This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Now serious gamblers will be forced to go to the underground to get their action. Good job government, you just helped the Mafia gain more customers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.254.87.49 ( talk • contribs) .
I removed the following from the bottom of the article:
It is an act which, puts away the people from jobs that they used to do to support people.
Because it didn't really fit, and had the feeling of vandalism. I think the sentiment expressed is important, though, but I really don't know anything abut the Safe Port Act, so I don't really know. Anyone? -- Badger151 19:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't we mention the rumors of protectionism? There have been a large number, especially from the UK, Gibraltar and Australia, where many of these companies were based. I think it needs a mention at least, of course the word "rumor" would need to appear with it ;)
Segafreak2 22:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The correct number of this law is Pub.L. 109-347, according to THOMAS. Markles used the USPL template to cite this, but due to a typo, linked to 109-367. 2005 noticed the broken link and reverted Markles' edit. The USPL template, linked to 109-347, would work correctly, except that the document is not available yet from the Government Printing Office web site. When this link: Pub. L. 109–347 (text) (PDF) starts working, we should revise the article. US 30 04:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned up the new paragraph on Jim Leach and Bill Frist. They are still serving in the Congress until their terms expire January 3. While it is relevant to this article that they were behind UIGEA, I'm not comfortable with calling out only those two. It smacks of editorial comment. For example, Sen. Jon Kyl supported UIGEA too, and he was reelected. US 30 21:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
12/10/2007 - I made sure to add Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R-VA], who co-authored H.R. 4411, and Jon Kyl who took over the gambling prohibition torch from his dead father Iowa Congressman Jphn Kyl. Please do not remove mention of these players. They were as instrumental as Leach and Frist in starting the illegal (accordin to the WTO) prohibition of online gambling in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.37.119 ( talk • contribs)
There is a dispute between user 2005 and anonymous user 193.95.179.200 regarding the link to the Washington Watch website. The referenced page is at best a secondary source. However, it links out to two significant places: one, the text of the law, which is duplicative of a link already on this page, and two, a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the cost of the law. This analysis focuses entirely on the port security provisions of the law. Therefore, as a compromise, I am removing the Washington Watch link, adding a section to this page regarding port security, and linking directly to the CBO analysis from the port security section.
There is another dispute between the same parties as to the ordering of paragraphs discussing gambling sites' reactions to the law. I agree with 2005's position. Sites dropping U.S. customers are more significant, since they illustrate the effect of the new law, than those not doing so. But the issue of paragraph ordering is hardly worth a discussion, let alone a revert war.
I don't own this page, so feel free to keep tinkering. US 30 18:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It should be added to the list of online poker sites that don't accept US customers. From March they will allow players to withdraw from their accounts. User Sbpatel.
Amazing what is considered teh most important element of this legislation - gambling. Wikipedia is many things, but balanced it probably is not. 130.20.3.179 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The WTO section is gross misstatement of the consequences of the case. The Safe Port Act was not mentioned in the case (it hadn't been passed yet) and the case says nothing specifically about the anti-gambling provisions of the Act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.182.4 ( talk) at 03:49, 18 April 2007
I've added information to the article in the gambling section, citing SPECIFICALLY which poker websites are still accepting U.S. players, but someone keeps reverting my additions, falsely labeling it as "spam." My information was not at all intended to be seen as spam, and upon review, I find it difficult to see how someone could interpret it as such. Anyway, I'm not going to bother checking back every day to re-add information that someone wrongly deletes, so I'll leave that up to someone else who wants to review the information. -- Josh1billion 07:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand that on the 11th of July 2007 the UIGEA (affecting poker, etc., web sites) became law, having had its 270-odd days since it was "passed" (I don't pretend to understand all the ins-and-outs). I think there should be some mention of this in the article by someone knowledgeable. E.g. on that day pre-paid USA Visa cards that previously worked at online gambling sites were no longer accepted. EdX20 23:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I only just noticed that FullTilt is back to real money. Has there been some new clarification/interpretation of the UIGEA? - Crimson30 21:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I consolidated the gambling parts of the article into its own section and added the "Split" template to the article. As noted by the article, the gambling sections of this law at one point had been its own bill. The gambling title of the law has its own short title. The article & talk page are dominated by the gambling aspects of the law, so I feel the gambling sections should be found in its own Wikipedia article that more accurately describe its content. I would leave a header on the remaining SAFE Port Act article with a link to the gambling article, and I would propose this entire talk page become the gambling article talk page. Thoughts? -- Pesco 22:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
To repeat my question from last year, "What happens to this article if the UIGEA part of the law is repealed?" See this article that indicates efforts are underway. Also, the article references the act as the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006", not the SAFE Port Act. ~ Pesco So say• we all 03:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The quote, "...tabled draft UIGEA regulations for public comment," shows a contradiction between US English and British English. "Tabled" in British parliamentary procedure means to bring up for discussion, whereas in US parliamentary procedure it means to (at least temporarily) drop from discussion. Here, in context, one can work it out, but the line really ought to be reworded. -- 71.174.165.63 ( talk) 11:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The article Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 was created by User:Hbaum16 as part of an educational assignment at Michigan State University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the Spring 2011 term. Further details are available on the course page.
