Jump to content

Talk:Online poker/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Top Ten

Every day, we need to revert spam on these links. Every day we need to remove copies and affiliates. I propose we link to only the top ten (this is subjective, I know) and regard all others as spam until they get a reputation as respectable sites. I would even prefer to limit this list to Top Five. --Vik Reykja 08:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are approximately twenty genuine online poker cardrooms; with approximately 400 doorways into them. Listing the doorways is pointless. Listing the genuine cardrooms is useful, if not life or death. We could have a single link to the dmoz online cardrooms page and be done with it, or we could police the page daily, which some of us do now, rather than abdicate the responsibility to someone else. If only ten were listed, that would be fairly easy since the list is right here http://www.pokerpulse.com/ (an exception is Absolute Poker which isn't tracked yet; they would be about seventh to ninth place). Poker Pulse has been tracking this for years and is really the only such site with credibility, even if they don't track Absolute, TruePoker and some smaller sites. If we do keep listings sites at all, we will get spammed daily by nutjobs adding their affiliate links. There is no way around that, but it is also easy to spot. Also, this page is getting spammed right now because it has surprisingly rocketed up the Google search results in the past 72 hours. If it drops to where it was, the spamming will slow down. --2005 08:48, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Are you trying to tell me that a site with three ring games going is a popular site? According to your pulse site, that's what MVP Poker is right now, while PartyPoker has one thousand two hundred and twelve. My point isn't so much about getting spammed, but about having so many average joe sites listed. This is NOT dmoz, it's wikipedia. We're into information not advertisement. I think 10 is too many, and 20 (according to your own link) is certainly too many in this day and age. --Vik Reykja 08:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Are you trying to tell me that a site with three ring games going is a popular site?" No, how did you think that? MVP is a tiny stand-alone cardroom, not worth mentioning really. I don't see a reason to list it. Ten is okay with me, five would be fine too, but I just think they should be the ten or five largest, and in all cases they should be the parent cardroom, not a marketing doorway. Listing the Party, Pokerstars, Prima, Paradise and PokerRoom, the top five now, makes sense to me. --2005 09:02, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Okay. I admit my initial Top10 was made without much research. I agree to your five, but would also add Ultimate and Pacific just because they have 100+ games going; an arbitrary limit on my part. I would recommend, however, that they be listed in alphabetical order (to save us work updating all the time). Thank Zeus we have talk pages, eh? :-) --Vik Reykja 09:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree the Ulimate Bet and Pacific additions make sense... of course the dheading of that section needs to be changed to "most popular online poker sites" or something like that rather than "top ten". And I definitely agree it should be alphabetical, if only because it is trivial of #4 moves to #3 or something like that. Gotta love the talk pages... LOL, it appears a bit of spam was added while we were chatting! --2005 09:13, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
I sugest removing all of them. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Any poker sites that are notable enough could/should have their own article, and we should then just link to that wiki-article here (if apropriate for the article). Shanes 10:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Usually I would agree, but what content would you suggest putting at each article? I think having these links is a good thing, as long as they don't exceed a certain number. --Vik Reykja 16:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, I admit my main motive for dropping the links is to ease maintenance and avoid disputes over what sites get to be listed. The wikipedia is not a linkfarm rule would be the given reason for people not to list "their" sites here (put in an html comment, like in the Content management system article and others). But having this hidden motive is kind of dishonest, and I guess links to the most notable sites is informative to a certain degree. But I predict problems and disputes.... This is big money, and being linked to from wikipedia (a high ranking google-site) may mean big bucks for the sites in question. Even if wikipedia, of course, never endorses any sites linked to, it could be taken that way by both readers and site owners wanting to get in on the list... Oh, well. Maybe I'm just too pessimistic.
Regarding what to put in separate articles about specific sites, I don't think that would be a problem. A site is notable if it possesses something to be notable about. The VFD-process will be the filter, and content could be stuff like the history of the site, what separates it from other sites, is it known as a high-roller site, a beginner site, championships, what software for what OS (browser-based?), well known players playing/having played there (e.g. pokerstars and Moneymaker), number of average tables, revenue if known, and so on. Lot's of websites have an article on wikipedia, and I don't see why the most notable online poker sites shouldn't. But again, the VFD process will decide that. Shanes 17:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia allow itself to be used for free advertising? And especially why for such purposes? The online poker "vendors" are selling nothing. They are simply exploiting human vulnerability. Well, actually, it's more accurate to call it animal vulnerability, since intermittent reinforcement is something from behaviorism, and we're supposed to thing people are better than pigeons. I'm not sure what the Wikipedia policies are regarding commerical exploitation of Wikipedia, but I think the natural solution would be to forbid all "directly profitable" links in cases such as this--and then I think there would scarcely be any justification for keeping the article in the first place.Shanen 03:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please keep your peculiar moralism out of this. These sites are linked to because they provide valuable information to users interested in the topic. It isn't "advertising", and they are not exploiting human vulnerability. That is sick and offensive. Yuck. --2005 03:31, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to mention people's feelings about poker-site advertising, on the page? Taking a moral stand against these sites might be an inappropriate thing for Wikipedia to do, but I think it's within Wikipedia's mandate to let readers know that an issue exists. I, for one, wouldn't deal with most online poker sites even though the concept of online poker in itself has no particular moral charge for me - because actual online poker sites seem to be almost intextricably linked to the vileness of referrer-log spam. I don't think a discussion of online poker is complete without a mention of referrer-log spam and the way it has tarnished the concept of online poker for some Net participants. Today's Slashdot should be all the evidence needed that this is a point a lot of people care about, and the fact that many people care about it makes it something that Wikipedia readers will want to know about. The mention need not suggest that there's anything morally wrong with referrer-log spam, and it certainly should not suggest that all online poker sites participate in referrer-log spam because that much is not true. Nonetheless it is the case that almost all referrer-log spammers have some connection to online poker sites, and that's part of the story on online poker. --66.203.191.59 04:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Peculiar moralism? Interesting notion. I'm glad to clarify my moral position. It is not good to exploit weak people. Gambling is in many cases a harmless diversion, but in many other cases it is a kind of addiction that does great damage to the people who suffer from it, and that is a "neutral viewpoint" observation that should be included in any article about the topic. Right now the article appears to be locked, but I'm planning to add the appropriate section and links as soon as possible. Shanen 06:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No weak people are being exploited. Why do you need to insult people who voluntarily choose to play a game they enjoy? The Wiki gambling article mentions addiction, but this isn't that. Any human behavior can be abused, including something as simple as buying clothes or eating. Including judgmental insults is not appropriate for an article. If you don't like a game people choose to play, go elsewhere, but don't vandalize articles by leaving your belittling judgments. As for the bloggers maliciously spamming this article, it certainly is a bizarre thing to do both because of its hopelessly wrong-headed results and because it has maliciously wasted so much time of volunteers here who could have spent their time in productive ways to make the Wikipedia and the Internet a better place. Besides that, online poker obviously has nothing to do with blog comment spam as blog owners are responsible and other types of garbage comments are just as prevelant. -- 2005 08:10, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
I predict this article is likely to become a site of controversy. It might be amusing. A lot of people who don't care much versus a few people who have found a new scam to milk, and who thought Wikipedia was a convenient tool to help in the milking. Though I haven't been paying too much attention, I have come across a couple of similar cases, and so far the scammers have lost every time. If I was a gambling man, I'd know which way to bet this time. So far, I'm not too interested in this latest scam, but if you want to keep on motivating me, maybe I'll do some research about the spyware connection to online poker and start working to have that added to the article. Shanen 08:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Besides that, online poker obviously has nothing to do with blog comment spam as blog owners are responsible and other types of garbage comments are just as prevelant." I can't comment to blog-comment spam; my Web site doesn't allow comments anyway. I'm talking about referrer-log spam, and the vast majority of referrer-log spam I get is advertising for online poker. Other kinds of spam are not just as prevalant. Online poker spam in particular is a uniquely prevalent form of referrer-log spam. My site has no relevance to gambling that would explain them targeting me in particular. --66.203.191.59 14:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I applaud the efforts of the blogger community in fighting spam as a fellow blogger who has taken numerous measures to prevent comment spam myself. However, the stance of this group of only posting "top" online poker rooms seems to punish other sites. My personal preference is Full Tilt Poker, and I feel that their software is far superior to any of those listed in the top ten. It's somewhat ironic that most of the sites listed got to the top by mass spamming, and now Wikipedia is rewarding them for their diligent spamming. I have never received anything resembling spam from Full Tilt, another reason that I prefer their site to some of the others listed. They are listed 12th on Poker Pulse, but claim to be one of the fastest growing sites. I suggest either getting rid of the spam-built sites currently listed and doing away with external links, or finding another way to decide who gets listed and who doesn't. thebeyonder 06:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

