18+
This site is for 18+
18+

Is conservapedia.com Safe?

This site is suspicious

1.6
starhalf-starempty-starempty-starempty-star
(621 Reviews)
Claim this site
Ask our community
Share:
Share your thoughts...
starempty-star
Poor
starempty-star
Fair
starempty-star
Average
starempty-star
Good
starempty-star
Excellent
621 Reviews by the community
Sort by:
Newest
The most trustworthy online protection
Dec 29, 2012
WOT is not meant for "opinions" about the political content of a web page....it's meant to tell the public whether or not a site is safe for kids, safe from viruses, or safe from getting ripped off. You poor, brainwashed liberals can cry about how this conservative website is blah-blah-blah....but in the end, this site is no different than every major news channel/newspaper that bleeds the other side of the coin. Tsk tsk tsk....you liberals are fucking crazy and unrealistic, with your group-think, big-government, save the owl, anit-business, loss-of-freedom, gay-pride platform. But just wait--in 20 years from now, all you same liberal pussies are going to look around and wonder what happened to good ole' free America. Wake up.
Helpful
Dec 10, 2012
starempty-starempty-starempty-starempty-star
I go here for a laugh as it is so crazy that it is hard to believe people actually believe this stuff. I DO NOT recommend this for anything other than laughs, and certainly not for kids.
Helpful
Dec 5, 2012
It is not a good site, however it is not a bad site. The information can appear to be racial, but the entire content is purely opinion with some fact. This site is protected by the United States 1st amendment the right to freedom of speech, and freedom of press. There are no safety problems, or code issues. I gave it a good site not because of the content but the overall, experience of the sites structure. This site requires a cerebral act of critical thinking.
Helpful
Dec 1, 2012
This site does not phish or do anything to you. It isn't a bad business that steals from you or a site that tries to infect you. I am not a fundamentalist, nor do I believe in a God. But most of the content here is reasonable and not at all hateful. You can see how these conservatives are all considered hateful. They refuse to be rude to the silliness that spouts hate, and confront them. Look at all the hateful comments about a decent site that shows a point of view. That the ideas of this site could evoke such hatefulness ... shows me that it is probably not conservatives that are hateful and petty. There is nothing wrong with this site, and if WOT is going to allow their members to use the system to enforce their political views, I'll have to consider my continuance. PS - There aren't just two sides to an issue and when individuals express their opinions, they do not have to submit the arguments against. I am sorry if folks here think that ideas can be harmful. I can see that they will not tolerate intolerance, and they certainly hate haters. hehe ... I crack myself up.
Helpful
Nov 27, 2012
starempty-starempty-starempty-starempty-star
This site claims to be "conservative", but has very little relation to traditional conservatism, and actually represents an extreme right-wing viewpoint coupled with Christian fundamentalism. While everyone has a right to his or her opinion, the problem with this site is that it contains so much anti-scientific and pseudo-historical propaganda, and promotes many ideas as "fact" (e.g., creationism as science) which are, at best, highly questionable, and more often demonstrably false. I would not trust this site for information on any subject.
Helpful
Nov 27, 2012
starempty-starempty-starempty-starempty-star
Not only does it discount Proven Scientific Evidence but it also advocates hate against LGBT and Atheists.
Helpful
Nov 20, 2012
It should be a spoof, but it isn't. Poe's Law states that " is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing" - in this case Poe's Law is reversed, this is such an extreme example of fundie "thinking" that it is understandable that many people routinely mistake it for a parody. In fact, Conservapedia is beyond parody.
Helpful
Nov 20, 2012
starempty-starempty-starempty-starempty-star
Site is full of fundamentalist Christian opinions - mostly wrong/unproven.
Helpful
Nov 16, 2012
starstarstarstarstar
There are things on this site and on other sites that I don't agree with, but I don't mark them as hateful for it. Looking at the "Conservapedia Commandments" (http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments), it is apparent that this site mandates that articles are based on verifiable truths, and opinions must be kept on the "talk" pages.
Helpful
Nov 13, 2012
The site is fine. Its safe. Liberals are abusing the WOT to scare people from reading the content in it. Its up to you to vet our whether the information is true or not.
Helpful
Nov 1, 2012
starempty-starempty-starempty-starempty-star
Extremely biased website.
Helpful
Oct 19, 2012
starstarstarstarstar
Totally safe. Only red because Liberals hate it.
Helpful
Oct 15, 2012
starempty-starempty-starempty-starempty-star
Willfull misinformation
Helpful
Oct 13, 2012
starstarstarstarhalf-star
This is definitely not a hate site. In fact they take issue with holocaust deniers, for example. It seems they just have a different viewpoint, to which they are entitled. Someone said it delivers "mind viruses". Come on, give me a break! Try reading a few articles before rushing to judgement.
Helpful
Oct 13, 2012
starstarstarstarstar
Ignore the negative critiques of narrow biased, immoral, dishonest left liberal's craps
Helpful
Oct 4, 2012
starstarstarstarstar
While this site is extremely biased (and is very vocal about it) it is perfectly safe and will cause no harm to your computer.
Helpful
Sep 30, 2012
starstarstarstarhalf-star
It's just a different point of view. I don't think it should get a bad rating any more than say liberalpedia lol.
Helpful
Sep 18, 2012
Some important names in naturopathy are: Vincent Priessnitz (1799-1852), Theodor Hahn (1824-1883), Arnold Rikli (1823-1906), Sebastian Kneipp (1824-1897), Tadeo Wiesent (1858-1926), Wilhelm Winternitz, Benedict Lust (1872-1945), Eduardo Alfonso, Manuel Lezaeta, Adrian van der Put, Nicolás Capo and José Castro. This is the truth and you can't hide the truth
Helpful
Sep 17, 2012
I'm very disappointed in the WOT rating system. The ratings themselves show the people doing the rating to be exactly what they are accusing others of being. Completely bias and one sided. So all that is needed to beat the WOT system is for like minded people to get together and attack whatever site they choose to destroy. Mud is truly thicker than water as this community of misfits have shown. Because of this there is no value in the WOT rating system
Helpful
Sep 7, 2012
Liberals don't agree with the philosophy behind this site, they therefore rate it as Hateful, Nothing can be further from the truth, Give us a break. If you don't like something tell someone on a message board. By wrongly rating a good site, you devalue what Web of Trust was created for. Ignore the politics and give a true rating. No Viruses, No Hate speech, No store problems for this site.
Helpful
«
121314
...
32
»

About this site

Trustworthiness
32
/100
Child Safety
35
/100
This site uses cookies for analytics and personalised content. By continuing to browse this site, you agree to our cookies policy
Accept