User:2005 transformed it into a redirect, arguing WP:CFORK.
It came to my attention when it was returned from the DYK queue to the DYK suggestions page because it had become a redirect.
I have restored the page, but added a merge tag to allow for discussion here. OCNative ( talk) 03:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
2005, while I can see that you are certainly passionate about this topic, and committed to ensuring that the work of the dozens of editors you speak of be recognized, I would again ask that you back off of this issue for a few weeks to allow the students to finish their work. I am not an expert Wikipedian, and do not understand how my students could have created a duplicate article in the way you describe, unless there used to be a UIGEA article which was then combined with the Safe Port article. Either way, at the time the students started the assignment, there wasn't an unique article addressing that particular topic, so we created the article from scratch. You are free to continue editing the UIGEA section on the Safe Port site (which I guess is the result of this previous article you mentioned), and we will work with our new article. I don't see how adding information to Wikipedia takes away anything from anyone, the Safe Port Act is not THE source for information, and neither is our article. I will again ask that you please leave the article as is, and let the students continue their work.
If I may also say, I often hear passionate Wikipedians such as yourself arguing for adherence to specific rules like "content forks" and the like. One rule that for some reason seems to get lost in many of these discussions, which I happen to think is probably a more important one if we want Wikipedia to survive, is the rule to not bite the newbies ( WP:BITE), which you are clearly doing here. Let the students have their project for a few weeks. Jaobar ( talk) 22:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The students will be completing their assignment by finishing their contribution to the UIGEA. I will leave it to the community to decide what to do with the two articles. If the students choose to participate in a merger, that will be their independent decision, I will not require that this additional assignment be completed for class. I will not be responding in detail to 2005's personal attack. Instead I will just say that I am not impressed, and that I doubt that this behavior and disregard for the pedagogical techniques employed by the USGovI will help attract students to Wikipedia - quite the opposite I'm sure. Jaobar ( talk) 06:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
In line with the gist of comments above, in the next 36 hours or so I will merge the content from the new/dupe article into the existing article here. When that is completed I will move the UIGEA content from here to that other URL (and update redirects). This will then leave a more complete edit history here, but also have the content end up on the new URL, which seems to now be a preference of most editors who commented, and more likely to prevent this type of duplication in the future. No doubt many existing links in articles do only go to SAFE Port Act, but of course I'll leave a prominent link to the new location here so nobody should get lost. 2005 ( talk) 23:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I've now moved the UIGEA content that was here to the new URL. Almost all the content of both articles is now included at the new URL. Only a few redundant sentences that said the same thing were not included. I'll now update the main redirects to make them all go to the new location. 2005 ( talk) 07:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
This conversation is getting absolutely ridiculous. Who on earth would ever want to search through a long description of the Safe Port Act to find information about gambling regulations? What end does this serve? What is Wikipedia for? Direct access to information or time-wasting? Just because the two regulations are linked historically, doesn't mean that the content of one has anything to do with the other. Those who are interested in gambling should have their page, those in Port Safety, theirs.
The situation addressed here is not unique at all, and in other situations I have encountered, the answer is clear... have two articles.
Need a great example? Here's one: the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains a variety of different Titles that address different issues. Title V is referred to as the
Communications Decency Act. As noted on Wikipedia "the first notable attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet." In this situation, the CDA addresses issues that are similar or at least related to the many addressed by the Telecommunications Act, and yet, there is a Wikipedia article on the 1996 Act and another on the CDA. Why? Because people doing research want to get directly to their information sources without having to wade through irrelevance.
