Some articles they have are laughably short and good examples of what Wikipedia calls "coatrack" articles.
QUOTE
Enver Hoxha was the Stalinist dictator of Albania from 1944 to his death in 1985.
In 1967, he banned all religions from Albania.
See also
Chicago Area Friends of Albania
No date of birth, no date of death, no biographical information outside of "he led Albania and was a 'Stalinist' atheist" and apparently the Chicago Area Friends of Albania is relevant to Hoxha's life and work, rather than being a small mid-80's organization that a certain left-wing individual (and one-time Wikipedian) participated in for a while. Their article on Albania itself is mostly copied from elsewhere.
QUOTE(radek)
I remember looking up an article on Conservapedia related to Race and Intelligent once an finding that it had less racist crap in it than the corresponding Wikipedia article (I don't remember the details). Same for immigration. Who knows what happened to these in the mean time. I dunno, what is the active editor population of that site?
I think the main problem is that Conservapedia is much like Wikipedia in that you'll get someone who actually knows a lot about a subject (only in Conservapedia's case it tends to come from banned Wikipedians continuing their work on Conservapedia in protest) who decide to edit articles so that they are actually pretty good and not hatchet jobs, but then the mass of fundamentalist Christians who want everything to be as skewed towards one single point of view as is possible emerge, so instead of (using a hypothetical example) "Andy Dick is a comedian" you'd get "Andy Dick is a depraved bisexual atheistic pedophile and liberal whose comedy routine is terrible. Dick is, according to World Net Daily, a profoundly anti-American person who, like all atheists, liberals, and everyone not heterosexual, has had run-ins with depression and the law." Said decent editors then either retire from the project or engage in arduous work to make the article not-insane, which tends to result in them being banned for "liberal bias."
Replace "fundamentalist Christians" with "an unending stream of people who don't know enough about a subject to significantly contribute to an article but do anyway" and you have Wikipedia.
Here's an example of an article that's obviously intended to be dead on arrival in-re not being a hatchet job:
http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity196 citations. The Wikipedia article on Joseph Stalin has 311. An article basically saying "ATHEISTS ARE FAT LOL!!!" has 63% of the amount of citations of the Stalin article. The Stalin article on Conservapedia itself has
10 citations, so an article equating obesity and atheism has
1960% more citations.
This post has been edited by Mister Die: