The dutch page is still online though
For what it is worth the license attribution has been added to the site: https://safenetwork.tech/press-kit/. Very disappointing the page has been taken down.
This is all going to be very embarrassing when Wikipedia realises it can host an awesome website on the SAFEnetwork without restriction.
I’m looking forward to that day.
I also expect this thread will be referenced on the Safewikiped as part of the entry of the early history of the SAFEnetwork.
We also need to know the author of the image. Would you happen to have that Nick? Thanks!
I’m out atm but I’ll have a look when I get back later. I think that’ll be the winner of the 99 design’s comp.
@nicklambert that’s what I figured too. I’ll try to give a look in awhile if I can but you might ninja me.
Was it designer Dusan Sevarika aka Sheva via 99designs?
Yes, that was it, thanks for looking that out. I’ve sent that over to the web team for inclusion.
It’s best not to have bias but SAFE is cutting edge. Who else would know about it but devs and SAFE otakus?
Came upon this research by chance this morning:
In particular, the rapid increase in the Gini coefficient suggests that this entrenched inequality stems from the nature of such open-editing communal data sets, namely the abiogenesis of the supereditors’ oligopoly. We show that these supereditor groups were created at the early stages of these open-editing media and are still active. Furthermore, our model considers both short-term and long-term memories to successfully elucidate the underlying mechanism of the establishment of oligarchy in Wikipedia.
In economics, the Gini coefficient, sometimes called Gini index, or Gini ratio, is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income or wealth distribution of a nation’s residents, and is the most commonly used measurement of inequality. It was developed by the Italian statistician and sociologist Corrado Gini and published in his 1912 paper Variability and Mutability.
I tried to understand some of what is going on with the article, but I find it incredibly hard to understand it. There are a lot of acronyms and processes that are specific to Wikipedia, it’s incredible.
Some snippets from the deletion review:
it’s a decent article, could use some trimming in my opinion. On the other hand, there was nothing wrong with the deletion.
Cryptocurrencies are mostly scams, and we should not give their promoters a platform here.
I agree with Boing! that we should take a strong WP:DENY stance with the current wave of cryptocurrency spammers, but if Fuelbottle really wants to give them a BOGOF I think we have to respect that. The article would have to be thoroughly purged of any promotionalism before it’s moved backed to mainspace, though.
It’s so weird that people put so much effort into these discussions while I objectively see nothing wrong with the article at hand. Who cares it was edited by a blocked user? Then undo those edits or tweak them to become quality again. It’s about the content, not who contributed it, right? I don’t understand Wikipedia at all, but they probably have their reasons for working this way. Contribution is a complex matter.
Wikipedia has become a pretty restricted space and I have my doubts the initial ethos still is alive…
Not completely relevant here and probably a bit outdated, but I did find it an interesting article:
"On Deloitte’s page, an incomplete list of the winners of the Deloitte Fast 50 competition was published some time ago, and I updated that page and updated it with the winners of the last ten years. “too commercial.” To a certain extent I can still follow that, but do not pretend that you want to be an encyclopaedia with accurate information. "
“But while a footballer from fourth provincial law has a very extensive page, a contribution about the boss of Belfius Insurance is barred because of irrelevant”
Only someone without a network, who is completely separate from the banking system, is allowed to do something about Belfius, who is going to make time for that and where is that person going?
It is understandable, and frankly I have no objection to Wikipedia editors being hard on things that might be spam, and to anyone who doesn’t know this project it is just another token based pie in the sky project that is likely to be suspect, spammy etc. We know different of course, but should be realistic. By all means try and get something accepted, but if not, it isn’t a big loss. The time this is really valuable is after launch, and by then I think it will be much easier.
If Wikipedia has to wait after launch they’re liable to be replaced by SAFEpedia and be made obsolete. I wonder how the Wiki Foundation will feel if their entry on the SAFE network becomes their epitaph.
Just had a look. It looks like the user that edited or created the article may have had the same ip address as a user who was banned for being a paid editor taking jobs through upworks and paid editors are not allowed because of potential conflicts of interest. The discussion and everything is a bit spread out on various pages and a bit hard to follow, but this is what I could infer at least.
Perhaps MaidSafe or a forum user hired the article creator through upworks to write an article about SAFE, maybe not realizing it’s not allowed or maybe the user who wrote the article used a VPN which at some point had also been used by a paid editor, becoming collateral damage.
I can confirm that MaidSafe hasn’t hired anyone to write articles on our behalf, we tend to use Upwork for small design jobs only.
Probably someone used VPN or TOR then. I think it’s enough that an IP address has been used a single time by a spammer, vandal, paid editor etc. for it to be blacklisted forever.
Seems from the deletion log they are keen to allow a new article by a new user, with no edits by blocked users, trimmed down article, no promotion and not so soon after deletion. They seem to be the main points I picked up.
Actually definitely not a new user but someone who is/has been a proper editor. Part of the problem is that new users look like sock puppets and they’ll just get blocked. As mods, they don’t know any better. They’re just playing defense against crypto scams and that is their main concern from what I gather.
I’ve been following with interest and it’s pretty wild the purge frenzy the mods have been on. It’s gotten to the point it’s chaotic. I think the SAFE Network page is lucky that it’s being considered for undeletion review in this environment but a couple that have reviewed it actually see the project as legitimate and another had changed his mind after being shown some evidence of the projects notability. There are a couple though that seem hell bent on not supporting any article that may have been created by a paid editor. I like this philosophy of some mods, that if someone searches for something/anything on Wikipedia, they should find it. It should be encyclopedic and objective as possible and it doesn’t matter how it got there. On the flip side you have other mods that say they shouldn’t support the work of paid editors even though they follow Wikipedia guidelines. So it’s basically all based off principle. Which in a way I understand. In this case I simply don’t agree.