Wikipedia Nostr entry keeps getting edited to remove references to censorship resistance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostr
I'm starting to understand why WikiFreedia needs to be a thing.
Discussion
One way to solve this may be with primary research. Having read the talk, editors are objecting to "censorship resistance" being stated in a way that it appears to be a claim that is unsubstantiated. The alternative would be to state it as e.g. "Nostr users choose Nostr because of its censorship resistance". To quickly create a survey of users for this purpose may help and is easy, give me a minute...
Ok, try this. Then we submit to Wikipedia with the wording as follows. "Nostr users prefer Nostr due to its... ". Pls boost for visibility (I'm no one, have no reach) nostr:nevent1qqs9vtu3xuz08ep488c08mjdn8xlc8le55gy4mmezsqynle0r5ccd2gpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7q3qzl9whkrnjlfgg9q0k39r4tymu4ty3r5uy6tgxqdnd7f6xxcf8dmsxpqqqqdnjtzzkeg
The censorship resistance is marketing. People may choose it for that reason, but that doesnt make it true. The vast majority of relays in are G7 data centers. I would consider nostr to be resilient like RAID, if one hard disk fails, you can use another.
There's an edit war going on after the Business Insider article. Swinxy added the former name, but others are removing it.
We should pretend that fiatjaf is still unknown and nothing has happened
Don't rely on the official GitHub definition of the protocol, rely on ... newspapers (!)
Lol Wikipedia
I saw that and was confused as well. What could the logic possibly be to see "too many" primary sources as problem?
Seems that Wikipedia would like editors to not insert their own interpretations, at least not directly, and that's being applied overzealously
Wikipedia is a well controlled psy-op for any non mundane topic
This is their policy, you need "reliable" secondary sources that interpret and explain things. This is unfortunate because all "reliable" secondary sources are garbage these days.
I see it as a way of including legitimate criticism. Primary sources will not include it and a lack of secondary sources perhaps shows that this thing doesn’t have enough popularity to be subjected to critical analysis. I feel like this is a good policy, if a little cumbersome for something new.
At least fiatjaf's identity got removed.
Instead of using [Censorship Resistance], which is considered advertisement even in my eyes, You put [Reception] in it, and move [Users] and [Censorship] inside of it. That's how you make it appropriate.