回复：他们想删除维基百科条目
原始发布页
打开来源页面查看 1 个交叉存档
比特币是戴伟于 1998 年在密码朋克邮件列表 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunks 上提出的 b-money 方案 http://weidai.com/bmoney.txt，以及尼克·萨博的 Bitgold 方案 http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html 的一种实现。
这个时机很奇怪，正好是在我们登上 Slashdot 后，第三方报道迅速增加的时候。我希望他们不会急着结束讨论并作出决定。维基百科通常会让这样的问题开放评论多久？
尽快精简条目，并让它少一些宣传意味，会有帮助。只需让人们知道它是什么、它在电子货币领域处于什么位置，而不是试图说服他们它有多好。他们想要的可能只是从总体上说明它是什么，而不是试图把它的全部运作方式都解释清楚。
如果你在 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。那只会让事情变得更糟。试着说明它是如何符合规则的。
在 Google 上搜索“bitcoin”，看看除了 InfoWorld 和 Slashdot 的报道外，能否找到更多大型媒体的报道。可能有记者从 Slashdot 的文章得知此事，正在撰写刚刚出炉的内容。
我希望它不会被删除。如果真被删了，就很难推翻这种预设了。机构惯性会让人沿用上一次决定。（编辑：至少我是这么认为的，世界通常就是这样运转的，不过也许维基不一样）
英文原文
展开英文原文
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)