hey everyone charles hoskinson here broadcasting live from warm sunny colorado i before i went to bed want to make a quick video talk a little bit about wikipedia our good friend wikipedia so uh one of my community members directly pinged uh jimmy wales the founder of wikipedia over twitter uh lamenting over the fact that cardano despite all of our many accomplishments does not have a wikipedia page and i couldn't resist but jump in because jimmy jumped in and said hey you guys don't seem to count academic citations or references uh in any sense the word as credible and then he said no that's a lie that's not an accurate statement the evidence is completely on our side there are over 75 academic papers that are related more than 50 directly related to cardano over 2 500 citations we were the second most cited collection of scientific papers in the last five years in security and cryptography and computer science our gkl paper the foundations of cardano itself has 927 citations from people ranging from harvard and mit to eth zurich to chinese universities to japanese universities so basically spanning the entire globe so in the academic world alone we've appeared in journals we have appeared in springervale uh books i have some on my shelf one of these days i'll show you guys uh and none of those are credible so maybe journalists are credible like bloomberg wall street journal fortune magazine forbes magazine uh probably two three hundred stories at this point from various mainstream media uh journalists no those are not credible okay so maybe uh governments are credible like the government of georgia where the prime minister writes articles about us maybe the government of ethiopia where multiple ministries have not only written about us but have form partnerships to deploy software on cardona no not credible maybe when the president of mongolia or the u.s ambassador in mongolia or others mention us and talk about us that's a credible resource no that's not credible at all oh okay all the academic labs we've set up for hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars none of those are credible oh okay what about university of wyoming the first university in the united states to accept a cryptocurrency for a grant in ada is that notable and credible no that's not notable incredible oh okay so apparently none of these things whether heads of state or perhaps transnational bodies uh the european union the horizons 2020 program half a million dollars to i o research to study the centralized software updates that is cardano's decentralized software update system funding from the european union is that notable and credible for a citation no not notable and credible for a citation maybe when the us congress used house of representatives explicitly mentioned cardano is that a credible citation nope not a credible citation i own a video game called legends of valor that has a wikipedia page it is a video game from 1992. no one plays it it's not worth any money uh it hasn't gotten any traction since the early 90s that is notable for a wikipedia page all the citations there according to david gerard the editor who has made unilaterally the decision to delete our page are apparently not credible yet legends of valor gets to keep a page is a page i own it but that's okay cardano a three and a half billion dollar cryptocurrency with hundreds of thousands of users in the top 10 which has been around for more than five years which has more than 75 academic papers mentioned by heads of state transnational bodies uh closing deals in africa changing the whole world mentioned hundreds of times by journalists thousands of podcasts throughout the years thousands of engineers and various people who have worked on it across the spectrum mentioned numerous times by luminaries like eric elliott and dozens of others one of the most innovative ideas around every single week more papers appear in conferences none of those are notable these are not my words these are david gerard's words the editor who deleted our page you can go and check it yourself and the founder of wikipedia lied on twitter you can see the fight he lied and said we were lying jimmy you're lying to people you need to cut it out you need to stop it okay you are losing credibility your platform is losing credibility spend five minutes and look into what your editors are doing and what your platform has done all of our people eos and tazos and all these other they apparently are notable for a page we are not you will not tell us what the standards are apparently when heads of state when governments when you have almost 100 papers 75 plus papers 2500 academic citations you appear in every single thing people get tenure and have gotten tenure based upon the work that they've done on this project over the last five years billions of dollars at stake your platform says that is not credible don't go to goddamn twitter and say i'm not helping my case by personally attacking you we're not personally attacking you your people david gerard wrote a book about how our entire industry is a scam he has repeatedly said on record publicly numerous times and you can see it yourself that every one of these projects every blockchain project is a scam including ethereum and he gets to decide if a cryptocurrency is credible or not this is the person your platform is empowering and my competitors get pages we do not get a page that's just a fact it's where we're at it's where we've lived for years every time a page is created regardless of the citations it is rapidly deleted this is a fact your platform jimmy is doing this you might not want to acknowledge it you might want to lie about it but the evidence is there and it's overwhelming and every day we get bigger every day we get more notable every day we do more deals we get more papers we write more code we accomplish more things we just beat ethereum to proof of stake okay we have 1200 stake pool operators at some point you're either going to have to admit you're commercially censoring the cardano project or that your rules on wikipedia just don't matter it's a centralized platform and it's roulette apparently a video game that no one cares about no one uses from 1992 is so credible it not only deserves a page but a fairly long page for its class but a multi-billion dollar project with hundreds of thousands of people doing