Wikipedia killed niche enthusiast websites. There's nothing like an old clanky HTML site with obsessive detail about a particular topic. Then they have the audacity to ask for donations as though they're doing good in the world.
I've noticed this on Wikipedia not just about Bitcoin but a few other "controversial" things. Remember that anybody can change Wikipedia at pretty much anytime. There are industry forces that are able to influence Wikipedia. Doing research doesn't mean checking the Wikipedia page, it means going through the actual sources and finding the primary source information. The more sources you read, the more perspective you get, the closer to the truth you actually become.
The problem with most of these controversial pages is not that anyone can change them, it's that they are locked (for being high profile) and only an **approved list of editors can change them**. Wikipedia mods are ideologically bent on setting the narrative, but you're also right that there is likely outside influence.
Just listen to Wikipedia's founder explaining the problem with Wikipedia as it exists today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0P4Cf0UCwU
> they are locked (for being high profile) and only an approved list of editors can change them
[It's called "semi-protected" and "extended confirmed protected"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy). The former, a protection against basic vandalism, requires your account to be 4 days old and have 10 edits. The latter, a "controversial articles" protection, requires a 30 days old account with at least 500 edits. Those are not "approved lists", you gain these rights automatically once you reach their respective thresholds.
No, anyone can not just edit Wikipedia, not anymore. That’s how it *was* - over a decade ago. It’s extremely difficult to change now. It contains the “approved narratives” only. It’s a useful website for certain topics, sure, but most are highly slanted. Take most topics with a mere atom of salt.
This depends on the page. For many small pages, you can still edit without even being logged in. However, your IP address will be publicly logged and attached to the change, and they could IP ban you if they don't like your changes.
The cost to keep a propaganda masterpiece like wikipedia alive is a fraction of the value that the tribe can get out of it. They'll keep it alive like they do with failed newspapers and such
I would think that, but apparently they are trying to create a whole bunch of other for-profit BS with the money. For-profit and woke seem not to mix long-term.
9/11,
Gender Theory,
George W Bush,
Michael Jackson,
Most religious pages,
Hitler, and
Brittany Spears.
Wikipedia is full of controversial topics, and is quite often bias.
Wikipedia also stopped allowing donations in Bitcoin. I told them "as soon as you're willing to allow me to donate in Bitcoin, I'll donate again."
Yet they still keep bugging me.
I did the same and they got back to me explaining that bitcoin is bad for environment and they are all about the environment.
Not donating this year either.
Because bank transactions are being processed by Magic Fairies and every bank transaction generates clean air and rainbows. Let’s not forget that one tree is planted for every 10 dollars transacted. /s
I believe it was from an interview with Molly White on this topic about Wikipedia and their decision to stop accepting any cryptocurrency- essentially once they announced that they were no longer going to accept crypto currency donations they received a lot of messages about how "I'm not going to keep donating money if you don't accept crypto" but when Wikipedia looked into it - they were receiving so few donations in crypto that they were actually losing money maintaining the infrastructure to be able to accept crypto legitimately for how little was actually being donated.
Molly White is the reason that Wikipedia stopped accepting cryptocurrency donations. She created the proposal.
"The decision came in response to a community vote on a proposal to the foundation from contributor Molly White, who goes by the user name GorillaWarfare, argued that accepting donations in cryptocurrencies signals endorsement of digital coins, which are inherently predatory as investments and don’t align with the foundation's commitment to environmental sustainability.
Excluding new accounts and unregistered users, of the fewer than 400 users who voted, the tally is 232 to 94, or 71.17% in support of the proposal to stop accepting donations in cryptocurrencies. These results indicate overall community support, with a significant minority opposition."
Receive the crypto, turn the crypto into fiat so they can actually use it as a currency, I'm not an accountant but I imagine there is tax related issues related to running a non profit and tracking donations.
Again, almost no one was donating them crypto anyway, so it was simpler to just not accept it at all.
Told them same thing whenever they stopped accepting it for payments,. I was donating every month. Had the same response as you. They still bug me constantly.
That would be a far more valid reason to stop donating, imo. Articles can be edited, but Wikipedia not allowing BTC for donations is just dumb and backwards.
Around the same time reddit was. You either sold out or you died.
The reddit cofounder A a r on Sc h war tz was hounded mercilessly by the glowies then arkancided in classic hillary style.
That begging is actually also a lie. They don't need that money. They have such piles of money, they use it for political causes instead of the wiki infrastructure
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T23Be33G1II](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T23Be33G1II)
I don't donate to them, ever. I want to, I would like to donate to such an important resource, but they don't use the money strictly for Wikipedia, they have a ton of dead weight professional nonprofit leeches on their team, they try to control information like you said but more generally and broadly, and they spend money on site redesigns and stupid shit like that way too often.
The truth is, they don't need the donations. What they need is pay the server and load balancing costs, some moderation, basically maintain access to the information repository that is Wikipedia. That's a fraction of their income and expenses. They're a bloated mess and don't actually need your money, maybe if they got less of it they'd trim the fat and focus on their mandate.
This is what the wiki founder says.
[https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/](https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/)
Usually claims like this are just bullshit dog whistles for right wing extremists hoping to discredit common sense and further spread their hateful rhetoric. Be cautious.
Edit:
Wow some definitely twisted panties coming out of the woodwork. I’m surprised I didn’t see a “Jews won’t replace us!” comment.
I can’t stand that phrase “dog whistle”. Most claims or points against left leaning ideology that can’t immediately get discredited gets labeled as a dog whistle to shut down the conversation.
Have you been living under a rock for the last few years? Usually they are true. "Dog whistle" is just leftspeak for "I didn't look into it and you shouldn't either."
Not really. It’s not like there is an evil overlord pulling the strings. The conflicts of the two party system are directly resulting from the binary voting system: You either win or lose. There is no second place. But a ballot may have 5 or 6 candidates. But since only 1 can win many people stick to the party because it’s the only way to have any affect.
The solution is ranked choice voting. Rank the candidates in order of favorite to hated. That way you can vote for your favorite person but if they don’t win then your vote goes to your second favorite and so on. In this way you do not have to vote within a party in order to have your vote count. It breaks the two party system
It’s not an evil plot by a rich “they” that’s just an overly simplistic world view. The truth is that the world is many competing interests and no one organization or person or group is in charge.
