This is almost exciting.
Why doesn't wikipedia have a chess.com article?
Sort:
skullskullskull wrote:
Well, this was an interesting thread with many articulate interesting posts. Please stop spamming the thread, kco.
haha, yeah it does look like it that way does it.
Tmb86 wrote:
I'd respect Erik's post in that link if I didn't think he had something to do with the farcical advert that was the original article. He's a businessman, why wouldn't he want a Wikipedia article? He just pushed it too far with his original approach.
I never contributed anything to that article on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what caused you to have bad feelings towards me or Chess.com, but I'm sorry.
Nothing personal, of course, just generally unhappy with responses I've had when contacting staff here. I think Chess.com values prospective members higher than members. I will not continue my membership.
May be is it interesting to turn the question around?
What is the value of Wikipedia if websites or events or people are not covered in articles? Chess.com is a very big website, certainly when you take in consideration that it is part of a small niche, so what does it do with the value of Wikipedia when those kind of websites are not covered?
An encyclopedia is a collection of neutral knowledge about all things that matter. When a big website like chess.com is missing, then is it clear that Wikipedia is not a completely reliable collection of neutral knowledge. There will always be missing pages in an encyclopedia and missing a page about chess.com will not be an issue for a lot of people to lessen the value of that encyclopedia, but I think that Wikipedia itself should be very concerned about the internal working of their organization, when those things can happen. For sure when you see how one of those admins is replying. That is definitely not a neutral point of view and certainly not in line with the own guideline of Wikipedia. May be should there be more concerns about the internal working of Wikipedia then about a page for chess.com. Whatever admins on Wikipedia are saying, chess.com is proving its value day by day. Thank you for that.
Bleh, should only let reasonable adults administrate things. I guess when it's a free site they can't afford to be picky. This sounds like little kid stuff. I agree with Erik, not a big deal.
Although I admit I used to trust wiki more than that. I didn't realize articles were so easily censored and edited by children.
waffllemaster wrote:
Bleh, should only let reasonable adults administrate things. I guess when it's a free site they can't afford to be picky. This sounds like little kid stuff. I agree with Erik, not a big deal.
Although I admit I used to trust wiki more than that. I didn't realize articles were so easily censored and edited by children.
yeah but at the moment is being censored/edited by silly adults !
Children is what I think of them as though. I can't understand adults who behave this way, (although I know they exist). What's annoying is reasonable people have to suffer these kids. At least online it isn't so bad :)
corrijean wrote:
You might as well save your time, AdamRinkleff. It seems likely that this Fianchetto1967 is johnmusacha or one of his cronies returned again.
Fianchetto1967 ... Henry Despres
(formerly chess2Knights)
They're so busy with the retreads they don't have time to lock winer's thread.
Mod took care of it.