Talk:A Storehouse of Knowledge

Money spent on design and name

"It appears there was quite a bit of money spent to get the wiki well designed and someone thought of a really good name for it. ASK can't compete with the lavish design that the Schlafly family paid for at Conservapedia but its supporters probably think ASK makes up for that by being more reasonable."

I find this comment rather bizarre. First, it has no citation, it just vaguely asserts something that may or may not be true - and probably isn't. It's not too hard to build a nice-looking wiki interface with a little effort. Huw Powell 19:21, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

I agree. I've removed it because it felt like sarcasm and mocking. I don't think A Storehouse of Knowledge is a good name (it's too long for a website), and the design is standard monobook. Conservapedia's skin is also monobook with a few custom colors and minor tweaks. Nx 15:43, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

Move to article page - vote

As the statement at the top says: Move to article page when agreed upon by 3 Sysops and 3 people involved I propose that we do just that.--Bob M 08:13, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Vote for re-insertion

--Bob M 08:13, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

-- Lumenos 14:58, 13 September 2009 (EDT) Vote to unlock the article page (not an endorsement of any version of the article).

-- I vote to reinstate and unblock the article. Rationale: if there are disputes regarding certain claims in it, they are better resolved by adding citations, arguments and anything else that may serve as evidence. And if I may be so bold, future disagreements should be expressed through additions/edits, as opposed to reverting other people's changes. Felix Pleşoianu | talk 01:48, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Felix - great point - direct reverting and re-reverting of edits in an edit war situation are useless in a wiki and should be avoided. Maybe we need to make that a 'policy'. Best, MarkDilley

-- rpeh 12:16, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

-- Unprotect. I'm OK with the page being unprotected. I think the draft above still needs some work, though. Specifically, the phrase "most of the membership consists of RationalWikians who do not agree with the site's worldview" is problematic. Unless you have access to the IP logs of both sites, or for that matter, psychic insight into the contributors' minds, I think you should shy away from making such general statements which cannot be backed up with a reference. --MarvelZuvembie 15:02, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Re the phrase - it is actually true, but probably not useful to say because if it becomes untrue, who will remember to change it? Oh, and you don't need IP logs, since we are talking about "membership" - registered and active editors. There are about 4-5 ASKers who are in line with their worldview, and at least that many self-identified RWians there arguing with them on a daily basis. At least a dozen of "us" have been active there, but some don't bother any more. Huw Powell 20:30, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

ref tags and "references" tag

Wow, I just tried to make the ugly quote in this article a ref and add a ref section, and both tags (ref and references/) failed. What version of MW is running here? Or did I do something wrong (I suspect not)? Huw Powell 04:33, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

It's running 1.10, which is about two years old by my reckoning. Phantom Hoover 05:31, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Are they extensions that have to be "activated" or something? No big deal, of course, this place probably doesn't have much need for footnoting. Huw Powell 20:31, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

It would appear that it is a separate extension. Phantom Hoover 07:58, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

My edit

I'm here explaining some of my changes to this article.

• I removed "ideological", as I felt it was misleading, implying that the site is about ideology, whereas it is a general encyclopaedia. I did follow the link to the category, which explained that it was for "wikis which deal with the subject matter of ideology". What does that mean? That it has articles about ideological topics? Any general encyclopaedia does, including Wikipedia, which is not so described. In any case, the sentence also referred to the site's point of view, so it was somewhat redundant.
• I changed "specifically toward a Young Earth Creationist worldview" to "specifically toward a biblical worldview", because that's what it is. The YEC viewpoint in the encyclopaedia is as a result of having a biblical viewpoint, and the site's viewpoint is specifically (i.e. specified as) biblical.
• I removed the following sentence as bigoted nonsense:

Although the site owner claims aSK is an 'encyclopædia', Rayment strictly enforces his YEC viewpoint and many articles do not include appropriate citations, references or footnotes for independent verification (some articles do have citations, albeit citations to sources biased towards the specific viewpoint, e.g. overwhelmingly Creation Ministries International).

