83,675
edits
Talk:A Storehouse of Knowledge: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→My edit: replied to Philip
No edit summary |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
== My edit == | == My edit == | ||
I'm here explaining some of my changes to this article. | 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 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. | ||
| Line 39: | Line 38: | ||
::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). | ::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. | : 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. | ||
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] ([[User talk:Philip J. Rayment|talk]]) 10:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Hoof Hearted|Sean, aka <small>Hoof Hearted</small>]] • <sub>[[:Category:Active administrators of this wiki|Admin]] / [[WikiIndex:Bureaucrats|'Crat]]</sub> • <small>[[User talk:Hoof Hearted|talk2HH]]</small> 20:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
==sortable list of articles==<!--keep this section at the BOTTOM of this talk page--> | ==sortable list of articles==<!--keep this section at the BOTTOM of this talk page--> | ||
{{table of articles}} | {{table of articles}} | ||