False assertions are not useful, whereas an objective criteria for listing examples is. The largest sites were not built by "mass spamming". That ludicrous nonsense. As hundreds of news stories have mentioned, the top sites are mature ones who benefitted from 1) advertising on television, 2) Chris Moneymaker winning the World Series. Blog comments are 99.9999999% irrelevant to the growth of online poker. Asserting these sites are "spam built" is objectively false nonsense. Listing the largest sites is useful to readers, and the list is objectively stated. They are the most popular, period. Nothing to debate in terms of which has better software, is friendlier, etc. -- 2005 08:19, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the above paragraph should be made aware that "gravity effects" (a term familiar to any good economist) can easily mean that the largest poker sites are far from the best sites, which, I suggest, is what the previous writer was basically saying. His comments, therefore, are far from "ludicrous nonsense" - mass spamming may well have been a significant initial factor in the largest poker sites building their customer bases - gravity effects (essentially customers tending to gravitate towards busy places) take care of the rest!

Hollywood Poker

First it was "not popular", now it's "spam". Opinion, opinion - I make the same claim though, understandably - I'm saying it is worth being on the list, you say no. I ask that you at least check the site, visit the forums and see for yourself. Great support, tied to a large network of players and games, celebrities playing frequently, backed by James Woods and Vince Van Patten, come on guys - this is ridiculous, this adds value to your page...this is a straight up link to the site. Support the web, come on.