Why is the procedure that linked these two issues the focus of this discussion and not the content? Are we forgetting about the potential consumers of this content? Those who want information on the Telecommunications Act of 1996 go to the one article, those who want info on the CDA go to the other article. The same should happen here - those interested in Port Safety regulation go to one, those interested in the history of online gambling regulation go to another. Yes, both should note that historically the two are connected. But frankly, what percentage will care about the procedure???
I'll say again that I am quite put-off by the disregard for the newbies. I am also quite disappointed the the DYK award was apparently taken off the table as a result of this discussion. I would encourage those who are familiar with the DYK process to please re-nominate this group and give them their fair shake. If nobody does this, I will nominate the group myself when I find some time after the exam.
I'm just going to put this out there ... if 2005 makes an attempt to remove the article before the students complete their assignment (even though many - contrary to what 2005 says - have opposed the merger... read the history), I will revert all changes and I guess we'll be in an edit war. That's fine with me... unless you can convince me that the CDA and the 1996 Act should be merged as well.
Jaobar (
talk)
01:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Since I opened this merger discussion, I will attempt to recap it now that it seems to have concluded.
Obviously, User:2005 and I had a very lengthy discussion on this topic last week. However, I am in agreement with what User:2005 did this week (after everybody took Saturday away from this discussion), as what User:2005 clearly reflects the consensus here. (For the record, what User:2005 did was take the information from SAFE Port Act#Internet gambling provisions and merged it into Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006; for purposes of this sentence, merge means took the information from SAFE and put it in UIGEA.) I recognize that several people wrote "oppose merge" in their comment, but their comments clearly described that they simply opposed returning the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 page into a redirect. Consequently, I believe there is confusion over the definition of "merge" so I will not use that word in this recap.
I will attempt to recap what each person supported based on their most recent comment (not necessarily their comments from the beginning of the discussion), which will explain why I believe User:2005 acted in accordance with the community consensus; again, I am not using the word "merge" since people seem to be using different definitions of the word:
I hope I've summarized everyone's positions correctly. If not, please comment below. OCNative ( talk) 10:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
1) Two articles:
2) Combining the Internet gambling information from the two pages and putting it in one page, regardless of which page it is.
Re-organize sections to clarify OC's intent--- Balloonman Poppa Balloon 17:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
First of all, my apologies for the "edit war" comment. My intention was to try and protect the students, primarily to ensure that their experience with this project was a positive one, and so that they would be able to learn that which the initiative strives to have them learn.
In response to the other comments:
The Wikimedia Foundation approached our class along with more than 30 other classes to participate in this initiative. As "teaching fellows" we have been trained to add this "Wikipedia in the classroom" project on top of our already existing courses. Any project that involves both a university institution and another will involve compromise, as both institutions have rules and goals. Thus the project is not just WP, but rather MSU+WP or WP+MSU, so the rules and goals of both must be respected. I understand that having the students understand the culture of WP is important, and have done my best to teach them the rules of the road in a short period of time. That being said, the class also has its own requirements, and I assumed that the community would be sensitive to the newbies trying to connect. I assumed this is why all of the articles the classes are contributing to have been flagged. Bottom line, if you have a problem with this initiative, I encourage you to take your concerns up with those who are running it - i.e. the Wikimedia Foundation.
I have never stopped others from editing the article. I am also not the only one asserting that the articles should be separate. In fact the majority seem to share this view.
Clearly you either disagree with my previous comments or misunderstand what I have said. My view is that the Safe Port Act and the UIGEA have very little to do with one another and thus should be separate articles, just as the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the CDA are separate articles. The UIGEA in no way was a duplicate of the Safe Port Act article. Clearly we disagree here, but I don't understand how an article about an act about ports is the same as an article about online gambling. The only connection (repeating myself now), is that they share a procedural connection - there appears to be no content connection. So if the basis for their combination is procedural, clearly you are arguing that people will search for information based upon their interest in government procedures, not gambling or ports. I believe that the latter (the content) will be what people will search for and thus the articles should be separate. I hope my point of view is clear.
I apologize again for the edit war comment. As I said earlier, my intention has only been to protect the students and ensure that they can complete their project properly as the Wikimedia Foundation has asked. I am also learning...
