hey guys I just wanted to make a brief video about Wikipedia so I noticed some community members have been attempting to edit the proof of steak article on Wikipedia to include references to or Boris as many of you are aware that particular article is badly out of date it references NXT I don't even think it has a substantive discussion of delegated proof of steak or tender mint or any of the other POS protocols that frankly are significantly better than our on market or going to market and as many of you are aware we have done more scientific research as a community on proof of steak than any other project by far if you sum up all the citations the conference's the tests the code that's been deployed the success of the ITN I we are we've won that war a convincingly and there's other protocols as well like snow white for example which is not referenced for some reason Cardno in particular has been having a tremendously difficult time getting a fair representation on Wikipedia anything we do whether it be Plutus the extended UT XL model or Boris the Cardinal project itself or people affiliated with the project there is broad scale commercial censorship occurring by the editors at Wikipedia we don't know why the Cardinal article was deleted even Phil Wadler he has a biography on Cardinal you can actually go and look at the commit records when they mentioned he's the creator of the Plutus programming language which is a real project it's an academic project peer review papers have been submitted it's part of his career he's made a decision to do that it was removed from the article and the editors cited I which case Pam we don't know why there's hostility where coins like spanked Jane can have an article on Wikipedia a lot of other crypto currencies in top 15 top 20 apparently have articles and that's perfectly fine but then we're not allowed to have an article for some reason even though we've been mentioned by the US Congress we've been mentioned by the New York Times The Wall Street Journal the Financial Times we are the most cited of all of the peer review coins in market we historically have had a market cap larger than space sex it seems that if you have tens of thousands of people that you would be very easy and straightforward then for at least somebody to create an article especially given the other articles that exist on Wikipedia relative to our industry but there is commercial censorship that's happening we've repeatedly asked for a standard a burden of proof for these editors who continually continually erase our articles continually erase any mentions of Cardno to let us know what they care about and what we can do to remediate the situation we never get an answer it's just you're not novel you're not important by which case spam this is not advertising so spank chain gets to have an article other projects get to have an article but for some reason we don't the broader point is this points out why cryptocurrencies existed blockchain technology exists so what happens is people open a service up a centralized service on the web and they pretend to be a public utility and then they get corrupted in certain members of that utility get too much power and then they use it to make arbitrary decisions and in this case we're a winner and in other cases perhaps excuse me in this case we're a loser in other cases perhaps we'd be a winner but does it really matter who the winners and losers are what matters is a small group of people seem to be censoring a project and this is an existential concern for all cryptocurrencies in the space all projects in the space so even if you have an article today you could lose that article tomorrow as we did because we actually did have a cardinal article for a while and it was erased no explanation just I guess it's not novel I remember when I was at aetherium there was a particular area array stall of the etherium references on Wikipedia sitting it was not novels so a system that has had profound impact on even changed US securities law was apparently not a novel project so these editors first whatever reason don't like crypto and for whatever reason really don't like card ah no we're not sure why but it's a warning to anybody in the card out of ecosystem that your contributions to Wikipedia at the moment in this environment for some reason will probably be erased with explanation you will be told to follow a process and even if you follow that process your contributions will still more likely than not be erased and there's no recourse or consequences we do not understand why this commercial censorship is occurring we will address it when we have more important things right now like the shipping of jelly and there may even be potential legal recourse that we could look into because there is an unfair commercial bias that's created by this but now is not the time for that I just wanted to make a video to explain the situation it's something we've been tracking now for three years we've felt it on the English Wikipedia side on others like for example the Japanese German other languages we seem to get much more representation but the editors in this particular clique are censoring us Cardno is a novel project whether you like it or not we deserve to be talked about even if you dislike the project you think it's a scam these other scam projects apparently have pages so we'd be the biggest scam of all time the cryptocurrencies face don't you think that's novel for an article right one then you'll get it deleted it's censorship no one's allowed to talk about us the very fact that Phil Wadler his biography page was edited to remove his contributions to a language he created in an academic capacity was blatantly unacceptable and wrong absolutely wrong and it's hurting Wikipedia it's hurting their ecosystem it's hurting the quality of their encyclopedia we could certainly have an industry scale conversation about how to improve the proof of stake article and work with other people who have made meaningful and significant contributions to prove mistake since that article is written nothing is allowed to be put in there if your EOS you put something in it'll probably be erased just the same for us we could have a conversation about improving the accounting model articles and getting a really good Beauty EXO and extended you tick so and world state article so people can understand the differences between accounting systems that Tasos and aetherium and Bitcoin and Cardno have it's not possible at the moment it's just locked down it's very anti crypto we don't know why for an organization that professes to be open for an organization that professes for credible contributions tell us the standard and we'll meet that standard we met that standard in the Academy standard amongst conferences that have a 10% acceptance rate for papers we're not afraid to have a debate we're not afraid to represent our technology and our progress but one thing we will not accept is to be censored without explanation for our community be censored without explanation and then to be told that we didn't follow a process when it's not clear what that is we've been cited by people as high as a US government we've been cited by major universities we have major partnerships these are novel things our ecosystem was worth more than SpaceX at one point this is a novel thing we've written a million lines of code this is a novel thing especially if you allow spank chain and others to have articles but we don't get one so this is a warning to the community Wikipedia for whatever reason is off limits we can't do anything on our side we've tried to work within that system we will come back to it with more aggressive force and try to get it a formal explanation from them why we are not novel and do not deserve an article but we will do this after Shelly ships because we just don't have the resources right now we're much more focused on product marketing on documentation and getting those t's crossed those eyes dotted so I'm sorry you guys are going through this I'm sorry you guys endured this I saw somebody on Twitter today very well-intended very well-meaning trying to actually inform the world that we exist and get us into the proof of stake article because it's so badly out of date didn't do anything it already got erased instantly gets erased this will be here experience from here on out this is another example of why centralized services must fail this is another example of what the existential danger to an industry when people rely on things that appear to be open but are actually controlled by a few people who are incredibly biased and are not accountable to anyone else so thank you for listening and we'll come back to this topic in a few months and we'll get will get it solved one way or the other but I'm not happy about it haven't been happy about it for three years I think it's completely unfair outrageous and ridiculous and I'm sorry that now members of our community are being basically victimized just like we have been for making meaningful well intended contributions we're happy to have a debate we're happy to have objective articles written we're happy to defend the things we've done and explain their novel but if a small projects that aren't really even around anymore apparently get pages but we don't get a page we can't even make a meaningful contribution to an abstract page where we've written dozens of papers and are the most cited cryptocurrency in that respect and our own people who are committing their careers and have biographies have their biographies edited to remove references to us this is censorship at the highest level it's not acceptable it's against the principles that Wikipedia was founded upon it's shameful behavior and we'd like it to stop we will come back to it in a little bit later to try an aggressive campaign to get an explanation of why it's happening but in the interim just be aware that these things occur as always thank you so much for listening and we'll talk again soon Cheers
