Le site conservapedia.com est-il sûr ?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.