Jump to content

Talk:Monero

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.246.209.202 (talk) at 16:14, 13 March 2024 (→‎Unnecessary inclusion of the criminal activity source.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Picking a block explorer

There is no "official" Monero block explorer. There is no block explorer run from getmonero.org. This Monero page links to a block explorer. The Bitcoin page on Wikipedia does not. Should this article still link to an unofficial block explorer like it does now? What is the reasoning for that? If it should link to an unofficial block explorer, which one should it link to and why? SamsungGalaxyPlayer (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no official one, it's better we do not link to any. Yes, the Bitcoin article is a good precedence for this. Readers aren't dumb and can find one through a search engine if they want one. TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

hello i request the deletion of the category "ransomware" because the monero project itself isn't involved in these or any crimes. and so it's a political motivated decision to link criminal activities of individuals to a medium of exchange or any object to defame it. everything can be used for crime e.g. cash, gold, any cryptocurrency and any valuable exchangable item. and it's a wrong decision to inform curious and clueless people (who just want to learn something about the medium itself) about any criminal activities. instead it's defamation and propaganda. wikipedia should be an objective and political neutral platform, and nothing else as an encyclopedia.

so please accept my call for objectivity and neutrality and delete the category "ransomware". would a company or any corporation be directly involved in a crime (so they're the criminals), then you're completely right if you link these crimes to the wikipedia article of the corporation. otherwise it's defamation. the same thing for the german monero page. a user called Joshi71 just reversed my deletion of "kriminalität" without an explanation, no wonder because again it's political motivated defamation. a new editing is still pending, please take care of it.

i just checked the bitcoin page and found unrelated crimes as well in the category "economic and legal concerns", the "use in illegal transactions" part. but unsurprisingly i cannot see any crimes on the wikipedia page of gold (the precious metal). but gold was definitely used by criminals in the past, you would lie if you wouldn't say so. even ISIS used gold. so this is clearly an action against cryptocurrencies!

i am willing to publish this letter to the press in case you refuse to delete reports of crimes of individuals without an involvement of the monero and bitcoin project.

kind regards crypt95 Crypt95 (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Callmemirela 🍁 23:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the advertising.

@Grayfell removed the advertising example and asked to "provide context for advertising". I'm unsure what this means, but the article already confirms that monero is used amongst anarchist/anti-establishment groups, quoting from the privacy section:

These features have given Monero a loyal following among crypto anarchists, cypherpunks, and privacy advocates.

So the advert stating

Marketing material distributed by the Monero community promoting crypto anarchism

Does seem justified and placed into context within the article. And if the citation is not enough, I'm sure more can be found. Pouring grain (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For context, this is about this edit.
The very simple answer is that neither 'getmonero.org' nor 'monerooutreach.org' are reliable sources. Further, Wikipedia uses independent sources to demonstrate encyclopedic significance. So the goal should be to use reliable, independent sources to explain to readers why some bit of information is encyclopedically significant. Those sources were not sufficient for this.
I advise against looking for sources to support your own first-hand knowledge. Instead, look at what reliable sources are saying and summarize them without interpreting them. Only dip-into primary sources for extremely basic information or to clarify something that is only partially explained by reliable independent sources.
It's also worth emphasizing that Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or advocacy, so we need to be saying something more substantial than "marketing material exists, here is an example". Our goal is to provide context, nor merely compile trivia. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment and I now understand the issue. I'm new to Wikipedia so the policies can be sometimes overwhelming. For the topic of WP:RS I think I will use the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for additional sources that could be of use to the article, but have concerns over.
Pouring grain (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do have some extra restrictions (informal but widespread consensus) to use only high quality WP:RS on all cryptocurrency articles. So that means no blogs, press releases, WP:UGC, and other low quality stuff. I would suggest you look for sources that can be found as greenlighted on WP:RSP. Things like fortune, bloomberg, nyt, wsj, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary inclusion of the criminal activity source.

Regarding the third paragraph - "It is used in illicit activities such as money laundering, darknet markets, ransomware, cryptojacking, and other organized crime."

How aren't other cryptocurrencies and fiat currencies also used in illicit activities? 173.246.209.202 (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]