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)

sortable list of articles

Sortable table

subject	aSK	AP	CZ	CP	ED	EoS	Lib	LP	New CP	RW	RWW	Un	WInf	Wikinfo (criticism)	WP	Simple Eng	WP Spanish	WT
a Storehouse of Knowledge	here									here	here
Anarchopedia		here		here									here	here
Andrew Schlafly	here			here					here	here	here				here
Citizendium	here			here					here	here			here		here	here	here
Conservapedia	here	here	here	here		here	here	here	here	here	here	here	here	here	here	here	here
Encyclopedia Dramatica	here	here		here						here		here			here	here	here
Encyclopedia of Stupid										here			here
Fred Bauder													here
Jimbo Wales	here		here	here					here				here	here	here	here	here
Julian Assange			here	here											here	here	here
Larry Sanger	here		here	here									here	here	here	here	here
Liberapedia	here									here
Libertapedia				(Ltn Wiki)				here		here			here
Philip j. Raymant										here
RationalWiki	here							here	here	here	here	here			(RD-talk)
RationalWikiWiki											here
Schlafly	here			here						here						here
Uncyclopedia	here		here							here	here		here	here	here	here	here
Wikiindex				here				here		here			here
Wikinfo				here				here				here	here	here	(RD-talk)
Wikinfo (criticism)		here
Wikipedia	here		here	here		here		here	here	here		here			here	here	here
Wikipedia (SE)			here	here
Wikipedia (Sp)			here
Wikitruth				(WT founder)								here
Wikileaks		here	here	here						here		here	here		here	here	here

• RW satire on Andrew Schlafly
• RW satire on Jimbo Wales
• The Great Citizendium Conundrum
• About RationalWikiWikiWiki
• Wikinfo on Simple English Wikipedia
• Wikipedia in Scots English Wikipedia

I've put this in the following talk pages:

This page and

Talk:Citizendium, Talk:Conservapedia, Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica, Encyclopedia Of Stupid, Talk:Liberapedia, Talk:Libertapedia, Talk:RationalWiki, Talk:RationalWikiWiki, Talk:English Wikipedia, Talk:Español Wikipedia, Talk:Simple English Wikipedia, Talk:Scots Wikipædia, Talk:WikInfo, Talk:Wikitruth, and Talk:WikiLeaks.206.130.173.53 13:05, 21 January 2011 (PST)