It is very clear that none of you know how Wikipedia works. There are rules and procedures on Wikipedia that govern who gets an article and who doesn't. It is not based on what chess people think "should" be the criteria.
Not even Chess.com itself qualifies to have a Wikipedia article, nor is Chess.com even listed on Wikipedia's article on "List of Internet Chess Servers". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_chess_servers
I looked at that page and its references. If you're trying to say wikipedia has high standards this only undermines your point and makes wiki (and the kids who bicker about editing it) look foolish.
I really hope this stuff only happens to fringe articles like chess websites and that credible people are keeping useful articles safe from these children e.g. history, math, etc.
lol, yeah right? don't mind the experts, leave it to the bureaucrats instead. love the discussion here!
sorry guys, chess.com is not notable enough according to wikipedia criteria! LOL
ironically i guess that's how politics are handled nowadays...
I was able to google up some stories where various wiki editors edit bias into tons of different articles, defame colleagues, etc which is sad but I guess expected. Also makes the chess.com thing pretty minor in comparison.
re: the talk page you linked, I skimmed here and there. Looks like a bunch of kids making poor arguments over an unimportant subject while trying to sound intellectual. Yuck. Letting anyone be an "editor" seems to both be wiki's biggest strength and weakness.
There's some history on this forum with the person who comes by now and then with different IDs and talks about chess.com's lack of a wiki page. Sometimes I wonder if it's the same 2 (IIRC) kids who got laughed at for 50 pages about 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 and started a very crude pro 2.Qh5 / anti chess.com website (which no longer exists). Just a musing due to the events being around the same time.
I saw a 2013 post on the wiki talk page with what used to be one person's chess.com user name. I guess he and others are still fighting about it. It's too bad the system they have at wiki is so poor that it goes on and on like this. Batgirl said she wrote one of the now deleted articles with good references and it didn't read like an advertisement (two, apparently now former, sticking points of this person). Eric commented that he didn't care enough to wade into it. This was over a year ago now I think.
@Umberto_Unity: use of caps lock is considered shouting. Furhtermore does it not strengthen your message nor the readability of the text.
You don't have to evaluate how important it is. It has been proven to be important. His videos are distributed on youtube too.
Can you give us a list of other sources that provide the same chess based type of 'evidence' as Lilov has presented in his videos? The relativity theory of Einstein is also based on the work of Maxwell and Lorentz and Newton and .... What is wrong with that?
If you have a company that sells a product and you have a medium channel that publishes your information, would you try to advertise your product there or somewhere else? That combination does not imply that that information is placed in chessbase.com because Lilov advertises there. Where do you think that you can find more advertisements about cars? In a car magazine or in a magazine about bikes? And when there is an article about the new model of a car brand, do you think that that magazine has also an advertisement of that model or not?