I suggest they host the ads as first-party, no Javascript, static images/ text links on their actual domain. One would pretty much have to write an AI to block them, and there would be little reason to try.
Oh bullshit, they didn't sell any ads, they signed up to an abusive tracking filled ad network that did all of the work for them.
If I start a convenience store and can figure out a way to stay afloat selling Snickers and M&Ms, then hooray for me, but please don't call me a confectioner.
If they want to sell ads, actually sell the space like they did in their print version 20 years ago, and host them first party, and we'd have a hell of a time blocking them in the first place.
I'd be happy to do this too. I've gotten a ton out of Slashdot over the past 17 (geez) years and would be happy to pay for its upkeep for a cool icon and no ads/tracking.
There might some holes you are using to track my currently but I'm damn sure I'm not currently seeing any ads.
The coins could all have been heads OR they could all have been tails. There are 64 possible outcomes, but 2 are sufficient. 1/32 is correct.
I still don't see it. There is a 1/32 chance that *either* of the two candidates would have won all of the coin flips, but only a 1/64 chance for 'only Clinton' or 'only Sanders'
Actually, one in 32 odds. The chance that a coin tossed one time lands with the same face up is 1 in 1. The chance that a coin tossed two times lands with the same face up is 1 in 2, etc.
I'd check your math, it's 1 in 64.
If a coin is tossed once, you can have 2 results H T
If a coin is tossed twice, you have 4 potential results: HH HT TH TT
Because Television executives are largely old boomers coasting on inertia and they really have no interest in tackling this difficult problem at age 67 in between rounds of golf and trips to Palm Springs.
Give them 5-10 more years and they'll retire or croak and the industry will be in for a shakeup.
They had no way to prove this either when they spent thousands to take out an ad in the Chicago Tribune in 1985, yet they happily purchased such ads and the newspaper flourished. What has changed?
The newspaper/billboard/TV/radio advertiser has no idea whether they got an 'impression' on me, why does the web advertiser feel entitled to this?
What would the battery life be on a solution like that? Just because I don't like Apple locking down my devices doesn't mean that I don't like very long battery life and solid hardware design (minus the lack of ports)
This actually might get me to look into tablets. My requirements are basically being able to run adblock, and access to the filesystem. Oh and not being produced by a literal advertising firm.
Right -- white males who want to do drugs and have commercial sex interactions with women. It's not an insult, I'm white and love whores and drugs too, but I'm not a filthy libertarian.
I at least have the common decency to want to pay for a social welfare system for all of the sex trafficked minority women that fall into this system.
Ok. For better or worse, I went ahead and made the changes again, with references. Let's see if they'll stick and we can improve Wikipedia a tiny bit with all of this effort!:-)
Thank you. I appreciate the actual example. I do think that the Wikipedia community in general does have a bit of a bias against anonymous (IP-only) accounts -- I personally don't understand the hassle in restricting edits to logged-in accounts and would support a change in that direction to eliminate this. It looks like you went through the trouble of even commenting on the guy's talk page and he never responded. I'm going to try to find some English language sources with the modern names and fix this.
Just in case you (or anyone else) is interested, if you come across someone who is being paid to add links, you can open a thread at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... to alert admins to their behavior.
Oh no doubt there are people who are making paid edits in an attempt to circumvent the spirit of Wikipedia. I put them in the same box as anyone claiming to offer 'Search Engine Optimization' -- people who abuse a system shared by the masses for personal gain.
The question is, do any of those Wiki-PR type firms actually have guys high up in the Wiki-bureaucracy? I posit that they really don't, and as such they are just another type of troll that needs to be planned for and dealt with, just like anywhere else on the internet.
Can any of the people who have anecdotes about asshole editor grievances please actually post some links? Seriously, I don't think you a lying, give us a chance to overthrow the assholes with actual evidence.
If someone is going to claim that a big city is a crime-ridden hellhole, I'd at least like to see a news article about their mugging, or their black eye, or something.
Wikipedia is basically a big city with all-seeing cameras on every intersection. I'm not saying it's never corrupt or abused, but the people making such accusations could at least post a link to the edits in question so we can look at the issue as an objective 3rd party. It might just have the effect eliminating some tinpot shithead editor by putting the spotlight on them!
But in all the Slashdot articles about Wikipedia, I never see anyone link to the outrageous reverts they are constantly bitching about.
Slashdot Mirror
I suggest they host the ads as first-party, no Javascript, static images/ text links on their actual domain. One would pretty much have to write an AI to block them, and there would be little reason to try.
Oh bullshit, they didn't sell any ads, they signed up to an abusive tracking filled ad network that did all of the work for them.
If I start a convenience store and can figure out a way to stay afloat selling Snickers and M&Ms, then hooray for me, but please don't call me a confectioner.
