TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Wikipedia RFC to stop accepting cryptocurrencies passes by majority vote

316 pointsby SwimSwimHungryabout 3 years ago

33 comments

mardifoufsabout 3 years ago
Honestly the reasoning is weird. Don&#x27;t get me wrong, I think crypto currencies are for the most part a scam, a ponzi scheme or a platform for pump and dumps.<p>Yet the whole thing just does not make sense imo. It&#x27;s one thing to be against crypto, but refusing it when you are a charity for the most asinine moral purity tests is absurd. This 100% reminds me of the almost cultist like extremely negative reaction to anything related to crypto on some parts of twitter. Now I have been active in crypto mocking groups for years , but this feels more like some people have incorporated &quot;anticrypto&quot; to their daily culture war routine. So it must be purged from everywhere.<p>Also, I&#x27;m semi active in the wiki community and I have never heard anyone talk about the climate impact of their wiki mania meetups and the hundreds of flights that it requires. Or jimbo going to davos in private planes... etc. Well maybe this is signaling that climate change will actually be taken in consideration by the foundation and the wiki editors for their future policy decisions and RFCs , but I somehow doubt it.<p>The other reasons are even less relevant to wikimedia&#x27;s mission.
评论 #31014430 未加载
评论 #31012028 未加载
评论 #31013591 未加载
评论 #31012361 未加载
评论 #31012611 未加载
评论 #31011858 未加载
评论 #31012001 未加载
评论 #31015036 未加载
评论 #31012372 未加载
评论 #31012170 未加载
评论 #31015614 未加载
评论 #31021634 未加载
评论 #31012929 未加载
评论 #31015491 未加载
评论 #31011938 未加载
评论 #31012013 未加载
评论 #31012655 未加载
colesantiagoabout 3 years ago
This is great news, it is pretty pointless to use cryptocurrencies at all anyway since for Wikipedia:<p>&gt; Crypto was around 0.08% of our revenue last year, and it remains one of our smallest revenue channels.<p>Remember that Wikipedia is one of the top 10 websites on the planet, I&#x27;m also assuming that other websites trying to accept crypto have even smaller percentages rendering cryptocurrencies as payment useless, not to mention damaging to the environment.<p>What is <i>really</i> happening is that nobody is using it for payments at all, rather just holding crypto coins and hoping they&#x27;ll go up and speculating on the price.
评论 #31011866 未加载
评论 #31011669 未加载
评论 #31012058 未加载
评论 #31012322 未加载
评论 #31011748 未加载
评论 #31012043 未加载
评论 #31012258 未加载
评论 #31011508 未加载
评论 #31011517 未加载
评论 #31014221 未加载
评论 #31011724 未加载
cycomanicabout 3 years ago
I find many of the replies here fascinating. On one hand whenever there is talk about government regulating some industry or actor a large portion of commenter here reply that if you don&#x27;t agree with the practice don&#x27;t use them, no regulation needed. Now an organisation does exactly that, they decide that they don&#x27;t want to use a &quot;service&quot; that they ethically disagree with, and lots of replies call it pointless virtue signalling. So how should people&#x2F;organisations act when they disagree with certain practices&#x2F;actors?
评论 #31013759 未加载
评论 #31012335 未加载
评论 #31013458 未加载
评论 #31013142 未加载
评论 #31015572 未加载
评论 #31013544 未加载
lhlabout 3 years ago
For those interested in charitable giving with crypto, I set up a decent-sized on-chain Donor Advised Fund with <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;endaoment.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;endaoment.org&#x2F;</a> the end of last year. There are rough corners and it&#x27;s still early days, but I&#x27;m able to give to basically any arbitrary 501c3 in the same way using a dapp interface now, which is pretty sweet. You can setup a DAF via crypto w&#x2F; either Schwab or Fidelity as well (and others I&#x27;m sure).<p>I also did a bunch of year end donations through <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;thegivingblock.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;thegivingblock.com&#x2F;</a> which allows non-profits to easily receive donations via hundreds of different crypto assets and is pretty seamless for both parties (you fill in your tax info once, get an automated tax receipt letter, the receiving party gets automatic cash auto-conversion (if they want) and donor info).<p>Also, generally not tax deductible, but I&#x27;m a big fan of what <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gitcoin.co&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gitcoin.co&#x2F;</a> is doing with sybil resistant quadratic fund matching. Generally, not tax deductible, so I keep my donations small (using either zkSync or Polygon to save on fees) but for the latest GR13 funding round, top grants were getting up to 10:1 matching (mostly Ukraine crisis response campaigns - UNICEF got a whopping 37X match btw!) <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gitcoin.co&#x2F;blog&#x2F;grants-round-13-round-results-recap&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gitcoin.co&#x2F;blog&#x2F;grants-round-13-round-results-recap&#x2F;</a>
评论 #31023580 未加载
评论 #31016600 未加载
baobabKoodaaabout 3 years ago
I always find it weird when a charity or non-profit publically announces that they stop accepting certain forms of donations due to ideological reasons. It&#x27;s a signal that the organization isn&#x27;t particularly starving for donations. If you were planning to donate to Wikipedia any sum less than $130,100.94, remember that 70% of Wikipedians consider such donations to have no impact at all. So if you were about to donate $100k, for example, nobody at Wikipedia cares about such a tiny donation. So maybe donate that $100k to an organization that actually needs it instead?
