The ideal solution would be to somehow stop people from considering centralized sites like bitcoin.org/bitcoin.com/etc. as "important", but that's not going to happen. Even if you got everyone to switch to btcinformation.org or whatever, then you'd be creating a new important centralized site which would eventually be corrupted.
That is an excellent point. From here, the discussion inevitably devolves into big talk about some plan to redesign the Web to have
at least the decentralization that Usenet had 40 years ago. To avoid that discussion, all I’ll say is that “cypherpunks write code”. :-)
(Not to say that such an effort is pointless, though, if you don't like bitcoin.org.) All we can do about this situation is to just individually try our best:
- If you see something about bitcoin.org (or another site) that you don't like, try to get it changed.
- If you don't like bitcoin.org (or another site) or you don't like the way that it's managed, point people to a different site instead, or create your own.
- If you end up controlling an "important site", try to keep it operating in the most correct way that you can, for as long as possible.
Sound advice. With a centrally controlled resource, it is all a matter of trust. There
are some individuals whom I myself would trust with such responsibility.
(And what happens when they die—is there trustworthy clear succession of responsibility? And what if others do not likewise trust them? And...)That said, I must point out that this:
Next step: Cøbra to give up access to Bitcoin.org.
~
How about you give up singular control to
shared control by known and honest individuals such as Wladimir, harding and others? Oh right, we have tried this before and you refused.
...is
exactly an instance of this:
- If you see something about bitcoin.org (or another site) that you don't like, try to get it changed.