Difference between revisions of "islamWiki:Under the hood (content)"

From islamWiki...
Jump to: navigation, search
(Topic)
(~~~~)
Line 31: Line 31:
  
 
: --[[User:AhmadF.Cheema|AhmadF.Cheema]] ([[User talk:AhmadF.Cheema|talk]]) 22:57, 17 October 2016 (SGT)
 
: --[[User:AhmadF.Cheema|AhmadF.Cheema]] ([[User talk:AhmadF.Cheema|talk]]) 22:57, 17 October 2016 (SGT)
 +
 +
 +
{{reply to|AhmadF.Cheema}} Those articles will obviously be distorted to some degree. The problem with checking whether wikipedia already has an article about it or not is that the chances of wikipedia already having it are high, yet they still lack many objections. However, if we swere to solely rely on that idea then we'd only end up with maybe 50 articles on this site. After i added several points on various wikipedia pages everything kept on getting rejected and none of them are up anymore. In terms of Islam, there is a strong amount of wiki-salting on wikipedia.
 +
 +
Even in terms of Biographies, wikipedia still misses out strong points such as the Muslim scientists research papers either having no names or Latinized names.Yet when i add such a simple point to their "neutral tone website" it seems to be rejected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinisation_of_names 
 +
 +
Lastly, if this Wiki-site is not really intended to be a counter-part to most of the anti-islam websites whose lies have made several thousands of Muslims apostate (myself almost included) then wouldn't it be counter-intuitive to even have this website up? Or pretty much useless ?From what i thought so far it was to refute such nonsense,clear out misconceptions and at the same time have it be done with a neutral tone on an objective platform[[User:Rami|Rami]] ([[User talk:Rami|talk]]) 04:24, 18 October 2016 (SGT)

Revision as of 20:24, 17 October 2016

 Policy Technical Content Miscellaneous  
The content section of under the hood is used to discuss the literature and content that constitute the body of articles in islamWiki.

Contents


Topic

Hello everyone,

It came to my attention that several of these Anti-Islamic websites dedicate pages to personal figures. I was wondering if we should dedicate a category for such individuals in various fields whether they be highly achieved scientists such as Ibn-Al Haytham or controversial political figures? This being a wiki i supposed we should have as much articles(if not more) than our counter-parts ?

Let me know what you guys think. (i am still learning how to use this wiki software so bear with me lol)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rami (talkcontribs) 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Are those articles especially negative? One thing that should be kept in mind while figuring out whether an article should be included in this Wiki or not is to see if Wikipedia already has an objective, finely balanced article having as much information as is going to be end up here on the same topic or not. If the article here is going to end up with the same information as in Wikipedia, there wouldn't be really much need for it. However, if there is content regarding information or arguments that are not accepted by Wikipedia because of their policies, those could be considered to be entered in this Wiki.
The setup, I believe, which would be workable is to let the relevant Wikipedia articles handle the biography stuff, and if the anti-Islam websites are making some arguments not based on facts, or making unsupported suppositions, or using half-truths etc. then the responses from the supporters of such personalities could be included on this Wiki.
Another thing that I should point out is that, presently this Wiki does not really intend to be a "counterpart" to anti-Islam websites. The objective at the moment is to be just a collection of arguments and other relevant information.
--AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2016 (SGT)


@AhmadF.Cheema: Those articles will obviously be distorted to some degree. The problem with checking whether wikipedia already has an article about it or not is that the chances of wikipedia already having it are high, yet they still lack many objections. However, if we swere to solely rely on that idea then we'd only end up with maybe 50 articles on this site. After i added several points on various wikipedia pages everything kept on getting rejected and none of them are up anymore. In terms of Islam, there is a strong amount of wiki-salting on wikipedia.

Even in terms of Biographies, wikipedia still misses out strong points such as the Muslim scientists research papers either having no names or Latinized names.Yet when i add such a simple point to their "neutral tone website" it seems to be rejected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinisation_of_names

Lastly, if this Wiki-site is not really intended to be a counter-part to most of the anti-islam websites whose lies have made several thousands of Muslims apostate (myself almost included) then wouldn't it be counter-intuitive to even have this website up? Or pretty much useless ?From what i thought so far it was to refute such nonsense,clear out misconceptions and at the same time have it be done with a neutral tone on an objective platformRami (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2016 (SGT)