Talk:A Storehouse of Knowledge: Difference between revisions

"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. [[User:Huw Powell|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. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 15:43, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

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.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 08:13, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

-- 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]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 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]]

-- '''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. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 15:02, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

== My edit ==

* 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.

::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.