User:BC108/ProgrammaticMediaTalk

Tightening up wording

The article contains paragraphs like this one:

The media is forever transforming. An evolution is taking place due to advancements in the "Internet of Things", a term first coined by Kevin Ashton, in the United Kingdom, in 1999.[36] The rise of sensor networks (or the Internet of Things), as with all transformations in the media, has changed the level of what is conveyed and how the conveying is done. Thus, a unique digital fingerprint can be generated through everyday tasks (i.e. via temperature readings, status updates, location co-ordinates, and check in's) resulting in an increased opportunity to gather data, or big data, relating to user actions outside of the traditional media space. This information can be used to tweak the targeting on media placements, hence being a direct implication on the level of how the conveying is done.

There are several issues here.

First of all, it contains a lot of rhetorical flourishes which don't contribute to the point ("The media is forever transforming."; "An evolution is taking place..."; "...as with all transformations in the media"). They sound more like a speech at a trade convention than like an encyclopedia.

Secondly, it goes into too much detail on the Internet of Things, which we already have an article on. There is no reason to mention who coined the term and when in the article on programmatic media.

Third, the term "convey" is utterly vague. I have no clue what "the level of what is conveyed and how the conveying is done" is supposed to mean.

Fourth, there are passages which I can't extract any meaning from: "hence being a direct implication on the level of how the conveying is done."

I have tried to improve this and other paragraphs, but User:Jugdev keeps reverting to his version, as though he owned the page. I'd appreciate a more collaborative and cooperative attitude. --Macrakis (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Macrakis.

In response

Firstly, the article is fully referenced with industry and academic work.

Secondly, Internet of things and Programmatic media work hand in hand hence the reason it has been included.

The remainder of your points are a matter of opinion and more about choice of wording - either way works.

All reverts are justified - Your edits omitted important factual information from the article. -JG (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Jugdev, you deleted the talk page content above, and reverted all my changes to the article. Though above you say "either way works", apparently you are only happy with your way. We try to be more collaborative around here. Please read up some more on Wikipedia guidelines, notably WP:OWN. --Macrakis (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is jargony in a lot of places, and contains detail that is probably excessive for the subject matter at hand. I agree with efforts to pare the thing down and make it more accessible. I may take a crack at some of it myself. JohnInDC (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, I think JohnInDC's edits were an improvement. I don't see any discussion of what's wrong with them, and I would like to see what exactly about them constitutes "vandalism" or removal of essential facts. As far as I can tell, they were helpful copy edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Jugdev, you're edit warring and are on the verge of being blocked (again). Please discuss your concerns here rather than simply undoing edits that don't suit you. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The bit about Google is sourced to their corporate webpage, and the part about WPP is similarly sourced to their corporate webpage. I would suggest that we either find independent, secondary sources or remove this part. It seems like original research based on primary sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's another troublesome paragraph:

The customised attribution model combines the use of linear, first, last, time decay or position based components as a foundation while incorporating additional data.[28] Each, or a number of the components below, act as a pre campaign hypothesis and are tested to prove a particular assumed proposition. In some cases, however, one would be accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts (i.e. in the case of one or a limited number of touchpoint).

I've read this several times and have no idea what it is trying to say. Is this because I don't know this area particularly well, or because it's essentially incoherent? If the former, then it should be rewritten so that a layperson of average intelligence stands at least a fair chance of comprehending it. If the latter then it should be deleted. I guess there is a third option, which is that it's essentially fine I'm too dense to understand it, and if that's the case I only hope that someone will break it to me gently. Comments welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The material in that section is essentially nonsensical as it stands. Based on what I have read there should be a section on Attribution modeling but the section is not even a good start. The whole article is a morass of run-on sentences and marketing jargon. I applaud your willingness to wade into it. I would suggest considering stubbing the whole thing.

A brief check: — Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL — shows that the term Programmatic media is not really the common name for whatever is being described here. I find a lot on — Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL — and what comes up there seems to be what this article is trying to describe. Maybe a stub based on a couple of those sources and let it grow from there? Jbh^Talk 03:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The possibility hadn't really occurred to me but I admit I do despair of wringing useful meaning out of the article as it stands. Let's see what others may have to say - I'd feel better with the weight of a bit of consensus behind me! JohnInDC (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be loosely based on this Google Analytics help page. The Google Analytics page is easier to understand and uses less jargon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Support/Objections to stubbing until a coherent and understandable article can be written? Jbh^Talk 15:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No, no objection. I know that Jugdev has put a lot of work into the page, and it's a shame to wipe it clean in one fell swoop, but as it's now written it's hard to make sense of beyond the highest level statements and I don't - personally - think it adds much to the encyclopedia. Indeed I find the subject so impenetrable that I hesitate to try to clean it up. Let's see if anyone else cares to weigh in. (I guess I'd like to salvage as much as possible, which might be a generous paragraph about the subject. I think too we should investigate those redirects - lots of those, sheesh.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I too find it hard to fathom; it seems to be written in a very awkward style. I also question whether the article name is an established one - the number of redirects suggests it may not be. It may be a candidate for AfD. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it is the same as Programmatic buying but in truth I can not tell. I would support AfD for the topic of Programmatic media since, as that, there is no indication it passes WP:GNG. The massive number of redirects does not help identify the actual topic. (I think a bundled RfD might be in order for them as well). Maybe Jugdev can comment on whether P. media and P. Buying are the same thing or not. Jbh^Talk 19:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects

User:Jugdev, you have added about 240 redirects to this page. That seems excessive, especially since most of the redirect topics aren't even discussed in the article (e.g., "Media arbitrage") or are just more-specific terms (e.g., "Programmatic media technology"). --Macrakis (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Macrakis

The redirects are relevant and within guidelines. (comment by User:Jugdev)

Jugdev, please sign your comments with --~~~~ --Macrakis (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like there might be an issue with COI/PR or at least SEO. That number of redirects, particularly for things that sound like marketing terms/buzzwords is problematic. I think it might be worthwhile to group them into a deletion discussion. Jbh^Talk 20:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jugdev: per your email. Discussion should be kept on the talk page. The issue with the redirects is they need to be plausible search terms not just 'let's catch anything anyone searches on'. Right now nothing has been proposed for deletion. The purpose of my comment is to solicit input on why there should be 240 redirects. I admit the possibility that they may be OK but when I see something like that with an article being guarded by an editor it is worth a deeper look. Please join in the discussion. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 20:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone

Thank you for your edits.

The programmatic media page, prior to its recent edits, consisted of technical content that benefited the less knowledgeable readers without compensating value to those with more of a technical background.

When thinking about how to make articles more understandable, we must not assume that detailed technical content should be removed. An excerpt from the wiki guidelines suggests that “an encyclopaedia article about a chemical compound is expected to include properties of the compound, even if some of those properties are obscure to a general reader”… and it continues, “When trying to decide what amount of technical detail is appropriate to include, it may be helpful to compare with a standard reference work in the particular technical field to which the subject of the article belongs.” (WP:TECHNICAL)

Another guideline suggests that we must not “oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable. Encyclopaedia articles should not [give] readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when what they then understand is wrong.” (WP:OVERSIMPLIFY)

Programmatic media is a process powered by various technologies and is known as programmatic marketing and programmatic advertising. This has been clearly stated in the opening paragraph so that it is abundantly clear for those that are less knowledgeable in the subject areas.

Statistics regarding the growth of programmatic media will undoubtedly show an upward bias – it is therefore sufficient to state that the discipline is a fast growing phenomenon as opposed to delving too deep into to particular recent statistics that are likely to change. The less knowledgeable reader requires context in order to gain a solid introduction to the subject in question, which is soundly conveyed in the example relating to teletext, data and liquidity. These facts are also useful for the readers with some technical knowledge. The theoretical framework around big data provides technical readers a solid foundation that refers to key academic thinkers from within the field. Readers with less knowledge about the area would also benefit should they want to expand their knowledge further.

