Wikipedia Raises 237 BTC Through Donations In One Week

zedicus

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1004

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Quote from: Light on August 16, 2014, 04:57:19 AM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on August 16, 2014, 01:59:33 AM

On the other hand, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of greedy people who survive on bribes from the organized cabals who control many of its articles (especially in the politics and religion sections).

Really, I thought with Wikipedia it was free for the public to edit - although moderated to remove useless and incorrect material that hadn't had proper citing. Are you trying to say that the articles are designed to be biased towards specific causes?

Wiki articles are rarely moderated and only are in the most extreme of extreme examples. Even when they are moderated the moderation is so that only people with older accounts that have successfully edited many other articles over time can edit specific articles. It is almost like they are moderated by the community.

Wiki articles are suppose to be neutral and when they are not they are flagged to be updated.

harles9

member

Activity: 68

Merit: 10

I'm guessing they don't have one address to send to, so their information can't be verified. I wouldn't be surprised if they got less, but are inflating the number to make it seem a more lucrative prospect to other potential donatees.

ajareselde

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin

Quote from: odolvlobo on August 16, 2014, 12:06:50 PM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on August 16, 2014, 01:59:33 AM

Quote from: 1986 on August 10, 2014, 11:43:04 AM

I'd rather donate to wikileaks than wikipedia. It's quite an inspiring story if it's true that they survived on bitcoin.

My thoughts, exactly. Wikileaks stands for a noble cause. On the other hand, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of greedy people who survive on bribes from the organized cabals who control many of its articles (especially in the politics and religion sections).

I believe that as much as I believe the statement that Bitcoin is controlled by the criminals running the Bitcoin Foundation.

Hear everything, trust nothing..
One can only suspect, but to know is something else. Unlike wikileaks, wikipedia seams more "socialy acceptable", and for
that reason i believe there are many thing around it not as innocent as they appear.

Ilsk

legendary

Activity: 834

Merit: 1015

Where can I found the updated data about wikipedia btc donation?

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3808

Merit: 1219

Quote from: Light on August 16, 2014, 04:57:19 AM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on August 16, 2014, 01:59:33 AM

On the other hand, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of greedy people who survive on bribes from the organized cabals who control many of its articles (especially in the politics and religion sections).

Really, I thought with Wikipedia it was free for the public to edit - although moderated to remove useless and incorrect material that hadn't had proper citing. Are you trying to say that the articles are designed to be biased towards specific causes?

99% of the Wiki articles are fine. They are neutral. But there is the remaining 1% of the articles (especially in the religion and politics sections), which organized cabals are controlling. Even these articles are free to edit. But if you edit with unfavorable information, then those edits will be removed by the cabal and if you continue editing the page, you will be perma-banned using the most silly excuses. (I knew this because I was one of the most active editors with Wikipedia until 2011).

jjc326

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Wikipedia seems like a great thing to use bitcoins on. They arent like some massive corporation. They don't really run with a lot of overhead and they are completely digital. So it's great to see bitcoins being used for such a good purpose.

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

There's no organized group ruining Wikipedia. That's total bullshit. The average contributor is ruining it. People make Wikipedia subjects because they want to support their own viewpoint. They put enough supporting evidence with citations (which are frequently left unverified) to support their idea and omit anything to the contrary. It's not reviewed and supervised by a university. This makes Wikipedia nothing more that an elaborate story board of half fiction.

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4522

Merit: 3426

Quote from: bryant.coleman on August 16, 2014, 01:59:33 AM

Quote from: 1986 on August 10, 2014, 11:43:04 AM

I'd rather donate to wikileaks than wikipedia. It's quite an inspiring story if it's true that they survived on bitcoin.

My thoughts, exactly. Wikileaks stands for a noble cause. On the other hand, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of greedy people who survive on bribes from the organized cabals who control many of its articles (especially in the politics and religion sections).

I believe that as much as I believe the statement that Bitcoin is controlled by the criminals running the Bitcoin Foundation.

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

Quote from: bryant.coleman on August 16, 2014, 01:59:33 AM

Quote from: 1986 on August 10, 2014, 11:43:04 AM

I'd rather donate to wikileaks than wikipedia. It's quite an inspiring story if it's true that they survived on bitcoin.

My thoughts, exactly. Wikileaks stands for a noble cause. On the other hand, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of greedy people who survive on bribes from the organized cabals who control many of its articles (especially in the politics and religion sections).

Any proof/source of Wikimedia taking a bribes?

They may not be perfect, you can disagree with many entries (especially on sensitive subjects) but there's no question that Wikipedia is a great source of knowledge for the masses.

factor280

sr. member

Activity: 337

Merit: 254

Impressive. Showing the power of BTC right here in full force.

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

Quote from: Light on August 16, 2014, 04:57:19 AM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on August 16, 2014, 01:59:33 AM

On the other hand, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of greedy people who survive on bribes from the organized cabals who control many of its articles (especially in the politics and religion sections).

Really, I thought with Wikipedia it was free for the public to edit - although moderated to remove useless and incorrect material that hadn't had proper citing. Are you trying to say that the articles are designed to be biased towards specific causes?

You're just figuring this out? You must live in a cave. Much of Wikipedia is massively skewed. Selective omission makes it almost useless. It's a small step above Urban Dictionary.

Light

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 502

Circa 2010

Quote from: bryant.coleman on August 16, 2014, 01:59:33 AM

On the other hand, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of greedy people who survive on bribes from the organized cabals who control many of its articles (especially in the politics and religion sections).

Really, I thought with Wikipedia it was free for the public to edit - although moderated to remove useless and incorrect material that hadn't had proper citing. Are you trying to say that the articles are designed to be biased towards specific causes?

$erver-X

member

Activity: 61

Merit: 10

btc is becoming very popular as donations and i wish soon it becomes a legal currency and is accepted everywhere....

Sheldor333

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Glad to hear this. It will surely get some other sites to do the same because of this. It's a great way to help both Wikipedia stay up and get the news of Bitcoin across.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3808

Merit: 1219

Quote from: 1986 on August 10, 2014, 11:43:04 AM

I'd rather donate to wikileaks than wikipedia. It's quite an inspiring story if it's true that they survived on bitcoin.

My thoughts, exactly. Wikileaks stands for a noble cause. On the other hand, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of greedy people who survive on bribes from the organized cabals who control many of its articles (especially in the politics and religion sections).

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

Quote from: cosix on August 12, 2014, 12:19:45 PM

how much is coinbase charging Wikipedia for this?

I believe it's zero. They support charities free of charge.

cosix

member

Activity: 77

Merit: 10

how much is coinbase charging Wikipedia for this?

Painful Truth

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: fran2k on August 12, 2014, 10:16:25 AM

If just they started accepting bitcoin donations as the community repeatedly asked a few years ago ...

They'd be sitting on bitcoins worth millions of dollars by now. Wink

fran2k

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 500

If just they started accepting bitcoin donations as the community repeatedly asked a few years ago ...

oceans

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Just goes to show how many people are willing to use bitcoins to make donations and even payments on these kind of sites. It's a shame that wikipedia did not allow donations via bitcoin a while ago as it could have really been beneficial to them accepting a lot sooner. Still it's great to see them accepting now and see that it's working for them.

Topic: Wikipedia Raises 237 BTC Through Donations In One Week (Read 3516 times)