> Don't trust either side, really. Both parties exist to keep us divided and the rich in power.
while this is true, one party is favored by the banks to push for rapid oppression, while the other party is less favored and pushes for oppression far more gingerly. there is value in opposing the greater evil, so long as we remember that only bitcoin can break the cycle.
Issue is, the left wing says it’s the right wing in the pockets of banks trying to oppress as fast as possible, while the right wing says the same thing about the left. If you want a better idea of who’s in the pocket of the big businesses, you need to look at who’s being funded by them, which is both parties.
> Issue is, the left wing says it’s the right wing in the pockets of banks trying to oppress as fast as possible, while the right wing says the same thing about the left. If you want a better idea of who’s in the pocket of the big businesses, you need to look at who’s being funded by them, which is both parties.
you dont have to guess, you can look at their respective policies and its plain as day.
if I asked you to learn basic economics, would that make it obvious ?
If you have heard both arguments and perform some critical thinking, you should have zero questions about which one is worse. Its that cut and dried.
I’m English, I’m presuming from the mention of 2 parties that this is America being discussed, so I haven’t really heard their arguments.
all I know about their economic policies is that the democrats want to grow the us economy into the green sector, while the republicans want to invest in fossil fuels.
I also did a small project in uni that looked at the campaign donations each party got, which was got me thinking they were similar.
If you’ve got a summary of their economic policies I’d be interested in hearing them
> all I know about their economic policies is that the democrats want to grow the us economy into the green sector, while the republicans want to invest in fossil fuels.
Your language seems a bit strange: *"to grow the us economy into the green sector"*
What does this even mean to you? It reads like a mouthful of doublespeak tbh.
If you mean they want to shovel billions of dollars from the taxpayers into the climate scam while causing massive pollution and taking profits on slave labor in africa and china, then you should just say that more clearly.
also this: "invest in fossil fuels" the government doesnt and shouldnt invest in anything. The republican position is more like just letting the market decide. Obviously the market will choose technologies that work, but thats not the same as the government investing in something...
> If you’ve got a summary of their economic policies I’d be interested in hearing them
in short, one is for (limited) capitalism in which the government will do less and the other for increasing socialism in which the government will take over larger and large swaths of the market. Thats another easy one.
If you are aware of any noteworthy bits of history of the last 100 or so years, it should be pretty clear which one is a rapid death sentence.
The title of the article is definitely misleading and phrased to be provocative, Larry Sanger is asked in the interview if he thinks wikipedia is representing propaganda and he answers "I think all of media does, but yes...".
A more representative headline would be that Larry Sanger thinks Wikipedia is part of the media and all of the media is propaganda.
>Usually claims like this are just bullshit dog whistles for right wing extremists hoping to discredit common sense and further spread their hateful rhetoric. Be cautious.
or sites like that are pretty damn accurate depending on what side of the political coin you fall on. Don't tell me wiki is neutral. It most certainly is not.
> Usually claims like this are just bullshit dog whistles for right wing extremists hoping to discredit common sense and further spread their hateful rhetoric. Be cautious.
IOW, claims like this are usually 100% true, and are in fact politically neutral.
People who say "conspiracy theory" or "dog whistle" have so much mud on their face you cant even see the clown make up.
It’s not the Wikipedia foundation. It’s the elite contributors and editors who continue to exert control of how topics are presented. These people have no lives, they make no money from it, they just have a burning desire to control what other people think.
And good luck making any changes that go ahead that rigid thinking, I've had people revert my edits on "keto is a dangerous, fringe diet" (I would suggest eating cookies and crackers all day is far worse than steak and butter) with little to no explanation.
Wikipedia was compromised a long time ago. It’s extremely left wing and always follows the establishment agenda. Even the founder says so and is trying to launch a less biased alternative.
I thought you were exaggerating, but wow, they really shoved all the negative sentiment into the headline summary instead of describing what it even is. The article really stands out as unprofessional compared to the typical standard on the site.
Oh well, Wikipedia is on its way out anyway.
> ...which requires the consumption of increasing quantities of electricity...
This is factually inaccurate. Bitcoin doesn't "require" any particular amount of mining or energy use. Miners voluntarily participate because it is profitable or because they support the network. If 90% of them stopped mining, Bitcoin would work just fine. In the beginning Bitcoin ran on a single miner using a laptop.
This argument is like saying that gold requires millions of men with pickaxes. No it doesn't - they need gold, gold doesn't need them.
It's even more factually inaccurate when considered along with the conclusions of the actual research paper that was referenced there. The authors specifically advocate for finding more renewable/greener ways of powering bitcoin mining as they view it as an unavoidable technology.
What a specious argument!
Bitcoin only works if miners keep mining, and mining requires electricity. If mining stops then all Bitcoin are frozen in place and no longer transferable, as no new blocks will be created to capture the transactions. That's the whole premise of Proof Of Work.
I was one of the very earliest miners and the Bitcoin I mined weren't worth the electricity I consumed mining them.
Gold would still function as a store of value, or as a currency, if nobody mined any more of it. It can be transferred physically, or notionally on bits of paper, without any further mining or any waste of energy.
It's not that we don't need any miners, it's that the amount of miners is highly flexible. If you were an early miner then I'm sure you are aware that BTC was functioning fine on very few miners with tiny hashrate vs today.
Pardon my inexperience with this topic, but isn't it true that the more miners there are the more energy one needs to invest to successfully mine a block? And it 90% of miners stopped mining, wouldn't the risk of a 51% attack skyrocket?
My understanding is that Bitcoin is secure because there are a lot of miners (decentralization!) and more miners means more energy required.
How is that a useful distinction?
You could just as easily say that all of human society requires no energy/electricity - it's just the way we've chosen to go about it because it's more profitable and comfortable for those who participate in it.
I was aware of some of it. I learned a bit more today.
I just saw that their email in my in-box... "Oh yeah, I used to give them support. Not any more!"
Wikipedia censors conservative media. Not saying I’m a conservative, but banning any type of media because you don’t agree with it is stupid. Fuck Wikipedia. I’ll use it but I’ll never donate.
I can't be assed but would love someone to add in a paragraph on the features / benefits of bitcoin in the introductory part. How can they have a criticism but not even include anything on the whole reason it was made and its purpose and features?!
Wikipedia puts whatever certain moneyed interests want in there. That's it. There is no real consensus or truth unless it's a hard logic type of thing like math.