Guidelines suggest that headings should “be descriptive and in a consistent order” (WP:GOODHEAD). It is also suggested that technical terms and acronyms should be explained clearly when they are first introduced. The IoT explanation allows some context on its importance to the subject area. This is useful for the less knowledgeable reader in addition to those with some technical knowledge due to the real world examples. With reference to the guidelines, “A concrete example can help to contextualize the abstract content for many readers”. It is also acceptable to “use analogies to describe a subject in everyday terms.” (WP:TECHNICAL)

Spelling and grammar has been reviewed, with some changes throughout (WP:COFAQ) .-JG (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Many items that were previously unlinked have been re-linked due to their significance to the article. -JG (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You have simply reverted all the edits made since your previous version ([1]), in a resumption of the edit warring that got you blocked. I agree with the changes that had been made and thus have reverted it back again. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks RichardOSmith, but did you read the justification above? It makes perfect sense, it has been supported by wiki guidelines and also negates the changes that you are in agreement with?-JG (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have read it but I disagree. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks RichardOSmith, did you want to elaborate?-JG (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

See the section "Tightening up wording" above. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The commentary in "Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone" includes far more context and refers to the relevant wiki guidelines. Maybe it would be a good idea to re-review and post your thoughts here? -JG (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think, Jugdev, you need to engage in actual discussion the several other, disinterested, editors who have expressed concerns about the clarity of this article and who have made good-faith efforts to improve it. It's completely insufficient to say, in effect, "those edits are all no good" and revert them wholesale. In fact I'll go a step further and say that you really must engage the other editors, or you will find yourself blocked again, and for a period well longer than 48 hours. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks JohnInDC. Firstly, I am in engagement with anyone who would want to comment on this page. Secondly, I think it is rather one sided to suggest that I'm suggesting anything about the other edits. I have simply worked by the instructions at the top of the wiki page. Lastly, its a little unfair to threaten me with a block of any sort since I have not broken any guidelines. Back to topic, would it be more preferable if I were to go through the wiki and make all changes (as justified above) individually? I am still waiting for more context into why the wiki guidelines I quoted above have been abruptly disregarded.

-JG (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the article is not clear to readers, and everyone here but you feels it is, no commentary or appeals to policy can correct it. Trying to convince us 'why you are right to revert' is not the way to move forward here. Several issues have been brought up above your comments addressing those issues would be welcome. Jbh^Talk 19:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I cannot see anything here that suggests that the previous version breaks any guidelines. In fact it is more clear and coherent than the amended version (as noted by the note on the wiki page). I have responded to the comments that you refer to, but my commentary has not been addressed. It would be nice to see a coherent response on each of my points especially as I have done my utmost best to engage with everyone here -JG (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Put bluntly, it is full of nonsensical jargon and words put together in a way that make no coherent sense. There's serious discussion about a couple of instances in the section above but I think I could pluck just about any sentence out and make that observation. How about: "Technological innovation, an abundance of data, and liquidity in the media has [sic] given way to a more democratised process, which has changed the mechanics of transacting media in a manner that has never been possible before". What is "liquidity in the media"? And then you say they have "given way to a more democratised process" - so you're saying that "Technological innovation, an abundance of data, and liquidity in the media" have gone and been replaced by something else? What something else? It's a meaningless collection of random phrases! Then, when I do stumble upon a group of words I can make sense of, e.g.: "Ogilvy and Mather's ... 1981 venture, known as Teletext", I remember that Teletext dates back to the early 1970s and so I distrust the content there also. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks RichardOSmith. The items that you refer to as "nonsensical jargon" are either facts from books or journals, as opposed to little somethings that may have been plucked out of thin air. If we refer to the wiki guidelines, it has been suggested that “an encyclopaedia article about a chemical compound is expected to include properties of the compound, even if some of those properties are obscure to a general reader”… and it continues, “When trying to decide what amount of technical detail is appropriate to include, it may be helpful to compare with a standard reference work in the particular technical field to which the subject of the article belongs.” (WP:TECHNICAL). What this means is that we must address readers in the way that they are addressed in industry whilst taking into consideration the general reader -JG (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The article completely fails to address the general reader. The text, as written, is comprehensible only to someone well-versed in this area - if it is even comprehensible to them. (We have yet to see someone else come to defend these edits as generally meaningful.) More generally, when one or two or three experienced editors undertake to improve a page - detailing as they have the changes and reasons for the changes on the Talk page - it becomes incumbent on you to explain why their revisions are unsuitable. JohnInDC (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jugdev: If I could impose on you to please write a two or three sentence definition of what 'programmatic media' is in simple terms that would at least define the topic for us. Also if you would address whether 'programmatic media' is the same topic as 'programmatic buying'. If it is not then please provide some links to reliable sources that make use of the term. Without those sources I think the topic does not pass our general notability guidelines. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 21:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jbh for your involvement. The definition of programmatic media was noted in the original version of this article.

The term programmatic media (also known as programmatic marketing or programmatic advertising), encompasses an array of technologies that automate the buying, placement, and optimisation of media inventory, in turn replacing human-based methods. In this process, supply and demand partners utilise automated systems and business rules to place advertisements in electronically targeted media inventory. Please specifically ask if anything does not make sense and I will happily elaborate. -JG (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

References

@Jugdev: Thank you but what I was looking for is something simple like Programmatic media is the buying and selling of advertising streams. It is used for.... Programmatic buying replaces the old way of... etc What I am looking for are a couple of sentences in plain English using no jargon terms at all or if you use jargon then define the terms. Jbh^Talk 21:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jbh[[User_talk:Jbhunley|^Talk], in response, I am of the opinion that the example in the original article is in plain English. That said, with reference to your suggestion, I would elaborate as follows:

"Programmatic media is the buying and selling of advertising [space or media inventory]. It is used [to convey messages to individuals via multiple channels that include websites, newspapers, television channels, outdoor (i.e. bus stands, billboards) and radio. Programmatic buying replaces the old way of [buying media inventory directly from publishers, and media owners, allowing a data driven approach to media buying. -JG (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jugdev: That is great! That is the kind of language this article needs. After reading through the original text and some sources I had only a vague idea of the topic. What you just wrote makes it clear. An article written like that would be useful to people who have no idea about the topic before coming to the Wikipedia entry. Those are the people Wikipedia target. Jbh^Talk 22:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jbhunley, I will amend the opening paragraph. What are your thoughts on the other edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugdev (talk • contribs)

What I would suggest is to go through the article one paragraph as a time and rewrite it using the same jargon free/defined term style. Once there is clean text that anyone can understand we can clean up any awkward wording. Jbh^Talk 22:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jugdev: Rather than copying all of the text from a signature block you should use {{ping|UserName}} or {{u|UserName}} if you want to address a user or send them a notification. It is best if signatures, particularly ones with lots of html like mine be placed only at the end of a comment by the user. Thanks. PS for the notification feature (pings) to work you need to sign the edit with ~~~~ Jbh^Talk 23:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Jbhunley:. I'll go through the whole article and balance the text so that it equally appeals to both the general and technical readers. Appreciate your help. -JG (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jugdev: I would suggest that you not address technical readers at this time. They are not the target audience. It is always possible to make the article more technical if that is needed later. Jbh^Talk 23:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The article as edited by JG is not comprehensible either to the general reader or the specialist.

It is poorly written at every level: copy-edit issues like pleonasms "metrics that can be measured" and "algorithms that process information in an automated manner", commas between the subject and the verb, "it has been suggested that", "are both intrinsically interconnected", etc.; empty phrases like "The media is forever transforming."; unclear general structure and anacoluthons; and simple technical errors and inconsistencies ("attribution refers to how one would effectively analyse and optimise specific media inventory"). All wrapped up in marketing jargon.

JG, you are acting you own the article, not even accepting simple copyedits, let alone larger improvements. Several experienced editors have tried to improve it. Reverting to your own older version is not helpful. Perhaps you should be publishing your text in some place other than Wikipedia, because articles here don't "belong" to any individual editor. --Macrakis (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Macrakis, my commentary has still not been addressed. Everything that you refer to as jargon is standard language in the field in which the subject matter belongs. Feel free to amend any lazy errors etc - no use in commenting on anything but the facts here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugdev (talk • contribs) 21:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Jugdev, as I stated above, the time has come for you to address our concerns - not us, yours. You have to do better than, "your edits are wrong". JohnInDC (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

JG, when you revert even the simplest edits, such as making the lead sentence conform to WP:REFERS, I wonder what you mean by "I have done my utmost best to engage with everyone here". This is not your article, though you started it. In response to my original comment, you said "The remainder of your points are a matter of opinion and more about choice of wording - either way works." But though you say that "either way works", you insist on your phrasing. Above, you say "Feel free to amend any lazy errors etc", but that's exactly what we've been trying to do.

As for "my commentary has still not been addressed", I am not sure what you mean. I certainly agree that the article should go into detail at some point, but it needs to do so cogently. --Macrakis (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Revised intro

It now reads,

Programmatic media is the buying and selling of advertising space or media inventory. It is used to convey messages to individuals via multiple channels that include websites, newspapers, television channels, outdoor (i.e. bus stands, billboards) and radio. Programmatic buying replaces the old way of buying media inventory directly from publishers, and media owners, allowing a data driven approach to media buying. In this process, supply and demand partners use automated systems and business rules to place advertisements in electronically targeted media inventory.

