It’s a shame that I’ve come to sharing this reply with you, but I’m rather offended by a few things: You guys are so desperate for any relevancy, that you ‘sticky’ a blog from an author that was clearly upset by /r/bitcoin moderation….he would not have even bothered saying a word had I not taken the time to pen a reply in /r/btc. It’s guffaw-able that /r/btc has 1) sticked his post, 2) make reference to it in an ‘about us’ page so as to cement those actions as though they were some sort of historical ‘canonical reference’… I wanted to jokingly quip that the Author should be be granted modship…at this point I would suggest for them to consider it too seeing as the author is referenced both at the top sticky, in the about us page on the 2nd sticky, and as ‘cannon’ from the various frequenters of /r/btc….not the majority (which I would infer is the curious /r/bitcoin users who seek to see more perspectives – I’m subscribed to /r/btc and clearly I’m one of the 120ish ‘users here now’)…but certainly the vocal minority.
I could care less what you do. If you’re reading this, I’m glad you’re here, in fact, in this instance, I’ve gone out of my way to avoid reposting this elsewhere as I don’t intend on promoting anything, I’m just speaking my mind. I felt compelled to speak out when I came across this bitcoin-wiki link: https://wiki.bitcoin.com/w/Main_Page. I looked at it for a moment in disbelief. The ACTUAL bitcoin wiki url is en.bitcoin.it I decided to roam around the bitcoin.com wiki page and came upon this https://wiki.bitcoin.com/w/PHP_developer_intro. To be sure, just decided to google ‘php developer intro en.bitcoin.it‘ Sure enough, I find the exact same page…this signals to me that bitcoin.com made the decision and considered it justifiable to take THE ENTIRE BITCOIN WIKI and republish it, as if it was their own efforts and creation. Why did you do that? Why did this seem justifiable in any light? It was one thing to create an alternate forum to compete with bitcointalk and with bitco.in, it was even another thing to go as far as to use bitcoin.com as a means to promote specific wallets through a questionable ‘sponsored donation system’, but going as far as outright taking the original contributions of volunteers to claim as ‘your own’ is crossing the line. I see that it’s been around since November 2015 (around the SAME time the whole buildup of forum.bitcoin.com happened with the huge slew of AMAS). The content listed on en.bitcoin.it is listed under attribution 3.0 meaning that wiki.bitcoin.com is breaking the rules of creative commons attribution – at minimum, the front page of the wiki itself should note that all information contained therein initially originated from en.bitcoin.it. Furthermore, bitcoin.com decided to falsely republish under Creative Commons Zero – meaning free to redistribute without attribution credits.
That’s the reason I wrote this wall…I think it’s deceptive and unwarranted to have taken their content without giving due credit.