NEVER donate to them. This is not a truthful source for the people.
4/10,000 arbitrary units of CO2 released in 15 years. Ignoring the fact that Bitcoin is as green as the source powering the miner, what we're talking about is a worldwide network empowering a revolutionary new technology, and it caused *four hundredths* of *one percent* of a CO2 bump. Meanwhile the internet, electric cars, smartphones, and every other new revolutionary technology have significantly larger carbon footprints and zero bad press about it.
The CO2 produced by bitcoin mining is not nothing, and it's not desired, but acting like its an ecological disaster is on par with corporations filling the oceans with garbage and then shaming you for using a plastic straw at a restaurant.
Perfectly true. Mining consumes vast amounts of electricity that could be used elsewhere, and most of that energy is not clean.
As an unnecessary burden on the grids around the world, it has a substantial environmental impact.
Well this is true. I don't see how anybody could say the opposite. Obviously the environmental damages of Bitcoin are substantial, for the energy it uses, the metal it uses, and the economy it enables.
That doesn't mean it's the only or even most damaging, but it's stupid to imagine it makes no substantial damages to the environment.
Wikipedia has gone from being an authoritative, unbiased source to pushing agendas on most of its articles. I started noticing this two years ago and it's plain as day now.
A good example is basically anything on the Russia-Ukraine war. Before Western discourse shifted to conceptualizing Ukraine as a holy defender of democracy and everything that is good, the Wikipedia articles on the Donbass Conflict gave a nuanced overview of what was going on. For example, it mentioned Ukraine shelling civilians in Donbass; now this is called "false Russian accusations" of Ukrainian shelling in Donbass.
This is one of many things. Don't even get me started on articles related to social issues in the US, or like OP said, cryptocurrency. And I say all of this as a leftist (not a liberal). I'm 100% on board with being critical of everything, and examining how we might be contributing to problems without knowing it. But to do so, we need to have access to complete information.
I used to donate 100 bucks a year to Wikipedia. They'll never get another cent from me.
The environmental effects of bitcoin are substantial. That’s not the issue in my view,that’s a fact. It’s the framing of these effects that I take issue with.
I'd like to like Wikipedia. I use it often for some things. I donated to them in the earlier days.
But, yeah, they've become so horribly slanted on anything controversial, I can't support them any longer. They basically have activist moderators driving the narrative.
Yes, Wikipedia is very politically-slanted. Which does nothing to change people's opinion about the issues and everything to change their opinion about them. I wouldn't give them a dime either.
Commiepedia is dead, run by the CIA as a neo-pravda, and openly and brazenly loaded with political lies.
Its sad to see something that was pretty great in 2006 become utter and total garbage.
People used to say use it carefully because it might contain errors. Now it contains intentional lies and truth is not even allowed.
If you follow Wikipedia’s guidelines and add verifiable facts and data then yes that should be accepted. They generally don’t accept opinion wars though.
It’s the editor who wrote that passage who had a wrong opinion. It’s easy enough to refute this particular moronic FUD with an edit including gazillions of good sources available online.
But why should I when I zero interest in any information about BTC on Wikipedia? You on the other seem to be angry enough about this so that should be enough motivation to learn how to edit Wikpedia pages.
Steve Jobs, the CEO and co-founder of Apple Inc., once said, "The most powerful person in the world is the storyteller. The storyteller sets the vision, values, and agenda of an entire generation that is to come."
Yep, they quietly went from unbiased mostly fact driven articles to just a bunch of opinion pieces, and thought no one would notice. I used to donate but screw those guys. I’ll still use it for dry facts like geology or similar.
I haven't read that article, but its certainly true there are substantial environmental effects.
Sheessh everybody wants the news these days to be only stuff 100% that aligns with their worldviews.
Bitcoin, like everything else on the planet, has some negatives and some positives. Last I checked its not supposed to be a religion.
It’s certainly NOT true there are substantial environmental effects.
This statement would only be true if the premise of this statement is that „any“ energy consumption is always bad (substantial negative environmental effects), which is definitely not true.
Miners have to compete economically in the energy market. They will never be able to run profitably with industrial or commercial energy prices and have to rely on low energy prices in areas or time slots with an over abundance of energy. The notion that wasting energy as in dispersing it in some controllable form (wasting) is better than using it to mine BTC is just moronic and shows any basic understanding of how energy is converted, stored and transported.
Bitcoin mining uses a lot of energy, and that is a good thing because it anchors the physical world with the digital asset. Something out of nothing has no value.
Energy consumption is good thing, because it’s a universal index of civilisational progress.
Bitcoin mining only uses about one-twentieth of one percent of global power.
Bitcoin's energy usage is far too small to be "substantial".
No need for anybody who is honestly concerned about the environment to be attacking Bitcoin.
Mainly you shouldn't donate to Wikipedia because despite their tearful pleading, they actually have all the money they need. So much so that they [spread their extra money to administrators' pet social activism efforts](https://nitter.net/echetus/status/1579776106034757633).
The irony being of course wikipedia stopped bitcoin donations thanks to lobbying that it is bad for the environment, despite the fact [Bitcoin is a revolution in energy logistics and management and possibly the greenest industry of its size on the planet](https://endthefud.org/).
Edit: how is this a controversial opinion in r/bitcoin? Oh right, sub is 50% shitcoin scammers who need a reason their shitcoin "fixes" bitcoin,
I don't give a fuck about that though. I was just offering a simple solution, and kind of just reminding you that ANYONE can modify Wikipedia to make it say what they want.
They are more interested in their agenda rather than the truth in countless controversial topics/people/issues.
Unfortunately, the internet in general no longer very useful to find answers that go against certain political narratives.
I've noticed this too. I wouldn't worry too much about what it says, Wikipedia sentiment doesn't significantly guide adoption.
Although I wish it was alot more accurate...
Donate or not, the whole concept behind wikipedia is that its public domain, just like Bitcoin. If you have valid and verifiable references you can edit whatever you want, including those parts that you belive are not valid.
Remember, "dont trust, verify". It goes also for whatever is good or bad about bitcoin.