This is an improvement, in that the sentences use common English words to convey meaning. But now while I understand the sentences, I'm still left without understanding what "programmatic media" is. It can't be simply "the buying and selling of advertising space" - that's been going on for centuries. It's a new approach to the process, I gather, but I am not sure what the new part is, or (if I did, I would fix it myself), how this new approach differs from any of the old ones. Then - it says that programmatic buying replaces the prior system of buying from publishers and media owners but does not say from whom the new system is purchasing advertising space. I appreciate the effort in improving this introduction but am still frustrated by the near complete lack of information being conveyed here. JohnInDC (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is a definition of 'Programmatic buying' from an academic paper

The real-time bidding (RTB), aka programmatic buying, has recently become the fastest growing area in online advertising. Instead of bulking buying and inventory-centric buying, RTB mimics stock exchanges and utilises computer algorithms to automatically buy and sell ads in real-time; It uses per impression context and targets the ads to specificpeople based on data about them, and hence dramatically increases the effectiveness of display advertising. From:"Real-time Bidding for Online Advertising: Measurement and Analysis" (PDF). {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 54 (help)

Jbh^Talk 23:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it is something like Foo has a bunch of ad space on FoodStore's web site but someone who is more likely to buy, based on some metrics, BobsBeer than Foo'sFood lands on a page. Instead of displaying a Foo'sFood ad they sell that ad space to Bob'sBeer. There is some 'market' that mediates these transactions between multiple advertisers who buy space based on *whatever*. Again, strong caveat, I think. Jbh^Talk 23:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I like that better, and have adapted it to the intro (trying to avoid too close a paraphrase). Really the lead is supposed to reflect text in the body of the article, but at this stage I am just trying to get the concepts straight in my head, and on the page, and later we can worry about those niceties. Comments? JohnInDC (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

We are still left of course with the problem that most sources seem to refer to "programmatic buying", not "media", and therefore the article may be misnamed. That too is for later. JohnInDC (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. I am hoping that as Jugdev works on de-jargoning we will end up with a better picture of what fits within the topic and and know the important elements ie have a proper skeleton to work from and be able do further source searches. This topic is way outside my areas of expertise. Jbh^Talk 00:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Jugdev: So I know your perspective, what is missing from JohnInDC's version of the intro that makes your's better? If you can briefly compare the two it would help us understand. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 00:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC) (PS Jugdev Stop marking all of your edits 'minor'. You have been warned about this twice by other editors about this today.) Jbh^Talk 00:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

^Talk 00:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Jbhunley:, thanks for your involvement. RTB is a sub discipline of programmatic media and does not account for it as a whole. It may not be useful to delve into RTB in the intro as programmatic media also entails PMP etc. I appreciate JohnInDC's reference btw. -JG (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Jugdev, you have to work with us here. I raised the issue of the intro here at Talk, Jbhunley offered up an alternative, I substituted it and explained why, right here; and in the edit summary said, "See Talk". You reverted, saying there had been "no explanation" for the edit. Your persistent edit warring called into question your willingness or ability to work collaboratively - and reversions like that, which seem to turn a blind eye to other editors' efforts to Talk, make it hard to continue to credit anything you might say. JohnInDC (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Jbhunley:, my revert has been reverted without a reasonable explanation. How would you suggest I deal with this without getting into an edit war? -JG (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The explanation is right here. The re-written intro did not say what programmatic media is. Jbhunley's alternative did, so I adapted it and inserted it. Your restored version, again, fails in its essential task. Please do not insist that I made this edit with "no reason". It insults both of us. JohnInDC (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are you still blowing off explanations with things like "PMC etc.". Has any of this discussion mislead you to believe that anyone here knows what the fuck that means?!!?? Show a source with the definition you want to use. The text in the lead JohnInDC wrote is linked to a source, what you wrote was not. Without a sourced definition of what this article is about I will nominate it for AfD for failure to meet general notability guidelines or simply WP:BOLDly stub it and move it to Programmatic buying which is something we do have a RS definition for. Jbh^Talk 00:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"Has any of this discussion mislead you to believe that anyone here knows what the fuck that means?" Please refer to the original version of this article for references - it makes sense and appears to be coherent in terms of the facts that are conveyed. I will obviously ignore your language... -JG (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Jugdev has, for the second time, reverted to his version of the intro that at least two editors agree does not actually describe the subject of the article. Jugdev cites a "key distinction" that the new text purportedly overlooks, but rather than edit the new intro to include this distinction, he restores the old one. This is not collaborative editing, but editing warring, and I'll be posting at the 3RR noticeboard. JohnInDC (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No it does not and you repeating that it does will not make it so. You have had three or four editors say the article, as originally written, was a complete mess. I have asked you several times to avoid jargon because none of the terms you are using here or in the article have been defined in such a way that any of the other editors here can understand them. That you continue to do so is bordering on disruptive.

I am almost completely convinced that the term 'Programmatic media' as you are trying to describe it is entirely original research. Please present a independent reliable source which defines the specific term "Programmatic media" and show a few sources that use that specific term. Based on what I have read in the article and what I can find online you have conflated "Real time buying" aka "Programmatic buying" with "PMC's etc" and made up a term "Programmatic media" because you are saying that the definition we have for "Programmatic buying" is different, in some jargony way, from "Programmatic media" yet the sources I find refer only to "Programmatic buying" . Without reliable sources discussing the topic in a significant manner the topic fails Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Jbh^Talk 01:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

+++ User:Jbhunley, the article contained independent references that defined programmatic media. Programmatic media is an overarching term. RTB is a programmatic function. The new version is good, but lacks detail. Programmatic media is the official term used in industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugdev (talk • contribs) +++

I think the problem is that the old version of the article reads like it was machine translated from a source that heavily used buzzwords. Do a Google search for "linear attribution hypothesis", and you get three hits: this Wikipedia article and two mirrors. Do a Google search for "linear attribution model", and you get plenty of hits. The use of phrases like this is one more reason that the article needs to be completely rewritten from scratch. Too much of it was incoherent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Stubbed article

I have stubbed back the article so it can just talk about the ad trading environment. I have no objection to adding similar material back once we have the article in better shape and we can see what the sources say about these interrelationships. Jbh^Talk 01:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the connection between the subject matter and the Attribution and Optimisation section was not altogether clear, and I do not object to building the article back from the ground up. This is particularly so inasmuch as trying to improve what is here does not seem to be a productive strategy right now. JohnInDC (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio issues:

• "Big Data" section looks to have been copyvio of [2]
• Jugdev's lead seems to ve copyvio of [3] / [4] / [5]

Jbh^Talk 03:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure those aren't web sites quoting from Wikipedia? A couple of the latter ones appear to be that; I couldn't get a couple others to come up. JohnInDC (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm.... The 'Big Data' link was wrong, it should be [6] for the Copyvio report. I can not get to the page itself but the context from the report does not look like a mirror. You might be right on the 'Introduction' though - the big WIKIPEDIA on the page seems to be a clue I missed! Struck that part. Thanks. Jbh^Talk 03:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I see what Jugdev is trying to do with the this article, he just got bogged down in jargon and defining the ecosystem. Since we have articles on most of the components we can use this as a high level and integrative description of "Programmatic media buying" and discuss the effects it is having on the marketplace rather than using it as a place to repeat material we have in other articles. I need to read some more to see if I can get a handle on it, I am still not fully convinced that this can not be contained in Real-time bidding since there looks to be a lot of overlap. Maybe "Real time bidding" is the mechanism by which the idea of "Programmatic media buying" is done. Does this make sense? Jbh^Talk 13:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

These are a couple of sources which seem to go into some detail. The first is from an academic publisher, I am not sure about the second but at first look it seems OK.

• Diaz Nesamoney (1 April 2015). Personalized Digital Advertising: How Data and Technology Are Transforming How We Market. Pearson Education. ISBN 978-0-13-403010-4.
• Faris Yakob (3 April 2015). Paid Attention: Innovative Advertising for a Digital World. Kogan Page. ISBN 978-0-7494-7361-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Jbh^Talk 14:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Propose move

I can find no real sources on "Programmatic media". I do find sources on "Programmatic media buying", "Programmatic buying", "Programmatic advertising" and "Programmatic". This article will never go anywhere until the actual topic of the article is identified so we can then identify proper sources.

