Difference between revisions of "Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 17: Line 17:
 
::::::::Thats what i am trying to change.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
 
::::::::Thats what i am trying to change.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
 
:::::::::Bohdan, if you are trying to change it into a trustworthy encyclopedia that means it isn't trustworthy right now. --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 
:::::::::Bohdan, if you are trying to change it into a trustworthy encyclopedia that means it isn't trustworthy right now. --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::Hey, enough with the Jedi mind tricks.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:44, 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.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:39, 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.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 00:44, 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
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)
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)