I enforce the encyclopaedia being what it's designed to be—an encyclopaedia from a biblical viewpoint. And any article that I've been primarily responsible for does include "appropriate citations, references or footnotes for independent verification", except from the viewpoint of opponents who refuse to see any citation from a creationist as "appropriate". Furthermore, most Creation Ministries International sources that are referenced themselves have many references to the secular literature. This argument is merely special pleading.

Philip J. Rayment (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Philip. Thanks for your comments here.

I'm happy to agree with your rationale for your first and second bullet points, however, I have to partially disagree with your third bullet point. It is clear from your wiki that you claim it is an encyclopaedia, and as such, all articles do need to have independently verifiable citations/references/footnotes - from all viewpoints. I've personally looked thro many pages of your wiki, and, to me (also being a Christian), find many pages on your wiki either lacking any citations, or having citations which have a clear element of bias. I've also seen similar commentary concerns about your wiki voiced on other wikis, such as RW and Uncyc.

At the end of the day WikiIndex is here not only to list and catalogue other wikis, but also to provide a balanced and unbiased opinion on any wikis - be that favourable or otherwise. Providing any opinion here on WikiIndex is neutral - then it should be allowed to stand, rather than being censored. Of course, any commentary or opinion here on WikiIndex which fails to be neutral, and shows an unreasonable bias can rightfully be challenged and deleted.

I hope you can understand and accept my reasoning. Wishing you peace and the very best regards. --Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 20:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Sean, but I can't accept your reasoning, although I appreciate your attempt to explain yourself. I concede that many articles don't have citations, but many others, including many of the more substantial ones, do have citations, and ones that are independently verifiable. Further, the comment that "many articles do not include appropriate citations, references or footnotes..." is clearly meant to be associated with the comment regarding a "YEC viewpoint", yet it is precisely those articles that have the most citations.

Although I know that a single example isn't necessarily representative, this article has 91 references (more, actually, as some cite more than one source), and they are split about 50/50 from each side of the dispute in question. That's far more balanced than the likes of Wikipedia, and I would expect that many other articles have similar balance in their references.

Your claim that "all articles do need to have independently verifiable citations/references/footnotes - from all viewpoints" is a case of applying standards to aSK that are not applied to other encyclopaedias. WikiIndex's article on English Wikipedia, for example, although noting a poor standard of citation, makes no criticism like the one you are making here. Yet Wikipedia, which, unlike aSK, claims that it aims to be neutral, most certainly does not have citations from all viewpoints; it overwhelmingly cites anti-creationists even on articles about creation, for example.

I find it laughable that you would cite a parody site and the bigoted and vehemently anti-Christian RW as any sort of evidence against aSK. That's like questioning the integrity of the police on the basis of the opinions of criminals and lines from stand-up comedians. Hardly objective sources. If you feel that you have to cite RW and a parody site, it seems that you don't actually have a good case to make. (Although I can't see where Uncyclopedia mentions aSK.)

I completely accept that WikiIndex should provide a balanced and unbiased opinion, but you also agree that opinion should be removed if this is not the case. That is all I did. I removed an opinion that was not balanced nor unbiased. It is biased and unbalanced because (a) it applies a questionable standard that is not applied consistently (about citations needing to be from "all" viewpoints), and (b) it makes a claim that may only true in a narrow technical sense of there being "many" stub-sized articles without citations, whilst not balancing that with the fact that most substantial articles have numerous citations.

Finally, I hinted above that a claim of yours is questionable. Why do encyclopaedias need to have citations from "all" viewpoints? Surely this assumes that all viewpoints are equally valid, which, if true, means that my viewpoint that they are not all equally valid is just as valid as your apparent viewpoint that they are, which proves that your (apparent) viewpoint is incoherent. Or are you suggesting that, for some unexplained reason, citations should be provided from all viewpoints including crackpot ones? I would suggest, rather, that citations should be provided from all credible viewpoints, which of course raises the question of which viewpoints are credible. But this is itself subject to one's worldview. Is it the place of WikiIndex to be passing judgement on which viewpoints are credible? I would suggest not, yet a criticism of a site for not including references from particular viewpoints is effectively doing just that.

