Search the Community

Wikimedia Foundation, the parent organisation which manages Wikipedia, has decided to halt the acceptance of crypto donations after a community vote on a poll revealed that 71.17% of respondents wanted to discontinue all cryptocurrency donations. The poll which had a total of 400 respondents, was the result of a three-month-long community discussion on the environmental implications of cryptocurrency mining. The discussion revealed concerns about how accepting crypto could damage the foundation’s reputation and commitment to environmental sustainability in the long run. The Foundation has now shut down the BitPay account through which it was accepting crypto donations. https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/05/01/wikipedia-to-stop-accepting-crypto-donations-on-environmental-other-grounds/

Mostly I use Wikipedia for details on out-of-the-way topics that you wouldn’t think would be subject to bias—lately it has been to corroborate some background on Voltaire, for instance. But not always—sometimes I use it as though a base stock, like you would in cooking, to develop a post on some contemporary issue. Others do this, too—pretty routinely—to provide backdrop for points they are making. @JW Insiderand @Araunaare doing that right now with a thread about China and its modern-day & changing role. It’s an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is—that’s how everyone thinks of it. As such, it is unbiased—that supposedly is it’s mission statement. Anyone can edit it (I’ve never quite understood how that works—well, I guess I do, but I’ve never been interested enough to attempt it, and the premise is that when anyone can do so the result will be complete and unbiased.) Not so, says co-founder Larry Sanger. “Unbiased” went out the window long ago. NPOV (neutral point of view) Is a thing of the past. He says it here, on this post from his own blog: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ He doesn’t say the website is not factual. Nor does he say it is not objective. But it is not complete. It clearly sides with particular points-of-view. Larry offers about a dozen examples of clear bias, from politics, to science, to health, to religion in which the minority view is run off the road. Sigh...this seriously compromises Wikipedia as a base. It is a leftist choir that is preaching there these days, and if you quote the source, which I do all the time, you will be getting a leftist point of view, and other viewpoints either ignored completely or declared wrong. It is not for an encyclopedia to do this, Sanger says. It is supposed to reflect all points of view. It is not to declare a winner. Sanger’s background (per Wikipedia (!) ) is not primarily technology, as being co-founder of Wikipedia might imply. It is philosophy, epistomology, and ethics. He is clearly disappointed in the path his creation has taken.