Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's accept Bitcoin as a donation method

[Peter Gervai]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Steven Walling
 wrote:

> naturally appreciates in value, like playing the stock market or buying
> gold. Avoiding lots of risky investments is something our very competent

I do not plan to get into a perpetual debate just wanted to point out
that there is no "playing" and "buying" and "risky investment"
involved. Nobody asked WMF to buy BC or to convert existing assets to
BC. All the risk has been taken by the donors (whether they donate
$100 or $0), WMF *finiancially* risks exactly nothing (provided that
we assume people who want to donate in BC would not use goventment
money anyway, which seems logical to me).

Peter

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Update on community advocacy & liaison work

[Erik Moeller]

FYI :)


-- Forwarded message --
From: Erik Moeller 
Date: Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:40 PM
Subject: Update on community advocacy & liaison work
To: All Wikimedia Foundation staff & contractors

Hi all,

As many of you know, we recently brought on board a team of community
members to support the development and rollout of mission-critical WMF
projects like VisualEditor and Flow. To-date, this work has been
coordinated by Philippe Beaudette (reporting to James Forrester for
this purpose), with the community liaisons maintaining a dotted-line
reporting relationship to him while being hired by
engineering/product. In addition, the Community Advocacy team has made
available several of its staff members to work and partner on a
day-to-day basis with the liaisons.

What we’ve learned so far includes:

- Community engagement continues to be critical for successful
development and deployment of products with a strong impact on
community interactions. Not all products have such an impact -- e.g.
improvements to the mobile reading experience or mobile apps don’t
affect the experience of content authors directly nearly as much. In
other cases (e.g. VisualEditor) the impact is huge and the
coordination and communication requirements can be very significant.

- We need to start the process as early as possible - community
engagement isn't something that can just be done at the tail end to
support a rollout. Liaison work includes on-wiki participation in
discussions; organizing roundtables, IRC sessions, feedback and
brainstorming pages, etc. The earlier, the better -- this helps
surface likely points of contention, empowering Product Managers to
better understand the high priority needs and wants from the
community, as well as the cost of a change (how difficult will it be
to make the change, and what negative side effects may it have?).

- Product Managers and Community Liaisons need to work closely
together and see each other as being on the same team. While a typical
liaison likely will support multiple projects, just like designers,
liaisons work best when they develop a deep understanding for the
needs of one or two teams and are in active partnership with the
relevant PM. The PM and Community Liaison should be collaborating on a
day-to-day basis.

- There are other classes of community-related work that need to be
appropriately resourced, but are less directly relevant to product
development. This includes: emergency and crisis management and
response, support for policy-related RFCs, training for OTRS agents,
organizing of visits of key functionaries and committees, etc.

- Learning the lessons from the existence of a Community Department,
we don't view "Community" as a function that can be owned, controlled
or managed in a single department -- each department needs to be
supported by community expertise in its day-to-day work, partnering
closely with other team members.

Consistent with that, after careful discussion, we have decided to
create a new leadership function, Director of Community Engagement
(Product), reporting to me (as VP Product) and partnering closely with
Howie and individual Product Managers. The Director of Community
Engagement (Product) will be responsible for managing community
liaisons (staff or contractors) who directly support product
development.

Once this Director is hired and on-boarded, the Community Advocacy
team currently reporting to Philippe will re-focus its energy on some
of the aforementioned non-product matters. The community liaison team
will at that point move to the new Director, and we will staff up as
needed. We will still intersect on projects such as election support
or policy implementation.

I’m not currently considering merging this group with the "Engineering
Community Team" under Sumana Harihareswara’s leadership. That team is
focused on engaging volunteer developers who contribute to MediaWiki,
and while there is some overlap, I consider the goals and workflows to
be pretty distinct. That said, I expect the two teams to work closely
together in practice, with folks like Andre Klapper (Bug Wrangler)
acting at the intersection between the two teams.

I want to thank Geoff, Philippe and the Community Advocacy team for
all their support bootstrapping the liaison team and partnering with
us on key product roll-outs, on very short notice. It’s been
absolutely invaluable. I’m also grateful for the continuation of this
partnership until we fill the new Director-level role, and for help in
the interview and on-boarding process. Finally, thanks for all the
hard work of the community liaisons on a day-to-day basis; no matter
how hot things sometimes can get, we know that we can count on you.
:-)

I expect to post the job by early January, and it will likely take us
until at least March/April to fill the position.

