Wikipedia article

Russ asked for volunteers to draft an article about RHP for Wikipedia. Two others and I worked on this and presented a draft for review. It was not accepted; two subsequent re-writes were also not accepted. We were stymied by the fact that Wiki does not really want to know anything about RHP itself; Wiki wants to know what third parties say about RHP and there just aren’t enough third parties who have anything to say about it. Wiki does not want content, they want references, and we did not find enough references which Wiki editors considered weighty enough to accept. I do not believe that any further amendments I might make would improve the likelihood of getting an article accepted. If anyone wishes to pick up the torch, please get in touch; I would be happy to pass along what I have learned of the Wiki process.

Originally posted by moonbus
Russ asked for volunteers to draft an article about RHP for Wikipedia. Two others and I worked on this and presented a draft for review. It was not accepted; two subsequent re-writes were also not accepted. We were stymied by the fact that Wiki does not really want to know anything about RHP itself; Wiki wants to know what third parties say about RHP and there ...[text shortened]... torch, please get in touch; I would be happy to pass along what I have learned of the Wiki process.

moonbus, thanks for this public invitation to participate;
and yes I'll conduct a further online search for relevant "references";
findings will be sent to you via personal messages.

Originally posted by moonbus
Russ asked for volunteers to draft an article about RHP for Wikipedia. Two others and I worked on this and presented a draft for review. It was not accepted; two subsequent re-writes were also not accepted. We were stymied by the fact that Wiki does not really want to know anything about RHP itself; Wiki wants to know what third parties say about RHP and the ...[text shortened]... ch, please get in touch; I would be happy to pass along what I have learned of the Wiki process.

It is to your credit that you have worked on this with such determination but it is also to Wikipedia's credit that they demand certain standards and/or criteria for the greater good of their web site and what it offers.

Thank you both for those comments. The three of us who worked on it so far have put together what I believe to be a fair and neutral article; what is missing are references and, for personal reasons, I do not have the time and resources to pursue that part of it. I believe that if someone were to do the research and tack adequate references onto the existing draft, it might meet the Wiki editorial standard.

I would of course provide our text to anyone who wishes to pursue the matter, to be amended as he or she sees fit.

Thanks for taking on this project. I appreciate the time invested into this, so very disappointing not to get anything published in the end. 🙁

Originally posted by Russ
Thanks for taking on this project. I appreciate the time invested into this, so very disappointing not to get anything published in the end. 🙁

We're on it, Russ.

Thanks, Russ. It's not over; I'm sure someone else will carry the project to completion.

Weird.

How about just posting the text and the references here?

Originally posted by Crowley
How about just posting the text and the references here?

Complete text of article:

