Wikipedia Nostr entry keeps getting edited to remove references to censorship resistance.
I'm starting to understand why WikiFreedia needs to be a thing.
Nostr - Wikipedia
Login to reply
Replies (19)
One way to solve this may be with primary research. Having read the talk, editors are objecting to "censorship resistance" being stated in a way that it appears to be a claim that is unsubstantiated. The alternative would be to state it as e.g. "Nostr users choose Nostr because of its censorship resistance". To quickly create a survey of users for this purpose may help and is easy, give me a minute...
Ok, try this. Then we submit to Wikipedia with the wording as follows. "Nostr users prefer Nostr due to its... ". Pls boost for visibility (I'm no one, have no reach)
I can't actually see this note on Primal. Are you using the Amethyst Nostr polls?
There's an edit war going on after the Business Insider article. Swinxy added the former name, but others are removing it.
The censorship resistance is marketing. People may choose it for that reason, but that doesnt make it true. The vast majority of relays in are G7 data centers. I would consider nostr to be resilient like RAID, if one hard disk fails, you can use another.
Don't rely on the official GitHub definition of the protocol, rely on ... newspapers (!)
Lol Wikipedia
I saw that and was confused as well. What could the logic possibly be to see "too many" primary sources as problem?
At least fiatjaf's identity got removed.
Seems that Wikipedia would like editors to not insert their own interpretations, at least not directly, and that's being applied overzealously
Wikipedia is a well controlled psy-op for any non mundane topic
I succeeded in placing my own name in my small town’s wikipedia as a “notable resident” for 6 years. Psy-op worked wonders. Got me good intros.
Your small town was not at the top of Shlaus Kwab’s plans.
Try editing the central banking wiki 😅
We should pretend that fiatjaf is still unknown and nothing has happened
This is their policy, you need "reliable" secondary sources that interpret and explain things. This is unfortunate because all "reliable" secondary sources are garbage these days.
Instead of using [Censorship Resistance], which is considered advertisement even in my eyes, You put [Reception] in it, and move [Users] and [Censorship] inside of it. That's how you make it appropriate.
Yes I was. I didn't realize it was incompatible. I can try again with a different method. Or, someone else who knows this stuff better could try.
Noted, with thanks. I don't really have a view on that. But the question was how to get those words onto Wikipedia, and a survey may be a solution.
Haha, whoops, I just realized you weren't replying to me.
I see it as a way of including legitimate criticism. Primary sources will not include it and a lack of secondary sources perhaps shows that this thing doesn’t have enough popularity to be subjected to critical analysis. I feel like this is a good policy, if a little cumbersome for something new.