Yes. First it was "not popular", now it is "spam". Why? Because:
  1. (as you say yourself) it is part of Poker Room and we already have a link to that
  2. You keep putting it there trying to promote it
  3. I had a little peek at your contributions and this isn't the only page you're doing this on
--Vik Reykja 20:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For the record, I do understand the desire to prevent a massive link list from ending up here, that's not the point I am making. I insist that Hollywood is worth being there, and the speed with which the decision is made, tells me there is no evidence to support your arguments at all, it's just opinion - that's it. Anyway, please read...
  1. Part of Poker Room - well, that's not entirely fair of you is it? They are not an affiliate, they are a stand alone site. Just because they choose not to re-invent the wheel and buy poker software doesn't mean they should be lumped in with their provider. That's like saying companies who run MS systems automatically become evil (which may or may not be true). Besides, the addition of celebrity poker tables not available with Poker Room makes it DIFFERENT. That, and it's common knowledge that Poker Room support isn't the greatest, something Hollywood has improved on remarkably. Now, James Woods and Vince Van Patten too??? Come on, I've actually played with these fellows at Hollywood Poker and it's just great! You should try it if you're into poker, it's fun. Expect to lose though, I did.
NPOV --Vik
  1. I keep putting the site back there because you keep removing it. Such a good link, I really like this site, I've had a great time there, my opinion sure, but I fail to see why you're so harsh about adding it. I'll actually keep adding it as long as I can, that's the point! I don't agree with any of you about what you've said about Hollywood, so...I continue to support adding a link here.
That's called spamming and trolling, and it will be reverted. When HP becomes one of the top sites, 2005 and I will have no problem including it in the list. Don't confuse the cause and effect here. --Vik
  1. This other stuff you claim I did - I didn't do. IP is not a reliable ID of anyone's long term web activities. I'm sorry that you thought that was me, it isn't me at all - I've only been here trying to get Hollywood linked, that's it, that's all. Don't blame me for something I didn't do that you "assume" I did based on information you have that isn't gospel.
If you don't want to be associated with that person (or persons) then create yourself an account. I don't believe for one second that you are not that person. --Vik Reykja 22:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Finally, please just relax a bit guys, I understand your angst, but you don't seem to want to understand mine. I think we can both get past this, all you have to do is take a moment and visit the site. Maybe play there?? The forum is your best bet though for users like me to tell you just like this, Hollywood Poker is a great place to play online and that's all I want to convey here. Sorry for being persistent, I have little choice if I want to see that site in there with the others - where in my opinion, it belongs! 21:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) -80.227.56.46
You are right in that what sites to include is based on somewhat subjective opinions (see debate above). And deciding what to include and what not isn't easy at all. So I'd like to ask you what you think. You seem to know a great deal about the subject and maybe you have some thoughts about how to decide which sites to include and which shouldn't be listed. You obviously want Hollywood there, but what about other sites? What do we tell the next guy coming along wanting this and that site listed and has arguments similar to yours about how great the site is and so on? I'd very much appreciate your opinion on this. Thanks. Shanes 22:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Just because they choose not to re-invent the wheel and buy poker software doesn't mean they should be lumped in with their provider." Yes, in fact it does. The fact it has some nice unique features is not relevant. It is not a stand alone cardroom. It uses Pokerrooms back end, and that is even mentioned on the site. But that still isn't the point. It is not one of the most popular sites (the heading now). It is not one of the top ten sites (the heading previously). If you want to be productive, you could instead start a discussion to list http://www.pokernetwork.co.uk/partners/ instead of Poker Room. At this point though, listing Hollywood or any other frontend/doorway/portal/partner of a larger entity or network would not be useful to Wikipedia users, even if they have a nice forum, and you even admit this: "I do understand the desire to prevent a massive link list..." We then have to have a criteria, and the objectively largest sites is a good one. --2005 22:27, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked 80.227.56.46 for repeately adding the site at least 5 times today. CryptoDerk 22:57, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say you could block it indefenitely (and not just 72 hours), since the ip is an open proxy. And a proxy used for trolling before, at that. Though I'd still like to hear his input on the matter here on the talk page. Ok, now he'll just have to post through his real IP and/or create an account. If his honest objective is to contribute to wikipedia, he'll do that.... We'll see. Shanes 23:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
After a great deal of time to reflect on what I said earlier I wanted to first, say sorry for being over enthusiatic (putting it mildly). The history will show a long winded thing about stuff that, well - if you're interested, go read it - however, I'd like to take a different approach if at all possible. And second...
There are many great ideas here, yes. I like 2005's idea about directing links to the network site because it usually offers the best chance for each site to do their own work, it's much more impartial that way and the user is more aware that this situation exists and is, usually, quite common and nothing to be weary about (in MOST cases).
I many of Shanes' ideas though, since it's so true that there's nothing preventing many more behind me, arguing precisely the same things - it's quite inevitable really. What do you do about it though when anyone can edit...I don't think much can be done. Smaller list, well - that can be hard to keep clean, even more difficult that a larger list. A larger list diminishes the value of the page, I guess - certainly 10 or 20 isn't too many though is it really??...I'd even be going further than that...but I also like that idea of sites creating their own Wiki and that makes *some* sense, though - I can't imagine doing something like that where in this case I just wanted to throw a link up...oppss. LOL. Who knew then, all this time...I might *have* to create one just to make this whole adventure *seem* worth while...anyway!
Here's a crazy question. What if, and really - this IS the Internet we're talking about here...there are literally hundreds of really good sites that definitely fit the bill of being here? What then? That's like some kind of zen riddle or something cause I sure don't know what would really need to happen then...LOL!?
Also, on record - I won't add Hollywood unless it's fully permitted and agreed, that would be against the interest with which I came here. Sorry if my actions thus far prevented you all seeing that, seriously, I'm not THAT anal...or am I (damn)?
Still me...
WMurphy 01:33, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts on this matter. Regarding wikipedia blocking open proxies: It's just wiki-policy. It was debated a while back, and there are arguments for and against, but consencus was that open proxies were being abused too often (people posting through many different proxies to pretend being many more, people using them to avoid blocks after abuse, and so on. Long story.), so admins may now block them on site.
To the point of what to list and what not: Sure, there will always be people adding to this list, as there are people adding external links to almost all wiki-articles. It happens alot. Nothing new there, and we are, as you say, stuck with that. But what we want here is to have a clear set of rules for us all maintaining this Online Poker article, so that when we (we: as in you, me, and everyone else caring for this article) see a new link we can imediatly say that that link doesn't belong here and remove it. And hopefully avoid spending lots of time having long arguments about each case. Like we are now regarding your link (but that's ok since we're trying to set the rules now, and your link is actually a nice example to debate over;-)).
So, we want clear, easy to understand, rules. What we can not do is let every poker room be listed. That's against wiki-policy, as wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and not a linkfarm. So that's out of the question. External links are ment to add to the information in the article, so that readers wanting to learn more about the subject can click that link, and do that. It's questionable if links to 10 different poker rooms adds much information, and my personal stand on this is that we shouldn't have them at all. But mentioning what the most popular sites at the moment are (as in number of players) is actually informative. Like having lists of the most watched movies, most expensive paintings, and so on. So the list has some merit. Given that we can actually tell what the most popular (popular, as in number of players) sites are. And it seems that we can tell that from open accessible numbers (for instance given in that link mentioned above somewhere). So using these numbers we can come up with reasonably simple rules for what to include and what not. And we can probably live with that.
But I'm afraid this is bad news for "your" site, since it's not on the top list of most played sites. So, going by those rules it can't be listed. And reading your comment, I can't see that you have any better rules that would allow the site to be included either. So...
Besides, what if we did list HP, based on your argument that it's a very good site. Well, then others would come here with their very good site and maybe even use your listing as an argument for them being listed aswell. "Why does HP get to be listed, and not our site, XY, it's just as good. It's not fair. Wikipedia sucks." Fighting and bickering.
I hope and believe you understand. And I also hope that you won't do as you're hinting at and try to sneak it in by resubmitting it from time to time even if you know that it's against the rules for what sites to list. That could actually be seen as vandalism and get you blocked. It's one thing to be against a rule, we all have some stuff in the wikipedia-policy that we disagre with. But we have to suck it up and live with them. If you disagre with any rule on wikipedia, you are encouraged to try and change them by setting forth arguments to get concensus for a change. This is done on talk-pages like this. But just neglecting the rule and do as you wish is not ok. As you can understand, there are many highly controversial topics in wikipedia. And if everyone did as they pleased, there would be chaos. So breaking consencus rules knowingly is not ok, and I hope you won't do it.
Anyway, welcome to wikipedia. There are lot's of stuff going on here. It's not all about poker, and I hope you'll like it here and decide to stay and contribute to whatever you feel like contributing. Wether it's Poker, Poker online, your other hobbies and interests or, well, anything! I'm glad to have you here. It's a crazy place, but fun. Enjoy. Shanes 04:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Heh, ok, You edited your own thing while I was replying to what you wrote at first. That's fine. As long as you know that's what I did, and don't think I'm crazy ;-). Still me, here too. Shanes 04:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yep, yep - thanks for caring so much and taking the time out of your day to discuss this with me. I'm inclined to agree that external links as such should be plainly removed, it's way more trouble than it's worth, the edit history is proof enough. Too, someone mentioned Google's interest in this, so - be prepared, the worst is yet to come if that continues. I do hope Hollywood makes the list, but - I remind you all that I won't put it there by any means...just want to be clear on that since it, could, get added by someone else...LOL, hopefully this alone is word enough that I wouldn't do such a thing, and expect to be banned for doing it if I did. Thanks again ;) ...little edit, btw - if you (or anyone) wanted to remove this portion of the talk dedicated to Hollywood, that would probably be good, no?WMurphy 05:13, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
No, it should stay here. When this talk-page gets too long, it will be archived away, but for now it's a usfull debate that other people can find informative and be refered to. That's partly why I took so much time to answer this detailed here and not on your talk-page. The issue will very likely be raised again. And again. And again. Btw, thanks for taking all this the good way. Shanes 05:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slashdot'd and Googlebombed

This article has been slashdotted. --64.169.2.202 01:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It'd be more helpful if you added a link. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:40, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page has been temporarily protected from edits due to repeated vandalism as a result of the slashdot effect. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:45, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion from my talk page:

I note you've locked down the Online Poker page due to a Slashdotting. There has been a campaign recently among a few bloggers - infuritated by comment, trackback and referrer spam - to push the Wikipedia page on Online Poker up to the top of the Google search results. Perhaps something appropriate could be added to the page itself referring to this? A suggested form:
In February 2005, frustrated with the amount of comment spam and referrer spam (aka spamdexing) they were receiving relating to Online Poker (which at the time was the service most promoted through these means), bloggers at French Frag Factory decided that the best defense was an attack, and that bloggers worldwide should work to associate Google searches with this particular Wikipedia page - a form of Google bomb. It is to be seen how effective this might be in the long run. 217.155.117.121 01:59, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

--Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:07, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

fyi http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/15/0035225&threshold=-1&tid=217&tid=1 is the slashdot story about the attempt to googlebomb this page up to the top of the list for online poker. Plugwash 02:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I linked that above. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:19, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
So it is these idiot bloggers ultimately responsible. Great, as if we didn't have enough spamazoids already. Hey MORON BLOGGERS, link to a page that doesn't allow user contributions. How stupid are these people? -- 2005 03:19, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Mod parent down, -1 Troll ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:19, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Article unprotected after (roughly) six hours. Hopefully the /. effect is over now. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:20, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

How are the sites chosen to be listed in this section? What measure of "popularity" is used, and how is it measured? It seems POV to talk about a site as "popular" unless a description is given as to how it has been chosen as such. - Brian Kendig 10:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The link is in the article: http://www.pokerpulse.com/ It's an objective measure of volume of site visitors. Perhaps the link could be moved under the heading.

