Why doesn't wikipedia have a chess.com article?

I know Wikipedia is heavily biased by its staff's personal feelings and exaggerated correctness.

If you aren't administrator yourself, your contributions will be deleted if they don't go in line. You have no tools to reverse this. Some administrators ban without reason.

Summary: Wikipedia is unreliable.

@LelaCrosby: I disagree that chess.com does not need such a site. Wikipedia is an automatic source for a lot op people and having a page there gives chess.com some reliability that it is there to stay. But I will not write it, I see that as the responsibility of the staff of chess.com.

Your IP address is something which your provider gives you when you go out on the net. It serves as a mask and can not be used over time to identify you otherwise then through the logging of the ISP. Think about this: if your IP address would have been enough to identify you, then would the use of cookies never have been so popular by the organizations who wants to track your surfing behaviour.

@Polar_Bear: Being biased by group identification is more or less the way it works with humans everywhere. We are social beings after all. There are not many people who really think for themselves. Polar bears do off course, :-). Their emphasis on correctness and neutrality is at the core of their organizational culture. That has its advantages and its drawbacks. I do not think it is particularly Wikipedia.

I find it hard to imagine that someone should not be capable of writing an unbiased article about his own business. It is not that hard, especially when the rules are that clear. It is like a chess player who is only capable of seeing his own good moves, but not his bad ones nor any of the moves of his opponent.

Reading the guidelines it made me smile thinking of all the coverage of news performed by one of the companies of Rupert Murdoch. They might all fail to be called reliable, because they are part of a company which has been under investigation for exactly that. But you might be right, that the coverage of independent sources for chess.com is not enough for Wikipedia.

I think this thread has been very positive in teaching us all about Wikipedia's standards for articles.  Does everyone agree. after reading the actual policies involved, that Wikipedia should not have an article on chess.com?

The bias I notice is that various lesser chess sites (e.g. Gameknot) have articles and they met Wiki criteria even worse than Chess.com.

@Polar_Bear: I agree that the Gameknot page does not meet the Wikipedia criteria as there is no reference to an independent external source. All information comes from Gameknot itself.

But imo does that have no impact on the possible correctness of the decision concerning an article about chess.com. Those decisions are in fact unrelated. If a decision should be made then is it that the page about Gameknot should be removed according to their own standards. But a mistake on one page (Gameknot) should not be a reason to add another page to the site if the content of that page is not in line with their standards.

Gameknot was rhetorical example.

On their lists of internet chess servers and chess sites, there is no other chess site more significant than chess.com. Chess.com really is current world no.1 (with possible exception ICC for online blitz), it is reality, not advertisement.

But some wiki-idiot decided otherwise.

I understood that Gameknot was an example, but that does not change my line of argument.

The list of chess servers on Wikipedia is far from complete indeed. I expected much more websites for playing chess then the shortlist provided and I know there are more sites.

I discovered who was behind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Forgot_to_put_name

I think this is the guy who dunnit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OGBranniff. Has a clearly not neutral attitude towards chess.com. Your guy is helping/serving him.

Yes. IMHO it has something to do with Parham Attack and Andrew Soltis.

I remember Chess.com closed some multiple accounts of trolls, who propagated Parham Attack opening.

You are correct. I see one of those in the links above was even working on a Parham article.

A bunch of them got banned for being trolls. There were also quite a few of them that got banned for cheating.

Here is my reply on that talk page: 

"Hi. Erik from Chess.com here. I'm not sure what all this fuss is about. Chess.com is an online chess server, and the biggest one of all. That said, I don't really care what is said on Wikipedia or if we have a page or whatnot. It isn't relevant to what we do :) Why some tiny chess sites have pages and we don't is just a representation of expected wikipedia bias that isn't going to change and I don't see the need to fight this fight. Just my 2 cents... :) - Erik"

Wikipedia chess editors have always been biased against Chess.com for an unknown reason and I don't have the will or care to fight that :)

It does seem that those involved in the page-removal are not unbiased/neutral towards this site and in fact maybe the opposite of that.

Wiki seems to be in a death spiral.  Talking to a friend who's a programmer last night about this brouhaha and he mentioned that Wiki had just deleted 90% of the articles about programming languages because of "notation" issues.  And then we have our friend from Compton bragging on another thread about how he got the chess.com article deleted and has made it his personal mission to see that chess.com is never mentioned on his "turf".  Sad really, but ultimately as Erik has posted, who cares?

The head of Wikipedia is Jimmy Wales, look up his story and you'll see what's wrong with Wikipedia. Rotten to the core.

Who cites Wikipedia for anything? Its not a valid resource in any way whatsoever.

I had written several biographical articles for Wiki many years back as a way of paying my dues for utilizing it (which I now refuse to do).  About 5 years ago, on request, I wrote a totally objective and dispassionate entry for Chess.com.   I say "on request" because admin here had tried earlier only to have the entry deleted.  Mine was also deleted.  I have noticed over the years several more attempts that were also summarily deleted.  In the archived example someone posted a link for in this thread, it was noted that the entry was to commercialized.  One of the methods that Wiki uses is the simple modification of entries to shed the aspects people deem undesirable as well as to make the entries fit some formula.  Deletion isn't a usual option especially when the subject is a member of a topic already permitted (such as chess-servers).  There is something underhanded or devious involved.  Since Wiki is user-based, it's open to such deviousness and it doesn't necessarily reflect on those administering the site, but it does reveal Wiki's less appreciable side.

Deleting Chess.com as a topic under chess-servers is like deleting Karpov from the topic of chessplayers.

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.

Charming people.