WikipediaReviews 175

I have been an editor for Wikipedia for a decade and it has been mixed bag. They literally host illegal material on their article of Virgin Killer. Honestly they have some creeps that will keep illegal material in my home country of the United States. As for Israeli topics, they are biased and anti semetic. But I had a mixed time there and still edit on occasion, but they need to remove the illegal image if they don't want a report to the United States government.

Информация, как техническая так и политическая содержит много непроверенных данных, которые приводят к неверному восприятию реального (истинного) понимания.

It is a biased information dump. It does not allow facts to be posted only what is convenient. Recommend not donating to it. Recommend not spending your time on it.

Written by Dae Yun Kim(pastor & Ph.D.): Wikipedia claim, Pacific International University is diploma mill, but this is misleading public, because I attended California Pacific School Of Theology/Glendale, California(associated with Pacific International University)physically for 2 years & received Pacific International University(associated with California Pacific School Of Theology/Glendale, California)'s degree after went through all the required process. And also since Pacific International University(associated with California Pacific School Of Theology/Glendale, California)'s degrees are religious degrees, Pacific International University is exempted from U.S. education department regulation & standard, therefore Pacific International degrees are constitutional, lawful & legal. And also since Pacific International University degrees are religious degrees, Pacific International University degrees are recognized by religious organizations. And more informations are posted to yelp/Pacific International University(Victoria, Australia), trustpilot/Wikipedia, pissedconsumer/wikipedia.

I added a page of a low power TV station. It was flagged for potential deletion (ultimately, it was deleted) and discussion because the station 1) wasn't that old, and 2) wasn't relevant for merely being a pass-through for minor subchannel networks. I could cite many other stations that fit that same description, but they weren't flagged for deletion. Besides, it still exists and therefore merits a page.

Then, they want you to donate money to them.

I sent a email and cited this incident as one reason I don't donate money and why I'm hesitant to add information and make Wikipedia better place. I was met with gaslighting saying I need be constructive in my response. Why should I do that when they already made up their minds to delete the contribution for reasons that don't make any sense?

Other edits are often undone by other aggressive contributors that have nothing better to do but start an editing war because they think they know everything. Yet, it's always your fault, not theirs.

Wicked-Pedia is absolute bull$#*!. Based on opinion and not fact.
Anyone can "add" or "edit' factual definitions or descriptions and alter them into hearsay and/or opinion.
DON'T believe what you read.
GO TO THE LIBRARY.

You are not accurate nor biased.
So many inaccurate information.
You are not credib6 and I would never use you.

Instead of asking the public for donations you should request the profiles of the people you have all of their personal information for the donations since it's their business you are promoting. With the times we are in they should be able to contribute $2.75

Wissensportal, dass sich überwiegedn aus Spenden fianziert. Viele Artikel, die soweit einschätzbar häufig auch faktentreu sind

We know facts are facts however, the composers of each blog has a definite political & religious leaning.
The way in which the facts are logged indicates an apparent leaning unto a negative connotation, almost targeting religious persons and their political affiliation. If a reader is merely looking for facts and not writings which point to an opinion, this is not where you will want to seek your information. Folks, I cannot say where is a good platform for ALL correct information without editorializing. Current times show everyone is going to get their opinion across one way or another.

I take exception to Wikipedia's definition of " Intelligent design (ID) [as] a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as 'an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins'[1][2] though it has been found to be pseudoscience.[3][4][5]."
This is an obvious lie concocted, not by scientists, but by internet trolls of the lowest common denominator. ID does not concern itself with God at all, it simply says that, instead of Darwinian random processes responsible for lie, it is a design process that gives rise to massive complexity and functional interdependence at the level of cell development. Origin of life theories have never been able to demonstrate a naturalistic route from pre-biotic chemistry to life. In that sense, ID continues to make more sense than alternative theories. References to God are personal and in no way necessary to formulate the design argument.
It amazes me that Wikipedia, despite its lofty claims, is no better than any other social media platform given to the spreading of dis and misinformation, and outright lies. I will never again make a financial contribution to Wiki for that very reason.