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I propose we choose use either "Programmatic buying" or "Programmatic", which some sources seem to use on its own, as the name of the article. Jbh^Talk 01:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't just use "Programmatic", because the word could have meaning outside the advertising context, and I am not confident that the ad usage is the principal one. (Heck, I hadn't heard of any of this a week ago.) So I'd favor "Programmatic buying" or - if we could stretch to get to it - "Programmatic media buying", because that right there gives a good head start on what the thing actually is. But if the former term is the one that is more commonly used, I guess I'd go with that. Also, it's funny to see that there are lots of Wikipedia / media images linked there. I wonder if (oh no) there's already a suitable article on this under a different name? Hah! Let's wait a bit before a move though, and see if others have anything to say. JohnInDC (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. "Programmatic media buying" seems to be the best based on GScholar and GBooks results. "Programmatic buying" might just be intermediate 'shorthand' before getting to the shortest "Programmatic" which seems to be more of a buzzword. No objection to waiting for other input. Jbh^Talk 02:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

+++ User:Jbhunley, the article contained independent references that defined programmatic media. Programmatic media is an overarching term. RTB is a programmatic function. The new version is good, but lacks detail. Programmatic media is the official term used in industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugdev (talk • contribs) +++

Hmmm.... maybe Real-time bidding is the best name for the topic... Gahhhh.... Jbh^Talk 02:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that's funny. I thought there might be something else knocking about! At least now I know what RTB is, hah. Maybe a redirect is the thing now - though Jugdev keeps saying that RTB is just a subset of "programmatic media". So maybe not. JohnInDC (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

RTB is a subset of programmatic media: "Programmatic ads are purchased via two main methods: real-time bidding (RTB) and programmatic direct." [7], so let's not redirect hastily. --Macrakis (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No, indeed. Thanks for that. Can you add that distinction to the article somewhere? It's stated with a clarity that has been lacking to this point! JohnInDC (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking, maybe move this to "Programmatic media buying" and create redirects at the others (though God knows they probably already exist). Thoughts? Also, man, what about all those redirects. JohnInDC (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with Programmatic media buying (Looks like it is already one of the redirects) and a redirect from Programmatic (advertising) because I see it referred to as just Programmatic in a lot of media sources so readers may look for that. As to the mass of redirects I would suggest deleting them all through a bulk RfD and then re-creating any that may be appropriate. My first thought when I saw all of the redirects was that they were an attempt to capture any potential term either due to an abundance of zeal or part of a branding campaign. Jbh^Talk 13:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Rewriting the article in layman's terms as agreed above

I have re-written the article in layman's terms following a conversation with User:Jbhunley above. This has been reverted by JohnInDC prior to me adding anything on the talk page. They key changes include rewritten sections so that they address the general reader - key technical items still remain. User:Jbhunley can this behaviour be branded as edit warring? Happy to leave a warning on JohnInDC but I feel that he may have missed the conversation between you and I... -JG (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: What Jugdev posted is a rewrite with the jargon taken out that I asked him to do yesterday so we would have a comprehensible starting point. I do think it is more readable than the original and is at least as reasonable starting off point as what we had before.

I am still concerned about the title, redirects and how this article intersects with Real-time bidding ie whether they are the same topic or not but I have no issue working from Jugdev's new draft until we figure it all out. Jbh^Talk 15:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. TBH the new version, to my eyes, just reintroduces a lot of the cluttery jargon that afflicted the original, without really making things a lot clearer. But as I said below, I do not want to stand in the way of progress on the article if you (or anyone!) is comfortable proceeding in that way. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments on rewrite

(edit conflict) That is much better and much more readable. Thank you. The one issue that pops out is that "media" as it is used here is not ever defined and the initial link to media spaces does more to confuse than elucidate. Can you please include something that explains 'what' is being traded for the really dense like me? The top level take-away I get from this is

[Add space] (I assume this is "media" if not what is "media"?) is traded among websites in real time to place individualized ads in front of users who are more likely to respond to them. This process uses data collected through user tracking data to determine the ad to serve based on who will view it. This used to be done [manually] (Maybe something which describes "manually" would help with contrast). Now Programmatic media buying automates the process by using algorithmic trading of ads and ad space using an infrastructure much like [stock market]/[futures market] and programmed trading

Is this on target. If not, how not. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 15:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I reverted Jugdev's wholesale revision because it appeared, to me, to simply restore the original version of the article with what appeared to be limited adjustments to the language. I would prefer to discuss his proposed edits in chunks and gain consensus on those rather than through large scale edits. That being said, either is time-consuming and if, Jb, you're willing to go with Jugdev's approach, please restore his revised version. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we crossed our edits. I reverted back to the new version. Since I ripped out many of the sections in the article last night I think it is as good of a starting place as any. Kind of an outline. As I said in a section above I think what Jegdev is trying to describe is the 'ecosystem' of PMB so those sections I took out are needed. That said I agree we should go through these edits one at a time I just prefer to have them in one place so the whole thing is easier to understand. Jbh^Talk 15:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. That's fine. I'll try to work with you guys on that. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jugdev: Is my 'dummies summary' accurate? Because I have no expertise in this topic I will often paraphrase my understanding of something in the article to make sure I am not missing something. If you can comment - in the simplest terms possible - on how I am right or wrong it will help a lot and will hopefully lead to better ways to present the information to our readers. Thanks. Jbh^Talk 16:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the wholesale revert to Jugdev's old version. Several of us have tried to improve various sections of the article, and all those improvements are gone. I have re-edited the Internet of Things section and question the relevance of Teletext in all this, but I don't see why everyone else's edits were thrown out. --Macrakis (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• @JohnInDC: Do you have any comments on what I think this is about? Do you have a different understanding or better yet can you think of a better way of saying it? Cheers. Jbh^Talk 16:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this for the intro? I kind of liked the direction it had begun to take before the restoration, where it said, broadly, what the term meant (we could add that it has two separate components - RTB and what was the other - programmatic direct?) and that the automated process allows for more efficient and targeted ad purchases than other (often human-based) methods. JohnInDC (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it is just to make sure we all, me in particular, know what "Programmatic media" is. Also "media" seems to be used in a jargony way that needs to be addressed. I also want to establish this is something different from Real-time bidding. I think I have the general idea but figured I would ask and see whether/how I missed the mark. Jbh^Talk 16:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Response to comments on rewrite

Thank you for your response User_talk:Jbhunley I am in agreement with your concern regarding media space or media inventory not being clear enough on the page. In fact, I created a page that described media inventory which has been redirected to media space - unrelated page. Further, much of the edit history on media inventory has vanished. Should I rewrite? Here's an amended version of your suggestion: Media space or media inventory is traded among websites, newspapers, television, outdoor billboards and radio. The process works in real time to place ads in front of users who are more likely to respond to them. Collections of data on user tracking (or big data) are used to determine where to serve the ad. This was once all done manually where sales individuals would actively engage in selling their media inventory to advertisers. Programmatic media automates the buying and selling process by using an algorithmic infrastructure much like [stock market]/[futures market] and programmed trading. -JG (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The current article Media space is about a kind of Collaborative workspace; in fact, I just added a mergeto tag to merge it in.

The previous article on media inventory was incorrectly merged into media space. I created a new place for it, Media space (advertising), which now contains the content about advertising. It should be moved to Advertising inventory, but that article already exists (as a redirect to media space -- was the wrong one, now fixed).

A big mess. So, an admin is needed to move media space (advertising) to Advertising inventory despite the existing content. --Macrakis (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Flag Macrakis Change to IoT section without justification

Macrakis has changed a large chunk of the Internet of Things section (again), which had been rewritten following a conversation with User_talk:Jbhunley. This revert has been made on numerous occasions - would an edit warning on Macrakis|talk be appropriate (as opposed to getting into another edit war)? I will revert. -JG (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I see no problem with the change. Your rewrite is a starting point for other editors to work from. You need to get the idea you have content approval of the article right out of your head - that is not how Wikipedia works. If someone makes a change you disagree with go to the talk page and clearly explain what you think the problem is. You have been told that many many many times. I am clad you are not just reverting but you now must work with other editors to improve the article. The way you do that is by clear communication on the talk page and citing particular sections of sources to demonstrate your point. PS Stop marking all of your edits minor! Jbh^Talk 19:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User_talk:Jbhunley, key information regarding IoT has been removed without any mention on the talk page. I have been in conversation with you for a while and I am hoping that my good faith edits are not coming across as you describe above.

-JG (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

JG, you claim that the IoT section has been "rewritten following a conversation with User_talk:Jbhunley". Could you point me to that conversation? I don't see it, and apparently neither does Jbhunley (see his comment dated 19:14, 5 October 2015 above).

You use the explanation "key information regarding IoT has been removed" for everything; you need to be more specific. What "key information" do you have in mind? The name of the originator of the term "Internet of Things"? In what way is that "key information" for this article?

