277
Do you donate to Wikipedia? Why or why not? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
116 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Every so often I give a few bucks(far less than the worth of knowledge I got from it)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 0 points 3 years ago (5 children)

They do make it easy to give them money.

They just don't want unstable scam bullshit where they have to go through the slog of going to an exchange, selling the coin, and cashing out.. hoping all the while it doesnt crash in the mean time. Everyone tried to cash in on it when it was hot, before the vast majority knew or realized that crypto was nothing but a pump and dump scam, and they all dropped it due to instability and the fact that its a scam.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 0 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    Except it was complaints from reactionaries which made them delete the option to donate through crypto after accepting it for years!

    So, they were worried that an asset that has consistently gone up in the long term was too unstable to receive payments in? Your arguments make no sense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 3 years ago (3 children)

    I wanna dig into this point: i find it really weird how you tie rejection of crypto into politics at all, let alone reactionary politics. I always saw it as just the fact that the product doesn't fit most people's needs as a currency.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    It's reactionary politics? I'm not sure what else led to the rejection. It doesn't actively hurt them to accept crypto. They just capitulated to reactionaries in their rejection, what else would I call it?

    I'm not even claiming that crypto in its current form can handle global transactional needs, but Wikipedia and Mozilla realised that it could just be an additional avenue for payments. It wasn't hurting anyone and allowed people like me to contribute. How would you like it if you couldn't pay for things because it upset other people's views of what the world should be like? Because that's what happened to me.

    Wikipedia caved to white Western imperialists' demands which have no basis in reality and excluded large portions of the world, most of which are marginalised communities who don't have access to the same financial systems that Westerners do.

    I'm just glad that SciHub isn't headed by a reactionary but an actual person who cares about our rights to free and fair access to all things. And SciHub proves the need for an alternate financial system that isn't dominated, or at least, directly controllable by vested interests of the Western financial system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Ah, i see, so it's conspiracy theories.

    You know, the tech just being fundamentally flawed is a lot simpler an explanation than this, and it has the distinct advantage of actually having any evidence to back it up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 3 years ago

    At this point, I'm not sure you understand what reactionary means?

    The tech being fundamentally flawed has nothing to do with payments being stopped. Show me one reason where they said it was because they weren't receiving the payments as shown by the blockchain.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent