@Sklivvz So would you accept the wording "Is Conservapedia accurate?" or even "Are there any studies made on the accuracy of Conservapedia?"

@Zano Try "Is Conservapedia more accurate than Wikipedia?" The founder launched his site has a responses to what he perceived a liberal bias in Wikipedia. I'm sure it's possible to find a place where he claims superior accuracy if you look at little.

@Borror0, my contention is that both sites will claim that their pages on evolution are more accurate.

@Sklivvz Of course there is such a thing as an implicit claim. Any claim implied by a statement is an implicit claim

@Oddthinking I'm not sure what the problem is, there. Obviously both sides think their site is superior, but that doesn't prevent us from looking into the topic objectively. Of course, the answer isn't going to be interesting and the users of Conservapedia are unlikely to be swayed this they have a poor grasp of the concept of proof, but that is neither here nor there.

@Borror0, as an independent experiment, it makes sense. As Skeptics.SE fodder it lacks a claim. No-one is claiming that Conservapedia is reliable by the measures of scientists. It is trustworthy by the measures of the political group behind it. If you are part of that political group, you can trust it not to say anything against your values.

I'm pretty sure that the founder thinks his site contains nothing but the truth, compared to the lies on Wikipedia. The same applies to most of his users, though that may just be Poe's law rearing its ugly head.

There might be answers to the question that might be more interesting than we anticipate.

btw, @Oddthinking, I'd argue that the owner (Schlafly) actually claims that it's scientifically accurate. It's just that he has a pretty shallow understanding of the term science. He doesn't just claim that "this modified truth is better for conservative purposes than the actual truth". His claim is that Wikipedia censors the non-PC reality.

@Zano Exactly. He believes that Wikipedia does what we think he does, but by discarding evidence not congruent with a liberal point of view. For example, he believes abortions cause cancer, and thinks Wikipedia ignores that fact because liberals like abortions.

@sonny a claim is explicit by definition, as I've shown. And that's exactly what we intend in our FAQ.

@zano, if you can dig up some statement by the owner to that effect, then it's a valid claim: go ahead and post it.

Ok, thanks for the feedback all of you.

@Zano, @Borror0: Excellent, if you can find such a claim (more than the original "Wikipedia is trustworthy") then I'm with Sklivvz - go for it!