Please let me know if you have any questions. :-)

Erik

--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation


-- 
Erik M

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's accept Bitcoin as a donation method

[John Vandenberg]

On Dec 13, 2013 5:55 AM, "Steven Walling"  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Jake Orlowitz 
wrote:
>
> > * Our peers like EFF, and Internet archive accept it
>
>
> To be totally honest, I think this is moot.
>
> Support for bitcoin among these two organizations has hardly been a
ringing
> endorsement. In the past, EFF has rejected it for very practical reasons I
> think still apply.[1] As for Internet Archive, I was literally in the room
> when their fundraising staff announced they started accepting bitcoin, and
> they actually said they didn't really understand what it was, other than
> people requested they accept it.
>
> In general, I would personally like it if the WMF avoided accepting
> bitcoin. Today, bitcoin isn't really a functioning currency of exchange --
> it's actually used more as an investment tool to create wealth that
> naturally appreciates in value, like playing the stock market or buying
> gold. Avoiding lots of risky investments is something our very competent
> financial managers already steer clear of, and I see no reason to start
> taking on more risk now.

As Peter just said, there is no risk if WMF converts bitcoin donations to
USD immediately.

--
John Vandenberg
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Andy Mabbett]

On 12 December 2013 19:40, phoebe ayers  wrote:

> With a nod to Andy's comment, as a
> community I think we may want to review our progress in the last few
> years on the BLP issue, and have a broad community consultation about
> where we are still falling short and ideas for going forward, given
> our constraints and changing environment of readers and editors.

I didn't make a comment; I requested information:

"Please also provide a link to the consultation you carried out
 with the community, before making this change. I seem to have
 missed it."

Oddly, I seem to have missed the response, also.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Mark]

On 12/12/13, 11:16 PM, David Gerard wrote:

On 12 December 2013 12:25, Mark  wrote:


Between tendentious negative information and self-promoting positive
information, I worry that the overall quality level of our biographies of
living people ends up poor in a great many cases, especially cases outside
the top tier of biographies visible enough to draw significant third-party
editors (Barack Obama, Fidel Castro, that kind of thing). But it would be
better to understand the problem, if it is one, in more detail.


I don't think this is, though - when people are this unambiguously
famous, I think our biographies hold up in terms of content, even when
the prose flows badly.



Perhaps I worded this badly; I think I actually agree with you, and was 
trying to say something similar. When people are famous enough that 
their biographies draw significant third-party editing, I think we 
actually *do* do an okay job. The prose of [[en:Barack Obama]] may not 
be ideal, but it's clearly not a puff piece written by his press 
secretary (on the one hand), nor a hit piece written by his political 
opponents (on the other). It's all the rest of the biographies of living 
people (which are a *lot*) where I worry our quality is poor. BLPs of 
people below the top tier of fame seem to attract a disproportionate 
amount of unfortunately motivated editing.


My main point is that I think we may have a big quality issue here, of 
being (so far) simply unable to cover a class of articles to a 
consistently high standard. Rather than a narrow issue of personal 
attacks solvable by more diligent application of OTRS responses and the 
like.


-Mark


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's accept Bitcoin as a donation method

[Steven Walling]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Jake Orlowitz  wrote:

> * Our peers like EFF, and Internet archive accept it


To be totally honest, I think this is moot.

Support for bitcoin among these two organizations has hardly been a ringing
endorsement. In the past, EFF has rejected it for very practical reasons I
think still apply.[1] As for Internet Archive, I was literally in the room
when their fundraising staff announced they started accepting bitcoin, and
they actually said they didn't really understand what it was, other than
people requested they accept it.

In general, I would personally like it if the WMF avoided accepting
bitcoin. Today, bitcoin isn't really a functioning currency of exchange --
it's actually used more as an investment tool to create wealth that
naturally appreciates in value, like playing the stock market or buying
gold. Avoiding lots of risky investments is something our very competent
financial managers already steer clear of, and I see no reason to start
taking on more risk now.

1. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/eff-and-bitcoin
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Nathan]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:16 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 12 December 2013 12:25, Mark  wrote:
>
> > Undue or unsourced negative information about living people is one
> aspect of
> > that, and what most of the formal BLP-related policy, and the process
> around
> > things like OTRS, is intended to address. The flipside is undue or
> unsourced
> > *positive* information about living people: in comparison to biographies
> > about non-living people, BLPs draw a huge proportion of puffed-up, COI,
> and
> > sometimes outright paid editing.
>
>
> Yes, I think hagiography is a problem on en:wp.
>
>
> > Between tendentious negative information and self-promoting positive
> > information, I worry that the overall quality level of our biographies of
> > living people ends up poor in a great many cases, especially cases
> outside
> > the top tier of biographies visible enough to draw significant
> third-party
> > editors (Barack Obama, Fidel Castro, that kind of thing). But it would be
> > better to understand the problem, if it is one, in more detail.
>
>
> I don't think this is, though - when people are this unambiguously
> famous, I think our biographies hold up in terms of content, even when
> the prose flows badly.
>
> How would we measure this?
>
>
And how would you have any confidence in the results being representative?
A sample that relies on some set of tags and categories to identify
articles is going to miss those without those indicators, which could
theoretically be a pretty large portion... And it's that group where you'll
likely find the highest proportion of shit content, the result of
obscurity.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[David Gerard]

On 12 December 2013 12:25, Mark  wrote:

> Undue or unsourced negative information about living people is one aspect of
> that, and what most of the formal BLP-related policy, and the process around
> things like OTRS, is intended to address. The flipside is undue or unsourced
> *positive* information about living people: in comparison to biographies
> about non-living people, BLPs draw a huge proportion of puffed-up, COI, and
> sometimes outright paid editing.


Yes, I think hagiography is a problem on en:wp.


> Between tendentious negative information and self-promoting positive
> information, I worry that the overall quality level of our biographies of
> living people ends up poor in a great many cases, especially cases outside
> the top tier of biographies visible enough to draw significant third-party
> editors (Barack Obama, Fidel Castro, that kind of thing). But it would be
> better to understand the problem, if it is one, in more detail.


I don't think this is, though - when people are this unambiguously
famous, I think our biographies hold up in terms of content, even when
the prose flows badly.

How would we measure this?


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Mark]

On 12/12/13, 8:40 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:

BLPs remain one of our big challenges, and will continue to be so as
long as Wikipedia is popular. With a nod to Andy's comment, as a
community I think we may want to review our progress in the last few
years on the BLP issue, and have a broad community consultation about
where we are still falling short and ideas for going forward, given
our constraints and changing environment of readers and editors.

A slightly broader study I'd be interested in that regard boils down to: 
are our BLPs any good? If the answer, as I suspect, is "sometimes they 
are, sometimes they aren't", can we say anything about how often, and in 
which kinds of cases?


Undue or unsourced negative information about living people is one 
aspect of that, and what most of the formal BLP-related policy, and the 
process around things like OTRS, is intended to address. The flipside is 
undue or unsourced *positive* information about living people: in 
comparison to biographies about non-living people, BLPs draw a huge 
proportion of puffed-up, COI, and sometimes outright paid editing.


Between tendentious negative information and self-promoting positive 
information, I worry that the overall quality level of our biographies 
of living people ends up poor in a great many cases, especially cases 
outside the top tier of biographies visible enough to draw significant 
third-party editors (Barack Obama, Fidel Castro, that kind of thing). 
But it would be better to understand the problem, if it is one, in more 
detail.


-Mark


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[phoebe ayers]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
> Thanks for this, but even with the amendments it sounds pretty weak.
> The closing text just shows how helpless we are in helping subjects
> when their article is under the watchful eye of some Wikipedia editor
> who feels that they "own" biography articles they have been watching
> for years. Though I support the intention behind this statement
> ("Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are portrayed
> in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging
> others to do the same"), it still offers no indication of a path
> forward for such subjects.  I would like to know where subjects can
> post their complaint besides on the talk page, since putting
> complaints there is still a form of publication and only serves to
> propagate the sensitive information that subjects want removed. Also,
> the text coming after "People sometimes make edits or add media
> designed to smear others" also doesn't address the problem. There are
> lots of unnecessarily sensitive edits made that are not made
> maliciously, but if they are sourced, are practically impossible to
> have removed, if the "personal owner" disagrees. I guess for major TV
> personalities and such it may be easier because there are more people
> watching and editing such biographies, but in the case of marginally
> notable people, they have no recourse whatsoever, as far as I can see.

