BitcoinTalk
BitCoin Wikipedia page DELETED!!!

View Satoshi only

External link

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

"This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

10:42, 30 July 2010 Polargeo (talk | contribs) deleted "Bitcoin" \u200e (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin)"
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

"This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

10:42, 30 July 2010 Polargeo (talk | contribs) deleted "Bitcoin" \u200e (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin)"

Boohoo. They don't like us. Big deal.
Wiki-who? Never heard of it!

Is it some sort of ukulele band?

It is ironic that wikipedia itself isnt accepted as a reliable source when you quote from  it in an argument. Roll Eyes  Apparently you are only notable if a celebrity mentions you.
I didn't suggest reading ae's Wikipedia page  Wink  And I definitely didn't link to it.
I didn't suggest reading ae's Wikipedia page  Wink  And I definitely didn't link to it.

I definitely didnt read it  Smiley
I've started the undelete request here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Bitcoin

If anyone wants to participate, just edit my undelete request and add more reasons why you think it wasn't fair to delete the article.
What is funny to me, is all the other pages on there asking for undeletion... are garage bands, wanna be "upcoming actors", and start up companies trying to advertise...

Without in depth examination, it appears we are the only such type of article that has been deleted asking for reinstatement. Someone must have really been PMSy to request the deletion in the first place.

The admin who deleted the article is an expert on glaciers .

Does this make him an ice-hole?
 Smiley
The admin who deleted the article is an expert on glaciers .

That would explain why he's got the time to admin for wikipedia.
The admin who deleted the article is an expert on glaciers .

That would explain why he's got the time to admin for wikipedia.

I cant believe bitcoin got hit by an ice berg. Cheesy

Instead of wasting with them (they do frustrate me sometimes), why not create a new article at a more "friendly" place like
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium

Quote
Citizendium is a wiki that seems to be a compromise between the free-for-all that is Wikipedia and the strict supervision that accompanies Scholarpedia. One of Wikipedia's founders, Larry Sanger, created Citizendium in the hopes of improving on Wikipedia's model. With what the site refers to as "gentle oversight", all articles are subject to approval by the site's editorial team. Articles that haven't been approved will have an accompanying disclaimer, which helps to prevent people from taking potentially false information to heart. Also, you must register under your real name to become a contributor, unlike Wikipedia. Although the site is still in beta form, it is quickly becoming a popular alternative to Wikipedia.
Well, wikipedia is not a public driven project. It is driven by a limited community of it's editors,
that is for a long time. Wikipedia represent collective and often inconsistent point of view
of a small (compared to society) group of people.
"Playing by the rules" is a favorite game of them. Don't play that game, do not entertain them.

I believe, it is some form of sexual perversion, wikipedism or like that...  Lips sealed

Just find another wikipedia editor and he will play instead of you.
Well, wikipedia is not a public driven project. It is driven by a limited community of it's editors,
that is for a long time. Wikipedia represent collective and often inconsistent point of view
of a small (compared to society) group of people.
"Playing by the rules" is a favorite game of them. Don't play that game, do not entertain them.

I believe, it is some form of sexual perversion, wikipedism or like that...  Lips sealed

Just find another wikipedia editor and he will play instead of you.

There is Wikipedia and its hierarchy, just like government and their hierarchy. The idea that the government could represent the people is laughable.

Similarly, the Wikipedia hierarchy devolved into politicking, no sexual perversion needed.
Well, wikipedia is not a public driven project. It is driven by a limited community of it's editors,
that is for a long time. Wikipedia represent collective and often inconsistent point of view
of a small (compared to society) group of people.
"Playing by the rules" is a favorite game of them. Don't play that game, do not entertain them.

I believe, it is some form of sexual perversion, wikipedism or like that...  Lips sealed

Just find another wikipedia editor and he will play instead of you.

There is Wikipedia and its hierarchy, just like government and their hierarchy. The idea that the government could represent the people is laughable.

Similarly, the Wikipedia hierarchy devolved into politicking, no sexual perversion needed.

