83,675
edits
Talk:A Storehouse of Knowledge: Difference between revisions
Fix redirect
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "{{TOCright}}" to "{{TOC right}}") |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) (Fix redirect) |
||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
:::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. | :::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, [http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Suppression_of_dissent_against_evolution 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. | :::Although I know that a single example isn't necessarily representative, [http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Suppression_of_dissent_against_evolution 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 [[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. | :::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 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. | :::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. | ||