Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 4th 06, 03:53 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
 
Posts: n/a
Default Chess & Wikipedia

rgc[mp] groups are not serious most of the time. I think that now is a
proper time for serious people to be serious about the situation which
involves two activities: chess and Wikipedia. Please, set aside your
attitude toward Sam Sloan and look at the issues, at the big picture.
One of the issues is the validity of the whole cocept of Wikipedia,
which right now is under doubt.

Sam is providing quite systematically the history of the US chess fore
the past half of the century. He should be assisted rather than
obstructed. The collective effort should go toward improving his
writingsm not toward destroying his effort, not toward preventing him
from doing his thing for which chess players and readers should be
grateful to him.

Let me very seriously stress that I am NOT Sam's fan, I can't say that
I like him. But this is not about liking/disliking him. This is
Wikipedia's "to be or not to be". It is also the issue of getting a
record which will be the witness of our (chess) time, which will
provide the panorama of the US chess.

The argument about the big world out there was used in a harmful,
non-constructive way. Yes, there should be Sam-like writers in Europe,
South America, Asia, Africa, Australia... Let them write!!! But at
least we have one (imperfect as he is) in the US.

Sure, others are more solid, etc. So, please, assist, complement Sam's
effort with your own--either add your own articles or
**constructively** edit Sam's posts.

I hope that sociopaths, ignorants, small people who get their ego bust
by preventing others from constructive acting, that all of them will be
disregarded, and that somehow both the chess and Wikipedia will get
stronger out of this whole unfortunate incident. (I hope but I am not
overly optimistic; so far the situation looks gloomy).

Wlod

  #2   Report Post  
Old March 4th 06, 04:25 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
Taylor Kingston
 
Posts: n/a
Default Chess & Wikipedia


Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
rgc[mp] groups are not serious most of the time. I think that now is a
proper time for serious people to be serious about the situation which
involves two activities: chess and Wikipedia. Please, set aside your
attitude toward Sam Sloan and look at the issues, at the big picture.
One of the issues is the validity of the whole cocept of Wikipedia,
which right now is under doubt.

Sam is providing quite systematically the history of the US chess fore
the past half of the century.


Wlod, don't be absurd. Sloan is merely using Wikipedia as a platform
for his pet likes, dislikes, grudges and delusions. The ratio of
fiction to fact in his chess-related Wikipedia articles is close to
90/10. His malice/neutrality ratio is similar. What little research he
does is often quite sloppy and inadequate.

He should be assisted rather than
obstructed. The collective effort should go toward improving his
writings not toward destroying his effort,


This is something like saying straw hats should be made waterproof so
they may serve as diving helmets. Would it not be simpler to ignore
Sloan's "historical" writings and read competent, objective chess
historians and journalists?
If you sincerely want to improve Wikipedia's chess content, it would
seem far more effective to encourage good writers to contribute, rather
than try to change an egregiously bad one who resists every effort at
correction.

not toward preventing him
from doing his thing for which chess players and readers should be
grateful to him.


We should be grateful for a continual stream of error, falsehood and
delusion? Wlod, be serious.

Let me very seriously stress that I am NOT Sam's fan, I can't say that
I like him. But this is not about liking/disliking him. This is
Wikipedia's "to be or not to be". It is also the issue of getting a
record which will be the witness of our (chess) time, which will
provide the panorama of the US chess.


Wlod, trust me -- plenty of people other than Sloan are working on
this. We need Sam involved in the effort like the navy needs screen
doors on its submarines.

  #3   Report Post  
Old March 4th 06, 04:37 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
The Historian
 
Posts: n/a
Default Chess & Wikipedia

Taylor Kingston wrote:
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
rgc[mp] groups are not serious most of the time. I think that now is a
proper time for serious people to be serious about the situation which
involves two activities: chess and Wikipedia. Please, set aside your
attitude toward Sam Sloan and look at the issues, at the big picture.
One of the issues is the validity of the whole cocept of Wikipedia,
which right now is under doubt.

Sam is providing quite systematically the history of the US chess fore
the past half of the century.


Wlod, don't be absurd.


Please, Taylor, let the lunatic expound his theory. It might be amusing.

Sloan is merely using Wikipedia as a platform
for his pet likes, dislikes, grudges and delusions. The ratio of
fiction to fact in his chess-related Wikipedia articles is close to
90/10. His malice/neutrality ratio is similar. What little research he
does is often quite sloppy and inadequate.


His Norman Tweed Whitaker article is a case in point.

He should be assisted rather than
obstructed. The collective effort should go toward improving his
writings not toward destroying his effort,


This is something like saying straw hats should be made waterproof so
they may serve as diving helmets. Would it not be simpler to ignore
Sloan's "historical" writings and read competent, objective chess
historians and journalists?


There are any number of them: Hilbert, Donaldson, Fiala, Urcan, Spinrad,
Pope, Gaige ... there's one more I could add, but modesty prevents me.

If you sincerely want to improve Wikipedia's chess content, it would
seem far more effective to encourage good writers to contribute, rather
than try to change an egregiously bad one who resists every effort at
correction.


Good writers will tend to shun Witlesspedia, simply because no good
writer wants to have his work subject to rewriting by any Tom, Phil, or
Harry with Internet access.

not toward preventing him
from doing his thing for which chess players and readers should be
grateful to him.


We should be grateful for a continual stream of error, falsehood and
delusion? Wlod, be serious.

Let me very seriously stress that I am NOT Sam's fan, I can't say that
I like him. But this is not about liking/disliking him. This is
Wikipedia's "to be or not to be". It is also the issue of getting a
record which will be the witness of our (chess) time, which will
provide the panorama of the US chess.


Wlod, trust me -- plenty of people other than Sloan are working on
this. We need Sam involved in the effort like the navy needs screen
doors on its submarines.


Agreed.
  #4   Report Post  
Old March 4th 06, 05:01 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
Jerzy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Chess & Wikipedia


Wlod, trust me -- plenty of people other than Sloan are working on
this. We need Sam involved in the effort like the navy needs screen
doors on its submarines.


So far we cannot see a little bit of their work

And IMO Sam Sloan is doing a great job.


  #5   Report Post  
Old March 4th 06, 06:16 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
Taylor Kingston
 
Posts: n/a
Default Chess & Wikipedia


Jerzy wrote:

Wlod, trust me -- plenty of people other than Sloan are working on
this. We need Sam involved in the effort like the navy needs screen
doors on its submarines.


So far we cannot see a little bit of their work


You mean you have lost your eyesight? Works by the people I had in
mind are readily available. In addition to those mentioned by Brennen
above (Hilbert, Donaldson, Fiala, Urcan, Spinrad, Pope, Gaige) I was
thinking of Edward Winter, William Hartston, Frank Brady, Peter Lahde,
Andy Soltis, Aidan Woodger, Pal Benko, Tim Harding, David Spanier,
Alburt & Lawrence, Edmonds & Eidinow, just to mention a few now living.
Plus among the deceased there are Ken Whyld, David Hooper, Al Horowitz,
Reuben Fine, Irving Chernev, Arnold Denker, and others.
All are or have been involved in chronicling American chess of the
past 50 years, to one degree or another. The quality of work varies
considerably among those I've named, but compared to Sloan, even the
worst of them is like a new Brooks Brothers suit compared to a pair of
ragged blue jeans.

And IMO Sam Sloan is doing a great job.


Perhaps at something, but not at chess history.



  #6   Report Post  
Old March 4th 06, 06:32 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
The Historian
 
Posts: n/a
Default Chess & Wikipedia

Taylor Kingston wrote:
Jerzy wrote:
Wlod, trust me -- plenty of people other than Sloan are working on
this. We need Sam involved in the effort like the navy needs screen
doors on its submarines.

So far we cannot see a little bit of their work


You mean you have lost your eyesight? Works by the people I had in
mind are readily available. In addition to those mentioned by Brennen
above (Hilbert, Donaldson, Fiala, Urcan, Spinrad, Pope, Gaige) I was
thinking of Edward Winter, William Hartston, Frank Brady, Peter Lahde,
Andy Soltis, Aidan Woodger, Pal Benko, Tim Harding, David Spanier,
Alburt & Lawrence, Edmonds & Eidinow, just to mention a few now living.


