The environmental scaremongering around Proof-Of-Work mining has even convinced Wikipedia. There is a debate on the proposal to “stop accepting cryptocurrency donations”. It begins with the same flimsy arguments that the whole mainstream media recklessly employs. It does, however, improve and become more intriguing. In general, it’s fascinating to watch all sides of the debate play out. Despite the fact that there may be some information suppression.
We’ll try our best to summarise everything. However, if you have an interest in the subject you should read everything. It has a lot of twists and turns in it. The document’s most remarkable feature is that actual individuals have written it. The Wikipedia editors aren’t representative of the entire world’s population, but they’re diverse enough to keep the conversation lively.
Wikipedia is a victim of environmental hysteria
The original proposal mentions three issues with collecting bitcoin donations, but we can put them all under the ESG FUD umbrella. There are three criteria-
- Accepting cryptocurrencies implies endorsement of the cryptocurrency ecosystem.
- Cryptocurrencies may not be compatible with Wikimedia’s commitment to environmental sustainability.
- By participating in this, we risk tarnishing our brand.
It’s a pity that the original author, to establish their position, relies on a dubious and discredited source.
Contrary to popular belief, the data has been tampered with
An “employee of the Dutch Central Bank” maintains the Digiconomist disguising as an impartial journalist. Despite the fact of its frequent citation. That aspect alone eliminates him as a trustworthy source.
According to his data, the ” Real-world measurements and profitability is not the basis of Digiconomist Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index as it clearly indicates”. As a result, we’re dealing with an intellectually dishonest person who is likely trying to undermine the Bitcoin network.
Although the Columbia study is newer, it uses obsolete data and research that has been refuted. Like the ludicrous one who has no idea how PoW scales or even works and recklessly says that crypto-mining would boost global temperatures by two degrees. The “University of Cambridge analysis” is Columbia’s primary source. “There is currently scant data demonstrating that Bitcoin directly contributes to climate change,” the same body stated.
However, that section of their FAQ was mysteriously removed. They altered the phrasing such that it now just features a “radical thought experiment” in which “all of this energy comes only from coal.” Even under those severe conditions, which are a long way from reality, energy use would be minimal.
“In the worst-case scenario, the Bitcoin network would be liable for around 111 Mt (million metric tons) of carbon dioxide emissions, or about 0.35 percent of global annual emissions.”
Is it more important to protect the processor by suppressing information?
There’s a section labelled “Discussion relocated from the proposal section” under the full thread. It contains several censored pro-cryptocurrency arguments. The reason for this is that “no other editing records” were found in the accounts that created them.
What are the arguments made by those who advocate the removal of certain viewpoints? According to the report, there is a “risk of both vote gaming and debate manipulation to add bias and bogus “bitcoin” news.”
By coincidence, those low-edit accounts are the ones who are putting up the information on how phoney the original poster’s sources are. Somebody has to say it and somebody did. They were also deleted from the main thread by the admins. Is this truly the purpose of Wikipedia?
Fortunately, other Wikipedia contributors were able to write, “Bitcoin is, therefore, a green energy stimulus, aligning with the Wikimedia Foundation’s dedication to environmental sustainability.” Another user recommended that everyone should understand more about Bitcoin as a whole package beyond its energy footprint as well as the continuous exponential progress that has been made in making Bitcoin greener and greener. According to another, “Bitcoin Core is a FLOSS project seeking to promote monetary independence.”
In any event, the crypto sceptics who are attempting to manipulate the vote may have a point. Except for the ludicrous assertion of “false” bitcoin “news.” “This is not a majority vote, but rather a conversation among Wikimedia contributors,” the topic’s header states. And the administrator informs them that they are unable to erase votes or opinions.
The author says that an ideal RfC scenario would not aggressively mute any views, but would allow community members to tell each other about individuals who are not community members and may have alternate interests. That’s reasonable.
What Happened to The Votes? Is Wikipedia prohibiting cryptocurrency donations?
Although the vote does not appear to be in favour of crypto contributions, this does not imply that they will be prohibited by Wikipedia. At the time of writing, “support” votes outnumber “oppose” votes by around a factor of two.
A total of 150 Wikipedia users have voted. Is this to say that the ESG FUD worked and put a long-lasting shadow on the crypto space? It most certainly does. It also implies that individuals WANT to be convinced. And they refuse to believe the overwhelming data that shows that PoW mining is good for the environment.