Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Karajou (Talk | contribs) at 20:35, 24 October 2012. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Opinions please, both for and against:


conservapedia has thousands of trustworthy articles. 50something, you base this on your experiences with ONE article(Adultery), right? look at some others.Bohdan

50something thousand trustworthy articles? conservapedia's main page says it only has 16000 pages.

ITs Called Conservapedia, since it has part of the word "Conservtive" in it you know it will represent a fair and balanced point of view, well I guess it depends how you look at it. -RG :]

This is not exactly a compelling argument. Underscoreb 22:53, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, I have found Conservapedia constantly improving with filling out information and removing imbedded vandalism from its early days when there wasn't as much checking. I read a comment from many months ago complaining that there were no internal links between articles - now, that's largely a complaint of the past. While some areas are sparse, the information presented is accurate. It also gives a conservative view that is often not allowed in other forums and as such provides an important source for information that could be difficult to find otherwise. Learn together 11:48, 14 August 2007 (EDT)


I have to say, I keep up with Conservapedia daily, mostly because I don't agree with the views of the website. I do have to point out something. Conservapedia constantly points out smears against conservatives and false articles on Wikipedia, but I haven't yet found a smear against Conservapedia itself. Why not lay off the smearing of other sites when they aren't smearing you in the first place? From Steven, Digitamer81

Of course not, not yet. the entire goal is to eliminate bias, add facts, and eventually make it reliable. --Hojimachongtalk 20:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

No. it is an encyclopedia that tells consevitives what they want to hear and forces conservitive ideals upon others.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1718 (talk)

Oh, be reasonable. It doesn't force ideals on anyone. No one is required to be here. Bohdan 15:47, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
Agreed, but there's obviously some sort of agenda here which favours loaded language and non-encyclopedic coverage (most notably, denigratory comments and value judgements in the entry for liberal). Ultimately this makes for a less objective, reliable source. Sorry guys. Underscoreb 23:06, 11 November 2007 (EST)

No. An 'Encyclopedia' is generally considered to be authoritative, i.e. contains opinions considered 'generally true', which would mean that more than one person would maintain that opinion. Sysops lock articles having written them to suit their own purposes. References are utterly abused, contain editorial instead of simply being links to the reference quoted, and are manipulated to misquote reference. For example, see the article on Adultery, where two references which suggest that adultery is gender-neutral are listed in an editorialsed refernce link which refers to adultery as being caused solely by the woman.

adultery is one out of what, 9000 articles? what other examples do you have?Bohdan
Hahhaha. Where do I begin?50something
Bohdan, look at Special:Popularpages. Most of them, well, suck. --Hojimachongtalk 20:28, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
do we speak of the quality of those articles or their truthfulness?Bohdan
Both. Most of them are filled with mined quotes, and outright non-factual info, not to mention unbelievably blatant censorship. --Hojimachongtalk 20:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
I guess, but i dont think that they represent the majority of articles here. I have found that many of the non-controversial articles are reliable.Bohdan
This site also isn't trustworthy because it doesn't have enough articles to make it a reliable source of information.--FredK 20:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Thats what i am trying to change.Bohdan
Bohdan, if you are trying to change it into a trustworthy encyclopedia that means it isn't trustworthy right now. --FredK 20:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Hey, enough with the Jedi mind tricks.JoyousOne 20:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
MY mistake, i meant that i was trying to give it more articles, to make it MORE reliable.Bohdan
Bohdan, I'd love to see a few examples of "encyclopedic" entries. I'm trying to do my part, as I am sure you are. I know Hoji has done a lot.JoyousOne 20:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

WHY does everyone begin comments to me with my name? Bohdan

So that you know someone is addressing you?JoyousOne 20:42, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm not stupid, I can figure it out. And I am not saying that all the articles are perfect.Bohdan

There is no article on either of the human biological organs required to produce the Life which you all apparently consider so sacrosanct. Every article is riven with opinion, and most of the crucial debates are locked and are pet stomping grounds of bigots and closed-minded individuals. 50something

where is the opinion in the Lindisfarne article? Bohdan
"Lindisfarne also has a small but imposing castle." Saying that it is small is someone's opinion. I could say that it is rather large because it is bigger than me. --FredK 20:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
And this is how we judge if its trustworthy?Bohdan
No, you were wondering where the opinion was in the article so I showed you. I base trustworthy on how reliable it as a whole and because it is rather small and doesn't much information(mainly stub for articles) I would say that it is not trustworthy. --FredK 20:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes. Also, the article lists only one reference, the town's own website. And the article doens't even mention the folk-rock group of the same name. 50something

It's not much good to say that parts of it are reliable if you have no way of know which parts those are. It is a perfect example of a "curate's egg:" "Oh dear, did you get a spoiled egg, Mr. Jones?" And the curate replies "Well, some parts of it are excellent!" Dpbsmith 20:58, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

For me the 'Encyclopedia' part fails with the very premise of the entire site. Putting my own politics or opinions aside for a moment (although I am a divorced mid-50's evangelical Christian Republican mother), the very idea that knowledge can be made to fit to an 'agenda' means that this could never be a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia' - after all, the creators of this site WANT it to have a particular slant, a particular agenda, a particular view. Facts do not fit with a Viewpoint, they simply ARE. 50something

Oh, also - sysops - Conservative, for example - are guilty of 'editing the record'. In the case of the sysop quoted, you will see how often he removes comments from his own User:Talk page. Changing the record of history is one of the most dangerous sins against knowledge, and was popularly used by Stalin among others. 50something

OK, another suggestion, in support of being reasonable. I would have no debate with you or your project WHATSOEVER, if you would simply change the main page and stop claiming you are an Encyclopedia. Why not call yourself 'Conservapedia - a Young Earth Creationist Database', or something similar? 50something

///It should be noted that not even Wikipedia is viable as a scholarly source. I.E. it should never cited in any kind of research. With that said I think a good rule is to not even CONSIDER using conservapedia as any kind of factual outlet.

Commandment 13: "We do not require contributing editors to have to explain themselves constantly and justify every single edit to prove that it conforms to an exacting set of rules which are designed to suppress original thought, new ideas and penetrating insights."

No, that's really interesting... Editors don't have to justify their statements. That's good, I mean it's only the process by which actual factual encyclopedia's are rigorously put through. Why should you do it here?///

Depends on how you classify trustworthy. Obviously some materials are going to offend people who are more to a liberal side. Come on-it is biased-check the main page about Obama if you don't believe me.--Faizaguo 07:58, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, to be fair (fallacious idiom), Conservapedia is a bit more biased than Wikipedia. Bias is unavoidable, since "We see colors, but not wavelengths..." (C.G. Jung). There is an inherent bias when we perceive, because our perceptions are based on their effects on the mind. Even if a computer wrote an article it would be biased, because a human, who would have been biased, programmed it. Even if a computer programmed another computer, the progenitor-computer would have been programmed by a human, who would have been biased. Bias is unavoidable; it just seems more blatant on conservapedia.