评论 #31013235 未加载
评论 #31013148 未加载
评论 #31013174 未加载
评论 #31016385 未加载
评论 #31013129 未加载
fergieabout 3 years ago
&quot;cryptocurrencies provide safer ways to donate and engage in finance for people in oppressive countries&quot;<p>Yet a bigger problem is that too much money is moved out of these countries by those in power and hamstered away in various global tax havens.<p>I recommend &quot;Moneyland&quot; for anybody wanting to learn more.
评论 #31012839 未加载
lsangerabout 3 years ago
So Wikipedia doesn&#x27;t accept crypto anymore. Who cares? They don&#x27;t need it!<p>The Knowledge Standards Foundation does. We&#x27;re making an open network of all the encyclopedias (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;encyclosphere.org" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;encyclosphere.org</a>). Contact us: info@encyclosphere.org<p>Disclosure: I was co-founder of Wikipedia, once upon a time, and the KSF is my project.
dogman144about 3 years ago
Ideological payment censorship is a known issue with digital payments, and the core so-what of BTC that has been lost in the cryptocurrency sales pitch somewhat. The first block has an anti-&#x27;08 bailout message in it for a reason.<p>These censorship use cases are slowly moving towards more possible mainstream familiarity and empathy, and in my opinion also moving towards impacting progressive activist groups with axes to grind and payment rails dependent on the targets of those activism.<p>When that eventually comes to a head, as it seems likely, then the real decision point on cryptocurrencies will occur.<p>Assange gets payments&#x2F;donations cut off from all the major providers - ok, he&#x27;s possibly a Russian asset, not a great personality fit for whistleblower empathy, did some shady&#x2F;bad things, ok who cares.<p>OnlyFans almost gets its payment rails cut off by investors due to its core content - ok, I may not know camgirls&#x2F;boys, but I can empathize with them a bit more and certainly don&#x27;t like Investment Banks and Visa telling folks how to spend their evenings.<p>Now, taking a look at climate action groups, and wikis that try to leverage free and fair information for a public good. Also, not much has changed since 2008. The predatory financial behaviors still occur, maybe just called something differently - see Canada banning foreign purchases of homes. Depending on which side of the abortion debate you are on, large chunks of the country are moving in divergent directions on it. Unions in tech-y warehouse jobs have serious OPSEC concerns and are shifting over to Signal for coordination.<p>All of these causes and related groups rely on digital rails for payments, information sharing, and organization (Slack groups, Paypal accounts, GSuite free-ish emails, Signal groups etc). There is already a trend of building OPSEC programs for activist-y groups, and leveraging data science&#x2F;FOIA for activist research. The McDonald&#x27;s CEO was nabbed for this via a ~FOIA against the Chicago mayor. All of these causes&#x27; desired outcomes fundamentally oppose core tenants of corporate infrastructure, pending some major change. Climate activism especially comes to mind.<p>When the real conversations and possible anger actually start occurring in these groups, andthe real reactions from their counter-parties start occurring in public, and the fights over what gets into a wikipedia article occur in conjunction more so than already, a censorship-free payment rail comes into play. That means paper cash, cryptocurrency, or maybe some new tech. But I doubt Zelle or Venmo are safe at that point. I think the real so-what debate about crypto starts at that point.
yjftsjthsd-habout 3 years ago
Am I reading correctly that this is all cryptocurrencies, not just PoW? That&#x27;s slightly surprising, although it probably simplifies things.
评论 #31011998 未加载
评论 #31012775 未加载
评论 #31011778 未加载
robonerdabout 3 years ago
In response to these kind of stories, the comment sections online are always filled with crypto advocates upset about the organization not taking their money. This really makes clear who needs who. Crypto needs wikipedia much more than wikipedia needs crypto.<p>Wikipedia is <i>not</i> hard up for cash (if you <i>earnestly</i> believe their begging ads, you must be naive. Give me a break.) But crypto <i>is</i> hard up for legitimacy.
评论 #31016054 未加载
评论 #31015021 未加载
ancymonabout 3 years ago
They also oppose having ads on Wikipedia. Personally I don&#x27;t see much difference between banners asking for donations and ads. I understand there are &quot;bad&quot; ads (privacy violating or ones causing conflict of interest), but not all of them are like this. Same with cryptocurrencies - some of them are &quot;scam&quot;, but not all of them. It&#x27;s strange that Wikipedia sees world as black and white.