All good and important questions, Jane -- and yes, all of this is left
unaddressed in this resolution. As careful readers have noted, this is
just a small update to the 2009 resolution, meant to clarify the
Board's original intent. We did not change the other parts of the text
or tackle the process-related parts of handling BLPs, which remains a
hard issue -- although one that has been addressed by various policies
and processes, such as our fantastic OTRS team.

BLPs remain one of our big challenges, and will continue to be so as
long as Wikipedia is popular. With a nod to Andy's comment, as a
community I think we may want to review our progress in the last few
years on the BLP issue, and have a broad community consultation about
where we are still falling short and ideas for going forward, given
our constraints and changing environment of readers and editors.

-- Phoebe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[phoebe ayers]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Lodewijk  wrote:

> (just for the record: I'm not particularly against this amendment, I
> actually never assumed that files would be treated differently from texts
> anyway in this kind of stuff. Just plain curiosity.)

Neither did the board, which is why we passed the amendment -- because
there seemed to be some confusion on the matter :)

My take on the resolution -- not formally speaking for the board -- is
what I said on Commons: that the board feels Wikimedians should
exercise equal care when dealing with all portrayals of living people
on our various projects. So while the resolution is not meant to drive
to a very specific change and was not in response to any single
incident, it is meant as a statement of principles that we can use to
guide the development of process and policy -- and as with our past
resolution about images of individual people, I think we should
examine our policies and decisions in light of these principles.

best,
Phoebe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Jane Darnell]

Thanks Jee, I will try to keep my comments there

2013/12/12, Jeevan Jose :
> "I would like to know where subjects can post their complaint besides on
> the talk page, since putting complaints there is still a form of
> publication and only serves to propagate the sensitive information that
> subjects want removed. - Jane Darnell"
>
> Yes; we are working on it. See
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Undiscussed_addition
> and
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Contact_us/Problems#Consent_Issues
>
> Jee
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski > wrote:
>
>> Fæ wrote:
>>
>>  I hope this is a coincidence.
>>>
>>
>> How naive of you, Fæ: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/
>> index.php?oldid=6705202#Personal_and_Moral_Rights.3F
>>
>>   Tomasz
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Jeevan Jose]

"I would like to know where subjects can post their complaint besides on
the talk page, since putting complaints there is still a form of
publication and only serves to propagate the sensitive information that
subjects want removed. - Jane Darnell"

Yes; we are working on it. See
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Undiscussed_addition
and 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Contact_us/Problems#Consent_Issues

Jee

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski  wrote:

> Fæ wrote:
>
>  I hope this is a coincidence.
>>
>
> How naive of you, Fæ: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/
> index.php?oldid=6705202#Personal_and_Moral_Rights.3F
>
>   Tomasz
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Tomasz W. Kozlowski]

Fæ wrote:


I hope this is a coincidence.


How naive of you, Fæ: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=6705202#Personal_and_Moral_Rights.3F


  Tomasz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's accept Bitcoin as a donation method

[Peter Gervai]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Tim Starling  wrote:
> On 12/12/13 02:54, Nathan wrote:
>> Bitcoin isn't native currency for anyone, and anyone who wishes
>> to make a Bitcoin donation could certainly do so using a more standard
>> currency.

> I would think that if anonymity is the main concern, a transaction
> system with a public log of all transactions would not be the best choice.

I guess we're pretty lost in several different agendas and purposes.

Bitcoin is clearly controversial in the sense that due to its anon and
non-government-controlled nature it is used in ways traditional money
was neither planned nor accepted, and its very existence is a fight
against control, trail tracking and other various (legal and illegal)
means of invading privacy of honest people and criminals both.