When they moved to that model the outcome was inevitable.... personal empire building.  If it continues to a point where it destroys the product, something else will rise to challenge it, as long as they don't use the gov't to enforce their 'right' to be the arbitrators of 'editorial standards.'

Ta,
Well, wikipedia is not a public driven project. It is driven by a limited community of it's editors,
that is for a long time. Wikipedia represent collective and often inconsistent point of view
of a small (compared to society) group of people.
"Playing by the rules" is a favorite game of them. Don't play that game, do not entertain them.

I believe, it is some form of sexual perversion, wikipedism or like that...  Lips sealed

Just find another wikipedia editor and he will play instead of you.

There is Wikipedia and its hierarchy, just like government and their hierarchy. The idea that the government could represent the people is laughable.

Similarly, the Wikipedia hierarchy devolved into politicking, no sexual perversion needed.

Agree.
I just count politicking itself as some form of sexual perversion, or like that... Wink

Anyway, contacting wikipedia editor, who is external to this situation, will help a lot.
Wanted to add another reference here that I found via http://scholar.google.com/ http://yuumei.co.uk/files/dissertation.pdf. It is a paper Titled "The Impact of Decentralization on Networked Computer Games" Written by Ashley Vaughan Smith of School of Computing, University of Derby. The paper mentions bitcoins as a good currency for online games. It is only about a paragraph but, I think a research paper for a University would count as an independent 3rd party and may be more of what Wikipedia would like to see.
Wanted to add another reference here that I found via http://scholar.google.com/ http://yuumei.co.uk/files/dissertation.pdf. It is a paper Titled "The Impact of Decentralization on Networked Computer Games" Written by Ashley Vaughan Smith of School of Computing, University of Derby. The paper mentions bitcoins as a good currency for online games. It is only about a paragraph but, I think a research paper for a University would count as an independent 3rd party and may be more of what Wikipedia would like to see.
I beat ya to it by almost two weeks. Grin Not that anyone looks through my rambling lists. Cry
Somebody (possibly knightmb?) should request Userfication of the deleted article, to preserve the content.
Somebody (possibly knightmb?) should request Userfication of the deleted article, to preserve the content.
I just saw that myself, I haven't had time to dig through all the links to see what the process is since the Administrators don't have a direct "contact me" button anywhere.  Sad
the deleter's stats:
Pages deleted   839
Pages restored   1
It should be pointed out that "User:Message_From_Xenu/Bitcoin" currently has the full edit history of the previous Bitcoin article, and IMHO should be what gets "moved back" if there is some substantial improvement in the article that might pass muster if another AfD were to be offered again.

Rather than fighting the tide of those supporting the deletion of this article, finding those 3rd party references would be a much better act to perform and then restore the article when an act of deletion would seem over the top.  If the community wants to continue to refine the article, that is a good place to start.
Should we try submitting bitcoin wikipedia articles in several different languages?
I don't think it's worth sweating over the Wikipedia deletion.

Just leave it a month or two until there is some good third-party coverage then try again. The article should stick then.
We could let the community decide the importance of a wikipedia article by offering a bounty for the article to be undeleted in English.  You might even consider bribing the original deletist with bitcoins.  He would either a) refuse it b) accept it on the basis that third party coverage had reached sufficient wikipedia standards or c) accept it controversially which would create publicity for bitcoin.  I would offer 500 bitcoins towards that end.

I think you might find that offering a bribe would be the surest way to prevent the article from being re-included.
reviving this post.  anyone want to try creating the article in Russian? \u041f\u043e\u0436\u0430\u043b\u0443\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0430, \u0441\u043e\u0437\u0434\u0430\u0439\u0442\u0435 \u0441\u0442\u0430\u0442\u044c\u044e.  or maybe that catalan speaker is around and he can start an article.  wikipedia articles are key to credibility, so i'm not letting this go.  and where are the french?  the swiss?  the germans?  let's go, people.

Can we just make different language versions of a deleted page without getting them removed? Let's do it if we can. I can write a version in Finnish.
If you do, I think it should be a very brief, single paragraph article like 100 words or less that simply identifies what Bitcoin is.

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.