Talk:A Storehouse of Knowledge: Difference between revisions
MarkDilley (talk | contribs) (→Vote for re-insertion: Comment) |
(→Vote for re-insertion: aye) |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
: 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]] | : 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]] | ||
-- [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] 12:16, 14 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 16:16, 14 September 2009
Move to article page when agreed upon by 3 Sysops and 3 people involved in the conflict
Description
A Storehouse of Knowledge or aSK is a general encyclopædia with a biblical worldview. It was founded by former (disillusionedsee note) Conservapedia sysop Philip J Rayment. It began on 22nd March 2009.
Note:
- Philip J Rayment about Conservapedia: "However, it is not, and never will be, an encyclopaedia. It gives Christians, creationists, and conservatives a bad name by operating in ways that do not match Christian and conservative values. As long as it is like that (and it shows no signs of improving), I want it to fail." [1]
The wiki is small but growing fast. Although there are a few former as well as current Conservapedians, most of the membership consists of RationalWikians who do not agree with the site's worldview, and this has caused some conflicts. RationalWiki has an article on A Storehouse of Knowledge [2] and details current events there [3].
/end article draft
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)