If they want to sell ads, actually sell the space like they did in their print version 20 years ago, and host them first party, and we'd have a hell of a time blocking them in the first place.
Actually, they each had a 1/64 chance of winning all of the tosses. There was only ever a 1/32 chance of SOMEONE winning all of the tosses.
I'd be happy to do this too. I've gotten a ton out of Slashdot over the past 17 (geez) years and would be happy to pay for its upkeep for a cool icon and no ads/tracking.
There might some holes you are using to track my currently but I'm damn sure I'm not currently seeing any ads.
I suppose I see that now in his original post, but I fail to see how its relevant to the topic at hand...
The coins could all have been heads OR they could all have been tails. There are 64 possible outcomes, but 2 are sufficient. 1/32 is correct.
I still don't see it. There is a 1/32 chance that *either* of the two candidates would have won all of the coin flips, but only a 1/64 chance for 'only Clinton' or 'only Sanders'
Actually, one in 32 odds. The chance that a coin tossed one time lands with the same face up is 1 in 1. The chance that a coin tossed two times lands with the same face up is 1 in 2, etc.
I'd check your math, it's 1 in 64.
If a coin is tossed once, you can have 2 results
H
T
If a coin is tossed twice, you have 4 potential results:
HH
HT
TH
TT
etc...
Yes? Though I'd MUCH rather have Bernie Sanders picking the Supreme Court justices
Because Television executives are largely old boomers coasting on inertia and they really have no interest in tackling this difficult problem at age 67 in between rounds of golf and trips to Palm Springs.
Give them 5-10 more years and they'll retire or croak and the industry will be in for a shakeup.
They had no way to prove this either when they spent thousands to take out an ad in the Chicago Tribune in 1985, yet they happily purchased such ads and the newspaper flourished. What has changed?
The newspaper/billboard/TV/radio advertiser has no idea whether they got an 'impression' on me, why does the web advertiser feel entitled to this?
What would the battery life be on a solution like that? Just because I don't like Apple locking down my devices doesn't mean that I don't like very long battery life and solid hardware design (minus the lack of ports)
This actually might get me to look into tablets. My requirements are basically being able to run adblock, and access to the filesystem. Oh and not being produced by a literal advertising firm.
Right -- white males who want to do drugs and have commercial sex interactions with women. It's not an insult, I'm white and love whores and drugs too, but I'm not a filthy libertarian.
I at least have the common decency to want to pay for a social welfare system for all of the sex trafficked minority women that fall into this system.
Ok. For better or worse, I went ahead and made the changes again, with references. Let's see if they'll stick and we can improve Wikipedia a tiny bit with all of this effort! :-)
Thank you. I appreciate the actual example. I do think that the Wikipedia community in general does have a bit of a bias against anonymous (IP-only) accounts -- I personally don't understand the hassle in restricting edits to logged-in accounts and would support a change in that direction to eliminate this. It looks like you went through the trouble of even commenting on the guy's talk page and he never responded. I'm going to try to find some English language sources with the modern names and fix this.
Just in case you (or anyone else) is interested, if you come across someone who is being paid to add links, you can open a thread at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... to alert admins to their behavior.
Oh no doubt there are people who are making paid edits in an attempt to circumvent the spirit of Wikipedia. I put them in the same box as anyone claiming to offer 'Search Engine Optimization' -- people who abuse a system shared by the masses for personal gain.
The question is, do any of those Wiki-PR type firms actually have guys high up in the Wiki-bureaucracy? I posit that they really don't, and as such they are just another type of troll that needs to be planned for and dealt with, just like anywhere else on the internet.
That sounds exactly like the kind of thing you *should* shine a spotlight on to clean up the corruption. Just link one example please!
Can any of the people who have anecdotes about asshole editor grievances please actually post some links? Seriously, I don't think you a lying, give us a chance to overthrow the assholes with actual evidence.
If someone is going to claim that a big city is a crime-ridden hellhole, I'd at least like to see a news article about their mugging, or their black eye, or something.
Wikipedia is basically a big city with all-seeing cameras on every intersection. I'm not saying it's never corrupt or abused, but the people making such accusations could at least post a link to the edits in question so we can look at the issue as an objective 3rd party. It might just have the effect eliminating some tinpot shithead editor by putting the spotlight on them!
But in all the Slashdot articles about Wikipedia, I never see anyone link to the outrageous reverts they are constantly bitching about.
Which article/edits? Lets get this tyrant taken care of.
Please link it, I'd like to make sure that this editor isn't continually up to bad rejections
Care to link us to some of the more egregious examples from your pile of reverted edits?
There are a lot of degrees on the autism spectrum, look at Wikipedia.
I was kind of disappointed when I visited Powell's after all the hype. I didn't realize how small a city block is in Portland.