Here is where your money goes when you donate to Wikipedia. Jimmy uses the money for jaunts to Moscow where he drinks $300 bottles of wine and hires female 'escorts'. The Wikipedia accountant quit in protest at such blatant corruption and misuse of funds. He racked up at least $30'000 in excess charges.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/biztech/wikipedia-head-accused-of-expenses-rort/2008/03/05/1204402516874.html
Why doesn't wikipedia have a chess.com article?
Sort:
AdamRinkleff wrote:
They have detailed articles on every concievable sex position and fetish, complete with pornographic images, but god forbid they...
Would you excuse me... 
Did they make any personal attacks?
I remember the original article and it was little more than a blatant advert. I'm sure it will be return when chess.com is a little more sure of itself... and maybe improves its customer service while its at it...
Chess.com hosts a million games of chess every day, and it is in the top 2000 websites on the internet. The company's advertising revenue alone exceeds $1.2 million, plus memberships.
Explain to me how it is not as notable as many of the other companies and websites which have Wikipedia articles? For example, Yahoo! chess.
Feb 7, 2013
0
#67
AdamRinkleff wrote:
Look how Wikipedia responded to erik:
[Don't publish this garbage here - mod]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:166.82.205.115&diff=537133850&oldid=537122923
This little exchange tells you a lot about what happens 'behind the scenes' at Wikipedia.
that responder is almost close to johnmuscha.
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.
Fianchetto1967 wrote:
When chess.com starts getting signficant coverage in books and other mainstream sources then Wikipedia can have an article on it.
You mean, like Yahoo! chess?
Fianchetto1967 wrote:
feel free to lobby Wikipedia all you want to have the Yahoo chess article deleted.
So, since you apparently agree that Yahoo! chess doesn't deserve an article, it seems then that the real criteria is whether someone cares enough to "lobby Wikipedia". Why should chess.com be deleted simply because it is notable enough to have enemies who wish to lobby against it, and yet Yahoo! Chess is allowed to remain because it is so inconsequential that nobody cares?
Fianchetto1967 wrote:
Known enough to have enemies but not known enough to have any credible coverage in reliable sources. Them's the breaks...
You do know that chess.com has plenty of coverage in credible and reliable sources? I mean, seriously. Get a clue. Here is just one example among many:
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/01/29/decent-proposal-kardashian-wants-armenian-chess-champ-to-teach-her-the-game/
Here's another one: http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/2013/feb/05/chess-master-masters-movies/
It seems quite clear chess.com is notable enough to be mentioned in news articles with the expectation that the reader knows or is easily able to discern more information about the subject. That makes it notable, and anyone who says otherwise is blatantly trolling.
Feb 7, 2013
0
#74
You might as well save your time, AdamRinkleff. It seems likely that this Fianchetto1967 is johnmusacha or one of his cronies returned again.
Feb 7, 2013
0
#75
also I got a funny feeling this member queenwaltzer89 might be another cronies of Muscha.
They're so busy with the retreads they don't have time to lock winer's thread.
Feb 7, 2013
0
#79
They will take care of the whiner later it will be easy but the retreaders are little more difficult to deal with.
They have detailed articles on every concievable sex position and fetish, complete with pornographic images, but god forbid they mention a website which processes a million games of chess per day. Yah, right, that's not notable at all, its not like this is Yahoo! Chess (which does have an article).