Understanding the Power Ledger Incident
In a recent twist in the ongoing saga of blockchain’s relationship with mainstream media, David Gerard, the infamous anti-crypto activist and Wikipedia editor, has once again wielded his editorial power. This time, he targeted the Australian blockchain firm Power Ledger, successfully getting its Wikipedia entry scrubbed clean. His reasoning? The content was, in his words, nothing more than ‘a pile of press-release churnalism.’ And yes, the cherry on top was his bold claim that the only significant coverage was of Power Ledger being dubbed a ‘scam.’
The Wikipedia Showdown
What ensued next was a dramatic debate play, where Gerard went head-to-head with fellow Wikipedia editors over Power Ledger’s notability. He vehemently argued that the crypto publications used as references were ‘not usable for claims of notability.’ After all, who would trust a source from a so-called ‘bottom-of-the-barrel Bitcoin blog’ like CoinRivet?
Stirring the Pot with ‘Churnalism’
The term ‘churnalism’ came into play, a fancy-sounding word for what really just means regurgitating press releases. Gerard flung labels around like confetti, dismissing articles from major outlets like India’s The Economic Times and TechCrunch as if they were yesterday’s news. Despite these sources boasting millions of readers and high credibility in the publishing world, Gerard contended they could not satisfy Wikipedia’s standards for reliability.
Evaluating the Sources
It’s worth noting that the ‘unreliable’ sources Gerard criticized, such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Sydney Morning Herald, and several others, are major players in the world of journalism. To put things in perspective, TechCrunch has about 16 million readers, while The Economic Times ranks as the second-most widely read English-language business newspaper globally. So, should we really take Gerard’s word as gospel?
The Bigger Picture
Gerard’s disdain for the crypto world isn’t exactly a hidden secret. He’s made it quite clear that he views the entire industry as ‘full of spammy cranks.’ He has even gone as far as imposing ‘general sanctions’ against entries related to the entire crypto domain on Wikipedia. As one would expect from someone who openly admits to ‘hating’ crypto.
A Final Thought
So, as we peel back the layers of this latest Wikipedia saga, one has to wonder—are we really getting an objective view of blockchain and cryptocurrency on platforms like Wikipedia? Or are we merely witnessing a turf war, where opinion is masquerading as fact? It’s a thin line we walk, and perhaps the ongoing debate is just one more sign that the world of blockchain and cryptocurrency is as divisive as it is exciting.
+ There are no comments
Add yours