Wikipedia RFC to stop accepting cryptocurrencies passes by majority vote

Post by TheDudeMan » Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 6:29 AM UTC

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #5

Am I reading correctly that this is all cryptocurrencies, not just PoW? That's slightly surprising, although it probably simplifies things.

Post by tablespoon » Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 6:30 AM UTC

jdrc wrote: post #25

colesantiago wrote: post #2

This is great news, it is pretty pointless to use cryptocurrencies at all anyway since for Wikipedia: > Crypto was around 0.08% of our revenue last year, and it remains one of our smallest revenue channels. Remember that Wikipedia is one of the top 10 websites on the planet, I'm also assuming that other websites trying to accept crypto have even smaller percentages rendering cryptocurrencies as payment useless, not t…

So this is not great news at all, a totally inconsequential and pointless move for signaling virtue (look at the arguments given), which is contrary to wikipedia's aim to be neutral

Post by aaronbrethorst » Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 6:34 AM UTC

jdrc wrote: post #33

Gigachad wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removing the payment method simplifies the donations system. And since it’s not generating any value, it’s not worth keeping.

that was not one of the arguments made in the RFC > Common arguments in support include: issues of environmental sustainability, that accepting cryptocurrencies constitutes implicit endorsement of the issues surrounding cryptocurrencies, and community issues with the risk to the movement’s reputation for accepting cryptocurrencies. it looks 100% ideological

Post by vmception » Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 6:35 AM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #20

vmception wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law is alot more flexible. I’m in the non profit space. There isnt a single thing they would have had to do with crypto donated to them. So yeah they could have ridden it up. Even investing rules and guidelines from the state and fed exempt donated assets from them completely. Non profits just lack an incentive to learn how to do anything well, and are often staffed by people that have never had to consider marke…

> Non profits just lack an incentive to learn how to do anything well Being involved in a project that would benefit from being a formalized German no-profit entity, there is another issue: the laws around non-profit entities are vague and at the same time there are almost no lawyers specializing in non-profit laws and regulations. The major ones (think of Greenpeace and the likes) all have their in-house counsel, an…

Post by jraph » Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 6:39 AM UTC

jdrc wrote: post #25

colesantiago wrote: post #2

This is great news, it is pretty pointless to use cryptocurrencies at all anyway since for Wikipedia: > Crypto was around 0.08% of our revenue last year, and it remains one of our smallest revenue channels. Remember that Wikipedia is one of the top 10 websites on the planet, I'm also assuming that other websites trying to accept crypto have even smaller percentages rendering cryptocurrencies as payment useless, not t…

So this is not great news at all, a totally inconsequential and pointless move for signaling virtue (look at the arguments given), which is contrary to wikipedia's aim to be neutral