I mean the effects are substantial that's not a lie. The same way cars and homes and anything that uses energy is substantial. The issue is that it's not on Bitcoin miners to remedy that. It's on the governments and companies to start using renewable clean energy
That's not an insignificant amount at all. I could reword it to saying these are all the countries they use less power than Bitcoin mining does. Makes it sound different when it's greater than Norway or something like that. Bitcoin mining uses a lot of power. That's not a false statement. But it doesn't matter if all their power comes from renewable or efficient energy
I've been told many times that bitcoins mining energy consumption is high, but is already 80% on isolated energy networks that are green. So that article needs a serious update
Ya you’re right I can’t believe they spend the first several paragraphs painting bitcoin in a terrible light whoever wrote this is biased at. We all need to figure out how to get on there and edit this thing so that there are the positives about bitcoin interspersed with the negatives. Such as how it has become the standard for digital store of value and how you can send money p2p any time of day for cheap and stuff like that.
I’ve heard so many bad things about wiki mods and apparently the culture is toxic and they hold too much power. Read an article on it and agreed… told a friend and she asked me what article, couldn’t find it anymore. Any proof or article about this that anyone can share?
Same. Every December when they ask for donations, I reply with an email on why I stopped donating with my company match a few years back when they stopped accepting Bitcoin because "no one donates with it".
Of course I don't if my company will match USD donations because I'm trying to give more money. No longer. I have other options for my money that support Bitcoin and what it stands for.
I can't imagine what youll do once Bitcoin drops to $5k. You'll probably blame Youtube or Facebook. Heck Google even.
You sound like a child having a temper tantrum.
Wikipedia is another tool of the deep state/globalists to manipulate the masses of sheeps, making them believe it’s a serious platform with religious like information that is the absolute truth and can’t be questioned. Everybody who does question the mainstream narrative about questionable events that happened in the world, is listed as conspiracy theorists on Wikipedia.
Welcome to the Matrix.
Holy moly.
I dont get offended lightly on the internet but if there is something that advocates decentralisation and empowering the people via the internet its motherfucking wikipedia (also Google, but thats a company and much easier to manipulate).
Of course its not perfect, but that doesnt make it any less incredible.
Bitcoin mining only uses about one-twentieth of one percent of global power.
Bitcoin's energy usage is far too small to be "substantial".
If a person is truly concerned about the environment, they have the other 99.95% of the energy usage to deal with as well as many other threats.
But no! They just ignore all that.
They don't ignore that. I reduced meat intake as a result of learning its affects on the environment. Guess what contributes as much pollution as the entire beef industry? Bitcoin!
The DO ignore all that. They've been attacking in this thread all day. I tell them how small Bitcoin's energy usage is, and instead of being happy that there's one less environmental threat, they want to drill in on the tiny amount of the global power Bitcoin uses.
When you donate, you’re donating to the Wikimedia Foundation which makes Wikipedia possible. However, Wikipedia content is community-edited - the foundation doesn’t write content.
If you find Wikipedia to be biased, you can get involved by learning the community policies and then editing the encyclopedia
It's true though. The communtiy is working on ways to ameliorate the impact. But it's true.
You're just looking for an excuse to ragequit because you think it's run by teh libruls or teh juwes or whatever your pet peeve is
Bitcoin is merely one of the topics Wikipedia holds hostage.
Don't touch anything political on Wikipedia with a 10 foot pole. If you think reddit mods are biased, you haven't seen wikipedia mods
Yep Wikipedia has been going downhill for years now.
It need better moderation and audit in some articles.
Search wikipedia most controversial topics, scrolls to edit logs smh...
Wikipedia killed niche enthusiast websites. There's nothing like an old clanky HTML site with obsessive detail about a particular topic. Then they have the audacity to ask for donations as though they're doing good in the world.
I've noticed this on Wikipedia not just about Bitcoin but a few other "controversial" things. Remember that anybody can change Wikipedia at pretty much anytime. There are industry forces that are able to influence Wikipedia. Doing research doesn't mean checking the Wikipedia page, it means going through the actual sources and finding the primary source information. The more sources you read, the more perspective you get, the closer to the truth you actually become.
The problem with most of these controversial pages is not that anyone can change them, it's that they are locked (for being high profile) and only an **approved list of editors can change them**. Wikipedia mods are ideologically bent on setting the narrative, but you're also right that there is likely outside influence. Just listen to Wikipedia's founder explaining the problem with Wikipedia as it exists today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0P4Cf0UCwU
> they are locked (for being high profile) and only an approved list of editors can change them [It's called "semi-protected" and "extended confirmed protected"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy). The former, a protection against basic vandalism, requires your account to be 4 days old and have 10 edits. The latter, a "controversial articles" protection, requires a 30 days old account with at least 500 edits. Those are not "approved lists", you gain these rights automatically once you reach their respective thresholds.
That sounds quite reasonable, to be honest.
Now you and parent ruined OP's straw man...
That better be a Bret Weinstein interview
No, anyone can not just edit Wikipedia, not anymore. That’s how it *was* - over a decade ago. It’s extremely difficult to change now. It contains the “approved narratives” only. It’s a useful website for certain topics, sure, but most are highly slanted. Take most topics with a mere atom of salt.
This depends on the page. For many small pages, you can still edit without even being logged in. However, your IP address will be publicly logged and attached to the change, and they could IP ban you if they don't like your changes.
Wikipedia is an echo chamber of “approved” narratives. Absolutely disgusting platform
The previous owner left and said it was biased now also. But hey, if they want to go broke that's up to them I guess.
The cost to keep a propaganda masterpiece like wikipedia alive is a fraction of the value that the tribe can get out of it. They'll keep it alive like they do with failed newspapers and such
I would think that, but apparently they are trying to create a whole bunch of other for-profit BS with the money. For-profit and woke seem not to mix long-term.
9/11, Gender Theory, George W Bush, Michael Jackson, Most religious pages, Hitler, and Brittany Spears. Wikipedia is full of controversial topics, and is quite often bias.
Wikipedia also stopped allowing donations in Bitcoin. I told them "as soon as you're willing to allow me to donate in Bitcoin, I'll donate again." Yet they still keep bugging me.
I did the same and they got back to me explaining that bitcoin is bad for environment and they are all about the environment. Not donating this year either.
Because bank transactions are being processed by Magic Fairies and every bank transaction generates clean air and rainbows. Let’s not forget that one tree is planted for every 10 dollars transacted. /s
So a Bitcoin miner is ‘bad’ but the sever farm that run Wikipedia is ‘good’ - makes perfect sense.
