Topic: Wikipedia: "Some criticize Bitcoin for being a Ponzi scheme..." - page 4. (Read 8596 times)

I think SudoGhost makes a good and valid point, which is that some *have* criticized Bitcoin of being a ponzi. Though we as Bitcoin users may be offended by these comments, they are the publicly-stated opinions of some and must be acknowledged in this article.

I think the entire article stands as proof against such naysayers, so I would ask that everyone work together to improve the overall quality of the page, adding new info and images, updating references, and not waste your time squabbling over syntax in the Talk page. There are major sections of the article that need work, and I hope you can each look for ways to contribute in a positive and meaningful way, for the good of our publicity and image.

Cheers,
jtibble

Ahahahaha...... this is unbelievable.

update: 404 maintains a steady lead.

I just added a comment with suggested text and footnote.  The citation isn't perfectly formatted, but it's a step anyway.

Also, the original sentence under scrutiny ought to be fixed for it's broken link and weasel words, but I'm not going to continue in the discussion because it was a nightmare just leaving that one comment. 

nicely done

I just dug up one of my old Wikipedia accounts and did it myself. Lets see if they delete my comment. It was perfectly civil and rational.

I guess I disagree here. Fiat is a ponzi precisely because its value is derived from the investment of time and effort (work) by the next guy to receive it. Over time, inflation guarantees more investment is needed to maintain value. Sure, governments don't say "join our investment with incredible returns" but the fact that they sell fiat and rely on the fact that people will do more and more work to acquire it or have the fiat collapse in value seems to fit the definition of ponzi.

It's being mentioned, only, they are cherry-picking out the negative comments (ECB paper is fairly neutral on the Ponzi-terminology), except for Rudd-O, who defended bitcoin, but got a bit too fed up with SudoGhost and went on a rant .

Damn it why has no one mentioned the ECB comments concerning Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme?

Does no one here really not have a Wikipedia account with sufficient creditability to add to the discussion?

Holy crap.  I'm reading through the talk page for the Bitcoin article and that sudoghost guy is being a willfull pain in the ass. 

"It does not matter that it has been refuted, the article does not present it as a fact but reflects that sources have criticized this,"

If it's not presented as a fact, what's it doing there?  It's supposed to be an encyclopedia.  I'm pretty sure that's part of the Wikipedia thing... to be encyclopedic.  Not to add the criticisms of every tom dick and harry to every single article. 

If he's claiming that the Register and Reuters quotes are sufficient sourcing to keep the sentence in, then I think he's wrong.  Neither quote directly makes the Ponzi criticism, but instead continue the assertion that some unnamed person or persons have criticized.  At some point good sourcing means that someone with an actual name is going to have to say with their mouth or keyboard that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, or even just has the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme.

(Which last phrase--"having the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme"--is just more weasling.  You can't stack weasle statements in hopes of building a strong assertion.  Either say it or don't.)

Honestly, there must be some good source out there that makes the case that Bitcoin is Ponziesque.  Why doesn't he go off and find it rather than digging in fighting this thing?  Seriously, be constructive.

 

Yes. The problem here is that many people think Wikipedia, encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc. are authoritative when it comes to subjects they cover. However, that is not the case. Wikipedia articles are a compilation of several reliable sources and is the end result of all of this other research that was done.

If you could find a significant number of new sites, published articles, and the like that aren't overwhelmingly disproved by even more reliable sources, then you absolutely can say that "(2*(2+1)) = 5" and that the sky is green. In a large majority of cases, this works just fine.


If the media is calling it a ponzi scheme, then this is clearly a common misunderstanding. So, if it's not a ponzi scheme, you would expect an overwhelming amount of articles to at least point out this error for the sake of their readers. Find those sources, and this problem goes away.

You guys are hilarious. See what you have done?  


But here comes the best part:

The guy should apply that to himself.

I don't have a Wikipedia account, but I will make my point anyway (maybe someone else can have a go at it on the wiki talk).

If I am getting it right the essence of his argument is not whether Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme or not, but just that as it has been mentioned as such in an article (or several articles), it should therefore be included on the wikipedia page.

My main point would be: why would Wikipedia need to report false claims?  If people claim "(2*(2+1)) = 5 " on several news websites, then should wikipedia mention this, when logic and the correct application of arithmetical laws shows this is not the case?  If I say "the sky is only green, always has been green and always will be green", should this be mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky ?

If the claim can be logically debunked by looking at the definition or properties of a Ponzi scheme, it has no place in the article.

On the other hand, you might say the argument is so commonly believed that there is value into reporting it (in contrast to the green sky for example), fine.  But then it should be clearly  refuted with the proper arguments afterwards.  Just adding "It is commonly said the sky is only green", might be technically correct, but then just leaving it as such is obviously lacking for a encyclopedia.

You might think bitcoin is a shitty investment for delusional people, but it is not a Ponzi scheme, so this statement should be either removed, or mentioned but corrected with the proper arguments.

It was mentioned there but for a completely different reason. The talk is semi-protected, which means that you need to have an account that is at least 4 days old and have at least ten edits to participate in the discussion about Bitcoin article.

Has anyone actually mentioned the ECB document in the talk? … (or am i just missing it)

You can really see how strange Wikipedia works, by comparing the German Wikipedia article with the English one.

The German one has about 5 times the text and is of much better quality.

Some criticize Apple for being a Ponzi scheme in that it rewards early adopters through early Aple stock buying and increasing stock price..

I never understood how Wikipedia works, but there doesn't seem to be any way to contribute to the discussion on the talk page. Only admins can edit the page itself it seems, but why did they close the discussion? Looks like blatant censorship to me.

+1
That is indeed the crux of the matter. I agree that as it stands, the wikipedia page is itself making a statement of 'being' regarding Bitcoin.

I'm also fine with them noting the fact that some have claimed it is a ponzi, but right now it's a bit like saying:
"Some criticize Obama for being a Muslim.." 

The talk page for the Bitcoin article hasn't really addressed this properly. Perhaps the Obama example will make the bias more obvious to those missing it.

In reality, every economic boom and bust is a ponzi scheme, IT bubble, housing bubble etc... We are currently in a situation that no ponzi scheme is available, so that the economy is in so terrible shape, people strongly need a ponzi scheme to revive the economy. Of course it will inevitably cause another crash, but then another ponzi scheme will save the world again...