islamWiki:Under the hood (content)

From islamWiki...
Jump to: navigation, search
 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[edit]

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)

I apologise for what I said that may have frustrated or offended you.
If you want to write such articles, no one is stopping you. I just wanted to point out that, it would be extremely difficult to match the quality of Wikipedia articles on such matters because of the popularity advantage Wikipedia has. As I mentioned before, it would be just more efficient to enumerate the valid points or arguments that Wikipedia doesn't allow for whatever reasons.
You are mistaking what I meant by "counterpart". What I meant was that this Wiki does not intend to become embroiled in a never-ending loop of arguments and counter-arguments as some would say answering-christianity.com had become. Answering-islam makes one article, answering-shristianity makes a rebuttal, answering-islam makes a counter-rebuttal and so on it goes. Such a process is likely to make the authors become partial and no longer able to remain objective. Just state the facts, answer the criticisms - as is done in the Bestiality in Islam article, around 75% of which consists of the answering criticisms section - and let the people decide for themselves. Do not target any website or person specifically, that just feeds into their own need for recognition and acceptance. What you want this Wiki to achieve, if I'm not mistaken, gets fulfilled by this methodology. Targeting specific groups would end up requiring the use of negative allegations against such groups and, I believe, a nascent website such as this one should keep away from it, at-least as long as it does not have the resources to make sure that there are no unintentional or intentional mistakes being committed on such negative claims.
Regards, --AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2016 (SGT)


@AhmadF.Cheema: omg lol no offence taken i didn't mean to come off triggered. I can see your point and no i didn't wish to indulge in a never ending loophole of arguments where everyone just believes whatever floats their boat. It was more like a safe place for Muslims to properly and objectively learn about the criticisms regarding Islam without the author's opinions distorting it. A place for Muslims to feel the ease of researching their religion without being trampled by millions of Islamophobic websites. In addition, there would be no point of counter-arguing whatever the critics would have to say since this website would already provide their arguments. Rami (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2016 (SGT)