These "popular" sites have been added and reverted all day. I propose that we come up with a set of 5 sites everybody can agree upon is trusted. They can be chosen among the ones existing in the article today so to not induce added discussion. We change the heading from ==Most Popular Online Poker Rooms== to ==Popular Online Poker Rooms==. To keep consistency we will keep those 5 in the list and revert the rest. Views? Inter\Echo 12:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Or just say something like "Pokerpulse.com has statistics on which sites have the most visitors." - Brian Kendig 13:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good idea. Although then I would change Popular online poker rooms to just Online Poker Site Statistics or something similiar. Inter\Echo 14:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I doubt any "editable" list will be maintainable - also, I obviously don't agree with you guys about the list (as I'm sure you guys wouldn't agree with mine, LOL)...anyway, I think we should just link to DMOZ and let that be the end of it. Link to the Online Card Rooms, Guides, and Root. It gives users valuable exit points that are not direct links to card rooms, which is better, I think. This way we don't send users directly there, we leave that to DMOZ. For the record, as useful as Poker Pulse maybe - it's horrible, nasty, and leaves a bad taste in my mouth, IMO it's not the nicest thing to link to, but my opinion still - it does, I guess - serve a purpose regardless of its obvious ugliness. One other point, that goes with this whole popular thing. Has anyone played at the sites that are to be on the list?? That's pretty important, I think - since, you had links to sites that aren't necessarily good places to play, popular by first in rule, that is all...so I really have a hard time with the list as it was. My only idea if the list were to stay, would be to accumulate ALL the sites there are (and I guess ones to come in) and give them a spot on this list in rotation...but, I still think it better to just forget it - there's too much at stake with those links and people will *always* be interested in using Wiki for leverage. I realize some might think removal of the list would lessen the article, I beg to differ and have realized that, especially in this case - we will never be free of this even if the list IS removed, the Google placement, and the anon edits are the issue...and yes, the bloggers really put Wiki's foot in it...I'm still trying to figure out why they thought this was a good idea?? WMurphy 15:13, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
If you are not interested in maintaining the article, then don't. I don't see any ambiguity in the words "most popular" and I don't mind reverting the spam. There are 6,926,970 other articles you could worry about. --Vik Reykja 16:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the support Vik, anyone else find that a little harsh, geee, you could just disagree. Fine if you want to spend everyday here reverting - I was just trying to make our lives a little easier, maybe even make the article better too - BUT...pardon ME??!! You know what constant revisions and attacks do to this article....Well, IMO, it degrades the usefulness and puts Wiki at risk of being "over" exploited and being considered useless.
Also, Vik, I've exercised serious restrain with you and continue to do so in the face of what you just said. To clear up the popularity thing, I just thought it was actually NOT ambiguous and why we shouldn't say that, just ==Online Cardroom Examples== would suffice. Though, I really....really, think this...
IMO, The fairest thing to do is to not link out to card rooms because they make money directly off the link, and due to that - affiliates will continuously and vigilantly attempt placement here. Wait until someone figures out how to automate it! Hopefully not possible, then again - nothing IS impossible. Just think, if you had to remove that nasty image every 10 minutes, every 10 mintues, every 10 mintes...come on man, is that what you want to do all day, revert Wiki's Online Poker article all damn day? And ya know, working on other articles might be a better idea since this one, IMO - is a lost cause.WMurphy 17:34, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
I would support linking to DMOZ only. Inter\Echo 11:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page protected (again)

Ugh. Well, there's nothing to do but protect the article for the time being, unless we want to task a few people to watch the article full time and start making reports to peoples' ISPs for digital trespass... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:22, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest protecting it for at least three days. While the external linking needs better clarity than its current state, the agenda vandals and the clueless spammers need some time to crawl back into their holes. -- 2005 20:10, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, however - as soon as the ban is lifted, BAAAM! It's the issue with Google now, Wiki has got serious placement in there and as long as that continues, so will the spam. I realize it has gotten WAY outta hand lately, not even related spam - just ridiculous...I can't believe the image, that was classless (if not a *little* funny). According to the bloggers who caused this effect, they may in fact do more - making Wiki fall deeper into the mix - I've read they wanted to do Viagra, Phentermine, etc - basically make a Wiki page and then mass bomb the page with links from the blogs in the same manner as we've seen here. This problem may start spreading elsewhere too, ugly, bad - sorry to hear guys...it's sad for sure.
Anyway, I suggest what you have is good, really good - and the last I looked, not even a link to DMOZ online cardrooms. Safe. But, probably should just add that as more reason that other links aren't necessary. Just my thoughts though...the other DMOZ links are good, though some others are a bit weird, fair enough. I'd think though, that this page has earned a permanent lock down until you drop out of Google, and thus, out of the spotlight (for now). Just a thought guys - I certainly appreciate what you've been through these past few days for sure. 207.248.240.119 21:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)...sorry guys, that was me - Wiki session timed out! WMurphy 21:22, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
I think the intrinsic problem here is the commercial aspect, but I still can't find a concrete link to Wikipedia's policy in that area. For what it is worth, when I think of "encyclopedia" I do *NOT* think of "free advertising for aggressive authors of controversial articles linked to highly commercial Web sites". For two more cents, I consider it good that the direct links to poker sites have been removed. My main constructive suggestion remains that the introduction should distinguish between the two classes of online poker, free (purely free and also most advertiser-supported, as in Yahoo Games), and commercial (using credit cards).

I'm not really interested in doing the substantive research, but I've seen quite a bit of anecdotal research that the second group are mostly nasty people. For example, some of the nastiest spyware I've read about was associated with online gambling (but I admit I am not neutral on that point, but strongly dislike spyware and anyone associated with it). Shanen 03:45, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Making edits to an article when you know nothing about the topic, and say you won't do research about it, is not just unhelpful its just not nice. Wikipedia has articles on all manner of "highly" commercial enterprises, from Coca-Cola to Martha Stewart. Get over it. Commerciality is irrelevant to the mission of an encyclopedia. Secondly, you appear to be one of the few people on earth who doesn't know that only a tiny percentage of online gambling is done with credit cards. Almost all credit card companies stopped allowing online gambling transactions four years ago. Most real money gambling involves people doing bank account transfers. Third, online poker have nothing to do with spyware in any way at all, which really makes one wonder why you are introducing your personal, offtopic agenda here. 2005 06:19, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
What, no evidential links? Okay. Googling on "online poker spyware" produces 1,200,000 hits. Using "spyware gambling" produces even more. I didn't do much filtering, but the summaries show that plenty of those pages are clearly talking about how to remove spyware associated with online poker. That's already more research time than some nameless spammer is worth, but I've also received fairly clear confirmation that the relevant Wiki policy is that deleting obviously commercial links from an article is okay. Looks to me like you went double down and dirty and lost. Should I start researching the credit card issue? My own bet is that I'll quickly find evidence of front companies the online poker companies use to handle the credit cards for them. Amusing. Guess I'll put a watch on the page and join the fun. --Shanen 07:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why did you remove our link?

Poker Evolver is a tool that helps players to track their online poker activities. I don't understand how this isn't related to online poker or it was labeled as spam even we don't even sell anything. Our tool should be listed because it's very much related to online poker.