As noted in a subsequent post (though the count is actually incorrect as I don't believe anybody supports only having a UIGEA article only), it appears that the majority favor separate articles. So the decision to keep the UIGEA is not only my opinion. Had the majority of those voicing an opinion suggested otherwise, then I would (and still) be more open to a merge. Though I would have still asked that the merge wait until the students were able to complete their assignment. A point which we could debate on its own.
That's your perspective. To my students (who are newbies) the DYK feature is an award, and a very big deal considering that they are "competing" with graduate students for similar mentions. Again, it seems that a number of you are having trouble seeing this initiative from the student's perspective. For those of you who will be quick to respond to this comment with "who cares about that," I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the WMF Public Policy Initiative.
I'll just close now by saying that my intentions have never been to make a "power grab" or to shake things up. I have been put in charge of a large class of students who have never edited Wikipedia before. Yes I want them to learn about Wikipedia's subculture, and trust me, they have learned a lot - especially from debates such as this. I would also ask you to keep in mind that I also have to run a class, and while you may not care about that, this class is being run in collaboration with the WMF, who has tried to ask for your understanding and flexibility by the posts at the top of the project articles. My intentions have always been to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles in collaboration with the WP community, while at the same time, help to connect the students to WP in accordance with the goals and guidelines of the WMF Public Policy Initiative.
Jaobar (
talk)
03:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Since resolution of this debate doesn't appear to be pending, I have verified the Internet Gambling Act article for promotion at DYK. It seems to me there is at least a viable argument for the existence of a standalone article on this amendment, if consensus goes the other way that is fine by me, but DYK has a limited window of opportunity and we shouldn't be unfairly penalizing a group of new contributors in the meantime. My only request is that the current standalone article not be merged with this article until after the former has been featured. After that you can do what you like as far as I'm concerned. Gatoclass ( talk) 04:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
For the most part, I support the current version of things: A SAFE Port Act article with a brief mention of gambling content, and a comprehensive Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 article. I think a line or two of UIGEA content could still be removed from the SAFE Port Act article, but I would like to receive others' feedback on that. Have the major issues been settled now? ~ Pesco So say• we all 23:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Now serious gamblers will be forced to go to the underground to get their action. Good job government, you just helped the Mafia gain more customers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.254.87.49 ( talk • contribs) .
I removed the following from the bottom of the article:
It is an act which, puts away the people from jobs that they used to do to support people.
Because it didn't really fit, and had the feeling of vandalism. I think the sentiment expressed is important, though, but I really don't know anything abut the Safe Port Act, so I don't really know. Anyone? -- Badger151 19:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't we mention the rumors of protectionism? There have been a large number, especially from the UK, Gibraltar and Australia, where many of these companies were based. I think it needs a mention at least, of course the word "rumor" would need to appear with it ;)
Segafreak2 22:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The correct number of this law is Pub.L. 109-347, according to THOMAS. Markles used the USPL template to cite this, but due to a typo, linked to 109-367. 2005 noticed the broken link and reverted Markles' edit. The USPL template, linked to 109-347, would work correctly, except that the document is not available yet from the Government Printing Office web site. When this link: Pub. L. 109–347 (text) (PDF) starts working, we should revise the article. US 30 04:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned up the new paragraph on Jim Leach and Bill Frist. They are still serving in the Congress until their terms expire January 3. While it is relevant to this article that they were behind UIGEA, I'm not comfortable with calling out only those two. It smacks of editorial comment. For example, Sen. Jon Kyl supported UIGEA too, and he was reelected. US 30 21:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
12/10/2007 - I made sure to add Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R-VA], who co-authored H.R. 4411, and Jon Kyl who took over the gambling prohibition torch from his dead father Iowa Congressman Jphn Kyl. Please do not remove mention of these players. They were as instrumental as Leach and Frist in starting the illegal (accordin to the WTO) prohibition of online gambling in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.37.119 ( talk • contribs)
There is a dispute between user 2005 and anonymous user 193.95.179.200 regarding the link to the Washington Watch website. The referenced page is at best a secondary source. However, it links out to two significant places: one, the text of the law, which is duplicative of a link already on this page, and two, a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the cost of the law. This analysis focuses entirely on the port security provisions of the law. Therefore, as a compromise, I am removing the Washington Watch link, adding a section to this page regarding port security, and linking directly to the CBO analysis from the port security section.
