Talk:Online gambling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Online gambling is part of WikiProject Gambling, an attempt at building a useful gambling resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information). |
Saw a good article on poker gambling law on pokernex.com. Cheers John
I wanted to suggest having a list of sites like riverbelle.com online casino linked from this page? any thoughts?
- Wikipedia isn't a link repository. The online casino article links to dmoz list of online casions so that is taken care of. 2005 20:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. There's several problems with this article, mostly revolving around the "Legal Issues" section.
The first problem is the link to "playwinningpoker.com." This is an affiliate site, a site that makes money for its owner by channelling traffic to the gambling sites it promotes. Typically affiliates are paid on a profit-sharing basis, according to how much traffic they drive to their advertisers, and how much the traffic (the punters) lose. This is a problem, first of all, because the affiliate improves his Google rating by linking to a popular, trusted, site like Wikipedia. This is a huge financial issue to affiliates, who spend a lot of time, money, and effort trying to get their sites ranked high on Google. While it's great SEO strategy for the affiliate, it's bad news for Wikipedia. It's also a problem because it creates conflict of interest issues. Addressing the (il)legality of internet gambling is bad business for affiliates - they have an interest in presenting gambling in the best light they possibly can. The article is also factually incorrect, and misleading. But the affiliate-link is the first problem I wanted to address. Thanks. LinusK 20:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)=LinusK July 8, 2006
-
- I have removed the sentence about "no other laws prohibit internet gambling" as well as the affiliate link. The first is celarly incorrect, and the second I concur is a questionable source at best. Steve Badger is definitely a poker authority, but even his link admits he is not an attorney. Tubby Spencer 21:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I fixed the sentence to say what the cite says, rather than the previous confusing summary sentence. The two courts ruled what they ruled. LinusK, you need to familarize yourself with the Wikipedia. A good idea to start with is Wikipedia:Citing sources. Significant entries should always be cited, in this case both court ruling are included in their entirety and a briefer summary is included. The commerciality of websites is irrelevant to the accuracy of content. The affiliate business model of a website is obviously not a concern to the fact of a ruling of a US court. Feel free to edit the encyclopedia, but focus on the content of the material, not your bias about certain types of websites. 2005 22:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Hi. There's still problems with this. The statement, "Online gambling is legal and regulated in many countries including most members of the European Union," needs to be sourced. The UK has started the process of licensing internet gambling sites, but most of them continue to operate out of Gibraltar and the Isle of Man. I don't know of any internet gambling site that has a license from Germany, Italy, France, or any other EU country.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, there are things you don't know, apparently. :) betandwin.com, for instance, is based in Austria and is on the Austrian stock exchange. Fearwig 13:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You need to distinguish between the MasterCard case, and the Cohen case, and you need to put the MasterCard case in context.
-
-
-
-
-
- The WTO decision is interesting, but it didn't "effectively allow[] state laws prohibiting gambling in Louisiana, Massachusetts, South Dakota and Utah. The WTO does not make or unmake laws in the US, either at the state or Federal level.
-
-
-
-
-
- The main problem with the article, though, is that it's misleading. I am glad to see the affiliate link gone, though. LinusK.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- European countries have online gambling options like lotteries, which doesn't mean they regulate online gambling businesses. Apples and oranges. You are talking about something different. 2005 03:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, either way, if they don't regulate online gambling businesses, the article shouldn't say that they do. I'm going to try to make some changes. If you don't like what I'm doing, I hope you'll explain what's wrong, instead of just reverting. Thanks.[User:LinusK|LinusK]] 21:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)=LinusK.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It says what it says. They regulate what they regulate. They don't regulate everything and anything under the sun. Nobody does that. It could be more clear that they regulate "some" types of Internet gambling but not others, but that is sort of self-evident. 2005 22:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Problem gambling
In the United States, the link between availability and problem gambling was investigated in 1999 by the National Gambling Impact Study, which found that "the presence of a gambling facility within 50 miles roughly doubles the prevalence of problem and pathological gamblers". If this finding is correct, it is reasonable to expect that easy access to gambling online would also increase problem gambling.
That's a common, but fallacious interpretation of a correlational study--if the presence of a facility doubles the prevalence of problem gamblers, it is just as reasonable to assume that a portion of that prevalence, potentially (if not surely) all of that prevalence, is made of pathological gamblers who choose to locate themselves near a casino, as many would. Additionally (and probably statistically more significantly), people who have access to a casino are more likely to show symptoms of pathological gambling even when such predisposition may exist in a much larger portion of the general population--I am somewhat surprised the figures aren't "ten times" or more instead of "double". Anyhow, I'm arguing semantics for my own entertainment, and while I find the interpretation interesting it sounds as though it falls under WP:NOR, especially since there are many ways to interpret correlational data (see the "marriage makes people wealthier because more wealthy people get married" debate, for instance). Thoughts on removal of this bit? Fearwig 13:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that portion certainly draws an apples and oranges conclusion. I took out one part and left the direct quote from the study, which whether it is "right" or not, is the POV of that study. It also make that section more in line with the rest of the article, which mostly just directs readers to more extensive/specific articles. 2005 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
There are varying opinions on online gambling's legality at the moment espcially with the new laws passed in the US. I found this to be a good article on the different view points around this issue [1].
[edit] Affiliate Links
Affiliate links are not appropriate on Wikipedia.
Also, "The United States Federal Appeals Courts has ruled" is grammatically incorrect, as well as inaccurate.21:55, 12 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by LinusK (talk • contribs)