There are many such tools. You spammed the link even though page says to not add links. There are tons of sites and tools related to online poker. Wikipedia is not a link directory. promote your website elsewhere. 2005 00:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry then. I always thought wikipedia was suppose to offer relevant content to the subject with external links, but now I can see that's not the case. My bad! Btw, your "not to add links" text says 'Please do not add links to poker sites, forums, etc. Wikipedia is not a web directory.'. Then what am I allowed to add if I'm not allowed to add stuff related to online poker? The Free Encyclopedia - How fast you can say hypocrite?

Why did you remove our link?

http://www.whichpoker.com/stats links to a free online poker statistics page. This is totally unique content and one that people interested in online poker, and the online poker industry, would find very interesting.

WhichPoker.com aggregates statistics from the world’s leading online poker rooms. Several times every hour our technology gathers detailed activity information. This enables us to provide the very latest free poker statistics along with the ability to search for up to the minute details of the latest poker games and tournaments available.

This gives us a unique view onto the online poker world and enables us to provide with free and very powerful online poker statistics. Regards, Graham

I think you have a fair point. I have added it back. Up to others to comment. Essexmutant 11:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the link as it is obviously deceptive. They have been spamming links for months and months. In the past they listed only a few online cardrooms, which made their statistics useless. They still mislabel cardrooms based on who they have affiliate deals with. "Gaming Club" is not a cardroom. It is a skin of Prima Poker. Interpoker is a Cryptologic skin. Someday these guys might have an objectively accurate tracking of the top cardrooms and have it labeled as such, but they don't have that now so no way should they be linked. 2005 20:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Back in August 2005 2005 removed our link saying we only listed a ‘handful of sites’ and that when we ‘become an industry resource’ we would be a ‘valuable link’.

Since then http://www.whichpoker.com/ has undergone a major redesign and now incorporates a free ‘Online Poker Statistics’ section that only has one banner advert. Our technology gathers detailed activity information from 11 poker clients, the actual clients themselves, then displays this data in graph form.

We have representation of ALL of the major poker networks. Included in our stats section: Party Poker – (Party Gaming, Empire Poker – not included in the stats section as it is a skin), Pacific Poker – own software, Poker Stars – own software, Poker Room – Ongame, Paradise Poker – own software, Bodog Poker – own software, BoS Poker - Tribeca Tables, Full Tilt Poker – own software, InterPoker – CryptoLogic, GamingClub - Prima Poker We are also working on Ultimate Bet (Excapsa), Titan Poker (Playtech), CelebPoker (Boss Media) and many more.

Our stats have been verified by Pacific Poker and Party Gaming. We are also in the process of setting up a detailed stats section of the site which will be available to industry insiders at a cost. We currently have 6 of the poker rooms mentioned, including Party Gaming and Pacific Poker, as well as financial institutions and key industry insiders ready to pay for this data.

As I said in a previous posting ‘This is totally unique content and one that people interested in online poker, and the online poker industry, would find very interesting.’ Whichpoker 09:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the link again, mostly because its primary purpose seems to be advertising for a handful of poker sites. It is neither cited in the article nor really relevant to it. This article describes the phenomenon of online poker and your site is more about helping people choose the right game for them. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Your comment ‘nor really relevant’ to online poker astounds me. Just a quick glance at the stats section http://www.whichpoker.com/stats shows you that Party Poker has almost twice the number of real money active players than its nearest rival Poker Stars. It also shows that the majority of players are based in the US. I could go on and on about how much ‘relevance’ these stats have but I suggest you revisit the site and understand what you’re looking at…
Also, your comment ‘neither cited’ intrigues me. Are you suggesting I should add a section about WhichPoker.com stats so that people who are genuinely interested in online poker can view the data? (Whichpoker)(Talk) 12:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that since the information is clearly not worth including in the article or citing even tangentially, then providing the link isn't really a benefit to any of our readers, or any of our editors, or really anyone but the site's creator, which I presume from your username is... you. Perhaps you should wait for an uninterested observer to re-insert the link. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The whichpoker link could clearly be relevant and an excellent example of an external link that would add value to the article since the article obviously can't and shouldn't deal with something as fluid as player numbers. That has never been the issue. If whichpoker were to provide truly useful industry-wide data, then its link would be very appropriate. Unfortunately they choose to label their data deceptively simpky because of affiliate relationships. If the data was ever labeled right, and covered at least the eight biggest networks (with 87% of the players), then it would be perfect for here. Until then, it's just a resource providing deceptive data which of course shouldn't be linked. (And whichpoker, try contributing to the encyclopedia instead of just singlemindedly trying to promote your site.) 2005 22:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi 2005, thanks for getting back to me. We’re currently developing a network page of the stats area that will explain what networks are and give a breakdown of their player traffic. Whichpoker 14:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing protected pages

I temporary unprotected to allow non-admin but known good editor Alterego to mess with the references and external links. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WTF!? Alterego has never, ever edited this page (and neither have you) and you give special permission when the page is locked!? And then Alterego makes major changes to two sections and marks them as minor? I would like an explanation, please. --Vik Reykja 08:14, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The page is protected to deal with vandalism and spam, not a content dispute. Allowing known non-vandal and non-spammer editors temporary access is not a breach of ethics. Your phrasing also seems to indicate an unhealthy degree of article ownership on your part.

Oh please. If Alterego is so trustworthy, why isn't he an administrator himself? Why would someone who has never contributed to this article before suddenly need to do so, and why would an admin who has never contributed here before let him? Your behavior seems to indicate an unhealthy degree of administrator abuse on your part. --Vik Reykja 10:14, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alterego asked politely, which is something you aren't doing. His "major" edit was largely cosmetic. If you want specifics about his motivations, you'll have to ask him. If you would like access, you could try asking instead of being vulgar. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cosmetic? These are majors edits by any definition. They amount to vandalism. To let such major changes take place when an article is locked is irresponsible. Please revert these edits immediately, otherwise consider this me "asking nicely" so that I can to revert these major changes at least until the article is unlocked. 2005 09:43, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
I don't need to ask politely; editing the article while it is locked down is highly hypocritical. Cosmetic or not, major changes were made to those sections, and as of this writing I have not seen a similar style on other articles. They were not minor edits, and even if they were they were unnecessary edits when the article is protected. I ask that these edits be reverted until us other non-admin but "non-vandal and non-spammer" users have access to it. --Vik Reykja 10:14, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What Cyrius and Alterego has done seems perfectly reasonable to me, and in accordance with Wikipedia:Protection policy for semi-protected pages. And yes, you do need to be polite. Thue | talk 10:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Whether it seems reasonable to you is your opinion, but to say that it is in accordance with Wikipedia:Protection policy is just nonsense. That page clearly says in the section Editing protected pages: In cases of temporary page protection, admins should not edit the page while it is protected as people with different points of view who are not admins are unable to do so.
Also, I never said I didn't need to be polite; I said I didn't need to ask politely and I said that because I wasn't asking for anything so there was nothing to be polite about. --Vik Reykja 11:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that Cyrius|✎ did in fact not edit the article himself. He merely unprotected the article to allow a trusted editor to edit it after asking nicely. This is not a breach of policy and I see nothing wrong with it. Your quote from the policy means that an admin should not edit a page when protected while a content dispute is in progress, which this is not. If you ask nicely, I am sure you would get far more positive response. Inter\Echo 11:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Disregarding the fact that the account that edited the article is named "Alter Ego", I object to the fact that this article was edited – and allowed to be edited – while the article was protected. My quote did not mention dispute in progress, it mentioned temporary page protection. Please read the article before you lecture me on it.
About asking nicely, the only thing I'm asking for is that these unethical changes be reverted. Please show me how I am being rude in that regard, or apologize. --Vik Reykja 11:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Although I do not quite understand where your hostility comes from, my apologies for not making myself clear. I know you did not say anything about dispute in progress, but my point is that this isn't and hence I see nothing wrong by letting an editor edit the article while it is protected from spammers. If you object, why not ask Cyrius to unprotect it for you so you can revert? Inter\Echo 12:14, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As Inter has already pointed out, the "no edits while protected" part of the policy refers to content disputes. The protection of this article is not due to a content dispute (it was protected due to vandalism), so that policy does not apply, period. Thue | talk 13:14, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's nice that you think that but it is simply not true. If you think that it should be that way, then write it into the policy. Temporarily protected pages (as opposed to pages like the Main Page) should not be edited while they are protected. Period. Show me where in the policy it says otherwise. --Vik Reykja 18:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended anyone, that was not my intention. I saw the article was getting a lot of attention from around the web and wanted to update the citation to MLA format so that those who came to the encyclopedia saw a nice and professional looking presentation. I do this for lots of articles, even featured articles while they are featured. No one has ever said they were offended before; actually, people usually thank me for it, as it takes some work. I hope that this is not just an issue because there was discord here already. If anyone has specific post-facto concerns about the references and citation in this article being in MLA format let's please discuss that.