There is another dispute between the same parties as to the ordering of paragraphs discussing gambling sites' reactions to the law. I agree with 2005's position. Sites dropping U.S. customers are more significant, since they illustrate the effect of the new law, than those not doing so. But the issue of paragraph ordering is hardly worth a discussion, let alone a revert war.
I don't own this page, so feel free to keep tinkering. US 30 18:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It should be added to the list of online poker sites that don't accept US customers. From March they will allow players to withdraw from their accounts. User Sbpatel.
Amazing what is considered teh most important element of this legislation - gambling. Wikipedia is many things, but balanced it probably is not. 130.20.3.179 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The WTO section is gross misstatement of the consequences of the case. The Safe Port Act was not mentioned in the case (it hadn't been passed yet) and the case says nothing specifically about the anti-gambling provisions of the Act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.182.4 ( talk) at 03:49, 18 April 2007
I've added information to the article in the gambling section, citing SPECIFICALLY which poker websites are still accepting U.S. players, but someone keeps reverting my additions, falsely labeling it as "spam." My information was not at all intended to be seen as spam, and upon review, I find it difficult to see how someone could interpret it as such. Anyway, I'm not going to bother checking back every day to re-add information that someone wrongly deletes, so I'll leave that up to someone else who wants to review the information. -- Josh1billion 07:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand that on the 11th of July 2007 the UIGEA (affecting poker, etc., web sites) became law, having had its 270-odd days since it was "passed" (I don't pretend to understand all the ins-and-outs). I think there should be some mention of this in the article by someone knowledgeable. E.g. on that day pre-paid USA Visa cards that previously worked at online gambling sites were no longer accepted. EdX20 23:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I only just noticed that FullTilt is back to real money. Has there been some new clarification/interpretation of the UIGEA? - Crimson30 21:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I consolidated the gambling parts of the article into its own section and added the "Split" template to the article. As noted by the article, the gambling sections of this law at one point had been its own bill. The gambling title of the law has its own short title. The article & talk page are dominated by the gambling aspects of the law, so I feel the gambling sections should be found in its own Wikipedia article that more accurately describe its content. I would leave a header on the remaining SAFE Port Act article with a link to the gambling article, and I would propose this entire talk page become the gambling article talk page. Thoughts? -- Pesco 22:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
To repeat my question from last year, "What happens to this article if the UIGEA part of the law is repealed?" See this article that indicates efforts are underway. Also, the article references the act as the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006", not the SAFE Port Act. ~ Pesco So say• we all 03:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The quote, "...tabled draft UIGEA regulations for public comment," shows a contradiction between US English and British English. "Tabled" in British parliamentary procedure means to bring up for discussion, whereas in US parliamentary procedure it means to (at least temporarily) drop from discussion. Here, in context, one can work it out, but the line really ought to be reworded. -- 71.174.165.63 ( talk) 11:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The article Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 was created by User:Hbaum16 as part of an educational assignment at Michigan State University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the Spring 2011 term. Further details are available on the course page.
User:2005 transformed it into a redirect, arguing WP:CFORK.
It came to my attention when it was returned from the DYK queue to the DYK suggestions page because it had become a redirect.
I have restored the page, but added a merge tag to allow for discussion here. OCNative ( talk) 03:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
2005, while I can see that you are certainly passionate about this topic, and committed to ensuring that the work of the dozens of editors you speak of be recognized, I would again ask that you back off of this issue for a few weeks to allow the students to finish their work. I am not an expert Wikipedian, and do not understand how my students could have created a duplicate article in the way you describe, unless there used to be a UIGEA article which was then combined with the Safe Port article. Either way, at the time the students started the assignment, there wasn't an unique article addressing that particular topic, so we created the article from scratch. You are free to continue editing the UIGEA section on the Safe Port site (which I guess is the result of this previous article you mentioned), and we will work with our new article. I don't see how adding information to Wikipedia takes away anything from anyone, the Safe Port Act is not THE source for information, and neither is our article. I will again ask that you please leave the article as is, and let the students continue their work.
