Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?

Opinions please, both for and against:

FOR

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

AGAINST

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

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. --Hojimachong^talk 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. --Hojimachong^talk 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, I'd love to see a few examples of "encyclopedic" entries. JoyousOne 20:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)