General:[edit source]
redhotpawn.com is an Internet chess server which connects chess players all over the world.
Date of inception: 21 Feb. 2001.
Web address: redhotpawn.com
Slogan: Play chess online, it's free to play and anyone can join.
Type of site: Internet chess server, based on the Rival Chess engine written by Russell Newman and Chris Moreton; social media services are also offered.
Main Features:[edit source]
The site offers chess players a virtual space in which to conduct rated or unrated turn-based correspondence games with various time limits (from 1 to 21 days, in various increments), and blitz games in real-time. The site offers a browser-accessible Java-based user interface with configurable boards and pieces; no software download is required; mobile devices are also supported.
Registration is required (email address); the member defines a unique public user ID and a log pass code; free membership allows access to basic functionality; paid membership ("subscriber" ) allows access to additional functionality. Adverts are unobtrusive for non-subscribers, blocked for subscribers.
Other features include: Fischer Random960 chess, set up pieces from any position, chess-related blogs, individual tournaments, team (“clan” ) tournaments, automatic rate calculation (only relevant to RHP, not directly convertible to OTB (over the board) ELO or USCF ratings). The site offers a searchable data base of players, as well as a searchable data base of played games and games in progress. Completed games can be annotated and published. Private messages can be sent between players. The club feature allows exclusive forums and tournaments for members of those clubs.
There are “greeters” (subscriber volunteers) who offer to assist newbies, for example by engaging them in their first games and showing them around the forums and features.
There are lively chat forums, open to both subscribers and non-subscribers, on various topics including chess, spirituality, politics, science, culture, sports, debate, tournaments, clans, clubs, general interest, posers and puzzles, as well as private forums (for subscribers only). Most forums see postings in several threads each day, so that there is always someone to communicate with. Threads are closed after 60 days to keep the contents fresh. Playing chess is not a requirement for participation in any of the forums.
Internationally accepted rules for correspondence chess apply at RHP: consulting chess books, chess journals, and published (incl. online) data bases of games already played is allowed. It is not required to inform one’s opponent of one’s (intended) use of such resources. Use of engines or endgame tablebases is not allowed for rated games in progress. (“Engine” means chess-playing software used to analyze a game or a position.) Engines and endgame tablebases are allowed for post mortem analysis and unrated games.
Upwards of 200,000 players at all strengths are registered. Upwards of 20,000 games are typically in progress at any time.
Item of note: one of the world’s strongest players, Natalia Pogonina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalia_Pogonina), is a member of RHP and maintains a blog there. WGM Pogonina (current ELO 2501) is three-time European champion and the reigning Olympic Women's Chess Champion (2015). She was ranked as the 3rd most successful female chess player in the world in 2009 by the Association of Chess Professionals.
History:[edit source]
The site was originally entirely free and kept alive by donations, but with increasing popularity and features (such as forums and internal messaging), paid membership and advertising were introduced to cover costs. Early iterations of the site offered the Rival Chess engine as an optional opponent when no humans were online. The Rival Chess engine is still available. In 2015, Chris Moreton did some Android engine updates to address the complaint that the Android App was too difficult to beat at all skill levels.
External Links:[edit source]
Mentions and Reviews of RHP:
Edward Scimia review redhotpawn: http://chess.about.com/od/playingchessonline/a/Red-Hot-Pawn.htm
Tactics Time review of redhotpawn: http://tacticstime.com/software/red-hot-pawn-tips/
WebApp.net notice of iPhone client for RHP core features: http://trywebapp.net/news.php?n=36
App-crawler table-format comparison of RHP with 8 other online chess forums: http://appcrawlr.com/app/uberGrid/120974
The Chess Exchange review of RHP: http://www.chessexchange.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=2001
Aurora Chess Club review of RHP: http://www.aucc.club/?p=2081
Alexa site statistics: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/redhotpawn.com
Sources:[edit source]
Russ, site admin & lead developer at redhotpawn.com
RHP TOS: http://www.redhotpawn.com/myhome/termsofservice.php.
RHP history: http://www.redhotpawn.com/blog/blogread.php?blogpostid=1
ICS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_chess_server



Rejection no. 3:
You aren't understanding what we're asking your for.
We aren't asking for a detailed list of features. We aren't asking for links to apps, forums, etc.
What we do want is evidence that outside, uninvolved experts have discussed this site.
Please read our fundamental requirements for Notability, and that will make this much clearer.

Rejection no. 2:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Rejection no.1:
You can't cite the website itself, nor forums, blogs, etc. We don't care at all what's said internally about the site amongst its community. What we do care about is what neutral, exteral commentators have said. Had this site been discussed in news media, academia, professionally published chess journals?



Compared to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess.com

the difference is all in the references, not the content.

As I see it, according to Wiki policies, if no one had ever discussed Einstein, Einstein wouldn’t have merited inclusion in Wiki either.

See the following link for advice how to reference a proposed Wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners

Did I read this right?

If you're a member of the site they don't want to hear from you and they don't want you to endorse the site.
If you're not a member and not someone associated with the site, then you are who they want to hear from, but you have to be someone notable.

I'm not sure how that works. I don't care how "notable" a person is, if they are not a member of the site how can they endorse it or give an opinion of the features that they do not know anything about, since they're not a member?

It sounds like the old "catch-22" to me. Good Luck!

Originally posted by mwmiller
Did I read this right?

If you're a member of the site they don't want to hear from you and they don't want you to endorse the site.
If you're not a member and not someone associated with the site, then you are who they want to hear from, but you have to be someone notable.

I'm not sure how that works. I don't care how "notable" a person is, if the ...[text shortened]... thing about, since they're not a member?

It sounds like the old "catch-22" to me. Good Luck!

It's their game. If we want in, we have to play by their rules.

Some chess sites appear to have got themselves in. Maybe if we check out their referencing we'll get some clues as to how they did it.

Originally posted by Kewpie
Some chess sites appear to have got themselves in. Maybe if we check out their referencing we'll get some clues as to how they did it.

If someone were to publish an article about RHP in some recognized print medium, it might help.

Originally posted by moonbus
If someone were to publish an article about RHP in some recognized print medium, it might help.

What about on one of those 'All About Trolls' web sites that Grampy Bobby copy pastes from? If someone could ask them to use people like me as an example of every conceivable type of troll, the'd have to provide a link to RHP otherwise I could get sue them for using my name and personality defects (without giving me due credit) in their efforts to expand knowledge about human nature.

http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandler.php

Links from this kind of site could be useful. I don't know if there are any RHP references on the link provided.