If Alterego is so trustworthy, why isn't he an administrator himself?; All I can say is that very rarely do I need priviledges that an admin has, and when I do I just ask nicely for help in irc. --Alterego 15:51, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalizing this article and labeling the changes as "minor" is rude in itelf, but asking permission to make blatantly controversially changes under the cover of a protected article is deplorable. The vandalism will eventually be reverted of course, but hopefully in the future such unethical behavior will not be allowed. Do not do this again. -- 2005 07:13, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism?! -- Cyrius|✎ 08:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What would you call making some major content changes and hiding them under a "m" then? This article has been the subject of strong opinions, clearly obvious in the discussion. To simply remove links that themselves at best a replacement for a whole group of links, and label that "minor" is appalling. It was either done to be intentionally rude, or the removal was done via extremely sloppy editing that ignored the issues discussed extensively in the chat, by a contributor who previously showed no interest in the topic. In either case, the editing was totally inappropriate under the circumstances and should be reverted immediately. 2005 09:06, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
I'd call it "having 'mark all edits minor by default' checked in user preferences and forgetting to uncheck it". If you decide to have an actual civil discussion about whether the two removed links should be restored before the page is unprotected, let me know. Otherwise, I'm going to ignore the rest of this thread as it has degenerated into namecalling. -- Cyrius|✎ 09:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Instead of admitting and fixing your mistake, you have been as belittling as uninformed. His major edit was NOT cosmetic by any stretch of the imagination. Now that you have actually looked at the aggressive editing, you know that. There has been relatively civil discussion here, even if contentious, up until the point this wholly inappropriate "thief in the night" editing vandalized the page under the pretense of "minor". If there was an apology here admitting "minor" was not true, and admitting such major changes should NEVER have been done under these circumstances, that would be a positive step. But cavalierly abusing your position and dismissing other people is neither nice, nor civil, nor helpful. If you do choose to participate in this topic in the future, please don't belittle people who care about the topic and know what they are talking about. 2005 09:45, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Do not do this again. I'm not sure what to say. I'm really not willing to continue a disussion about how changing encyclopedia article citations to a proper and widely accepted format is or isn't vandalim. It's not. Vandalism is indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia[...]Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them—most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you wrote removed, moved to talk, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism. (Wikipedia:Vandalism). I certainly understand if you feel this way. However, it should be strictly noted that there is nothing wrong with what I did, and there is simply no merit to a discussion concerning the rightness or wrongness of adding meta-information, something humans are best at, to external links in an article. It is a good practice. --Alterego 14:09, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Please don't add further dishonesty to your vandalism. Under the cover of a protected article you specifically did an "indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia", and then marked it minor. You did not merely add meta-information and to say so is further evidence of your egregious behavior. The appropriateness of reformatting of the links is a separate topic not at issue. It should be strictly noted that what you did was rude and extremely inappropriate given the protected circumstances. Further compounding the rudeness by pretending your changes were merely cosmetic is offensive. Labeling said changes "minor" is abusive. 2005 17:58, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
I see and understand that you are upset. Please begin the dispute resolution process. --Alterego 18:21, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

references updated

Changed references to MLA format. (forgot edit summary) --Alterego 06:54, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

ranking wars

there's a campaign going on to list this entry as the first item to show up on google search --Yonghokim 14:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

http://frenchfragfactory.net/ozh/archives/2005/02/19/bloggers-of-the-world-unite/

Old news. Read above. Zetawoof 19:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect?

Think it's safe to unprotect yet? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Safe to try and see what happens. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Here goes nothing... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:22, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Disingenuous editing

