03 Jun 15
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe overcooked Wikipedia entry was eventually deleted by editors.
Updating RHP's profile on Wikipedia (OP) Thread 64739
Original post by Standard member jsmith on 10 Mar '07 15:00
Standard member jsmith Joined05 Feb '07 Moves777 10 Mar '07 15:00
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hot_Pawn
"Despite GameKnot having a reported 1/2 a million members, none of them are interested in their page on the W ...[text shortened]... osted in a public forum here, it's there in cyberspace until the cows and competitors come home.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWouldn't this be against the spirit of the rules of wiki ~ something which Russ specifically stated in his OP he did not want contravene?
....with the caveat that Russ will then evaluate the draft within the context of his own competitive perspective, overall short and longer term business goals as the site's proprietor prior to submission to Wiki.
Originally posted by FMFOriginally posted by Russ
Wouldn't this be against the spirit of the rules of wiki ~ something which Russ specifically stated in his OP he did not want contravene?
"If anyone has the inclination, could I ask that someone adds a RHP wiki page?
I'm unable to do this myself without falling foul of promoting self-interest (as I understand the rules anyway)..."
________________________________
.... yes, adding an "RHP wiki page" would appear to "be against the spirit of the rules of wiki" as opposed to evaluating a draft by loyal site members for factual accuracy and appropriateness. If there are any further questions, please contact Russ. Thank you.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIt clearly wasn't about "factual accuracy", Grampy Bobby. When you suggested that... "Russ will then evaluate the draft within the context of his own competitive perspective, overall short and longer term business goals" you wanted to make it about the "competitive perspective" and "business goals". By contrast, Russ' integrity is demonstrated in his OP.
.... yes, adding an "RHP wiki page" would appear to "be against the spirit of the rules of wiki" as opposed to evaluating a draft by loyal site members for factual accuracy and appropriateness. If there are any further questions, please contact Russ. Thank you.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121323
03 Jun 15
Originally posted by SuzianneI doubt that the "'wild-west' atmosphere of the early forum activity" and the "controversy" surrounding players being banned for engine use are quite what Russ had in mind as being representative of RHP. I also suspect that what you refer to as "the more controversial bits of RHP" are only of interest to existing members involved with such controversy.
I think an important thing to note here is that any entry in Wikipedia for RHP has to be as factual and unbiased as possible. Perhaps including some mention of the "wild-west" atmosphere of the early forum activity and perhaps some acknowledgement that for what is predominantly a chess site, the forum activity has taken on a life of its own. As well as a ...[text shortened]... h other chess sites.
Just a few random thoughts I had... take them or leave them as you will.
03 Jun 15
Originally posted by divegeesterIt would be appropriate to mention the forums, since it appears that some very active forum members don't actually play much chess. The content of forum threads will not be of interest to Wiki readers and should not be mentioned in a proposed Wiki article.
I doubt that the "'wild-west' atmosphere of the early forum activity" and the "controversy" surrounding players being banned for engine use are quite what Russ had in mind as being representative of RHP. I also suspect that what you refer to as "the more controversial bits of RHP" are only of interest to existing members involved with such controversy.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121323
03 Jun 15
Originally posted by moonbusDefinitely appropriate to mention that the site has a range of forums.
It would be appropriate to mention the forums, since it appears that some very active forum members don't actually play much chess. The content of forum threads will not be of interest to Wiki readers and should not be mentioned in a proposed Wiki article.
I just put "red hot pawn" into the Wiki search engine and it returned "Did you mean red hot pain.* The page red hot pawn does not exist..." So it appears that whatever may have been in the past, we can start with a clean slate now.
I have also read the previous thread from '07 regarding a previous Wiki article (now defunct). I do not know the content of that article; if someone knows of an archived version, please send me a link.
I am offering to have a go at drafting a new article. Two others have offered to join me. Without going into any detail right now about what will go into the article, I'd like to say that I think RHP is a fine site which deserves to be publicized and that if a Wiki article will drive more business in Russ's direction, so much the better for all of us.
That the article should be an unbiased and factual description of what the site offers is axiomatic. As I see it, the main issue is how detailed the article should be about the features and the history of earlier versions of the user interface.
* A "computer freudian slip" ?
03 Jun 15
Originally posted by moonbusI'd suggest that in the region of 300 words would be about right.
That the article should be an unbiased and factual description of what the site offers is axiomatic. As I see it, the main issue is how detailed the article should be about the features and the history of earlier versions of the user interface.
I'd mention the features that we see across the top of the screen: Forums, Tournaments, Ladders... so on... ending with Tables, and Blitz.
Perhaps you could state how many members have been active this year 2015 (so far) ~ approximately 15,000 ~ and maybe how many different members it has had at various times since its inception (over 400,000).
03 Jun 15
Originally posted by FMFYes, it makes sense to start small. It could be expanded later, if need be.
I'd suggest that in the region of 300 words would be about right.
I'd mention the features that we see across the top of the screen: Forums, Tournaments, Ladders... so on... ending with Tables, and Blitz.
Perhaps you could state how many members have been active this year 2015 (so far) ~ approximately 15,000 ~ and maybe how many different members it has had at various times since its inception (over 400,000).