Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-01-27/In focus


 * That for this, agree completely. Only allowing reliable sources is key to keeping WP high quality. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion about this Wiki Signpost: r/Bitcoin topic "Wikipedia Guidance for Editors: "Cryptos and bitcoins and blockchains, oh no!" at Reddit. --Eu-Robert (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That discussion is in a section of reddit (/r/bitcoin) that censors posts that are critical of the BTC flavor of bitcoin, and blocks many critics (like me) from posting. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows there is only one good bitcoin subreddit, literally all the others being run by cultists, shills or both - David Gerard (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one who finds it ironic how you point out that ever having owned a cryptocurrency is a conflict of interest but for some reason your extremely biased and negative view, painting the entire cryptosphere as cultists, scammers and shills while praising r/Buttcoin, is no problem at all? In my opinion it's this kind of stuff that gives Wikipedia a bad reputation and makes newcomers feel not welcome here. Should WP:RS be enforced and spam be minimized? Of course! Just like for any other article on WP. Doesn't mean it's necessary to take a big dump on the entire topic...  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 20:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is indeed the case that not being an advocate of a subject does not count as a conflict of interest, but literally having a financial interest in your hodling going up does. Your surprise at this is a problem with you, not with WP:COI. Also given I don't advertise my stuff at Wikipedia - I have a link on my user page, and I linked my article on Libra in an RS at Talk:Libra (digital currency), but that's the grand total. I know it's a standard thing that keeps on happening, but I'm perpetually amazed at advocates of fringe areas, like cryptocurrency, who seriously think that only advocates should be allowed to write about their favourite thing on Wikipedia. You'd almost think their main interest was promotion of their favourite thing, not Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is indeed the case that not being an advocate of a subject does not count as a conflict of interest A conflict of interest arises whenever a person's role as a Wikipedia editor comes into conflict with some other external role. It's the potential for having this battle of roles from within the editor themself — a battle which can tax an editor's perception and judgement (both of which are indispensible attributes for contemplating article quality) — these should be the only criteria for when a COI exists. Regards, Spintendo  02:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Bitcoin critic behind Wikipedia ban on crypto news sites, this article mentioned in crypto-media. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of crypto people who seem literally unable to understand that Wikipedia actually hates spam, and try to make out there's a conspiracy going on. They didn't contact me for that piece, you'll be amazed to hear - David Gerard (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be late, but is "hodlings" a typo? AnonMoos (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * no, hence the link to hodl - David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)