I observe quite different reasons people would like to have BC accepted.

I guess for the most part it's about support freedom, fight against
governmental control and fight against invasion of privacy. People
make point to use BC instead of govt money to donate thus pulling in
organisations to support monetary freedom (of their opinion, at
least). In this aspect, and I guess that's the main aspect, Wikipedia
should support that freedom. In this aspect, however, it is clear that
supporting this is dangerous since it's an open fight against
governmental control, and governments are sensitive abvout losing
their hard-collected rights. It is also a political move in that
sense, and aven it's not for any given political force should not be
taken lightly.

Other aspect is where anonimity is the main reason, where people or
organisations risk by donating an US organisation or to Wikipedia, The
Guardian of Free Information in general. Cash drop is obviously not
the solution for a Chinese or Russian citizen, and honestly we're
quite out of alternatives here. (Please do not get into debates about
why anyone would strongly prefer to stay anonymous, that is not the
point, thank you.)

Another aspect would be technical: "why not?" There are steps and
resources required to process bitcoin, especially strong mphasis about
informational security since BC is quite prone to electronic theft.
However these are not impossible, not even hard steps, and WMF is
absolutely capable to create the infrastructure to accept BC safely. I
see no real problem here.
(And even if it requires work from accountants and tax-professionals
and lawyers we do have the resources to archieve that easily. We might
even set example for smaller NGOs about how to do that legally; they
may not have the resources to reach a working solution.)

Again a different aspect is volatility or unstable exchange rates,
some people argue that BC is not a stable currency. Ackowledging the
truth in that I believe it is irrelevant: if people keep their money
in BC that's their worry, if they donate $100 worth of BC which will
be exachanged to $50 next week it is still $50 donation for us. We do
not plan to keep our assets in BC, and even if we would keep BC
donations in BC (why not) there's nothing to lose; if it loses 90% of
its worth due to whatever happening then that's it, might just happen
to a "real" currency either. We cannot lose more than the donations in
BC anyway.

A few people start something I usually would call trolling in
different context ( :-) ) which debates on why bitcoin and why not
johndoecoin or billygold or whatever. First because this topic is
about BC, let the whatever scheme debate run elsewhere (and you may
work to have BC accepted as a basis for your esoteric semicurrency
LATER). Second because BC "market penetration" is not comparable,
people are using it, it is hard to deny, and there are stable
exchanges giving you real money for it, the demand is much higher than
for susiecoins or whatever.

Out of the topics above the only risk I see is the
political/anti-government/anti-control/free-speech aspects, and these
are not easy problems indeed. But I do not believe people arguing the
other aspects have much to debate on. Seems you're running in circles,
pulling up the same non-reasoning over and over.

For the record I do not plan to donate in BC, neither do I mine it. I
just tend to support more freedom in general.

g

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's accept Bitcoin as a donation method

[Chris Keating]

Other forms of money we do not currently accept include gold coins, Yap
money, Tesco Clubcard Points,  cowrie shells and cattle.

We could accept any of them in theory.

Though if anyone wants to donate a herd of cattle to Wikimedia UK please
could they contact the office in advance.

Chris
On 12 Dec 2013 03:31, "Tim Starling"  wrote:

> On 12/12/13 02:54, Nathan wrote:
> > Bitcoin isn't native currency for anyone, and anyone who wishes
> > to make a Bitcoin donation could certainly do so using a more standard
> > currency.
>
> Well, this article from a year ago argues that bitcoin is "safer" for
> donors than donating national currency:
>
> <
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/06/29/wikipedia-accepts-enemies-of-the-internet-currencies/
> >
>
> "But just don’t try to donate safely in bitcoin — it’s not accepted."
> [...]
>
> "Accepting anonymous bitcoin in addition to political currencies can
> be a way of declaring that freedom of speech still does matter."
>
> I would think that if anonymity is the main concern, a transaction
> system with a public log of all transactions would not be the best choice.
>
> 
>
> The obvious time-tested choice for anonymous payment is, of course,
> cash. Many charities do accept cash donations. Cash could be donated
> to the local chapter by dropping it into a donation box, then it could
> be either spent on local programs or forwarded to WMF.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,