原始文献 / 论坛帖 / Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
Bitcointalk · 2010-07-20 18:38:28 UTC
比特币是 Wei Dai 在 1998 年于 Cypherpunks 上提出的 b-money 方案 http://weidai.com/bmoney.txt 和 Nick Szabo 的 Bitgold 方案 http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html 的一个实现。
这个时机很奇怪，正好是我们被 slashdot 报道后第三方报道快速增加的时候。希望他们不要急着收尾做决定。维基百科对这类问题通常开放多久的评论？
尽快把条目浓缩一下、去掉宣传腔会很有帮助。让人知道它是什么、它在电子货币领域的位置就行，不是去说服别人它有多好。他们大概想要个一般性地说明它是什么的东西，而不是把工作原理全讲一遍。
如果你去 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin 发言，请不要说"是啊，但比特币真的很重要很特别，所以规则不该适用"，也不要争辩说规则很蠢或不公平。那只会让事情更糟。试着去论证规则是怎么被满足的。
在 google 上搜 "bitcoin"，看看除了 infoworld 和 slashdot 之外还能不能找到更多大的引用。可能有记者听说了 slashdot 的文章后正在写很新的报道。
我希望它别被删掉。如果被删了，要推翻之前的决定会很难。机构的惯性是维持上次的决定。（编辑：或者至少我猜是这样，世界通常这么运转，但维基也许不一样）
英文原文
Bitcoin is an implementation of Wei Dai's b-money proposal http://weidai.com/bmoney.txt on Cypherpunks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunks in 1998 and Nick Szabo's Bitgold proposal http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html
The timing is strange, just as we are getting a rapid increase in 3rd party coverage after getting slashdotted. I hope there's not a big hurry to wrap the discussion and decide. How long does Wikipedia typically leave a question like that open for comment?
It would help to condense the article and make it less promotional sounding as soon as possible. Just letting people know what it is, where it fits into the electronic money space, not trying to convince them that it's good. They probably want something that just generally identifies what it is, not tries to explain all about how it works.
If you post in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin please don't say "yeah, but bitcoin is really important and special so the rules shouldn't apply" or argue that the rule is dumb or unfair. That only makes it worse. Try to address how the rule is satisfied.
Search "bitcoin" on google and see if you can find more big references in addition to the infoworld and slashdot ones. There may be very recent stuff being written by reporters who heard about it from the slashdot article.
I hope it doesn't get deleted. If it does, it'll be hard to overcome the presumption. Institutional momentum is to stick with the last decision. (edit: or at least I assume so, that's how the world usually works, but maybe Wiki is different)