If I may also say, I often hear passionate Wikipedians such as yourself arguing for adherence to specific rules like "content forks" and the like. One rule that for some reason seems to get lost in many of these discussions, which I happen to think is probably a more important one if we want Wikipedia to survive, is the rule to not bite the newbies ( WP:BITE), which you are clearly doing here. Let the students have their project for a few weeks. Jaobar ( talk) 22:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The students will be completing their assignment by finishing their contribution to the UIGEA. I will leave it to the community to decide what to do with the two articles. If the students choose to participate in a merger, that will be their independent decision, I will not require that this additional assignment be completed for class. I will not be responding in detail to 2005's personal attack. Instead I will just say that I am not impressed, and that I doubt that this behavior and disregard for the pedagogical techniques employed by the USGovI will help attract students to Wikipedia - quite the opposite I'm sure. Jaobar ( talk) 06:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
In line with the gist of comments above, in the next 36 hours or so I will merge the content from the new/dupe article into the existing article here. When that is completed I will move the UIGEA content from here to that other URL (and update redirects). This will then leave a more complete edit history here, but also have the content end up on the new URL, which seems to now be a preference of most editors who commented, and more likely to prevent this type of duplication in the future. No doubt many existing links in articles do only go to SAFE Port Act, but of course I'll leave a prominent link to the new location here so nobody should get lost. 2005 ( talk) 23:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I've now moved the UIGEA content that was here to the new URL. Almost all the content of both articles is now included at the new URL. Only a few redundant sentences that said the same thing were not included. I'll now update the main redirects to make them all go to the new location. 2005 ( talk) 07:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
This conversation is getting absolutely ridiculous. Who on earth would ever want to search through a long description of the Safe Port Act to find information about gambling regulations? What end does this serve? What is Wikipedia for? Direct access to information or time-wasting? Just because the two regulations are linked historically, doesn't mean that the content of one has anything to do with the other. Those who are interested in gambling should have their page, those in Port Safety, theirs.
The situation addressed here is not unique at all, and in other situations I have encountered, the answer is clear... have two articles.
Need a great example? Here's one: the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains a variety of different Titles that address different issues. Title V is referred to as the
Communications Decency Act. As noted on Wikipedia "the first notable attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet." In this situation, the CDA addresses issues that are similar or at least related to the many addressed by the Telecommunications Act, and yet, there is a Wikipedia article on the 1996 Act and another on the CDA. Why? Because people doing research want to get directly to their information sources without having to wade through irrelevance.
Why is the procedure that linked these two issues the focus of this discussion and not the content? Are we forgetting about the potential consumers of this content? Those who want information on the Telecommunications Act of 1996 go to the one article, those who want info on the CDA go to the other article. The same should happen here - those interested in Port Safety regulation go to one, those interested in the history of online gambling regulation go to another. Yes, both should note that historically the two are connected. But frankly, what percentage will care about the procedure???
I'll say again that I am quite put-off by the disregard for the newbies. I am also quite disappointed the the DYK award was apparently taken off the table as a result of this discussion. I would encourage those who are familiar with the DYK process to please re-nominate this group and give them their fair shake. If nobody does this, I will nominate the group myself when I find some time after the exam.
I'm just going to put this out there ... if 2005 makes an attempt to remove the article before the students complete their assignment (even though many - contrary to what 2005 says - have opposed the merger... read the history), I will revert all changes and I guess we'll be in an edit war. That's fine with me... unless you can convince me that the CDA and the 1996 Act should be merged as well.
Jaobar (
talk)
01:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Since I opened this merger discussion, I will attempt to recap it now that it seems to have concluded.
Obviously, User:2005 and I had a very lengthy discussion on this topic last week. However, I am in agreement with what User:2005 did this week (after everybody took Saturday away from this discussion), as what User:2005 clearly reflects the consensus here. (For the record, what User:2005 did was take the information from SAFE Port Act#Internet gambling provisions and merged it into Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006; for purposes of this sentence, merge means took the information from SAFE and put it in UIGEA.) I recognize that several people wrote "oppose merge" in their comment, but their comments clearly described that they simply opposed returning the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 page into a redirect. Consequently, I believe there is confusion over the definition of "merge" so I will not use that word in this recap.
I will attempt to recap what each person supported based on their most recent comment (not necessarily their comments from the beginning of the discussion), which will explain why I believe User:2005 acted in accordance with the community consensus; again, I am not using the word "merge" since people seem to be using different definitions of the word:
I hope I've summarized everyone's positions correctly. If not, please comment below. OCNative ( talk) 10:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
1) Two articles:
2) Combining the Internet gambling information from the two pages and putting it in one page, regardless of which page it is.
