Difference between revisions of "Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?"
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
'''WHY''' does everyone begin comments to me with my name? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] | '''WHY''' does everyone begin comments to me with my name? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | :So that you know someone is addressing you?[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:42, 7 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 00:42, May 8, 2007
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. --Hojimachongtalk 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. --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
- 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)
- do we speak of the quality of those articles or their truthfulness?Bohdan
- Bohdan, look at Special:Popularpages. Most of them, well, suck. --Hojimachongtalk 20:28, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
- 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)