AlternativeTo Logo
Wikipedia icon

Wikipedia

Free content, multilingual online encyclopedia written and maintained by a community of volunteers through a model of open collaboration, using a wiki-based editing syst...

  • Online
  • Android
  • iPhone
  • Android Tablet
  • iPad
  • Kindle Fire
  • MediaWiki
Avg rating of 3.4 (33)| 36 comments

Wikipedia Screenshots

Language Selection
Main Page
Example search of Wikipedia
iPhone/iPod Touch: Wiki App
 Suggest and vote on features

Wikipedia Features

  1.  Ad-freeWikipedia doesn't contain any form of external advertising.
  2.  CrowdsourcedWikipedia uses suggestions, information, etc., from a large group of people to improve the quality of the content.
  3.  IFTTT IntegrationYou can connect different services to automatically trigger actions within Wikipedia using IFTTT.
  4.  WYSIWYG SupportWikipedia integrates a WYSIWYG editor to edit the look and content of a document, page, or file.

Wikipedia information

  • Developed byWikimedia Foundation
  • LicensingOpen Source and Free product.
  • RatingAverage rating of 3.4 (33 ratings)
  • Alternatives66 alternatives listed

Supported Languages

  • English
  • Afrikaans
  • Albanian
  • Arabic
  • Armenian
  • Assamese
  • Basque
  • Bengali
  • Bosnian
  • Breton
  • Burmese
  • Khmer
  • Catalan; Valencian
  • Chechen
  • Czech
  • Danish
  • Dutch
  • Esperanto
  • Faroese
  • Finnish
  • French
  • Galician
  • Georgian
  • German
  • Greek
  • Hebrew
  • Hindi
  • Hungarian
  • Icelandic
  • Indonesian
  • Italian
  • Japanese
  • Kannada
  • Korean
  • Latvian
  • Lithuanian
  • Luxembourgish
  • Macedonian
  • Malay
  • Malayalam
  • Marathi
  • Nepali
  • Norwegian Bokmål
  • Occitan
  • Oriya
  • Oromo
  • Pashto, Pushto
  • Persian
  • Polish
  • Portuguese
  • Panjabi, Punjabi
  • Romanian
  • Russian
  • Sanskrit (Sa?sk?ta)
  • Serbian
  • Chinese
  • Sindhi
  • Slovak
  • Spanish
  • Sundanese
  • Swahili
  • Swedish
  • Tajik
  • Tamil
  • Telugu
  • Thai
  • Turkish
  • Ukrainian
  • Urdu
  • Uzbek
  • Vietnamese
  • Welsh
  • Yiddish

Apple AppStore

  •   Updated
  •   4.42 avg rating
View in AppStore

Our users have written 36 comments and reviews about Wikipedia, and it has gotten 1516 likes

Wikipedia was added to AlternativeTo by Journeyman on and this page was last updated .

Comments and Reviews  Post a comment/review

 all • positive • negative      relevance • date
peterborrows
  
Top positive comment ago
Copy a direct link to this comment to your clipboard   
If this Review contains spam or other abuse, notify admins about it.   

good and mostly reliable source of information. you shouldn't blidnly trust it, though!

Show entire comment
3
isisstelling
  
Top positive comment ago
Copy a direct link to this comment to your clipboard   
If this Review contains spam or other abuse, notify admins about it.   

This is one of the best examples of what a community can do, with no money interest. Yes, the information itself can't be 100% trusted, but you can gather basic stuff by reading the page, or you can check the reference section for more reliable sources.

Show entire comment
2
Thellen
  
Top negative comment ago
Copy a direct link to this comment to your clipboard   
If this Review contains spam or other abuse, notify admins about it.   

wikipedia admins are terrible. They don't want you to know the truth and will remove everything. I hope there will be an alternative for wikipedia.

Show entire comment
19
schizoidnightmares
  
Positive comment ago
Copy a direct link to this comment to your clipboard   
If this Review contains spam or other abuse, notify admins about it.   

Extremely large source of general information about a wide variety of topics, no equivalent comes close in my observation. It is completely free, and with the notable exception of occasional fundraising ads, lacks any advertising. It is generally a very smooth reading experience. Minor corrections to articles are usually quite easy to make, provided they are not contentious.