Even if we should keep the info about the coiner of the term, your blind revert has restored two other corrections I made to that passage:

• Changing from a discussion about the "term" 'Internet of Things' to just the thing itself (I have mentioned WP:REFERS before).
• Putting a period between the subject and the verb of this sentence.

Your editing continues to be uncollaborative. --Macrakis (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is Wikipedia is a collaborative project ie you write something and other editors improve on it to make it a better Wikipedia article. This may involve rewording or even removing material that is not essential to the article and/or that is covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia. You have made a good start on an article but there is still room for considerable improvement. By contesting every change you are disrupting the editing process. If you disagree with a change you need to clearly state why the article is worse off with the change. That is all that matters is the article better or worse you may and should state your opinion on that but you also must accept the consensus arrived at by the editors on the article. Sometimes people agree sometimes not, sometimes they accept your view,sometimes not. That is how Wikipedia works. Jbh^Talk 19:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I restored the shorter edited version of Internet of Things. The origin of the term is not particularly relevant, and the more direct sentence structure of the replacement version more clearly describes the relationship between the data gathered via the Internet of Things to the improved advertising efficiency that it makes possible. I also removed clumsy phrases like, "This is because ..." and just stated the reason directly. Let's work off of this version, please. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I woud add too, Jugdev, that your restored version of "Internet of Things" was not an "agreed version" at all. You and Jbhunley agreed that you would try to rewrite the article with an eye to the less technically savvy reader. You did that, and, while in my view the (lightly) revised version suffers most of the same flaws as the version you had in place a week ago, you did make the effort to revise it. But that is the beginning of the process, not the end. The revised version you proffered is just a newer draft of the article, and is as subject to revision, cleaning up, condensation, copy editing, as any other. So please stop reverting sensible, well-intentioned and - in my view entirely competent - edits by others who undertake to improve the article. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Internet of Things

Thanks for your edits. We are all stagnating once again. The whole article has been re-written in layman's terms, without compromising the technical reader. Please read notes above. In relation to IoT, guidelines suggest that technical terms and acronyms should be explained clearly when they are first introduced. The IoT explanation allows some context on its importance to the subject area. This is useful for the less knowledgeable reader in addition to those with some technical knowledge due to the real world examples. With reference to the guidelines, “A concrete example can help to contextualize the abstract content for many readers”. It is also acceptable to “use analogies to describe a subject in everyday terms.” (WP:TECHNICAL) Please explain precisely why the particular facts are continuously deleted without a sensible justification? -JG (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The origins of the Internet of Things are far removed from Programmatic media. In fact, the IoT paragraph could probably be made even clearer like this:

Networked sensors (the Internet of Things) allow advertisers access to...

That is, rather than starting with the buzzword Internet of Things, say clearly what we're talking about ... networked sensors. This makes it even clearer that the invention of the buzzword is completely peripheral. --Macrakis (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The section is not about the Internet of Things, and could be cleaner still. JohnInDC (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I edited the text along those lines, and agree it is clearer still. JohnInDC (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are the origins of IoT removed from programmatic media? The Internet of Things is a technical term - it would be absurd to replace with a non related buzzword. I am not sure if it is clearer... Please response to the questions above to clear things up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugdev (talk • contribs)

Teletext

Article reads:

Mechanised media placement dates back as far as the 1970s venture, known as Teletext, which entailed the broadcast of print material on television sets equipped with a special decoder that utilised binary code. Programmatic media has built on this framework with an algorithmic method of transacting cross-media.

Do we have any evidence that Teletext had any kind of targeting of ads? If so, a reliable source would be in order. Just presenting ads in electronic media is not "programmatic media buying". --Macrakis (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I still have no clear idea how Teletext is the precursor of the algorithmic system employed by programmatic media buying, and would leave in the relevance template, which has been removed 3x without discussion. Meanwhile I have edited the lead in sentence to make it clear that the connection, if any, is between Teletext and the present, not Ogligy-Mather. It's cleaner and more direct. JohnInDC (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

To remove any uncertainty here - Jugdev, please explain what the connection is between the (apparently automatic) display by Teletext of messages on a TV screen and the real-time, shifting, computerized purchase and sale of ads that characterizes programmatic media buying. If it isn't anything more than, "neither involves a fixed medium, such as print", then in my view the connection is too tenuous to include and I will take it out. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how this fits with the rest of the article. Teletext was an entirely one-way broadcast; the originator had no feedback of which pages were being read and no ability to tailor content either in real time or for specific users. RichardOSmith (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It is an example of how mechanised media came into play- to allow the general readers more context through a popular example. The amended version is far more cryptic than the previous edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugdev (talk • contribs)

The "amended version" which you describe as "cryptic" expressly identified the conceptual link between Teletext and the subject matter, and stated a date in keeping with the linked Teletext article - your version says 1981, but the article sets the date much earlier (an error that had been pointed out to you earlier). The "amended version" also removed an unnecessary and cluttery reference to Oglivy & Mather, which is not mentioned at all in the linked article. The "amended version" is clearer, more accurate, and less cluttered, but you summarily reverted it, claiming that I had removed a "technical link". (NB, this is not the first time you have restored the incorrect and extraneous information - see at least this edit.) You are dead wrong about this, your reasons are in coherent, and going forward I ask that you discuss each of your edits here at Talk to see if you can gain consensus for them. JohnInDC (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with your commentary above. The technical link being the link with the company that created the concept of teletext... Please my first comment regarding this at the top of the talk page as it is very clear about everything that we are in conversation about. -JG (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please explain the discrepancy between the text you repeatedly introduce, and the linked article to Teletext. Which is wrong? JohnInDC (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Twice (three times?) this morning, Jugdev has ignored the foregoing and restored his preferred, and to all eyes, incorrect version. I am not going to risk a 3RR problem myself and am done reverting. JohnInDC (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, three: one, two, three. JohnInDC (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

JohnInDC please do not delete my comments from the talk page. Once again - Please read the talk page in full before reverting anymore edits. You are getting close to your 3RR limit -JG (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Jugdev, can you direct me to any Talk page comment of yours that I deleted? I've gone back over the past 12 hours - about 18 edits by editors other than you - and can't find it. If you don't know how to offer up a diff, just tell me the time and date of the edit so I can examine it (and apologize if that's what I did). I have signed several of your comments, because you pretty consistently fail to do so, but I haven't to my knowledge removed any. So please clear that up for me. Also, while we're on this subject, I note than in adding the (originally unsigned) comment above, you did remove a Talk page comment of mine, diff here.

So, back to Teletext and its relevance here. Is there any suggestion that the ads placed on Teletext machines ("terminals"?) were selected by anything other than traditional manual methods? That is to say, was there anything actually "mechanized" about the placement process? I understand that the medium was electronic and therefore ephemeral; and that the text to be displayed was transmitted as code rather than as - I don't know, film (as contemporaneous and equally ephemeral TV ads were), but beyond that, what's "mechanical" about Teletext? I'm going to look at the linked article and see what I can turn up, but if anyone else has any insights, please share them! Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, according to The Review according to Wikipedia there is "Programmatic Media: The Future of Media Buying".. It scares me that this article is a major resource for this topic within the industry. Other than that I'm still looking. I found one mention that Teletext is still being used and it has banner ads but that is modern, not RS and says nothing about any historical roots PMB has in Teletext. Jbh^Talk 18:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Teletext was a broadcast medium, that is, every user gets the same content. The illusion of interactivity comes from being able to choose which page to display. Since it is a broadcast medium, there is no targeting of content to individuals or classes of individuals. Thus it has no relevance to programmatic media buying (as I suggested in my comment of 23:51, 5 October 2015 above and my tag in the article). There is no reason to mention Teletext on this page. --Macrakis (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Macrakis: Ahh... now I am confused... I thought Teletext was the service in France that the phone company provided. As I recall it had its own terminal and modem provided and was a text based service kind of like GEnie. Is that something else or maybe another thing by the same name?? Jbh^Talk 19:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I do, however, agree that there is no reason to mention it here. All of the references I have found tying the two together can be traced back to this article. Jbh^Talk 19:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you are thinking of Minitel. I think teletext was much more popular in the UK than the US so I'll describe the UK services for anyone who may not have known about them. "Teletext machines" were television sets. All the terrestrial analogue channels (three when teletext first became available in the 70s; five by the time it was superseded) carried a teletext service which most TVs (certainly from the 80s onwards) were equipped to receive. Each available page was transmitted in turn in a continuous cycle (with some pages being transmitted more frequently) along with the analogue TV programme, to every receiver. When you switched to teletext mode and selected a particular page the TV would wait for that page to come round and display it when it did. The pages were not delivered on demand. You could then select other pages using page numbers or one of four different links displayed on the page using coloured buttons on the remote control (I don't think the latter was there from the start; I guess it was a very early form of hyper-linking because each page could nominate four different pages to go to next). Being able to choose which page to display was analogous to being able to choose which page of a newspaper to turn to and using this example, each newspaper page was transmitted in sequence and you'd have to wait for the page you wanted to arrive. As teletext was transmitted with the TV signal it was an entirely one way broadcast. Here is a screenshot of a typical page from the ORACLE (teletext) service on ITV which did include a banner advert: [8] - though the limited screen size meant that most pages (IIRC) had no adverts and certainly neither of the BBC channels carried advertising at all. Whilst I'm not convinced that any of this belongs in this article, notice that the banner ad in the example shows a page number which you could select if you were interested - therefore you could make the claim that whilst the banner was not itself in any way targeted, the user could decide whether or not to "click through". It might be worth exploring whether this is what Jugdev was alluding to. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I suppose if Teletext could capture user preferences as expressed in their click-throughs (as it were), and it were used that way to adapt the material being presented - well, maybe that's a conceptual connection. But of course us sitting here and seeing that connection is just OR until we can find a reliable source that draws that parallel too. The bottom line is that the Teletext info (including the 1981 launch), the Oglivy connection, and the pertinence of Teletext to the subject at hand are all unsourced, and in large measure contradicted by the free-standing Teletext article. So on the whole I can't see a reason, other than Jugdev's insistence, for keeping the material in. JohnInDC (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