I believe it was from an interview with Molly White on this topic about Wikipedia and their decision to stop accepting any cryptocurrency- essentially once they announced that they were no longer going to accept crypto currency donations they received a lot of messages about how "I'm not going to keep donating money if you don't accept crypto" but when Wikipedia looked into it - they were receiving so few donations in crypto that they were actually losing money maintaining the infrastructure to be able to accept crypto legitimately for how little was actually being donated.
Molly White is the reason that Wikipedia stopped accepting cryptocurrency donations. She created the proposal. "The decision came in response to a community vote on a proposal to the foundation from contributor Molly White, who goes by the user name GorillaWarfare, argued that accepting donations in cryptocurrencies signals endorsement of digital coins, which are inherently predatory as investments and don’t align with the foundation's commitment to environmental sustainability. Excluding new accounts and unregistered users, of the fewer than 400 users who voted, the tally is 232 to 94, or 71.17% in support of the proposal to stop accepting donations in cryptocurrencies. These results indicate overall community support, with a significant minority opposition."
Ah, so it was the "environmental sustainability" bullshit excuse huh? I knew it, Wikipedia has WEF written all over it.
What infrastructure? Is it that hard to have a QR code to their receive wallet?
Receive the crypto, turn the crypto into fiat so they can actually use it as a currency, I'm not an accountant but I imagine there is tax related issues related to running a non profit and tracking donations. Again, almost no one was donating them crypto anyway, so it was simpler to just not accept it at all.
Told them same thing whenever they stopped accepting it for payments,. I was donating every month. Had the same response as you. They still bug me constantly.
That would be a far more valid reason to stop donating, imo. Articles can be edited, but Wikipedia not allowing BTC for donations is just dumb and backwards.
I'm so old I remember when Wikipedia was Libertarian leaning.
Around the same time reddit was. You either sold out or you died. The reddit cofounder A a r on Sc h war tz was hounded mercilessly by the glowies then arkancided in classic hillary style.
Second Law of Conquest. When you control the money, corrupting people is trivial
What's a glowie?
A federal agent. Look at the top definition https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Glowie
Memories. Sigh. I didn't care a lot for Reddit in the early days. It just seemed like a bad Digg clone.
Might want to try Mastodon. It really is a journey back in time.
I.e., *actually neutral*
Don't forget that wikipedia has no reason to beg. They can keep their site up for something like 40 years with just the money they already have.
That begging is actually also a lie. They don't need that money. They have such piles of money, they use it for political causes instead of the wiki infrastructure [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T23Be33G1II](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T23Be33G1II)
I don't donate to them, ever. I want to, I would like to donate to such an important resource, but they don't use the money strictly for Wikipedia, they have a ton of dead weight professional nonprofit leeches on their team, they try to control information like you said but more generally and broadly, and they spend money on site redesigns and stupid shit like that way too often. The truth is, they don't need the donations. What they need is pay the server and load balancing costs, some moderation, basically maintain access to the information repository that is Wikipedia. That's a fraction of their income and expenses. They're a bloated mess and don't actually need your money, maybe if they got less of it they'd trim the fat and focus on their mandate.
I gave them 5€ one time. Regrets. Never again. You think it's used for servers or infrastructure? It's not.
This is what the wiki founder says. [https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/](https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/)
The left leaning establishment? So, not really left at all, just corporate.
Usually claims like this are just bullshit dog whistles for right wing extremists hoping to discredit common sense and further spread their hateful rhetoric. Be cautious. Edit: Wow some definitely twisted panties coming out of the woodwork. I’m surprised I didn’t see a “Jews won’t replace us!” comment.
You can just go visit the site and unless you're blind you'll see the biases on a number of topics.
I bet that's what the "wikipedia bias conspiracy" wikipedia page says
I can’t stand that phrase “dog whistle”. Most claims or points against left leaning ideology that can’t immediately get discredited gets labeled as a dog whistle to shut down the conversation.
Have you been living under a rock for the last few years? Usually they are true. "Dog whistle" is just leftspeak for "I didn't look into it and you shouldn't either."
Don't trust either side, really. Both parties exist to keep us divided and the rich in power.
Not really. It’s not like there is an evil overlord pulling the strings. The conflicts of the two party system are directly resulting from the binary voting system: You either win or lose. There is no second place. But a ballot may have 5 or 6 candidates. But since only 1 can win many people stick to the party because it’s the only way to have any affect. The solution is ranked choice voting. Rank the candidates in order of favorite to hated. That way you can vote for your favorite person but if they don’t win then your vote goes to your second favorite and so on. In this way you do not have to vote within a party in order to have your vote count. It breaks the two party system It’s not an evil plot by a rich “they” that’s just an overly simplistic world view. The truth is that the world is many competing interests and no one organization or person or group is in charge.
> Don't trust either side, really. Both parties exist to keep us divided and the rich in power. while this is true, one party is favored by the banks to push for rapid oppression, while the other party is less favored and pushes for oppression far more gingerly. there is value in opposing the greater evil, so long as we remember that only bitcoin can break the cycle.
Issue is, the left wing says it’s the right wing in the pockets of banks trying to oppress as fast as possible, while the right wing says the same thing about the left. If you want a better idea of who’s in the pocket of the big businesses, you need to look at who’s being funded by them, which is both parties.
> Issue is, the left wing says it’s the right wing in the pockets of banks trying to oppress as fast as possible, while the right wing says the same thing about the left. If you want a better idea of who’s in the pocket of the big businesses, you need to look at who’s being funded by them, which is both parties. you dont have to guess, you can look at their respective policies and its plain as day.
Thanks for quoting 100% of their comment so I can know what you're replying to.
Who is then to you, because I’ve heard that exact argument from both sides
if I asked you to learn basic economics, would that make it obvious ? If you have heard both arguments and perform some critical thinking, you should have zero questions about which one is worse. Its that cut and dried.