incredibly innovative things mentioned by the media at every level from small to large nation states and transnational bodies does not deserve a page because it's not notable unilaterally decided by a person who's gone on record saying cryptocurrencies are a scam the same person who deleted the ethereum wikipedia page and the ethereum spent years fighting themselves you have a problem jimmy if you want to acknowledge it or not acknowledge it that's on you man but don't call our people liars don't say we're not credible because the evidence and the facts are there and it's your decision as a platform to acknowledge that or not and the longer you do this the more competition you're going to get and at some point wikipedia will just simply die as a project you know it makes me sick to my stomach too because when i was growing up i admired wikipedia i tell all my friends and family this is a great project and a great example of what you can do with the decentralized community and the fact that you as a founder have allowed your organization your editors to commercially censor viable projects i don't give a if you like them or not they're notable and relevant commercially censor these projects and then lie on twitter about it is despicable and disgusting and it's one of the reasons why people should not consider wikipedia to be a fair source or a reasonable source in any sense of the word and i call upon amazon and i call upon google and all these other organizations that use wikipedia as a data source remember that this data source is corrupted it's not accurate it's not credible and its editors have enormous power over the things that people read and no matter what's actually true and what's actually there unfortunately it's just gonna go one way or the other and sometimes it means old video games can get extensive pages and multi-billion dollar projects cannot there's no rhyme and reason about it there's no following of standards it doesn't matter if the us congress mentions you it doesn't matter if the european union funds you it doesn't matter if you're in pretty much every conference in your entire field it doesn't matter what universities you're partnered with it does not matter what accomplishments you make how large you are how much money uh your ecosystem is worth none of these things matter all that matters is if you get a good editor you get a page if you get a bad editor you get censored and apparently there's no conflict of interest having an editor who has gone on record saying our entire industry is a scam i would love to see that argument applied to other areas i would love to see donald trump's wikipedia page edited by the democratic national party i would love to see bill clinton's page be edited by rush limbaugh we would all agree that these are no-no's these are bad things you cannot have this kind of bias if you expect to have a fair and balanced representation of an industry an individual or a project yet somehow jimmy you're totally okay with david gerard and other people like him having enormous influence and control over cryptocurrencies it's just that simple so you tell me what is your standard you tell me what citations are notable because as far as i see bloomberg is a notable organization forbes is a notable organization fortune is a notable organization the ft is a notable organization and the hundreds of others who have written extensive articles small and large throughout the years about our projects the heads of state that have mentioned the project the ministries that have mentioned and partnered with the project are credible and notable resources springervale is a very credible academic publisher many graduate students in the sciences will remember the yellow jackets on the books and have them floating around i even have some right here in this room on the mathematics side of the world and so if academic conferences and academic publications and the things that get professors tenure at major universities such as harvard and cornell and mit are not credible jimmy you tell our community you owe it to them because you've been commercially censoring them for five years now what is the standard i'd love to see it and i'd love to be told explicitly why does eos and all these other guys why do they meet that standard and we do not why does aetherium meet that standard and we do not just that simple and if you can't answer that question or you just straight up use ad hominems and say we're lying or recusatory then i ask you why does your platform deserve to be credible why should anyone believe anything wikipedia says why should anyone believe anything written for that platform why should amazon use it as a data source for alexa why should google bias their search results to have wikipedia appear a little higher why why do you deserve any of these accolades and credibility and to the people who donate to wikipedia this is a call to you a direct call to you do you know where your money is going do you understand that your money is going to a platform that supports commercial censorship a platform that when it's called out where there's clear double standards or biases or issues with their application of their rules they just simply do not care please consider before you donate money in the future to this organization until at the very least they dignify our question of why are you doing this why are you commercially censoring our project and if they're unwilling to answer that for a three and a half billion dollar project with hundreds of thousands of good people doing innovative revolutionary work and commercializing in some of the poorest countries in the world with many great universities connected to it and subsidies from government entities then who would they be willing to answer that for and if they're unwilling to acknowledge that it is not proper for people who are blatantly biased against an industry to decide what is credible in that industry or not then you really have to ask where is your money that you are donating to wikipedia going it's wrong it's always been wrong it's always been reprehensible and i'm sorry when you call us out on twitter we're going to call you out on twitter you are the one who is lying your platform is the one that's conducting this the evidence is clear people can see the screenshots they can go directly to the deleted page they can read the arguments