There was no feedback, the teletext service could not capture anything (other than by having someone from the company come round to your house and watch you use it, I guess). RichardOSmith (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you. That clears things up. Not sure why I conflated the two. I am not sure where the Teletext/Programmatic tie-in comes from. Maybe it is as simple as Ogilvy starting a marketing firm Interactive Marketing Group/OgilvyOne. Jbh^Talk 19:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

General cleanup and clarification

I have been revising the various subsections one by one to employ direct, active voice sentences that lead straight into the subject of the heading and describe how the heading relates to, enables, or interacts with programmatic media buying. Jugdev, I insist that if I have glossed over some technical nuance or slightly misstated something, that you make the correction to the new text, rather than reverting it with an unhelpful summary like "no explanation", "contrary to Talk", or "contains technical errors". There will be no progress on this article until you learn to build upon the edits of others (as I am doing here), rather than simply undoing them and tweaking them to your liking. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The section below seems to show that Jugdev has no intention of working collaboratively with you on this. RichardOSmith (talk) 06:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

FYI to all editors involved with this article: Jugdev posted this to DR/N. As no specific editors were mentioned and no notice was posted to any participants the issue has been closed with an invite to re-file correctly. Jugdev - if you plan to do that I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG if you are not familiar with it. RichardOSmith (talk) 06:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Revert without reference to the talk page

RichardOSmith, Edits have been made on the page in question. Items that have been deleted from this talk page also. I ask you to kindly review the actions of other editors before assuming that I have engaged in any form of vandalism. Edit warnings have been left on the profiles concerned. -JG (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI/Disruptive editing

This has become ridiculous. Jugdev several editors have attempted to improve this article and work with you. You have continued to edit war and disrupt all attempts to improve this article to maintain your, very poor quality, version of this article. I believe that, since discussion with you is pointless, that it is necessary to have you either page banned from this article or subject to a long block so other editors can work here without your disruption. I will, as time permits today , write an ANI request for such a ban.

If other editors feel Jugdev should be given one more chance to work collaboratively please let me know and I will hold off. Jbh^Talk 13:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I have been as helpful as possible with my good faith edits, even when you abused me with foul language. All I would like is an opinion of another as my commentary is being continually deleted. -JG (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I have already noted that my comments have been addressed. I have raised a dispute as noted earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugdev (talk • contribs)

C.Fred had been keeping an eye on the page and I have asked him to drop in and take stock of the situation. See User_talk:C.Fred#Programmatic_media. I would not discourage the filing of an ANI but note this in case you want to save yourself the immediate trouble. His comments are sure to be instructive. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I will wait, barring more revert/disruption by Jugdev, and see how C.Fred handles things. I hate the idea of going to ANI but I have prepped a complaint on one of my scratchpads if simpler things fail. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 14:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

An ANI is a pain for all involved, but at this point, probably less of a pain than dealing with Jugdev on this page. Three of us (JohnInDC, Jbhunley, and myself) have been trying to constructively edit the article, and Jugdev has been edit warring tooth and nail against these edits. Several other editors (RichardOSmith, NinjaRobotPirate, ...) have agreed that Jugdev's edits have not been constructive and reverted them.

Besides the edit warring and ownership issues, Jugdev has persistently ignored Wikipedia norms, including:

• deleting content on Talk pages [9][10]
• calling obviously good-faith material vandalism [11][12]
• systematically not signing Talk page contributions despite multiple reminders [13]
• trying to intimidate other editors by putting vandalism [14][15][16], disruptive editing [17], and 3RR templates [18] on their talk pages
• marking most of his edits as "minor" despite multiple reminders [19]

Generally, his editing has been disruptive and uncollegial.

I won't go on any further because I see that User:NeilN has now given him a one-week block. --Macrakis (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources for later

Expansion of PM reach

• Kaye, Kate. "Programmatic Buying Coming to the Political Arena in 2016". Advertizing Age.
• "The Dawn of Programmatic TV Ad Trading?". Exchange Wire.

Fraud in PM

• "The CMO's Guide to Programmatic Buying". Advertizing Age. Conservative estimates place the level of fraud in the ballpark of 10%; others say it's much higher. Much of the fraud is occurring in the programmatic ecosystem, where an opaque marketplace is allowing insidious actors to list networks of shell websites, flood them with non-human traffic and cash in order to defraud advertisers.
• "Ad fraud and bad data puts ITV off a programmatic future". Meditel Newsline.
• "Programmatic ad fraud deterring TV industry from the space, says ITV commercial director Simon Daglish". The Drum.

Attribution models

One. I think the list is much better as reformatted and cleaned up. Thanks. Two. It would be nice to define "touchpoint" somewhere - I think the context tells pretty well what it is, but it is still a bit technical, and a definition might not hurt. Three, maybe trumping the first two - is there any reason to provide an entirely separate, and divergent, list of attribution models than what already appears (more clearly expressed) in the main article, here - Attribution_(marketing)#Attribution_models? JohnInDC (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

JohnInDC, NinjaRobotPirate, thanks for your work on this section, which indeed has improved it a lot! I agree with JohnInDC that this content should be merged into the main article, and the section reduced to a brief (one-paragraph) summary. --Macrakis (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm agnostic about the actual content itself, but the way it was written was incredibly opaque. I don't think I could have made it any more confusing if I had actively tried. I agree that attribution (marketing) is more concise, and maybe we should just link there. But I'm don't have strong opinions about that. As far as I can tell this section is more-or-less a rehash of this Google Analytics help page, and it seems like a near-copyvio. I mentioned the Google help page earlier, but I forgot it extensively used "in X model, Y receives credit", so my wording unwittingly pushed it even further toward theirs. That was unintentional, though I guess there are only so many ways to word an obvious sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I remembered that link you'd offered, and was thinking of visiting it for pointers but - remembering how concise it was - fretted about falling into the same trap that you did! So I dunno. If we can't do a creditable job of summarizing then maybe just a wikilink with a 2 sentence summary of what the other end shows.

While we're on the subject though, I am having trouble figuring out exactly what's getting "attributed". Is it attribution for purposes of paying the advertiser ("my customer clicked on your link first, so here's the money"), or, for figuring out what actually motivated the purchase? Under the former, a model makes sense. "We pay based on the first interaction model." If the latter then it would seem a bit odd to simply postulate / hypothesize / model an attribution - wouldn't you study it instead, to figure out how to "attribute" your sales and thereby "optimize" your ad placement? It's really remarkable that, having spent a week with this article, this stuff is still unclear - JohnInDC (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Attribution isn't used to calculate the cost of the ad to the advertiser, but its value to the advertiser. If I determine that my typical buyer has seen two TV ads for my product, three Web banner ads, and then clicks on a search ad three times before actually buying the product on my site, what is the value of each of those ads? Presumably it is non-zero, otherwise I should stop spending on them. Of course, this is all estimated, because there is no direct cause-and-effect ("I know half my advertising budget is wasted, but I don't know which half.").