More than once this page has been vandalized where major editorial changes have been dishonestly labeled as "formatting". If someone wants to reformat the links, then do it honestly and correctly, but do not remove content or links under the cover of "formatting". Those links and the reasons for them have been discussed extensively here. If you have opinions about the content of this article, please have the courtesy to discuss it here instead of engaging in disingenuous editing where major changes are attempted to be inserted via trickery. Such vanadalism will be reverted every time. 2005 21:14, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't even notice that the link selections differed. Nevertheless, I do prefer the selection found in my "vandal" reversion. Both pokerpulse.com and pokerlistings.com/poker-forums are clearly poker advertisement forums and I see no reason whatsoever to link to them from Wikipedia. My criterion is simple: would I expect to find these links in an academic paper on online poker? And why are you so insistent on removing http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2003/interim-info/agenda/bs041304.html?
That said, I find your accusation of "vandalism" entirely unacceptable and demand an apology. Fredrik | talk 21:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2005, I informed you above that at the point we were at in the discussion if you were still unhappy it was time to begin the dispute resolution process. Instead, you have attempted to begin a revert war, and I am left with no choice but to initiate this process myself. --Alterego 22:08, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
You need to apologize for labeling content edits as "formatting". That is dishonest and meets the definition of vandalism above: Vandalism is indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia If you did in fact not see that the changes were in fact major editorial content ones, then it isn't vandalism but merely sloppy editing that you need to apologize for. The "formatting" note was not accurate no matter what. The editorial opinions about the value of the links should be completely divorced from the formatting where under no circumstances should they ever have been hidden. If you want to participate in the discussion above in terms of how to make this article the best it can be, then please participate as others have. (I will say though that the comment about not expecting to see the Poker Pulse link is an academic paper is simply strange. Poker Pulse in the past ten or so days has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, New York Times and the Finacial Times. Obviously such a link would be found in an academic paper, although that is not what this is anyway!) Also, the comment about being insistent on removing the North Dakota link is genuinely bizarre. The link was relevant before, but I can't imagine why anyone would want to link to an obsolete bill that failed 44-3. If you have an argument to justify leaving a link to a dead bill, then please make one. 2005 22:15, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
As I have been fully honest here I will not apologize for dishonesty, but I do apologize for sloppy editing. Now, I find being called a vandal downright insulting. If you believe that anyone who commits an edit that you disagree with is "deliberately attempting to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia", I suggest you read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. References should be listed correctly per Wikipedia:Cite sources. The fact that there was an attempted bill might very well be worthy of coverage in the article. Fredrik | talk 22:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As I said, it was NOT vandalism if indeed you were just sloppy. However, the original edit, not done by you, fit the definition of vandalism. So that word does not apply to you or what you did. Since you accept the responsibility for being sloppy, essentially believing that the edits in question WERE minor formatting rather than much more substantial, then there is no problem. This has NOTHING to do with me "disagreeing" with edits. It only concerns significant editorial edits being hidden as minor formatting ones. That, I hope you agree, is an issue that merrits concern. As for the bill, sure it could have value to still be listed even though it was defeated, however someone should merely make the case for that and add the link. Previously it was added because it had pending significance. It's status is obviously completely different now. I have no objection to it being listed, assuming the notation doesn't suggest the bill is still pending or active. 2005 23:19, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I want to thank 2005 for editing my paragraph re Deputy Assistant Attorney General Malcom's testimony in the Senate's Banking Committee. I wrote: "Gambling by minors is another concern because gambling websites cannot look at their customers or request photo identification. Compulsive gambling is especially serious for online players, because online venues allow gamblers to play anonymously and uninterrupted for long periods of time." 2005 wrote in the edit notes: "delete two falicious statements; sites can ask for photo ID; sites have rules that drastically restrict how much a person can buy in for, making compulsive gambling in online poker rooms many degrees." The way I wrote the paragraph is confusing. Readers may assume that I'm stating Malcom's statements as "the facts", while in reality, I'm just relaying the official view of the DOJ (which may or may not be correct). 2005 correctly pointed out that just because the DOJ believes online gambling may cause compulsive gambling does not necessarily make it the case. 2005 is also correct that sites can ask for photo ID. However, I believe photo ID is not required for signing up at online poker rooms. All you need is a credit card (or Neteller) and an email address. So perhaps my sentence should've been "Gambling by minors is another concern because gambling websites cannot look at their customers nor do they require photo identification." I'm relatively new to this entry so I will respect 2005's edits. Cheers.--David.rand 00:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed the two sentences because stated as facts they were inaccurate. When relaying Malcom's or someone else's opinion that opinion should be clearly stated as opinion, with perhaps an alternate view included. Also, the editing notes cut off my sentence which should have been "sites have rules that drastically restrict how much a person can buy in for, making compulsive gambling in online poker rooms many degrees more difficult than the real world". Yes, cardrooms usually don't require photo ID, but they sometimes ask for it, so there could be a way to state that. The money laundering and compulsive gambling things though are not in my view relevant here because the cardroom's restricted buyins policies make it extremely hard to launder money and make it much unlikely that compulsive behavior will occur. 2005 01:17, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Not Editing in Good Faith

User 65.244.26.2 and 66.108.255.87 are not editing in good faith. Click on their IP addresses and check out their contributions to Wikipedia. 65.244.26.2 added a direct affiliate link to Party Poker and also another link to a website that promotes poker with banners and affiliate links. The same user then deleted another link on here with the justification that it is a "for profit" site? 66.108.255.87, probably the same user as 65.244.26.2, also tried the same thing after a revert edit. The "Online Poker FAQ" link has been here for a long time and it has a lot of useful online poker information on it. It is bad enough when spammers try to add their junk links, now they want to remove useful links as well? David.rand 21:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It's just another thing to police around here, but the naughtiness is pretty obvious so it should be easy to deal with.2005 03:30, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
You're right of course. All part of the Wiki experience I suppose. I just wish we had a bigger comment box for our edits. David.rand 14:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

David Rand, do you or any of your associates have a financial interest in the "Online Poker FAQ" website? It contains for-profit poker affiliate links. "Online Poker FAQ" receives traffic from Wikipedia, and is generating revenue from having its link on the page. Just because a page has useful information does not mean it should appear here. Much (if not all) of that information is available elsewhere and could be made available here, without poker affiliate links. If posting a link to a website with poker affiliate links is not permitted, then ALL such websites should not be included in the Wiki. Most of the information on the "Online Poker FAQ" website is freely available directly from the online poker sites. Again, I think you should disclose your affiliation with the Online Poker FAQ website.

"Just because a page has useful information does not mean it should appear here." Yes it does, assuming it meets the "useful enough to be listed" criteria. Having advertising links is completely irrelevant and worthless to even mention. If you were deleting the link for reasons that the information is not accurate or if there was a better/similar thing to link to, that would be different. But your stated reason for deleting is simply vandalism, so please stop.2005 19:54, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Not only is your stated reason vandalism, it is highly hypocritical given that you and your alterego has tried to insert direct affiliate links to online poker as well as links to the site "gothamcitypoker-dot-com" which has much more prominent advertising with very little information. "If posting a link to a website with poker affiliate links is not permitted, then ALL such websites should not be included in the Wiki." It sounds like you got really mad when someone removed your advertising links and now you want to take this entry apart, piece by piece. Not that it is any of your business, but I do not financially gain from any poker rooms or poker magazines. I did almost win $1 million dollars from Publisher's Clearing House though, in case you are interested. David.rand 23:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the link to http://www.gamblingfactsandfictions.com/id21.htm for 2 reasons:

  1. It's blatently a plug for a book.
  2. It's argument, that the rake makes it impossible to win, is incorrect. If all players had the same chance of winning, then it would be true that the rake would give everyone a negative expected value. However, since some players are better than others, the best players have enough of an edge that the rake doesn't stop them from winning in the long run.

Evercat 19:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The link offered nonsensical content, but besides that it was too trivial (a few paragraphs) which would make it inappropriate in any case.2005 20:29, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Heh, I exchanged a few e-mails with the writer of that page. It was the worst, most absurd nonsense I had ever read. This person maintained than even only $2 were raked from a $10,000 pot, the game would still be unbeatable (yet a game with no rake is still beatable). Yet this person also maintained that if people could make a living playing poker online, they should be getting rich. I countered that we all dream of getting rich but some of us have to live with getting the pay of a schoolteacher. I gave up when the person replied that some schoolteachers have a luxurious lifestyle. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2005 removed pokerpulse.com from the external link section because "sadly pokerpulse has discontinued its traffic tracking, replacing it with just an ordered list, which could just as easily be done here; if they go back to tracking, the link should be put back". I added a site whichpoker.com that displays free online poker room active player statistics as a replacement and it was removed immediately.

OK the site has affiliate content but it also provides free and unique statistics on most of the major online poker rooms.

whichpoker only list a handful of sites and so is a useless link here, and was not close to what pokerpulse was. If whichpoker ever decides to become an industry resource instead of a listing for the few sites it has affiliate deals with, it could be a valuable link here. Until then it will always be deleted as unrepresentitive and inapproriate for this article.2005 22:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be so much paranoia about spamming that some people are removing links to some of the best and most informative poker websites on the internet! Would people who remove links try to at least take a decent look at the websites in question and weigh up whether they are simply portals with sponsored links to poker rooms or websites with genuinely high-quality information? Websites should not be excluded simply because they have a small number of adverts on them.

Don't make wild assertions. Adverts have nothing to do with anything. Second, "informative poker websites" won't be linked here. This is not a "poker" article it is an "online poker" article. Some recent links were just general poker sites, of which there are plenty that are extremely valueable. This article has a narrow, specific focus. Please do not post links here that are obviously inappropriate, even if the site in question has good content. 2005 20:26, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

It appears that this wiki page has been copied verbatim, with no mention of the GNU Free Documentation License.
The site is here: [1]

Just a heads up.