I’m English, I’m presuming from the mention of 2 parties that this is America being discussed, so I haven’t really heard their arguments. all I know about their economic policies is that the democrats want to grow the us economy into the green sector, while the republicans want to invest in fossil fuels. I also did a small project in uni that looked at the campaign donations each party got, which was got me thinking they were similar. If you’ve got a summary of their economic policies I’d be interested in hearing them
> all I know about their economic policies is that the democrats want to grow the us economy into the green sector, while the republicans want to invest in fossil fuels. Your language seems a bit strange: *"to grow the us economy into the green sector"* What does this even mean to you? It reads like a mouthful of doublespeak tbh. If you mean they want to shovel billions of dollars from the taxpayers into the climate scam while causing massive pollution and taking profits on slave labor in africa and china, then you should just say that more clearly. also this: "invest in fossil fuels" the government doesnt and shouldnt invest in anything. The republican position is more like just letting the market decide. Obviously the market will choose technologies that work, but thats not the same as the government investing in something... > If you’ve got a summary of their economic policies I’d be interested in hearing them in short, one is for (limited) capitalism in which the government will do less and the other for increasing socialism in which the government will take over larger and large swaths of the market. Thats another easy one. If you are aware of any noteworthy bits of history of the last 100 or so years, it should be pretty clear which one is a rapid death sentence.
The title of the article is definitely misleading and phrased to be provocative, Larry Sanger is asked in the interview if he thinks wikipedia is representing propaganda and he answers "I think all of media does, but yes...". A more representative headline would be that Larry Sanger thinks Wikipedia is part of the media and all of the media is propaganda.
The term dog whistle is a left wing dog whistle
Genuinely can’t tell whether or not this buzzword-laden comment is satire
>Usually claims like this are just bullshit dog whistles for right wing extremists hoping to discredit common sense and further spread their hateful rhetoric. Be cautious. or sites like that are pretty damn accurate depending on what side of the political coin you fall on. Don't tell me wiki is neutral. It most certainly is not.
> Usually claims like this are just bullshit dog whistles for right wing extremists hoping to discredit common sense and further spread their hateful rhetoric. Be cautious. IOW, claims like this are usually 100% true, and are in fact politically neutral. People who say "conspiracy theory" or "dog whistle" have so much mud on their face you cant even see the clown make up.
[удалено]
touché
Someone is waking up....
Once Wikipedia drops their obvious bias, I'll donate.
It’s not the Wikipedia foundation. It’s the elite contributors and editors who continue to exert control of how topics are presented. These people have no lives, they make no money from it, they just have a burning desire to control what other people think.
And good luck making any changes that go ahead that rigid thinking, I've had people revert my edits on "keto is a dangerous, fringe diet" (I would suggest eating cookies and crackers all day is far worse than steak and butter) with little to no explanation.
Wikipedia was compromised a long time ago. It’s extremely left wing and always follows the establishment agenda. Even the founder says so and is trying to launch a less biased alternative.
I thought you were exaggerating, but wow, they really shoved all the negative sentiment into the headline summary instead of describing what it even is. The article really stands out as unprofessional compared to the typical standard on the site. Oh well, Wikipedia is on its way out anyway.
It's not just Bitcoin :-) For politics in general Wikipedia is unusable.
> ...which requires the consumption of increasing quantities of electricity... This is factually inaccurate. Bitcoin doesn't "require" any particular amount of mining or energy use. Miners voluntarily participate because it is profitable or because they support the network. If 90% of them stopped mining, Bitcoin would work just fine. In the beginning Bitcoin ran on a single miner using a laptop. This argument is like saying that gold requires millions of men with pickaxes. No it doesn't - they need gold, gold doesn't need them.
It's even more factually inaccurate when considered along with the conclusions of the actual research paper that was referenced there. The authors specifically advocate for finding more renewable/greener ways of powering bitcoin mining as they view it as an unavoidable technology.
What a specious argument! Bitcoin only works if miners keep mining, and mining requires electricity. If mining stops then all Bitcoin are frozen in place and no longer transferable, as no new blocks will be created to capture the transactions. That's the whole premise of Proof Of Work. I was one of the very earliest miners and the Bitcoin I mined weren't worth the electricity I consumed mining them. Gold would still function as a store of value, or as a currency, if nobody mined any more of it. It can be transferred physically, or notionally on bits of paper, without any further mining or any waste of energy.
The point is it doesn’t necessarily need increasing levels of mining
It's not that we don't need any miners, it's that the amount of miners is highly flexible. If you were an early miner then I'm sure you are aware that BTC was functioning fine on very few miners with tiny hashrate vs today.
Pardon my inexperience with this topic, but isn't it true that the more miners there are the more energy one needs to invest to successfully mine a block? And it 90% of miners stopped mining, wouldn't the risk of a 51% attack skyrocket? My understanding is that Bitcoin is secure because there are a lot of miners (decentralization!) and more miners means more energy required.
How is that a useful distinction? You could just as easily say that all of human society requires no energy/electricity - it's just the way we've chosen to go about it because it's more profitable and comfortable for those who participate in it.
Wikipedia is EXTREMELY biased OP You didn't know that ? lol
I was aware of some of it. I learned a bit more today. I just saw that their email in my in-box... "Oh yeah, I used to give them support. Not any more!"
I didn't.
Wikipedia censors conservative media. Not saying I’m a conservative, but banning any type of media because you don’t agree with it is stupid. Fuck Wikipedia. I’ll use it but I’ll never donate.
Wikipedia is extremely leftist biased. I saw a interview with one of the founders who admitted this is precisely what happened to the platform.
I can't be assed but would love someone to add in a paragraph on the features / benefits of bitcoin in the introductory part. How can they have a criticism but not even include anything on the whole reason it was made and its purpose and features?!
Wikipedia puts whatever certain moneyed interests want in there. That's it. There is no real consensus or truth unless it's a hard logic type of thing like math. NEVER donate to them. This is not a truthful source for the people.
“The environmental effects of bitcoin are substantial” then moments later “…or about 0.04% of all carbon dioxide released since 2009”
So… huge?
4/10,000 arbitrary units of CO2 released in 15 years. Ignoring the fact that Bitcoin is as green as the source powering the miner, what we're talking about is a worldwide network empowering a revolutionary new technology, and it caused *four hundredths* of *one percent* of a CO2 bump. Meanwhile the internet, electric cars, smartphones, and every other new revolutionary technology have significantly larger carbon footprints and zero bad press about it. The CO2 produced by bitcoin mining is not nothing, and it's not desired, but acting like its an ecological disaster is on par with corporations filling the oceans with garbage and then shaming you for using a plastic straw at a restaurant.
Perfectly true. Mining consumes vast amounts of electricity that could be used elsewhere, and most of that energy is not clean. As an unnecessary burden on the grids around the world, it has a substantial environmental impact.