Re-organize sections to clarify OC's intent--- Balloonman Poppa Balloon 17:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
First of all, my apologies for the "edit war" comment. My intention was to try and protect the students, primarily to ensure that their experience with this project was a positive one, and so that they would be able to learn that which the initiative strives to have them learn.
In response to the other comments:
The Wikimedia Foundation approached our class along with more than 30 other classes to participate in this initiative. As "teaching fellows" we have been trained to add this "Wikipedia in the classroom" project on top of our already existing courses. Any project that involves both a university institution and another will involve compromise, as both institutions have rules and goals. Thus the project is not just WP, but rather MSU+WP or WP+MSU, so the rules and goals of both must be respected. I understand that having the students understand the culture of WP is important, and have done my best to teach them the rules of the road in a short period of time. That being said, the class also has its own requirements, and I assumed that the community would be sensitive to the newbies trying to connect. I assumed this is why all of the articles the classes are contributing to have been flagged. Bottom line, if you have a problem with this initiative, I encourage you to take your concerns up with those who are running it - i.e. the Wikimedia Foundation.
I have never stopped others from editing the article. I am also not the only one asserting that the articles should be separate. In fact the majority seem to share this view.
Clearly you either disagree with my previous comments or misunderstand what I have said. My view is that the Safe Port Act and the UIGEA have very little to do with one another and thus should be separate articles, just as the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the CDA are separate articles. The UIGEA in no way was a duplicate of the Safe Port Act article. Clearly we disagree here, but I don't understand how an article about an act about ports is the same as an article about online gambling. The only connection (repeating myself now), is that they share a procedural connection - there appears to be no content connection. So if the basis for their combination is procedural, clearly you are arguing that people will search for information based upon their interest in government procedures, not gambling or ports. I believe that the latter (the content) will be what people will search for and thus the articles should be separate. I hope my point of view is clear.
I apologize again for the edit war comment. As I said earlier, my intention has only been to protect the students and ensure that they can complete their project properly as the Wikimedia Foundation has asked. I am also learning...
As noted in a subsequent post (though the count is actually incorrect as I don't believe anybody supports only having a UIGEA article only), it appears that the majority favor separate articles. So the decision to keep the UIGEA is not only my opinion. Had the majority of those voicing an opinion suggested otherwise, then I would (and still) be more open to a merge. Though I would have still asked that the merge wait until the students were able to complete their assignment. A point which we could debate on its own.
That's your perspective. To my students (who are newbies) the DYK feature is an award, and a very big deal considering that they are "competing" with graduate students for similar mentions. Again, it seems that a number of you are having trouble seeing this initiative from the student's perspective. For those of you who will be quick to respond to this comment with "who cares about that," I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the WMF Public Policy Initiative.
I'll just close now by saying that my intentions have never been to make a "power grab" or to shake things up. I have been put in charge of a large class of students who have never edited Wikipedia before. Yes I want them to learn about Wikipedia's subculture, and trust me, they have learned a lot - especially from debates such as this. I would also ask you to keep in mind that I also have to run a class, and while you may not care about that, this class is being run in collaboration with the WMF, who has tried to ask for your understanding and flexibility by the posts at the top of the project articles. My intentions have always been to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles in collaboration with the WP community, while at the same time, help to connect the students to WP in accordance with the goals and guidelines of the WMF Public Policy Initiative.
Jaobar (
talk)
03:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Since resolution of this debate doesn't appear to be pending, I have verified the Internet Gambling Act article for promotion at DYK. It seems to me there is at least a viable argument for the existence of a standalone article on this amendment, if consensus goes the other way that is fine by me, but DYK has a limited window of opportunity and we shouldn't be unfairly penalizing a group of new contributors in the meantime. My only request is that the current standalone article not be merged with this article until after the former has been featured. After that you can do what you like as far as I'm concerned. Gatoclass ( talk) 04:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
For the most part, I support the current version of things: A SAFE Port Act article with a brief mention of gambling content, and a comprehensive Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 article. I think a line or two of UIGEA content could still be removed from the SAFE Port Act article, but I would like to receive others' feedback on that. Have the major issues been settled now? ~ Pesco So say• we all 23:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)