All of these butt-hurt liberal scumbags giving this site bad ratings just because they don't agree with the views expressed make me want to vomit. Yeah, it's a right-wing conservative site - it says so in its domain name! Why don't I see red circles next to CNN or NY Times? They spew left-wing propaganda all the time. Maybe we conservatives understand what WOT is for: Does this site install malware? No. Does this site phish or scam? No. Is there porn or anything unsafe for kids? No. Are there pop-ups & ads? I don't care - I use ad-blocking software. Is everything printed here 100% fact? Caveat emptor, like all the rest of the internet! Y'all stupid libtard pukes need to grow up and take your silliness elsewhere, 'cause if you think you're getting the facts from BigMedia, you're just as dumb as those who believe everything on conservapedia.com.
Another attempt by people to stop any form of opinion they disagree with - So they call it "racism", "hate speech", etc. So if all terrorist's are Muslim, is that statement hate speech? Radical Muslims are the only ones saying "death to gays","beat your wife if needed", behead any non believers, and so on, and on and on.
Hate speech? WHEN FACTS ARE CALLED HATE SPEECH - YOU ARE LIVING IN A TYRANNICAL SOCIETY.
A bastion of conservative views. Conservapedia does openly admit that it is primarily a conservative view on things, which is fine, but expect an obvious bias, of course. The reason why there is such a negative rating here is due to unfair, malicious brigading by left-leaning users, who are attempting to portray the site as untrustworthy, despite when sites such as Wikipedia are guilty of obvious censorship and bias.
A wiki-based encyclopedia site filled with fundamentalist Conservative Christian propaganda, misogyny, ridiculous claims of Wikipedia, inappropriate claims of liberals and lots and lots of hate speech, especially of liberals and abortion. A biased source with so ridiculous stuff I actually mistaked it for a parody site called "Niilopedia" (http://fi.niilopedia.org).
Conservapedia should NOT be trusted and I don't recommend visiting it unless you want to laugh at its incredible stupidity.
I used to edit there for fun and got banned simply because I wrote a factual article about RationalWiki.
The site doesn't contain any not-safe-for-work imagery, but it's not suitable for children. Read some of their articles and you'll understand why.
Many of the poor ratings apparently come from left-wing liberals. It seems likely that the worst ratings come from believers in CAGW - Catastrophic Anthropogenic (human-caused) Global Warming.
This site provides a good balance to the liberal slant & inaccuracies of Wikipedia.
Has a lot of solid links to climate research that WP doesn't have.
WOT has to be more careful allowing people with leftist political views to orchestrate attacks on sites that do not conform with their political beliefs - especially reputable science research sites.
This site contains a lot of information from the conservative/Christian viewpoint. From that view, this information is accurate. Wikipedia, on the other hand, contains a lot of information from the liberal/atheist viewpoint. Since Conservatives are the minority, Wikipedia have the green rating while Conservapedia has the red rating. However, this site is not less accurate that Wikipedia, from the intended viewpoint. Sure, they ruffle a lot of feathers, but this is their view, and for this it should not be given a poor rating. Everyone has their opinion, so just let them be.