评论 #31012949 未加载
评论 #31014202 未加载
jazaabout 3 years ago
This is consistent with their negative attitude towards crypto-related Wikipedia content: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:General_sanctions&#x2F;Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:General_sanctions&#x2F;Bl...</a><p>&gt; A community discussion at the administrators&#x27; noticeboard has placed all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, under indefinite general sanctions, effective 14:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC).
plebianRubeabout 3 years ago
Their existing model of soliciting donations via<p>“DEAR WIKIPEDIA READERS,”<p>got them over 150MM without crypto.<p>Their stance on banning crypto changes nothing on this front, and only serves to make themselves seem &#x27;green&#x27;
amatechaabout 3 years ago
haha, from the headline I thought this meant they would stop accepting new wiki pages about cryptocurrencies, and thought &quot;huh, I guess it makes sense&quot; :&#x27;D
vdddvabout 3 years ago
&quot;the tally is 232 to 94, or 71.17% in support of the proposal&quot; So this decision is the result of a mere 326 Wikipedia users (contributors?)taking a vote.
stjohnswartsabout 3 years ago
I&#x27;ve been ignoring crypto for the most post but this is just dumb, they are turning away free money. It&#x27;s not up to wikipedia to fix the problems of the world (take a hint mozilla). This is a pretty big red flag about flaws in Wikipedia&#x27;s governance.
评论 #31016014 未加载
constantlmabout 3 years ago
In the context of their yearly guilt tripping banners asking for money in a manner that sounds like Wikipedia is on the brink of death, this virtue signaling is disappointing.
评论 #31012704 未加载
PufPufPufabout 3 years ago
I&#x27;m surprised how many pro-cryptocurrency comments I see here on HN. I would expect people here to see through the hype and technobabble.
评论 #31018815 未加载
qginabout 3 years ago
If you’re a charity in 1999 and people want to donate their Beanie Babies to you, accept them and sell them asap.
vinnie-ioabout 3 years ago
were they intimidated to accept crypto donations in the first place? have seen stories where companies are intimidated and threatened into accepting crypto as a payment option by groups
ospzfmbbzrabout 3 years ago
Beggars can&#x27;t be choosers. Lame virtue signalling from a worn out platform with its best days long behind it.<p>The energy argument against crypto is total BS and just an attack from the legacy banking industry and their cronies.
derevaunseraunabout 3 years ago
I&#x27;m not a cryptobro, but this annoying ass attitude is gonna turn me into one<p>I wonder what would happen if crypto somehow managed to replace central banks and how the world would change
评论 #31012355 未加载
zeepzeepabout 3 years ago
wikipedia doesn&#x27;t need the money anyways (any more money)
aaron695about 3 years ago
Wikipedia is on a knife edge. It can flip quickly. I&#x27;m not sure what they are doing to keep it stable, but this is a bad sign.<p>This should not be up to a vote. Wikipedia is there to be an encyclopedia, not have opinions on currency.<p>People should be prepared for when Wikipedia becomes the enemy.<p>F-Droid, DDG, Cloudflare all flipped at points.<p>The problem is if Wikipedia treats themselves like a democracy with no strong constitution and legal system once these decisions on morals start, we all know where they end up, the same as Twitter.
评论 #31014260 未加载
评论 #31012650 未加载
koonsoloabout 3 years ago
I&#x27;m very happy to see we are now in the &quot;then they fight you&quot; stage :).<p>Let&#x27;s see who wins.
评论 #31013799 未加载
thepasswordisabout 3 years ago
It sounds like Wikipedia isn’t really wanting for money.<p>Meh. I’ve donated in the past, but will just look for different charities in the future.<p>Non news article imo.
charcircuitabout 3 years ago
It&#x27;s Wikipedia&#x27;s loss. If they had actually took bitcoin donations since they added it in 2014 they would have appreciated quite a bit.
评论 #31011852 未加载
评论 #31011505 未加载
评论 #31011444 未加载
评论 #31011753 未加载
评论 #31011850 未加载
teekertabout 3 years ago
The environment? Then run a lightning node, or use Cardano, problem solved. Why are we trowing the baby out with the bathwater?
评论 #31013813 未加载
distrohopperabout 3 years ago
Wikipedia will no longer receive any donations from me. Works for me. It has become pretty left leaning anyways.
CTDOCodebasesabout 3 years ago
If environmental sustainability is an issue why don’t they shut down their servers? Think of all the electricity they could save. An online encyclopaedia is not essential for human survival.
MavropaliasGabout 3 years ago
Wikipedia has gone down the toilet. Too much political correctness, leftists, and sensitive snowflakes.
Mindwipeabout 3 years ago
Ah, another Wikipedia policy designed to exclude sex workers from financial services.<p>I notice this wasn&#x27;t even raised in the RFC.
评论 #31012123 未加载
评论 #31013773 未加载
评论 #31012110 未加载
评论 #31012156 未加载
vmceptionabout 3 years ago
So they excluded all the new accounts and unregistered voters, and only got 70% of the vote for reasons that are all solved with education.<p>Thats… medieval.
评论 #31011597 未加载
评论 #31011553 未加载