216
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 7:
Line 7: + − +
Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'? (view source)
Revision as of 03:53, November 12, 2007
, 03:53, November 12, 2007→FOR: negated
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 :]
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. [[User:Underscoreb|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. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:48, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
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. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:48, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
== AGAINST ==
== AGAINST ==