The price of .com registrations is lower than it should be, therefore any good name you might think of is always already taken by some domain name speculator. Fortunately, it's standard for open source projects to be .org.
Excellent choice of a first project, nice work. I had planned to do this exact thing if someone else didn't do it, so when it gets too hard for mortals to generate 50BTC, new users could get some coins to play with right away. Donations should be able to keep it filled. The display showing the balance in the dispenser encourages people to top it up. You should put a donation bitcoin address on the page for those who want to add funds to it, which ideally should update to a new address whenever it receives something.
Writing a description for this thing for general audiences is bloody hard. There's nothing to relate it to.
The timing is strange, just as we are getting a rapid increase in 3rd party coverage after getting slashdotted. I hope there's not a big hurry to wrap the discussion and decide. How long does Wikipedia typically leave a question like that open for comment? It would help to condense the article and make it less promotional sounding as soon as possible. Just letting people know what it is, where it fits into the electronic money space, not trying to convince them that it's good. They probably want something that just generally identifies what it is, not tries to explain all about how it works.
For future reference, here's my public key. It's the same one that's been there since the bitcoin.org site first went up in 2008. Grab it now in case you need it later. http://www.bitcoin.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc
Then you must also be against the common system of payment up front, where the customer loses. Payment up front: customer loses, and the thief gets the money. Simple escrow: customer loses, but the thief doesn't get the money either. Are you guys saying payment up front is better, because at least the thief gets the money, so at least someone gets it? Imagine someone stole something from you. You can't get it back, but if you could, if it had a kill switch that could be remote triggered, would you do it? Would it be a good thing for thieves to know that everything you own has a kill switch and if they steal it, it'll be useless to them, although you still lose it too? If they give it back, you can re-activate it. Imagine if gold turned to lead when stolen. If the thief gives it back, it turns to gold again. It still seems to me the problem may be one of presenting it the right way. For one thing, not being so blunt about "money burning" for the purposes of game theory discussion. The money is never truly burned. You have the option to release it at any time forever.
Bitcoin would be convenient for people who don't have a credit card or don't want to use the cards they have, either don't want the spouse to see it on the bill or don't trust giving their number to "porn guys", or afraid of recurring billing.
I wish rather than deleting the article, they put a length restriction. If something is not famous enough, there could at least be a stub article identifying what it is. I often come across annoying red links of things that Wiki ought to at least have heard of. The article could be as simple as something like: "Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer decentralised /link/electronic currency/link/." The more standard Wiki thing to do is that we should have a paragraph in one of the more general categories that we are an instance of, like Electronic Currency or Electronic Cash. We can probably establish a paragraph there. Again, keep it short. Just identifying what it is.
It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.