of the editors they can see where the articles have been deleted they can see the overwhelming evidence we have a simple google search of cardano itself will resume uh will provide a plenary source of information and journalists and mainstream publications about the project you can take a look at iohk research our website iohk.io click on the research path and see the gigantic library of papers and for yourselves googling those papers google will show you the amount of citations from people ranging from mit to university of tokyo all around the world you can see the conferences we have appeared at crypto ccs eurocrat and these are the conferences again and again that decide whether someone is a good professor gets tenure or they don't get their contract renewed or not and you can see the conference proceedings you see the books that are our things have been published then and you can talk to any academic in the field of cryptography he looks into the blockchain space and asks them about cardano and asks about the papers behind cardano and they will tell you if they're a reasonable person who's well informed that this project is doing notable and noteworthy things at the highest levels of science you can talk to any programmer who's read our code and actually seen what our developers have done and they will tell you that the code of cardano is first class for example the ceo of quant stamp recently said that in an article with coindesk the code is novel the processes are novel the science is novel as validated by thousands outside of the project completely independent of the project and validated by the hundreds of journalists who've written about us jimmy you are the one who is lying and that's the way it is so i finally decided to put my foot down and make a goddamn video about this because i'm so frustrated about it because i see the pain it causes our community i see the confusion and sadness our people have asking simple questions like why doesn't cardano have an english wikipedia page again and again we get asked this question in our telegram groups with some of which with more than 15 000 people innocently people come in asking this question some people try to create pages but you're speedily deleted by your editors and you have the audacity to come and say that academic citations are notable and credible that you tell me which ones are because as far as i'm concerned iacr conferences are the gold standard for an entire field of study some people of which have spent 40 plus years of their lives such as eddie shamir if that's not credible to you jimmy you tell me what is you tell me you tell our community and if you're not willing to do that have the goddamn decency just to say nothing don't you dare call us liars and don't you dare say that we're the problem here david gerard is and your ecosystem is the problem here and that's it at some point the cardinal project will get so large you're just not going to be able to ignore it anymore and one of these days we're going to run into each other at a conference if it's not davos it's going to be somewhere else i'm going to look you straight in the face and i'm going to ask you straight in the face why did you lie maybe then you can actually give me a goddamn answer the other thing is that one day we will build a replacement for wikipedia if it's not going to be ever pd it'll be something else and then you're gonna have to compete with a truly decentralized platform that actually does have ethics and values and no double standards built into it and is credible you see that's the ultimate solution for when people build centralized monarchies with the audacity to violate their own rules on a consistent basis they get replaced so this is your chance to either be the right guy and actually at least explain to us what the standards are and why we did not meet them or it's your first step if not probably more than the first one is one of many steps on the road to obsolescence just as all the other tech startups faced at some point as for me i'm not going to talk about wikipedia anymore i'm not going to care much about wikipedia anymore by the way we've been censored in other articles despite the fact that we are the single most cited proof-of-stake protocol we have no representation there and when we try to get it it's labeled as iohk spam some of the scientists who work for my company and have written phenomenal academic research like phil wadler have had their wikipedia pages edited just when it was mentioned that they're employed by my company i'm sorry if an academic chooses to spend his time writing papers for our projects that's not spam if they're notable enough to have a paper you don't get to decide that it's relevant that they work for sun and ibm but not relevant that they work for me it's just the way it is and these are just some examples there's been numerous examples it is systemic commercial censorship but that is what this platform has decided to do and we've tolerated it but what i will not tolerate is you going to twitter and lying about the project just that simple so jimmy the balls in your court i would love to see your response some point we'll see each other in person i'ma look you right in the eyes and ask you what is your response to this and of course you're probably just gonna blow it off and walk away because you're too big and too important of a guy you know and there's been plenty of people silicon valley sought that to themselves and uh they're footnotes and bigger stories and to the cardano community you know we don't have to take this on the chin the dc fund exists it's only going to get more money it's only going to get better i would love to see in future funds replacements for wikipedia let's incubate it let's innovate our way out of this and to the cryptocurrency space as a whole the many of which who have suffered censorship as a direct result of david gerard whose name if you google you'll see the projects to others you know what we'll get through it as an ecosystem and uh no one should be treated this way ever so thank you all for listening i do appreciate it and i hope we can resolve this in an amicable way really do and jimmy i really look forward to hearing you say something about this i really do i'd love to hear your response to this it's about time you answer for your editors and own up to their egregious behavior