When you can connect an ad directly to a user action (click-through then purchase, say), one pricing model is cost per action. --Macrakis (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Still then - is "model" the right term? I think of a "model" as something that approximates an observable reality (or I guess, a reality that one day will be observable), such that the efficacy of the model is measured by how well it reflects or re-creates the reality. But in this case the "value" of an ad to the advertiser isn't known, meaning that the "model" is really more of an educated guess, a supposition based on (reasonable) assumptions - in other words, a "hypothesis". Here it seems, the approximation is the reality. Or one of several best guesses at it. Help me out here, argh! JohnInDC (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I may be contributing to the confusion here by using "model" in two different ways. "Attribution model" is the standard industry term for a mathematical model assigning value to different marketing activities. It's true that it is hard to validate the model, but you can certainly perform experiments to improve your estimate, e.g., stopping an ad campaign for a few weeks and see what happens.

When I talk about a "pricing model", I'm using it to mean "a framework for defining the commercial relation between buyer and seller of ads" a.k.a. a revenue model (also a standard industry term). Other pricing models are cost per click, commission, etc. --Macrakis (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. So - article perhaps aside, who decides, or how is a particular attribution model used, in one case versus another? Or are these all just available to the advertiser as different ways of slicing up the same data, with an eye to figuring out which particular cut works best for you? This is really interesting and I'm just trying to figure out who uses these tools, who gets to decide which tools are used, and what may drive the choice. (If you get sick of tutoring me, please say so, eh?) Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Which model to use presumably depends on:

• What data you can collect: can you correlate a given sequence of ad impressions with a conversion, even through multiple channels and different times?

("conversion" means some desired event, e.g., a sale, registering your email address, referring a friend, making an appointment with a salesperson, whatever)

• How sophisticated you are in big data handling and statistical modeling.
• Whether the people with the advertising budget understand and accept the model.

--Macrakis (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 (copied from User Talk:Jugdev)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Programmatic media. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. In particular, that nonsense about 1981 Teletext and Oglivy & Mather. It has been thoroughly discussed at the article Talk page. I'm giving you a level 3 warning in light of your intractability on this on other points. JohnInDC (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

just to reiterate, previous changes have been copied from programmatic media history as posted below (Inclusive of Sources). Are you able to elaborate on your commentary just in case we have gotten our wires crossed? If not can you please revert the changes that you may have accidentally reverted? It would be better to have this conversation on the programmatic media talk page as it may not be a matter of unsourced material after all.

Algo section

It has been suggested that the interactive media division of WPP Group's Ogilvy and Mather (now known as Neo@Ogilvy), has the deepest roots in terms of exploring mechanised media. Their 1981 venture, known as Teletext, entailed the broadcast of print material on television sets equipped with a special decoder that utilised binary code. Programmatic media has built on this digital framework with an algorithmic method of transacting cross-media.

IOT section

The Internet of Things is simply a network of sensors that allow advertisers access to a variety of user data (e.g. temperature readings, status updates, location co-ordinates, and check ins) relating to user actions outside of the traditional media space. A unique digital fingerprint can be generated through everyday tasks (i.e. via temperature readings, status updates, location co-ordinates, and check in's) resulting in an increased opportunity to gather data, or big data, relating to how users consume within particular digital environments. The term was first coined by Kevin Ashton, in the United Kingdom, in 1999.

-JG (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Jugdev, I am not going to start yet another discussion about these subjects. They are covered ad nauseam above. Go back and read what the other editors have said about these topics - for instance the observations that Teletext predates 1981; that the existing Wikipedia article Teletext doesn't even mention O&M; and that the statement that Teletext permitted the broadcast of "print material on television sets" is a contradiction in terms. JohnInDC (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

In response to the pre edit warring accusation

An interesting reference about the history of algorithmic advertising has been overlooked (inclusive of page number). Do you agree that this is a relevant source. If so, the the rationale for the revert by User:JohnInDC is redundant? In my opinion, we mustn't "dumb" the subject down for the benefit of the uninterested... User_talk:Jbhunley Would you be kind enough to review the reference and put your thoughts down on this page? -JG (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Criticisms Section - feel free to tweak (fully referenced as per usual)

The process of programmatic media has become a prominent platform and is evolving at an exponential rate. As suggested by Nick Couldry and Alson Powell, a focus on transparency could begin to foreground notions of accountability in data calculation, ownership, use and thus posit a social approach to the construction and use of such data and related analytics. Damien Tambini, further discusses the normative-legal concepts of media pluralism (as known in Europe) or media diversity (in the US) to capture challenges, and suggests that self-regulation is part of the solution.

Thank you for bringing this to Talk first. But I would not add this text, as written, into a new Criticisms section. The first sentence reads like someone's essay on the subject, not an encyclopedia article; and the claim it in is unsourced. The second sentence is impenetrable - I have no idea what it is trying to say. Nor do I know why Couldry and Powell need to be cited by name in the text. The third sentence is equally inscrutable. I honestly can't tell if this is criticism, compliment or just commentary. JohnInDC (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Teletext redux & responses to the commentary from 4th October 2015

With all due respect JohnInDC - I am still waiting for your response regarding your previous accusation - which was not justified and clearly misplaced. I have questions and concerns about your literacy skills - key skills required on Wikipedia. -JG (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I responded above. You deleted the comment. JohnInDC (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Not apparent in the history section - Did you want to reiterate? -JG (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It is eminently apparent in the history section, right here. JohnInDC (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Clash? Did you want to reiterate? Please address all comments as opposed to responding half halfheartedly -JG (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, no and no. I am not going to sit here and retype comments and observations that other editors and I have already laboriously offered concerning the text that was the subject of my "accusation". Go read it. JohnInDC (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Understood JohnInDC, I'll just re-emphasise my earlier opinion regarding the skills required to contribute towards the more technical articles on wikipedia. -JG (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

response to JohnInDC (there may have been another clash as the article had been updated whilst I wrote the sentences below)

- As noted in section "Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone" above: When thinking about how to make articles more understandable, we must not assume that detailed technical content should be removed. An excerpt from the wiki guidelines suggests that “an encyclopaedia article about a chemical compound is expected to include properties of the compound, even if some of those properties are obscure to a general reader”… and it continues, “When trying to decide what amount of technical detail is appropriate to include, it may be helpful to compare with a standard reference work in the particular technical field to which the subject of the article belongs.” (WP:TECHNICAL) Another guideline suggests that we must not “oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable. Encyclopaedia articles should not [give] readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when what they then understand is wrong.” (WP:OVERSIMPLIFY) These guidelines appear to disregard the opinion that we must only address the general readers within this article - i.e your comments on the criticisms section. The guidelines also invalidate your earlier revert on the Algorithmic and IOT sections. My opinion: We are left with a choice to either "water" this article down to the point that we extract any relevance it may have to the technical or academic reader or include the references above (and the ones that were reverted earlier) to accommodate both technical and general readers. -JG (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Rather than throw up a wall of generic text, please address the issues, repeatedly noted above, concerning the Teletext section - the seemingly incorrect date of 1981, the inconsistency with the existing Teletext article on Wikipedia, the logical problem presented by the claim that Teletext put print ads on TV screens. For starters. JohnInDC (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

JG, technical skills are useful. Writing skills are, too. Much of the text that you have added is full of vague and verbose jargon, pleonasms, and anacoluthons. I agree completely with JohnInDC's comments above. Wikipedia may not be the best place for your writing. --Macrakis (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Macrakis, are you able to elaborate or is this a personal opinion?-JG (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have expressed my thoughts on this above at some length. No reason to repeat. --Macrakis (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Macrakis please reread the analogy about chemical compounds (above) and decide whether the whether the article should be technical or general (WP:TECHNICAL) & (WP:OVERSIMPLIFY). -JG (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's clear, Jugdev, that these circular discussions with us are not helping. You should take NeilN's advice and prepare an RFC so that other editors can come in and offer their observations on the state of the article, as well as your proposed revisions and additions. JohnInDC (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

JohnInDC Please read Joseph, Turow (2011). The Daily You. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-300-16501-2. to confirm the fact that you question.-JG (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Just tell us what it says. JohnInDC (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

JohnInDC It refutes your point regarding teletext. Page number has been provided if you want to double check -JG (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It refutes what point? What does it say? And how does what this book says go to the inconsistencies between what you want to introduce, and the existing Teletext article here. It the article wrong, or incomplete - how come it dates things to 1970 when your source says 1981? Help the rest of us understand. JohnInDC (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

