3.3 out of 5 with 16 ratings

Wikipedia Reviews

about Wikipedia · · Helpful Not helpful 19 Helpful Report as spam

Is all fine and dandy until you try to contribute you will quickly find is not really the encyclopedia everyone can edit. There are various admins and power circles and power struggles and often good ideas get rejected and bad ideas approved simply because they "seem" okay with the admins. A lot of articles are of very poor quality and the quality is getting lower by the day it seems. I would only use to collect references. Deff never gonna donate again! Bad experience.

reply

Looking back on my college days, Wikipedia was not an option when it came to references or citations. Although, I do think the site has become more reputable, I can not deny what you are saying is true. What is your "go-to" research site?


bad admins

about Wikipedia · · Helpful Not helpful 17 Helpful Report as spam

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.

reply

I agree. All my good contributions got reversed in a day because the got pissed at me for challenging their authority. Is more about power monopoly than truth !


Too much ads

about Wikipedia · · Helpful Not helpful 14 Helpful Report as spam

I was happy Wikipedia user for years and now they started to spam me with "donate" ads all the time. They recently increased staff dozens of times and this is why they need so much money. They should just fire all those unnecessary staff.

reply

They need to make a living


about Wikipedia · · Helpful Not helpful 6 Helpful Report as spam

Wikipedia articles are not accurate, out of date and politically spun.
Anything mainstream such as Wikipedia is suspect and not to be trusted.

reply

Agreed.

All controlled by the banksters' corporatocracy: Apple, Amazon, Disney, Facebook, Google, MircroSoft, NetFlix, Reddit, Twitter, Wikipedia, Yahoo!, Yelp!, etc.

# Decentralize All Things
# Fight Elites Not Each Other


about Wikipedia · · Helpful Not helpful 6 Helpful Report as spam

Wikipedia is often used by Britons to censor the true facts of their past atrocity. A lot of English royalists, nationalists are active in this site, and they censor the information of genocide, plundering, and many other atrocities they had done in their former colonies. Their site, their admins, their people, so what makes you to think they will allow us to write their black history ? no wonder why it says history is written by victors. It's difficult to do with Indian articles because there are a lot of indians, a lot of Indians are active, but small nations like sri lanka have not much people to defend their country, and thus they often become victims. Apart from this problem, there are many other problems in Wikipedia. so I think wikipedia is a dangerous place for kids to use, as it brainwashes them with the agenda of the admins of Wikipedia. People are supposed to read different opinions from different sources, not get used to a single site. So I strongly advise parents block Wikipedia, and not allow your kids to access it.

reply

The opposite happens even more often and blatantly, leftists censoring right wing perspectives

@dayixe
You are wrong.

no, u

Actually it does get censored by the SJW left a lot. And the right. And the totalitarians. What remains is what is allowed by the Overton window. This excludes the old-rational-non-corporate-left, the alt-right, libertarians, Greens, voluntarists, historical revisionists, conspirophiles, truth-seekers, cyber-freedoms, alternatives, or solutions. They all have valid points of view, even if you or I don't agree with them.


about Wikipedia · · Helpful Not helpful 3 Helpful Report as spam

Wikipedia is a place to start for the "official narrative" but it CANNOT BE TRUSTED. Wikipedia perpetuates propaganda with a heavy SJW bias with little tolerance for the old-rational-non-corporate-left, the alt-right, libertarians, Greens, voluntarists, historical revisionists, conspirophiles, truth-seekers, cyber-freedoms, alternatives, or solutions.

Take Wikipedia's information with a grain of source and compare it with as many diverse and contrary external sources as possible, from "mainstream" to the "fringe" alternative independents - then use your own critical thinking to triangulate on your own rational truth instead of being told to believe and forced to have blind faith in their corrupted sources.

Wikipedia is excellent for non-controversial and non-political content (though often truncated for brevity when there's no excuse to omit potentially valuable information). However, knowing when something has been politicized is not always obvious.