You forgot one, Taylor.... I mean, I was trying to be modest, but
perhaps I am TOO modest at time.
  #7   Report Post  
Old March 4th 06, 06:54 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
Jerzy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Chess & Wikipedia

So far we cannot see a little bit of their work

You mean you have lost your eyesight? Works by the people I had in
mind are readily available.


But they are not available neither in Wikipedia nor in usenet nor on their
websites.

And IMO Sam Sloan is doing a great job.


Perhaps at something, but not at chess history.


I can see Taylor that your judgement is higher than that of the highest
court :-)


  #8   Report Post  
Old March 4th 06, 07:08 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
Jerzy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Chess & Wikipedia


You forgot one, Taylor.... I mean, I was trying to be modest, but
perhaps I am TOO modest at time.


Neil, your work is available over internet. However Taylor mentioned all
that is not available here :-)


  #9   Report Post  
Old March 4th 06, 08:11 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
Andrew Zito
 
Posts: n/a
Default Chess & Wikipedia

Scumbag Sloan should be banned from all forums including
wike****ingpedia.

  #10   Report Post  
Old March 4th 06, 08:42 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
Say No To g4
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sloan's Humbug



Sam is providing quite systematically the history of the US chess fore
the past half of the century. He should be assisted rather than



You're joking, right?

Let's take a look at Scam Sloan's "history" about Winter:

[ Edward Winter is a noted journalist and author about chess. Winter is
primarily known for always attacking Grandmaster Raymond Keene. Keene ]

Right away you can see that this is not an objective look at Winter. It's more of
a politcal advertisement.


[ is the chess columnist for the The Times and The Spectator in London
and has written more than one hundred chess books. For the past more
than 30 years, every time a new book by Keene has come out or a new
article by Keene has been published, Edward Winter has written
articles attacking it.]

Here Scammie is flattering Keene asnd smearing his subject. What have you
learned about chess history so far?


[ There is no known or verifiable biographical information on Winter,
not even a birth year, because, for the past 30 years, nobody has met
or seen Edward Winter. ]

So the author claims he knows nothing, nil, nada about his subject. Incredible.



[ Keene is convinced that the Edward Winter who attacks him all the time
is the same person as a tournament chess player by that name who had
some run-ins with Keene in the early 1970s. However, the majority view
seems to be that Edward Winter is a pseudonym. ]

Nothing but smears.


[ Attention has focused on Taylor Kingston, a chess journalist in
Vermont. Kingston is about the same age that Winter appears to be.
Kingston is from the same part of England that Winter is believed to
be from. Kingston writes in the same style as Winter. ]


Besides the factual mistakes which wer enoted elsewhere, this reads more
like a piece from the National Enquirer.


[ Kingston attacks
the same people that Winter attacks, although Kingston also attacks a
few additional people, mostly Americans, that Winter does not attack,
such as Larry Parr and Don Schultz. Also, if anybody writes anything
bad about Edward Winter, Kingston will attack that person while
defending Winter. ]

More politcal mud slinging.


[ Winter publishes a regular column called Chess Notes. This column is
xactly what it claims to be, because it contains brief commentaries
usually not more than one or two paragraphs in length attacking
usually insignificant errors and spelling mistakes made by this or
that chess writer. If a book by Keene contains a spelling mistake,
Chess Notes will point it out. ]


Scam keeps claiming that Winter attacks, attacks, attacks. Yet it the
demented author who is doing the attacking. What have we learned
about chess hsistory from this article thus far? Nothing! Absolutely
nothing. It's been all smear, innuendo, gossip, and mistruths.

What can one honestly say about Scam Sloan's intellectual product?
It's the pits. Sloan makes up facts out of his head and his ass. He writes
about subjects he knows little or nothing about. He once lied to a newspaper
reporter saying he was a personal friend of Bobby Fischer. Good grief!
His articles are all bile and no heart. All vomitus and no nourishment.

If you want to read about chess history, stay with the respected authors
and avoid Sloan's tripe.



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 February 19th 06 05:44 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected]o.com rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 January 19th 06 06:15 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 December 19th 05 05:36 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 November 3rd 05 05:30 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 October 19th 05 05:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017