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

Revision as of 01:02, 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. --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, 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)

MY mistake, i meant that i was trying to give it more articles, to make it MORE reliable.Bohdan

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)

I'm not stupid, I can figure it out. And I am not saying that all the articles are perfect.Bohdan

There is no article on either of the human biological organs required to produce the Life which you all apparently consider so sacrosanct. Every article is riven with opinion, and most of the crucial debates are locked and are pet stomping grounds of bigots and closed-minded individuals. 50something

where is the opinion in the Lindisfarne article? Bohdan

"Lindisfarne also has a small but imposing castle." Saying that it is small is someone's opinion. I could say that it is rather large because it is bigger than me. --FredK 20:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

And this is how we judge if its trustworthy?Bohdan

No, you were wondering where the opinion was in the article so I showed you. I base trustworthy on how reliable it as a whole and because it is rather small and doesn't much information(mainly stub for articles) I would say that it is not trustworthy. --FredK 20:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

It's not much good to say that parts of it are reliable if you have no way of know which parts those are. It is a perfect example of a "curate's egg:" "Oh dear, did you get a spoiled egg, Mr. Jones?" And the curate replies "Well, some parts of it are excellent!" Dpbsmith 20:58, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

For me the 'Encyclopedia' part fails with the very premise of the entire site. Putting my own politics or opinions aside for a moment (although I am a divorced mid-50's evangelical Christian Republican mother), the very idea that knowledge can be made to fit to an 'agenda' means that this could never be a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia' - after all, the creators of this site WANT it to have a particular slane, a particular agenda, a particular view. Facts do not fit with a Viewpoint, they simply ARE. Yes. Also, the article lists only one reference, the town's own website. And the article doens't even mention the folk-rock group of the same name. 50something