This is obviously the wrong place for that suggestion, mainly because Wikipedia has an excellent system in place for any user to submit a suggestion of that nature. If you cared enough to take the time to do it, you could end up starting a discussion there and if enough editors agreed with you, that type of major change might actually happen. I encourage you to take part and start the process.

Probably because even though it's rarely practiced in reality, we'd like to think our elected leaders are held to a higher standard of honesty than the random population typing away edits at home. This article at least sheds SOME light on that behavior when it's coming from a place we'd rather see it not come from.

Maybe. It would be even easier to just ban IP edits entirely. Of course, that's not the idea that drives Wikipedia -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The article IS dealing with it. It's exposing the fact that staffers for these candidates are white-washing pages. Not sure what you're so angry about.

You're right, of course. This article only deals with British politicians, though. I've reverted anon IP edits to American politicians' pages myself; mostly it's just simple white-washing stuff that, once you add it to your watchlist, becomes really easy to spot and maintain.

Well, that may be true if an editor gets involved in a protracted edit war with another editor. For anon IPs, such as the ones doing the edits described in the summary, it's trivial to revert the edit, and if anon IPs continue to remove sourced material, the IP addresses tend to get blocked for a few days, or a week, or a month, depending on the individual circumstances surrounding the edit war. An administrator is going to back a registered editor over an anon IP pretty much every time, so there's no danger of getting banned.

I've noticed in the past that most of those white-washing edits, especially when they're done by anonymous IPs, tend to get reverted by registered editors, so that the white-washing isn't that much of an issue.

I read Dave420's post history. I also read yours. He's a liberal, and you are a raving paranoid lunatic that no one wants to talk to.

I don't consult. I work. And you're assuming that the entire labor force of a business is making minimum wage, which of course is a ridiculous assumption, and thus blows your numbers right out of the water as wildly inaccurate. Keep defending your indefensible rhetoric, though; your amateur "Econ 101" combined with the fact that you're the one not running a business provides me with much entertainment.

Don't you feel stupid. I am a corporation, hiring myself out to clients, on a 100% freelance basis. So yeah, I own a business. I literally charge the maximum I feel my clients will pay, based on what I know they pay others and several other factors, and regardless of my costs. Here's where your argument really falls apart, though:

Unless, of course, you're making a profit already, and the labor cost going up means you'll make slightly less profit when you continue charging the maximum that customers will pay, which will be the case in the vast majority of minimum-wage hirers.

Thanks for playing.

You've obviously never owned a business, as evidenced by your question "how do they know how much someone is willing to pay for it without trying to raise prices?" It's like a question a 3rd-grader would ask.

As for - "Raise prices to justify higher pay" - that doesn't even make sense. You charge whatever the market will bear. Your labor costs don't set the prices, unless you're an idiot.

Yeah I think you're responding to someone else maybe. I never said one thing even remotely related to "voting costing money", "money being spent", or "getting donations."

I was pointing out to someone else that Scott Walker has very little chance of being president according to bettors, and if he really believed that Walker was going to win, as he stated, then the current betting odds of 12-to-1 meant if he wanted to gamble on his stated convictions, he could get a 1200% return on his bet. That's all.

I don't know who was talking about spending on campaigns but it wasn't me. Learn to read.

Oh look, you're quoting Fox News. Sure sign of an intelligent conversation. But okay, I'll bite anyway.

The reason you don't raise the minimum wage to $1 million/hour is because it would be unreasonable to pay someone working a drive-thru $40 million per week. But, there just might a reasonable place in between the $290/week they make now and the $40 million you suggest. Perhaps, a, what-do-you-call-it... a compromise?? oh, the horror!

Bullshit. The price of a product is based on how much people are willing to pay for it. That's it. Nothing more. It has fuck-all to do with the wage being paid to a menial worker.

If Starbucks raised their minimum wage to $15/hour, the price of everything would stay exactly the same, and the owners of Starbucks would make .16 on the dollar per fiscal year instead of the current .18 - that's the only difference. Boo-fucking-hoo.

All of this, of course, has zero to do with my post that you responded to, which dealt with the odds of each candidate winning, which is directly based on how much bettors are putting on each candidate to win. In other words, anyone can spout a stupid opinion, but if you asked them to actually bet real money on who they'd pick to win, they might suddenly not be so confident. However, looking at who actual bettors put their money on has been reasonably accurate in the past.

Which has fuck-all to do with candidates raising money. How you got there is a mystery to me. Poor reading comprehension, I suspect, which makes your writing automatically worthless.