Protect yourself
from bad websites
Award winning security extension for your browser
(100% Free. No in-app payments or subscriptions)
7,000+ reviews  in Google Chrome
1,200,000+ users  have installed WOT and are browsing safely
Detect phishing scams and malware
Know which internet shops you can trust
Rate websites!
Help clean the internet

Is truthwiki.org safe? Reviews & Ratings

Do you own this site?Click here

Protect yourself from harmful sitesAdd WOT

Share your feedback about truthwiki.org

truthwiki.org reviews 14
NewestOldestPopular
Bob GreeneSat Jan 17 1970

All of two (2) people gave this site a negative rating, effectively "torpedoing" the site through the authority they borrow from Web of Trust.

But their comments are quite unsubstantiated, as I later discovered when I visited the site for the first time. Having read their comments, my judgment against truthwiki.org was already poisoned against truthwiki.

Imagine my surprise when I found truthwiki.org not only made reasonable, fully substantiated criticisms of such corporations as Monsanto, but documented them, as well. This discovery completely turned the tables on the two imposters of negative opinion. who do not bother to substantiate their own charges.

Clearly, Web of Trust can be used against itself– and WOT management should be alert to this possibility. Not too long ago, it turned out that members of one party had used WOT ratings to sabotage a site run by the opposite party, painting it in lurid colors for "deception" and as a site unsafe for children.

When Web of Trust is misused in such a manner as this, trust in Web of Trust suffers serious damage. All users of WOT should be ready to read and challenge misstatements of fact used by political and business rivals against other websites.

My conclusion– truthwiki.org, so long as it continues to buttress its statements with a factual basis, deserves to be considered fairly with all other websites.

* How interesting that one negative commenter actually singles out the author by name for his charges of deception, a rare case of personal involvement and animus. We might suppose anyone who merely disagreed with the site would disagree, and go on with his life. Which suggests there is more to his negative, but unsubstantiated rating– perhaps a political or industry rival?

geeksquad1000Sat Jan 17 1970

The corporate trolls are at it again. They must get paid well or they have an army of them or both. Its funny how facts, independent peer-reviewed studies, and the truth scare big corporations so much that they literally pay thousands of people to smear websites that host this information.

OneTwoThreeFourSat Jan 17 1970

The negative marks on WOT seem to be corporate shills. The site is safe.

Despite negative ratings by those who wish to remain ignorant this is a safe site.

Dark-MatterSat Jan 17 1970

Even its name is misleading.
Calls itself “Truth Wiki” but seems not to be a “Wiki” or “Truthful”
“Wiki, a website that allows collaborative editing of its content and structure by its users."
Should probably be called “Alternative Truth Blog”.

Another place for Mike Adams to spread his lies. Trust nothing here.

john.michaelrx2Sat Jan 17 1970

Excellent site with truthful information. Pleasantly surprised with its content.

Otto.MossbergSat Jan 17 1970

Is it really so outlandish that people might take issue with the spurious claims made on this site, that one must assume everyone voicing criticism is on the take? There really are serious issues with the site; a page on the MMR vaccine, for instance, is bog standard anti-vaxxer material, downplaying the risks of serious diseases and parroting long-debunked claims about vaccine side effects.

anarchic teapotSun Jan 18 1970

Contains potentially libellous assertions on top of anti-vaccine assertions and all the other lies habitaually associated with anything sold as Truth with a capital T.

Blake.HallSat Jan 17 1970

Conspiracy / alt-med quackery site. Anyone who challenges their rubbish is a shill for Big Pharmonsantobama.

Safety Rating Breakdown

Categories

Misleading or unethical

Trustworthiness

36 / 100

Child Safety

23 / 100