing evil as you implied in your post. On the contrary...

Just sent .1 btc

Come on folks, let's show him the power of bitcoin. Just the positive kind of thing we need after being goxxed in the media.

We ought to set a goal of 100 btc! Or maybe even 1,000. This is how you get people to use bitcoin in the real world, via good publicity!