5,274
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: +
Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'? (view source)
Revision as of 00:37, May 8, 2007
, 00:37, May 8, 2007no edit summary
:::::do we speak of the quality of those articles or their truthfulness?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::do we speak of the quality of those articles or their truthfulness?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::::Both. Most of them are filled with mined quotes, and outright non-factual info, not to mention unbelievably blatant censorship. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Both. Most of them are filled with mined quotes, and outright non-factual info, not to mention unbelievably blatant censorship. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 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.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::::This site also isn't trustworthy because it doesn't have enough articles to make it a reliable source of information.--[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::This site also isn't trustworthy because it doesn't have enough articles to make it a reliable source of information.--[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)