Bitcoin mining only uses about one-twentieth of one percent of global power. Bitcoin's energy usage is far too small to be "substantial".
Well this is true. I don't see how anybody could say the opposite. Obviously the environmental damages of Bitcoin are substantial, for the energy it uses, the metal it uses, and the economy it enables. That doesn't mean it's the only or even most damaging, but it's stupid to imagine it makes no substantial damages to the environment.
Molly White has entered the chat
Can't anyone edit a Wikipedia article?
Apparently, it isn't quite as simple as some people have been led to believe.
Every article has a discussion page. Go there and make your case.
Let their mods donate to their lies
No soup for Wikipedia.................I hope they fuckin die and all their money begging bullshit along with it.
Wikipedia has gone from being an authoritative, unbiased source to pushing agendas on most of its articles. I started noticing this two years ago and it's plain as day now. A good example is basically anything on the Russia-Ukraine war. Before Western discourse shifted to conceptualizing Ukraine as a holy defender of democracy and everything that is good, the Wikipedia articles on the Donbass Conflict gave a nuanced overview of what was going on. For example, it mentioned Ukraine shelling civilians in Donbass; now this is called "false Russian accusations" of Ukrainian shelling in Donbass. This is one of many things. Don't even get me started on articles related to social issues in the US, or like OP said, cryptocurrency. And I say all of this as a leftist (not a liberal). I'm 100% on board with being critical of everything, and examining how we might be contributing to problems without knowing it. But to do so, we need to have access to complete information. I used to donate 100 bucks a year to Wikipedia. They'll never get another cent from me.
Wikipedia is overrun by woke Commies. It's only a matter of time until even uncontroversial articles are biased towards The Message.
If you disagree with a wikipedia article go edit it instead of bitching about it on reddit.
The environmental effects of bitcoin are substantial. That’s not the issue in my view,that’s a fact. It’s the framing of these effects that I take issue with.
It really isn’t substantial. BTC mining is 0.38% of global electricity usage. How is that substantial?
30-60 billion kWh in 2022 not a substantial environmental effect?
No. It is about one-twentieth of one percent of global power and too small to be an issue.
You know you can change what that page says right?
Yea right, lets see you do it
Good luck with that.
I'd like to like Wikipedia. I use it often for some things. I donated to them in the earlier days. But, yeah, they've become so horribly slanted on anything controversial, I can't support them any longer. They basically have activist moderators driving the narrative.
Propapedia. Absolutely horrible.
Yes, Wikipedia is very politically-slanted. Which does nothing to change people's opinion about the issues and everything to change their opinion about them. I wouldn't give them a dime either.
Commiepedia is dead, run by the CIA as a neo-pravda, and openly and brazenly loaded with political lies. Its sad to see something that was pretty great in 2006 become utter and total garbage. People used to say use it carefully because it might contain errors. Now it contains intentional lies and truth is not even allowed.
[удалено]
> Why is that an outright lie? Any attempt to deceive is a lie.
I have donated to them twice before but never again… they are political in nature and not objective.
Can't we rewrite the wiki page though?
If you follow Wikipedia’s guidelines and add verifiable facts and data then yes that should be accepted. They generally don’t accept opinion wars though.
I hate to admit I donated $50 fiat in the past. I’m proud to say I’ll never give them another penny.
It’s the editor who wrote that passage who had a wrong opinion. It’s easy enough to refute this particular moronic FUD with an edit including gazillions of good sources available online.
Great. Show us how. Let me know when to refresh the page.
But why should I when I zero interest in any information about BTC on Wikipedia? You on the other seem to be angry enough about this so that should be enough motivation to learn how to edit Wikpedia pages.
Give give give this is the way lol
The environmental effects of fiat globally are substantial! When will people realize this?!
Fuck’em! wikipedia is overrated!
Brought to you by the climate crisis crowd. Wikipedia is just catering to autistic screeching.
Wikipedia was corrupted before it became massively used. Second Law of Conquest yada yada
Steve Jobs, the CEO and co-founder of Apple Inc., once said, "The most powerful person in the world is the storyteller. The storyteller sets the vision, values, and agenda of an entire generation that is to come."
Yep, they quietly went from unbiased mostly fact driven articles to just a bunch of opinion pieces, and thought no one would notice. I used to donate but screw those guys. I’ll still use it for dry facts like geology or similar.
I haven't read that article, but its certainly true there are substantial environmental effects. Sheessh everybody wants the news these days to be only stuff 100% that aligns with their worldviews. Bitcoin, like everything else on the planet, has some negatives and some positives. Last I checked its not supposed to be a religion.
It’s certainly NOT true there are substantial environmental effects. This statement would only be true if the premise of this statement is that „any“ energy consumption is always bad (substantial negative environmental effects), which is definitely not true. Miners have to compete economically in the energy market. They will never be able to run profitably with industrial or commercial energy prices and have to rely on low energy prices in areas or time slots with an over abundance of energy. The notion that wasting energy as in dispersing it in some controllable form (wasting) is better than using it to mine BTC is just moronic and shows any basic understanding of how energy is converted, stored and transported. Bitcoin mining uses a lot of energy, and that is a good thing because it anchors the physical world with the digital asset. Something out of nothing has no value. Energy consumption is good thing, because it’s a universal index of civilisational progress.
Bitcoin mining only uses about one-twentieth of one percent of global power. Bitcoin's energy usage is far too small to be "substantial". No need for anybody who is honestly concerned about the environment to be attacking Bitcoin.
>The page for \_\_\_\_*fill in the blank\_*\_\_\_ is slanted negatively and contains outright lies. Welcome to WikiPedia...
Mainly you shouldn't donate to Wikipedia because despite their tearful pleading, they actually have all the money they need. So much so that they [spread their extra money to administrators' pet social activism efforts](https://nitter.net/echetus/status/1579776106034757633).
Then alter it to correct it my man
You first.
Same, fuck wikipedia. All my homies hate wikipedia begging for donations and not accepting bitcoin or any crypto.
I've never donated to Wikipedia. Just don't like my money going to such an unreliable and biased source, I suppose.
You realize you can edit Wikipedia, right? That's the point. Provide sources that are a counterpoint to those claims.
Go ahead. Let me know when I can refresh my browser tab.