JohnInDC exactly my point, you are fruitful in your delivery (in my opinion). To keep it simple, the reference challenges the dates you adamantly suggest to be true. Please buy the book if you want to a more thorough explanation - a summary can be found in the item that you keep reverting. I'm sure you can get it from all good bookshops (hopefully where you are also)-JG (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Teletext goes into the long history of the technology, describing several specific, events in its history taking place in the early 1970s. It even links directly to an AP article from 1979 discussing Teletext, here. Tell us where Teletext gets it wrong. Tell us how an AP article about the technology can predate the invention of this technology by 2 years. JohnInDC (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

not according to Joseph, Turow (2011). The Daily You. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-300-16501-2. Are you suggesting that Yale University would allow the publication of inaccurate facts? -JG (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Forget Joseph & Turow and Yale for a second. Tell us what you think. How you you explain a 1979 article - linked above - about a technology that wasn't invented until 1981? JohnInDC (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

JohnInDC Now the conversation is about the reliability of sources. It may not be possible to forget Joseph Turow i'm afraid. We must decide which citation holds more weight. Yale University is an Ivy League research university. Do you know what that means? -JG (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

At this point I think I'll withdraw from this endless, and futile, dialogue. Jugdev: It doesn't matter. The consensus here is against the inclusion of that material, and has you have been warned on your Talk page, reintroducing it without consensus is likely to lead to your being blocked again. I urge to you to seek a request for comment on this and the various other concerns you have about the direction that this article has taken. Meanwhile I would observe that the changes that have been made to the article during your most recent block are all the product of consensus among several editors here, and that should you undertake to restore any of your prior text, you will (in all likelihood) be editing against that consensus and likewise putting your editing privileges at risk. So in addition to recommending you go to RFC, I strongly suggest that you obtain consensus here for any edit you may want to make to the article, particularly if it restores material that others have agreed to remove or revise. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

JohnInDC I've already given my opinion and a rationale with references. The choice is that we can have a "watered" down article (as you are pushing for so adamantly) or one with substance... in addition to my concerns regarding your literacy skills, the thought of leaving you here alone to observe anything is questionable. -JG (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Questioning the "literacy skills" of a fellow editor is a personal attack, which is not allowed on WP: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Don't attack the editor; discuss the actual content: "When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." We have already discussed the style of the article, and reached a consensus that we prefer.

The blanket characterization of the current version of the article as "watered down" begs the question; reaching consensus requires more specific discussion, which in fact we have already had — both for substance and for style — above, and you are clearly alone in thinking that your version of the text is better.

Re Turow etc., the (former) Teletext material in the article takes what he says out of context.

Generally, this discussion is not very productive. If you're unwilling to work on Wikipedia articles collaboratively and collegially, great. If not, you may want to publish your writing elsewhere. --Macrakis (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

So I rooted around and found “The Daily You” on Google books. Luckily the page at issue is excerpted. I think this link will get one there – if not just search on ‘teletext’.

The excerpt does not say that Teletext was an undertaking founded by a division of O&M in 1981 or that O&M had the deepest roots in “exploring mechanised media”. Rather, the excerpt describes a variety of new 1990s technological tools generally characterized as “interactive”, naming CD-ROMs, computer driven store kiosks, interactive television, on line services such as Prodigy and – lastly – the “interactive TV versions” of these on line services collectively known as “videotex”. The book notes that many marketers sought to reach the affluent consumers of such products, and notes – in passing – that O&M’s “interactive division” may have had the “deepest roots” in advertising in such media, having been formed in 1981 to create marketing material for Time’s teletext enterprise (which was shuttered in 1983). O&M’s significance in the field in the 1990s was not the invention of new technologies or computer-driven ad buying, but rather its role in persuading clients to “spend media-buying money on vehicles they might not understand”.

So – teletext was not invented in 1981, nor was it invented by O&M. O&M’s passing involvement with a third party’s teletext venture (as copy writer, not innovator) ended in 1983; and the excerpt says nothing about any progression from “teletext” to “programmatic media”. The upshot is that this source fails to support almost any facet of the proposed edit regarding teletext, and I hope this finally lays this particular question to rest.

I hesitated to post this quick analysis, because, even “quick” it took the better part of an hour to do, and I worry about establishing this sort of detailed review as a kind of baseline level of examination for criticizing or rejecting potential additions or revisions to the article. I am hoping for the opposite in fact, that given the substantial variance between this source and what has been claimed for it, proponents of similarly questionable edits (and boy was this one questionable) be required to demonstrate the way in which the source supports the text. This puts the burden of effort on the party with which it belongs.

Comments welcome. JohnInDC (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

JohnInDC, I agree with your analysis, and I also agree that we shouldn't have to spend so much time writing up detailed refutations. I also looked up the book and read the relevant passage, which I summarized as "Re Turow etc., the (former) Teletext material in the article takes what he says out of context." With no one else supporting Jugdev's idiosyncratic interpretation, there really should be no reason to write more than this. --Macrakis (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Macrakis JohnInDC I am surprised that the link is not clear considering that you have gone through the trouble of buying and reading the book. To quote "Ogilvy and Mather's interactive division had the deepest roots [in mechanised media - remember algo's were only in existence in terms of teletext then] The agency started this division in 1981 to create marketing material for Time Warner INCs new teletext enterprise.

What is so difficult to understand here?

I'm not convinced that your interpretation of the subject is sound, nor am I convinced with your interpretation of the text in question. The long winded summary above avoids the key concepts at play - mechanised media and algorithms.

We must remember that the media industry is no longer the Disney land that you may have heard about. It is much more elaborate and requires elaborate thinkers with a better grasp of theory and mechanics in order for it to function.

Referring back to my original quote from the guidelines “an encyclopaedia article about a chemical compound is expected to include properties of the compound, even if some of those properties are obscure to a general reader”… and it continues, “When trying to decide what amount of technical detail is appropriate to include, it may be helpful to compare with a standard reference work in the particular technical field to which the subject of the article belongs.” (WP:TECHNICAL) Another guideline suggests that we must not “oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable. Encyclopaedia articles should not [give] readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when what they then understand is wrong.” (WP:OVERSIMPLIFY).

There is obviously a difference in opinion, but I used the above guidelines when I first started the article.

-JG (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not a question of oversimplification, but of correctness. The central property of Programmatic media is that it is ... programmatic. That is, that the ads are selected using some sort of "program" based on data about the audience or the individual reader. Display ads on Teletext are not programmatic because the same ads are shown to all readers. Ads shown on electronic media (what you call "mechanised media", not a standard term) are not programmatic if they are not selected automatically. It's not that complicated when you strip away the jargon.

As for not being convinced that everyone else's interpretation is sound, you are beating a dead horse. Stop. --Macrakis (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The oversimplification point was an observation (and not assumption). Correctness and detail obviously come hand in hand. Just to reiterate the original article, the teletext example had been included to show how mechanised media has moved from its original sense to what it is now - programmatic. I must admit that I would have been impressed with the beating a dead horse analogy, but as per my original reference to the guidelines on 4 October 15 “A concrete example can help to contextualize the abstract content for many readers”. It is also acceptable to “use analogies to describe a subject in everyday terms.” (WP:TECHNICAL). Did you read this at all? your interpretation that "everyone else's interpretation is [not] sound" is not entirely true - I am just slightly concerned with the rationale that has been provided before changes are being made - Editors should at least be able to unpick the basics should we want to delve deeper into this subject area.-JG (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I declare the horse dead. I will not engage in this thread any further. --Macrakis (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

What does that mean? Are you refusing to justify your argument and therefore negating the changes that you have made to this article? -JG (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, he's saying he remains unpersuaded by your arguments, he does not agree with the edits you wish to make, and is done arguing about it. Jugdev, you lose on this one. Move on. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Jugdev, it means that consensus has been reached against your position and at this point you are refusing to get the point and wasting everyone's time:

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

This is a kind of disruptive editing. Stop. --Macrakis (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No he is saying consensus is settled here. No one will engage you further on this topic. See Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing to describe what you have been doing at this article. It is time for you to drop it, and no, I will not engage with you further on this topic I agree with the other editors here. I have seen this article improve when you are not participating and turn into a quagmire when you are. Whether you do this purposely or due to a lack of competence to edit in a collaborative environment is immaterial. It is past time to move on. Jbh^Talk 21:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Jbhunley this is not about winning or losing - its about conveying the best possible version. There are still numerous comments that require attention as many of my questions have not been answered - are you able to facilitate the conversation? I seem to be going in circles with these guys - so many words, but not a single response to my notes. -JG (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, as I said, it is time for you to back away from this topic. You are not contributing anything positive by refusing to accept consensus here. Your comments have been addressed you are just not hearing it. Read all those blue links that have been in prior responses. People link things to help you understand matters. What they are trying to tell you is this issue is closed and if you keep disrupting the article you will be blocked again, likely for a long time. Jbh^Talk 22:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)