Ist conservapedia.com sicher?

Verdächtige Website

Sicherheitsbewertung der Website

27%
Die Sicherheitsbewertung von WOT basiert auf unserer einzigartigen Technologie und den Bewertungen der Community-Experten.
Wird diese Website beansprucht?
Nein
Community-Rezensionen
★ 1.6
WOTs Algorithmus
32%
Jugendschutz
N/A

Was sagt die Gemeinschaft dazu?

Eine Bewertung hinterlassen

Wie würden Sie diese Website auf einer Skala von 1 bis 5 bewerten?
starempty-star
starempty-star
starempty-star
starempty-star
starempty-star
Teilen Sie Ihr Feedback und helfen Sie der GemeinschaftBewertungen müssen aus mindestens 15 Zeichen bestehenWählen Sie die Tags, die diese Website am besten beschreiben
Malware oder Viren
Schlechter Kundenservice
Phishing
Scam
Potenziell illegal
Irreführend oder unethisch
Risiko für die Privatsphäre
Verdächtig
Hass, Diskrimination
Spam
Potenziell unerwünschtes Programm
Werbung / Pop-ups
Inhalte für Erwachsene
Zufällige Nacktheit
Grausam oder schockierend
Abbrechen
Bewertung veröffentlichen
1.6
starhalf-starempty-starempty-starempty-star

Basierend auf 616 Bewertungen

Sortieren nach:
Neuestes
It is a political site. People that don't agree with the message will of course slander it.
Hilfreich
Falsely labeled as 'hate site" by people who have differing opinions
Hilfreich
I agree this site has a lot of opinions religion and politics on it. But we live in a country that gives us free speech. Censoring because your feelings are hurt doesn't justify it. Just click the little "X" in the corner of the tab if you don't like what's being said!
Hilfreich
The poor ratings for this site are typical of what I've seen on many conservative websites: political sabotage. For some absurd reason, liberals seem to think that anything conservative must be full of hate. That is simply not true. I usually rely on the WOT ratings...except when it comes to conservative sites. This particular site is nothing more than a resource for finding other conservatives and conservative organizations.
Hilfreich
Seems fine. Has some strong opinions on certain subjects, and is obviously right-leaning.
Hilfreich
This site is no worse that moveon.org!
Hilfreich
There's nothing malicious about this site. People are up in arms due to differing opinions and claims this site makes. Site is SAFE to visit.
Hilfreich
People claim that this site is biased and yet seem to be unable to exclude their own political bias in rating the site. That's called hypocrisy.
Hilfreich
It's a political site. Those downgrading disagree with the politics of the site and that is not a good reason to downgrade it.
Hilfreich
The most untrustworthy encyclopedia ever. Full of lies, lies and more lies, Just read any article and you know what i'm saying. It's a personal blog and not a informative neutral source.
1
This website is a wiki-based online encyclopedia. It is written from a conservative Christian point of view, making it somewhat biased and unreliable as a research tool. The encyclopedia claims to be a trustworthy source of information, when some of its pages--especially those with topics pertaining to politics--are plagued with bias and inaccuracies. Also, the website includes biased, controversial, or offensive content, such as content which states that "women are weaker than men". However, most of the pages on the encyclopedia are child friendly.
2
The only reason this is labeled poorly is because of politics. I am very disappointed in this service and it has lost value to me because of the poor vetting service. WOT is actually being used as a censor service. You should question Wikipedia then too: http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia ***** I will be removing myself from this service.
Hilfreich
Nothing but propaganda from the American Right.
1
I don't find any of those negative claims on this site. People should have their rights to express their opinion, without being judge of discrimination, hate, and/or racism. If that claims are true, you must also rate Wikipedia the same way you rate this website...
Hilfreich
Extremely biased and misleading. Articles are either uncited or come from unscientific sources such as right-wing opinion articles and creation science websites, rather than anything even remotely peer reviewed. Most facts are cited from articles on the website "creation.com" Here are some of the absurd claims: "Homosexuality was accepted in Nazi Germany" "Evolutionary belief is linked to bestiality" "Liberals typically support child pornography" On science, it pushes a feeling of oppression rather than peer-reviewed facts; that Evolutionary Biology is only taught because science has been controlled by atheists who want to brainwash children out of their religion. It is utterly absurd. It also doesn't even try to hide its bias. In articles, the "liberal community" is often used and is preceded by terms like "licentious" and "immoral." The article on liberals itself is filled with specific presumptions about belief on modern laws, rather than the actual definition. It's hard to tell if this website is a joke or just plain crazy. There is absolutely no way the bad ratings for the website are simply because of "liberal bias" or "liberals oppressing free speech." Both conservatives and liberals should be opposing this because it is one of the most deceptive websites on the internet.
1
The people who are voting this site down are doing so because they have differing political views, not because it's a bad site.
Hilfreich
Only Liberals are marking this site bad. This site is fine.
Hilfreich
People posting as misleading claims or unethical are those who are not objective. Looking at both sides of the spectrum leads to clear understanding. These are probably the same people who rely solely on the HuffPo as a source for "reliable" information. It is best to read information from many sources and form your OWN opinion; not be led by the minions.
Hilfreich
I do not agree with all the views presented on this site, but I believe people need to hear both point and couterpoint to make an informed decision. I would not consider this site an authority for research. (I wouldn't consider wikipedia an authority either as it is subject to the last edit of anyone with an account.) The subjects addressed offer a counterpoint argument to those provided and on radical or liberal websites about social issues. Therefore, this site is useful in understanding the viewpoint of a subset of the American political spectrum, -Evangelical Christians. It should be viewed on a par with sites such as move.org, ffrf.org, slate.com, ***** or any other politically motivated sites. I label the the child safety as be cautious as I believe these are issues best addressed with parental guidance. I label this ste suspicious as there are some opinions presented that disregard factual evidence that supports scientific theories widely accepted at this time.
Hilfreich
An alternative viewpoint site. Nothing more. Anyone describing it as "not safe for kids" is a blatant liar trying to stifle free speech.
Hilfreich
56789
...
31
Prüfen Sie, ob Sie kompromittiert wurdenVerbinden Sie sich mit Google, um Ihren Browserverlauf zu scannen.
Mit Google verbinden
Gesehen bei
Mit Ihrer Anmeldung stimmen Sie der Datenerfassung und -nutzung zu, wie sie in unserer Nutzungsbedingungen und Datenschutzrichtlinie
alternative-placeholder

Über WOT

Wir haben mehr als 2 Millionen Websites überprüft, Tendenz steigend. WOT ist eine leichtgewichtige Erweiterung, mit der Sie schnell und sicher surfen können. Es bereinigt Ihren Browser, beschleunigt ihn und schützt Ihre privaten Daten.

Ist das Ihre Website?

Melden Sie Ihre Website an, um Zugang zu WOTs Business-Tools zu erhalten und mit Ihren Kunden in Kontakt zu treten.
Diese Website beanspruchen
Diese Website verwendet Cookies für Analysezwecke und zur Personalisierung. Indem Sie fortfahren, erklären Sie sich mit unseren Cookie-Richtlinie.
Akzeptieren