It can be hard to get new topics added. In particular, I know of the rejection of pages for an influential database technology (with US patents) and for a digital standards organisation, and yet there was a page for a US-based comedy series that was never shown in Europe. Not everything in the technical pages is correct, or even fully accepted. It can be seen that some of these pages have taken material from multiple sources that conflict with each other -- basically, some subjects have no precise or universally agreed description. On the other hand, some pages -- especially in physics or mathematics -- have almost been contrived to be unintelligible to the lay person. This is subtly important because it poses the question of whether the site is be educational or not.

I find it odd that the reviews offering negative evaluations of Wikipedia seem to offer simply topics where they purport information to be disinformation. They seem to lack any specifics and merely suggest some whole issue is misrepresented. For example, if I look up Ukraine War, I just don't seem to find some statement of fact that may readily be challenged. When I look at controversial issues discussed, I might question indeed the overall thrust of an article but errors in factual specifics elude me. Checking sources is always advisable in any publication. I have not seen disinformation in Wikipedia as of yet.

The problem with Wikipedia is that bias and slanderous intent is allowed in writings becdause anyone is allowed to contribute and there is no system of monitoring or review.

I used to support Wikipedia and donate, which I did back in 2014. But in recent times I find that what I read is outside of what they should be publishing. Wikipedia claim on multiple profiles it published (about people and organisations) that many of them propagate misinformation. They provide no real evidence of this. Those people and groups they publish things about that I read, are supported by massive informed movements (not funded by Big Pharma or main stream media). Recently the EU Parliament with the help of these movements involving many brave people, identified atrocities committed by organisations during the Covid period. These organisations want control and censorship over anyone outspoken that goes against their narrative, which can only point to money. By not editing objectively the information written, they themselves (Wikipedia) are propagating misinformation. They should stay independent of this and they do not. One good example of this is Dr John Campbell from the UK. He has only ever presented the truth and evidence based information from reputable sources. What is said about him let alone many others is far from correct information, which means it is misinformation. Wikipedia also reported information on Russia's military with no real evidence. This is simply wrong no matter what we think of Russia and the war. From what we understand today about Wikipedia, any one of a thousand or more editors working for Wikipedia can protect any article which leads me to believe that any one of them could possibly receive back-handers to do so. Many issues arose with Wikipedia information when Donald Trump became president too. You can read this all online and I have provided some clips. Wikipedia seldom substantiates the things it publishes well, especially controversial information. If you can't substantiate it properly, do not publish it. Moreover I think Wikipedia should only provide generic information about anything and anyone, without bias. Because Wikipedias information is almost editable to anyone, it can never be reliable. Many education organisations and media groups are not allowed to quote Wikipedia information for this reason. While many things it publishes seems to be fine, there are more than enough misleading information pieces to make Wikipedia quite unreliable as a whole. The world does not need such an online resource that is skewed and unreliable in providing any information about anything. They can not be trusted, this is clear.

I love Wikipedia. It is great if you want easy access to information without having to search too deep on the web. I'd say more than 90% of the time, the articles are accurate and true. It's a shame we can't use this site in schools even though there are moderators whose job it is to validate the accuracy of the articles. There's even references where you can see where the writer got their information. I don't know what I would do without Wikipedia, and I am very grateful they are providing their almost unlimited arsenal of knowledge for free. I've donated to this site before and will do it again.

Wikepidia is the worst website me and my family have ever been on.Also, none of the results are what i wanted.

This is such a 'fake news' website. Why do you think all that information is free? They want us to believe all the stuff that they are pedal pushing out to to us. They create pages to report other websites as fake news but, where is the proof? This tactic of theirs undermines free and critical thinking. Hey wikipedia, if you're not threatened by the so called 'fake news', then just leave them alone. The truth will all come out in the end... maybe that's what you're really threatened by.

The Wikipedia article about the above Dr John Campbell is total lies. Dr. Campbell tells it as it is and the Americans who run Wikipedia do not like the fact that he tells the truth. To think I actually donated to Wikedpia something I will NEVER do again.