Occasionally, Wikipedia will run obnoxious fundraising campaigns. Problems of (predominantly leftist) bias and inconsistent enforcement of rules also persist. The issue of bias is near omnipresent on articles related to U.S. politics, which IMO comes across sometimes as if written by CNN.

That being said, for a user-generated encyclopedia, it handles bias relatively well compared to other alternatives. It has held up reasonably well especially in this age of electronic mis/disinformation. Just be wary of politically contentious articles.

The idea of Wikipedia being under a "spontaneous order" is a bit of misnomer as there is an army of bots and users with higher privileges that tirelessly combat the endless stream of vandals and spammers. This is very fortunate for both Wikipedia and readers as without these numerous technical/human interventions, the site would be a complete mess.

There is also an intense amount of bureaucracy that lies underneath the surface. You could spend many years attempting to familiarize yourself with all the rules and guidelines that have been written. While I do think this bureaucracy exists for benevolent purposes, it is too complicated for most users to adhere to — hence the selective enforcement of it.

I am not a fan of the fluid definition of "consensus" they have and would prefer a clearer majoritarian-based system.

Overall however, it is amazing that a site like Wikipedia still exists. I would say it has had as a whole a positive influence on the Internet and humanity.

Show entire comment
0
ab1
  
Negative comment ago • Edited ago
Copy a direct link to this comment to your clipboard   
If this Review contains spam or other abuse, notify admins about it.   

Not competitive compared to majority of adequate commercial enterprises which just do their own things.

Show entire comment
1
ab1
  
Negative comment ago
Copy a direct link to this comment to your clipboard   
If this Review contains spam or other abuse, notify admins about it.   

Blatantly breaks copyright laws for decades by omitting authors after "Merge".

Show entire comment
1
ab1
  
Negative comment ago
Copy a direct link to this comment to your clipboard   
If this Review contains spam or other abuse, notify admins about it.   

Around 200 supported languages is just scam. They have hard time to create English content.

Show entire comment
0
Show more comments
7 of 36 comments

Tags

  • wiki-hosting
  • lexicon
  • web2

Recent user activities on Wikipedia

  • we
    weiguosen83831322 liked Wikipedia
    ago
  • schizoidnightmaresschizoidnightmares reviewed Wikipedia
    Extremely large source of general information about a wide variety of topics, no equivalent comes close in my observation. It is completely free, and with the notable exception of occasional fundraising ads, lacks any advertising. It is generally a very smooth reading experience. Minor corrections to articles are usually quite easy to make, provided they are not contentious. Occasionally, Wikipedia will run obnoxious fundraising campaigns. Problems of (predominantly leftist) bias and inconsistent enforcement of rules also persist. The issue of bias is near omnipresent on articles related to U.S. politics, which IMO comes across sometimes as if written by CNN. That being said, for a user-generated encyclopedia, it handles bias relatively well compared to other alternatives. It has held up reasonably well especially in this age of electronic mis/disinformation. Just be wary of politically contentious articles. The idea of Wikipedia being under a "spontaneous order" is a bit of misnomer as there is an army of bots and users with higher privileges that tirelessly combat the endless stream of vandals and spammers. This is very fortunate for both Wikipedia and readers as without these numerous technical/human interventions, the site would be a complete mess. There is also an intense amount of bureaucracy that lies underneath the surface. You could spend many years attempting to familiarize yourself with all the rules and guidelines that have been written. While I do think this bureaucracy exists for benevolent purposes, it is too complicated for most users to adhere to — hence the selective enforcement of it. I am not a fan of the fluid definition of "consensus" they have and would prefer a clearer majoritarian-based system. Overall however, it is amazing that a site like Wikipedia still exists. I would say it has had as a whole a positive influence on the Internet and humanity.
    Show more
    ago
  • Wikipedia iconMetapedia iconRemovedUser Downvoted a comment on Metapedia as an alternative to Wikipedia
    Metapedia similiar to Wikipedia, but without NPOV and PC.
    ago
AlternativeTo