Philip J. Rayment (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sortable list of articles

for the sake of clarity and readability on included talk pages, please ensure this table is kept positioned at the BOTTOM of any talk page, thanks

sortable table of related articles across various wiki sites ^{(view / edit / talk)}

↓ subject	aSK	AP (en)	CZ	CP	CW	ED	EOS	IP	Lib	LP	MP (en)	New CP	RW	RWW	Unc (en)	Wikinfo	Wikinfo (criticism)	WP (en)	WP simp eng	WP (es)	subject ↓
a Storehouse of Knowledge	here					here					here		here	here							a Storehouse of Knowledge
Anarchopedia		here		here							here					here	here				Anarchopedia
Andrew Schlafly	here		here	here		here		here			here	here	here	here				here			Andrew Schlafly
Citizendium	here		here	here				here			here	here	here			here		here	here	here	Citizendium
Conservapedia	here	here	here	here	here	here	here	here	here	here	here	here	here	here	here	here	here	here	here	here	Conservapedia
CreationWiki	here				here			here			here				here						CreationWiki
Encyclopedia Dramatica	here	here		here		here		here			here		here		here			here	here	here	Encyclopædia Dramatica
Encyclopedia of Stupid						here							here			here					Encyclopedia of Stupid
Fred Bauder			here			here										here		here			Fred Bauder
Illogicopedia						here		here							here						Illogicopedia
Jimmy Wales	here	here	here	here		here		here			here	here	satire		here	here	here	here	here	here	Jimmy Wales
Julian Assange			here	here							here				here			here	here	here	Julian Assange
Larry Sanger			here	here		here					here					here	here	here	here	here	Larry Sanger
Liberapedia	here				here			here			here		here		here						Liberapedia
Libertapedia				(Ltn Wiki)						here	here		here			here					Libertapedia
Metapedia (en)	here					here					here							here			Metapedia (en)
Philip J. Rayment	here				here								here					here			Philip J. Rayment
RationalWiki	here		here		here	here		here		here	here	here	here	here	here			(RW-talk)			RationalWiki
RationalWikiWiki														here							RationalWikiWiki
Schlafly	here		here	here							here		here					here			Schlafly
Uncyclopedia	here		here		here	here		here			here		here		here	here	here	here	here	here	Uncyclopedia
Wikia		here	here	here		here		here		here	here		here		here	here					Wikia
WikiIndex				here						here	here		here			here					WikiIndex
Wikinfo				here						here	here					here	here	(RD-talk)			Wikinfo
WikiLeaks		here	here	here		here		here			here		here		here	here		here	here	here	WikiLeaks
Wikimedia Foundation			here
Wikipedia (en)	here	here	here	here	here	here	here	here		here	here	here	here		here			here	here	here	Wikipedia (en)
Wikipedia (simple)																here		here		here	Wikipedia (simple)
Wikipedia (es)																		here		here	Wikipedia (es)
Wikitruth				WT founder		here									here						Wikitruth
↑ subject	aSK (talk)	AP (temp) (talk)	CZ (talk)	CP (talk)	CW (talk)	ED (talk)	EOS (talk)	IP (talk)	Lib (talk)	LP (talk)	MP (en) (talk)	New CP (talk)	RW (talk)	RWW (talk)	Unc (en) (talk)	Wikinfo (talk)	Wikinfo (criticism)	WP (en) (talk)	WP simp eng (talk)	WP (es) (talk)	subject ↑

• Criticism of Wikipedia – at English Anarchopedia
• RW satire on Andrew Schlafly
• The Great Citizendium Conundrum
• About RationalWikiWikiWiki
• Wikipedia – at Scots Wikipedia

I've put this in the following talk pages: — talk:a Storehouse of Knowledge, talk:Citizendium, talk:Conservapedia, talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica, talk:Encyclopedia Of Stupid, talk:Liberapedia (Wikia), talk:Libertapedia, talk:RationalWiki (en), talk:RationalWikiWiki, talk:WikiLeaks, talk:English Wikipedia, talk:Español Wikipedia, talk:Simple English Wikipedia, talk:Wikinfo, and talk:Wikitruth. —206.130.173.53 13:17, 21 January 2011 (PST)