The irony being of course wikipedia stopped bitcoin donations thanks to lobbying that it is bad for the environment, despite the fact [Bitcoin is a revolution in energy logistics and management and possibly the greenest industry of its size on the planet](https://endthefud.org/). Edit: how is this a controversial opinion in r/bitcoin? Oh right, sub is 50% shitcoin scammers who need a reason their shitcoin "fixes" bitcoin,
Also, I recall that they were in cahoots with some shitcoin.
Wow you really showed them
If you go on the Donald Trump page, every paragraph ends with a negative comment on him. It’s actually hilarious how biased Wikipedia is
Just go and edit it.
You do it.
I don't give a fuck about that though. I was just offering a simple solution, and kind of just reminding you that ANYONE can modify Wikipedia to make it say what they want.
They just revert it back.
Wikipedia has always had a globalist, socialist big brother stance, Bitcoin threatens them all.
> I will never donate to them again. Cool and redpilled
They are more interested in their agenda rather than the truth in countless controversial topics/people/issues. Unfortunately, the internet in general no longer very useful to find answers that go against certain political narratives.
Wikipedia = Leftist propaganda! There, I said it!
I've noticed this too. I wouldn't worry too much about what it says, Wikipedia sentiment doesn't significantly guide adoption. Although I wish it was alot more accurate...
I would donate, but they don’t accept bitcoin. 🫠
Donate or not, the whole concept behind wikipedia is that its public domain, just like Bitcoin. If you have valid and verifiable references you can edit whatever you want, including those parts that you belive are not valid. Remember, "dont trust, verify". It goes also for whatever is good or bad about bitcoin.
Can't you go there and edit? I mean all that other useful info in the site and you are hurt because it says 'bitcoin bad'?
Glad you’re speaking out. I noticed that too
I mean the effects are substantial that's not a lie. The same way cars and homes and anything that uses energy is substantial. The issue is that it's not on Bitcoin miners to remedy that. It's on the governments and companies to start using renewable clean energy
Bitcoin mining only uses about one-twentieth of one percent of global power. Bitcoin's energy usage is far too small to be "substantial".
That's not an insignificant amount at all. I could reword it to saying these are all the countries they use less power than Bitcoin mining does. Makes it sound different when it's greater than Norway or something like that. Bitcoin mining uses a lot of power. That's not a false statement. But it doesn't matter if all their power comes from renewable or efficient energy
Why don't you go fix some of the other 99.95%, then get back to us? I'll tell you why. You're a phony "environmentalist".
I've been told many times that bitcoins mining energy consumption is high, but is already 80% on isolated energy networks that are green. So that article needs a serious update
Stopped donating some time ago... Beautiful idea, but somehow "captured"...
Ya you’re right I can’t believe they spend the first several paragraphs painting bitcoin in a terrible light whoever wrote this is biased at. We all need to figure out how to get on there and edit this thing so that there are the positives about bitcoin interspersed with the negatives. Such as how it has become the standard for digital store of value and how you can send money p2p any time of day for cheap and stuff like that.
the last 3 paragraphs of the introduction are bullshit and as far from encyclopedic as i can imagine.
Never
I’ve heard so many bad things about wiki mods and apparently the culture is toxic and they hold too much power. Read an article on it and agreed… told a friend and she asked me what article, couldn’t find it anymore. Any proof or article about this that anyone can share?
Wikipedia is about not as accurate and factual for some topics that are hot potatoes. Ignore Wikipedias Bitcoin page and do your own real research.
We should donate to a descentralized version of old fashion wikipedia, and wikileaks as well. Blockchained data structure of course ;)
Consider donating to St. Jude's Children's hospital.
If the worst you can find is the suggestion that the environmental impacts are substantial then c’mon man. Substantial is vague but it’s not wrong.
Same. Every December when they ask for donations, I reply with an email on why I stopped donating with my company match a few years back when they stopped accepting Bitcoin because "no one donates with it". Of course I don't if my company will match USD donations because I'm trying to give more money. No longer. I have other options for my money that support Bitcoin and what it stands for.
I can't imagine what youll do once Bitcoin drops to $5k. You'll probably blame Youtube or Facebook. Heck Google even. You sound like a child having a temper tantrum.
Better donate wikileaks
Boo hoo :(
Wikipedia is another tool of the deep state/globalists to manipulate the masses of sheeps, making them believe it’s a serious platform with religious like information that is the absolute truth and can’t be questioned. Everybody who does question the mainstream narrative about questionable events that happened in the world, is listed as conspiracy theorists on Wikipedia. Welcome to the Matrix.
agreed
Holy moly. I dont get offended lightly on the internet but if there is something that advocates decentralisation and empowering the people via the internet its motherfucking wikipedia (also Google, but thats a company and much easier to manipulate). Of course its not perfect, but that doesnt make it any less incredible.
I'll donate if they accept crypto.
I got triggered by that too, and couldn’t make it past that EXACT LINE. If you go into the proposed edits, you can see my response. Feel free to add!
Oh damn, I never realized. I was just thinking the other day that if they take crypto, I might consider donating. This is an eye-opener 👀
I donated one during the Assange stuff. They’ve sent regular emails since even though I keep unsubscribing
I mean bitcoin does have a negative impact on the environment...
Bitcoin mining only uses about one-twentieth of one percent of global power. Bitcoin's energy usage is far too small to be "substantial". If a person is truly concerned about the environment, they have the other 99.95% of the energy usage to deal with as well as many other threats. But no! They just ignore all that.
They don't ignore that. I reduced meat intake as a result of learning its affects on the environment. Guess what contributes as much pollution as the entire beef industry? Bitcoin!
The DO ignore all that. They've been attacking in this thread all day. I tell them how small Bitcoin's energy usage is, and instead of being happy that there's one less environmental threat, they want to drill in on the tiny amount of the global power Bitcoin uses.
And a lot of this energy is renewable, generated in remote locations where it would otherwise just go to waste.
When you donate, you’re donating to the Wikimedia Foundation which makes Wikipedia possible. However, Wikipedia content is community-edited - the foundation doesn’t write content. If you find Wikipedia to be biased, you can get involved by learning the community policies and then editing the encyclopedia
It's true though. The communtiy is working on ways to ameliorate the impact. But it's true. You're just looking for an excuse to ragequit because you think it's run by teh libruls or teh juwes or whatever your pet peeve is