The ECFs Wikipedia entry

[John Upham]

Just made some minor updates of the ECFs wikipedia entry which is at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Chess_Federation

I can't help feeling that the entry is far too modest and lacking in content.

Anyone in this place made changes to it?

The history shows various updated from aliases giving no clues away as to who they are.

I suspect no official at the ECF currently gives the entry any thought.

[John Upham]

For the curious you make inspect the revision entry at

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

I made some changes in 2014 (as "Gallicrow").

[John Upham]

I can't help feeling that the ECF should task someone like Leon Watson to look after it.

Maybe the Director of Communications?

Oh, wait a minute...

[MSoszynski]

If someone from the ECF edits it, that would be a COI (Conflict of Interest) matter, and the edit (even if correct and uncontentious) could be "reverted" as it's called.

[Kevin Thurlow]

If someone from the ECF edits it, that would be a COI (Conflict of Interest) matter, and the edit (even if correct and uncontentious) could be "reverted" as it's called.

Er, are you saying that Wikipedia object to people editing topics when they should (in an ideal world) actually know what they are saying?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The objection is insertion of bias, not of factual information. The ideal situation is that the account(s) disclose the connection on their user page and in their edit summaries and on article talk pages.

Briefly looking at the page, John is right that lots of information is missing. Something about past officers and chairs and Presidents (usually those who are 'notable' enough to have Wikipedia articles). e.g. that Steve Davis was President at one point. The BICC (British Isles Coordinating Committee) should really be mentioned as well. That 'British Chess Federation' redirects to ECF is not ideal given the long history prior to the changes.

Here is what the BCF article looked like in 2005:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... d=17269191

And just before it was redirected in 2006:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... d=57488275

Could also look at other chess organisation articles to see how they are presented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... anizations

I like that Pennsylvania has managed to get its own page!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylva ... Federation

And South Kanara District:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Kan ... ssociation

(someone may be along shortly to zap that)

Some interesting one there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WestBridg ... ss_Academy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodricke ... ss_Academy

That last one may also get zapped, or 'merged' into something like the completely useless:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... anizations

(The utility of lists versus categories is endlessly debated.)

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

Editing Wikipedia is very difficult now. Just this morning I attempted to change the year of birth for the ex-wrestler / referee MC Brian Crabtree (brother of Big Daddy) from 1955 to 1938. It's a subject I happen to know a bit about, but I don't have any sources I can quote, so my change was changed back almost immediately:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1332357454
It seems strange to me that they'd rather have completely incorrect information. A few years ago this sort of thing would have been discussed on the "talk" page for the article and a consensus reached.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I've just gone in and removed the spurious (and unsourced!) date of birth, along with adding a comment that it's inconsistent with other information in the article.

[John Upham]

I've just gone in and removed the spurious (and unsourced!) date of birth, along with adding a comment that it's inconsistent with other information in the article.

Whose DoB are you referring to Jack?

[Kevin Thurlow]

"It seems strange to me that they'd rather have completely incorrect information. A few years ago this sort of thing would have been discussed on the "talk" page for the article and a consensus reached."

It's not uncommon - I suspect the original poster objects to the truth being published.

Edit - an ex-colleague of mine (a scientific librarian) said, "Wikipedia is a good place to start, but a bad place to finish."

[John Townsend]

It's not surprising that Jon's amendment was not accepted, as he acknowledged that he didn't have any sources he could quote. It must be sound policy to accept changes only where proper sources are given.

Here, though, it is simply a case of three siblings, including Brian W. Crabtree (born March quarter 1938), all with the same mother's maiden name (Briggs) and all born in the Halifax registration district. So, it appears to be simply a case of citing the relevant G.R.O. sources and explaining the bit of logic regarding the mother's name and district, and Bob's your uncle ...

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

I've tried using the GRO index as justification for modifying birth and death dates before and had my change reverted because I was told I was using my own research. In fact I've just remembered that was for Cat Stevens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Stevens) - the current version of the article says his sister was born in 1937, whereas freebmd.org.uk suggests it should be 1939. I tend to limit myself to simple changes now, for example adding a link to a chess player's page on chessgames.com, rather than fixing factually incorrect information.

[John Townsend]

The three Crabtree birth entries are for known wrestling people who were siblings. The G.R.O. data proves that Brian W. (born March quarter 1938) had the same mother's maiden name and registration district as his brother, Max, and sister, Shirley. One would expect that an amendment which presented these facts and cited the G.R.O. references would be quickly accepted. I should add that I have never submitted material to Wikipedia.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Wikipedia is very much not a formal process that needs "submissions". Simply create an account. Understand the basic rules and guidelines. Show some competence and editing history (shouldn't really be needed, but helps). And then get to know how to communicate with the active users in particular areas (some will be annoying, but most are OK) and then it should mostly be fine from that point on, unless you hit a third rail (e.g. editing in area of Palestine and Israel politics and a number of other contentious areas).

In this case, a birth year being 1938 instead of 1955, removing the wrong one was obvious. Getting the right one accepted is more difficult. The best way is to write about it and get published on the topic. Then you can point to the publication. It has the bonus of adding to the published sum of human knowledge on the topic. That is the difference between citing archival materials and citing a publication that was written using archival sources.