The Wikipedia admins are a gang of thugs, largely paid by the deep state and covert secret agencies like the CIA and Mossad, and they only allow corporate "mainstream" media sources (controlled by Operation Mockingbird) to be used. If you think I sound crazy look it up, though don't expect the corporate media to tell the truth about this as they'll just pretend this story doesn't exist.

The sheer volume and power of Wikipedia is extremely impressive, but if much of it is corrupt the entire thing is compromised. I'd rather have quality over quantity any day.

And this is coming from someone who still tries to make an improving difference on Wikipedia when I can.

reply

Hands down the most truthful review of wikipedia so far.


about Wikipedia · · Helpful Not helpful 2 Helpful Report as spam

It would be a great resource if it had a verification system and not any person with an opinion could post their take on any event, ever. Sad to say, but it is helping dumb down the world, like google. You don't have to know or be accountable for anything; you can just WIKI or Google it. Being a parrot doesn't make you intelligent and posting incorrect information on a world-wide forum that was not designed for credibility or credentials to prove your information is correct is not a good thing. It is a travesty and an insult to anyone who has a higher education. I know for myself, in college, WIKIPEDIA was an automatic zero if you cited it as a source of information, but I have learned that there are some places that actually allow it. Well, cliche, misinformation, parroting information and sheer stupidity must be the new normal, but forgive me if I decline to participate. All of the gifts of technology and we create a lower bar of acceptance and it seems that every generation that follows is more accepting of not striving to be better, they strive to make everyone ignorant drones. Just because some thing is free, doesn't mean it is good for you or help you in any way. Well, I have to go and post that the genocide of WWII was a hoax and that slavery in America never happened, don't worry I am sure someone will know it might not be true. Oh, wait, I may be misinformed, Wikipedia might have corrected these errors and actually found a way to have peer reviewed, accredited authoritative information by people of credibility of some expertise in their field writing now. One can still hope, but I still don't trust it... I will stick with JSTOR or other academic resources, even Google Scholar has better information. Ironically, as stated by others, there are admins and moderators, but what are their credentials? Why do they get to say what is right and what is wrong? The CIA, and other intelligence organizations in the world do the same thing, but it is not always in the benefit of the world wide population. Yeah, it is called propaganda and Nazi's did it to hide their atrocities, oh, you might want to fact check that on Wikipedia or a real resource that is not controlled by an oligarchical structure. Free and incorrect, is still incorrect, but by whom and why? Or just stick your head in the sand or oven and think it is the best go to source for information ever! YAY! Flash back to that previous comment about unintelligent drones that do not critically think or consider the source of the information before believing it. Yeah, that might be you if you think Wikipedia is that great.

reply

about Wikipedia · · Helpful Not helpful 1 Helpful Report as spam

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

reply

about Wikipedia · · Helpful Not helpful Report as spam

I really enjoy Wikipedia. I know that my review is gonna be down voted beyond hell like any other review here. But really if you want to get official sources about many topics you can find them into the reference section of Wikipedia.
It's a great tool to get a quick overview about a topic and a great tool to start large research about the topic (using the references).

Yes it's difficult to edit it, and yes I think the policy of Wikipedia is sometimes very harsh. But you can still edit it, it just requires work and research. Otherwise you can also make minor edits, like adding links, adding medias, formatting, copy editing, etc.

That's my opinion.

reply

about Wikipedia · · Helpful Not helpful Report as spam

best content

reply

about Wikipedia · · Helpful Not helpful Report as spam

Wikipedia offers information on almost any topic imaginable.

reply

about Wikipedia · · Helpful Not helpful -3 Helpful Report as spam

Great source of information.

reply

about Wikipedia · · Helpful Not helpful -3 Helpful Report as spam

This has become my first source for information. Yes, you still have to check that something isn't wrong, but pure vandalism is rare these days. - Free, collaborative, open (YOU can edit it too).

reply

about Wikipedia · · Helpful Not helpful -6 Helpful Report as spam

Wikipedia is my go-to place when starting to learn about anything, and it has served as an amazing reference for a number of years. I can easily get lost reading through pages for hours and hours on end.

reply