Mjman 01:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think they took Wikipedia's info and just put their copyright on it because our material dates back to 4 january 2003 and their copyright only mentions 2004 which means they probably took the material from here. 132.204.227.73 14:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I've moved these links from the main page. Please provide some justificatin for us violating the guideline at Wikipedia:External links before replacing them. - brenneman(t)(c) 22:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

  • www.gamblingandthelaw.com/columns/159_internet_poker_long.htm Is it a Crime to Play Poker Online
  • www.onlinepokercenter.com/articles/online_poker/online_poker_faq.php Online Poker FAQ
Hello Brenneman, thanks for the invitation for discussion. I wasn't trying to be misleading with the edit summaries. When I cited the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links, I wasn't saying you were violating them. I was merely quoting from it to explain my suggestions. Sorry if I wasn't being clear or if I have offended you. I would be happy to discuss why I think those links--which have been part of this entry for a long time--should remain resources to this entry's readers.
First off, thanks for giving this one the benefit of the doubt and adding it back. We've had some controversy regarding which online poker rooms should be listed here. There are so many rooms and we don't really want to link to every single one of them. A link to a directory is a good compromise which provides our readers a chance to find the rooms without having to list them all.
According to Wikipedia:External links, "Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included."
DMOZ is an open directory and it is one of the most neutral ones (as one user pointed out "I would support linking to DMOZ only" Inter). Before pokerpulse stopped providing live statistical updates, I would've supported pokerpulse, as it provided useful statistical information along with the room listings. However, pokerpulse no longer does that so DMOZ is the next best choice.
For the next two links, I would like to point to the section I referred to in my editing summary:
"What should be linked to: 5. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference" Wikipedia:External links.
Professor I. Nelson Rose is a leading authority on gambling law. He is a law professor and has been quoted by news outlets like the L.A. Times. The legality of online poker is a very important topic for many users. The article provides a plainly worded explanation of this industry's legality in the United States. It is helpful for readers and it should stay.
The article provides a lot of information that help novices understand the online poker game and industry. It is well researched and cites sources to backup its claims. The website itself has been recommended by the Canadian news show Canada AM as an "independent website where people can get useful information as to what you need to look for when you are looking for poker sites, especially security concerns and how they work." It is also listed on DMOZ and Yahoo! Directories as online poker resources.
The FAQ has been here for a while, and I suspect some hard working Wikipedians have used the information in this article to enhance this entry. However, while there is some overlap of information, I don't think this link should be listed merely as a reference, as the FAQ still contains a lot of information not yet integrated into this entry. One of my goals is to integrate all the info in the FAQ into the entry and have it listed as merely a reference one day. But darn it, I've been busy lately and this FAQ keeps getting updated. David.rand 03:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The links don't violate Wikipedia's policies. Simply stating they do is absurd and rude. 2005 08:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'd first apologise for letting this slip off my radar for so long. I'd then direct 2005 to how much more friendly David.rand's approach is, and ask for some pondering on which method is more likely to produce a positve outcome. As to the external links:
  • Is it a Crime to Play Poker Online - Any relevant information can be summarised and included in a small section.
  • Online Poker FAQ - Again, if this article does not answer every broad-based summary-level question a person has, our job is not to spoonfeed them the rest. Summarise and include.
Why do we include a link: Because it enhance the article directly. I'm strong that these do not. However the hurdle for citations is lower: They need only be from a reliable source and support an unbiased fact. Which dovetails nicely with the new section!
brenneman {L} 13:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Integrity and fairness addition?

I am new to editing wikipedia, so didn't modify anything as such. Under the heading "Integrity and fairness", shouldn't there be some mention of another issue when dealing with online poker (and some types of online gambling), namely that 2 or more people can be playing at the same (virtual) table and sharing information between each other using methods other than the poker room? They could be mutually benefitting each other without the help/knowledge of the server. This is not the same as the mental poker problem.Lxl 16:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There certainly could be two or three sentences mentioning this, but of course cheating exists in any game of any kind so the main point is obvious. Still, a line or two about cardrooms having means in place to attempt to detect collusive cheating wouldn't hurt. 2005 20:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

.net

any particular reason why all the online poker sites advertise under .net instead of .com? Coasttocoast 22:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Under US law, they can't advertise sites where you can gamble for real money, so they create play money sites under .net URLs and advertise those instead. CTOAGN (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Addition of material without sources

The verification policy says: Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. Can we see some citations from a reputable source for these? - brenneman {L} 13:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove material without citations, including that in the diff above. - brenneman {L} 04:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Tracking Online Poker

I noticed that this article pointed out how it is easier for players to track data online compared to B&M. One reason why online poker is better than playing at the B&M is because you can set up a very effective data management system to track your play and how your opponents play. Being able to keep detailed stats on every opponent and using programs like xhttp://www.pokertracker.com can give online players a big advantage. Also, with websites like xhttp://pokerfishtracker.com, you can get detailed information about the playing styles and quality of your competition. It takes a lot of work to create an effective data management system but can really pay off if you use it correctly.

For example: WhichPokerSites.com. --The NeveR SLeePiNG 20:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There are tons of these, so a single directory link is more appropriate. 2005 03:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Partypokerscreenshot.jpg

Image:Partypokerscreenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

PokerTracker

PokerTracker is not ad spam nor is it vandalism. I don't think it is fair to remove it and would like it to be undone. I would do it myself but don't want to get into an edit war. Edgriebel 17:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree, in no way was your edit vandalism, this is a well known program used in online poker by many top online professionals, does need references through such as an article by a reliable source about how many online playings use this software ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 18:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to call out Pokertracker specifically. Doing so is almost certainly spam (though not vandalism). There are many such programs, and we aren't going to either call out them all, or just one at the expense of others. Rewrite the passage without mentioning Pokertracker specifically if you want. 2005 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about it, you're right, 05, if mention should be generic in language thats all that needs to come across. with that said I don't it was Edgriebel intension to spam, it just a well known program, that's all▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 02:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Making it generic was what I was thinking of, see Talk:PokerTracker Edgriebel 04:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Pokerbot

Why does the article Pokerbot redirect to here, while there is absolutely no information on pokerbots in this article? Shouldn't there be at least a section on them in this article, if not an entire article about them? --the Wild Falcon (talk | log) 10:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, never mind: I just found out there's an article [Computer poker players]. I'm just gonna redirect it to there. --the Wild Falcon (talk | log) 10:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Funding

There should be a section about funding your account to play real money games, because this has become a major issue. Neteller was the most common way to fund an account because it was so easy and hassle-free to use, but now because of legal issues they don't want anything to do with online poker. There are now a variety of methods for funding an account, but it's hard to tell which of these companies are trustworthy and which are not, and many of these funding methods now charge fees every time you want to make a deposit. Withdrawing your funds from an online poker site has also become a huge headache, it can take several days (or weeks) to get your money, and you will almost always be charged a service fee. Anyone think this stuff is worth including? Deepfryer99 15:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This could be mentioned but I wouldn't see it longer than three sentences. We shouldn't be commenting on specific companies like who is trustworthy or not. At the same time, I'm not sure what could really be said since funding is just a bit more difficult now. You can still do it, so nothing has changed except there are less options. 2005 (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Online_poker/Archive_1&oldid=1259604742"