We’re in this together! Stay safe with our COVID-19 guide

View
×
  • Bookmark

    Wikipedia

Corporate Values

Overview

Wikipedia has a consumer rating of 3.91 stars from 148 reviews indicating that most customers are generally satisfied with their purchases. Consumers satisfied with Wikipedia most frequently mention online encyclopedia, many times and reliable source. Wikipedia ranks 2nd among Open Source sites.

  • Value
    13
  • Shipping
    3
  • Returns
    3
  • Quality
    14
Positive reviews (last 12 months): 20%
Positive
2
Neutral
1
Negative
7
View ratings trends
6
See all photos

What reviewers want you to know

Positive highlights

  • Wikipedia has brought information just one click away.
  • Even though people add or edit the info, most of the time it is accurate.

Critical highlights

No critical highlights yet

How would you rate Wikipedia?
Top Positive Review

“Probably the most important site on the internet”

Ginny D.
1/25/21

It is said that the universe is expanding at 150,000 mph. I'm not sure if even God knows. But on Earth, as we witness the miracle of the technology revolution, none of us can be masters of our universe and that's where Wikipedia plays an invaluable role. This online encyclopedia is in itself an expanding universe of almost anything you need to know and the "go to" place for everyone. It's so amazing that your knowledge about anything will expand faster than what would have been possible without it. If you're a parent with young children, this site must be bookmarked. In fact, if you're still alive, this should be bookmarked. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that it is neutral, can be edited by anyone, tends to be highly accurate since changes to content undergo the scrutiny of contributing editors, and is an ongoing self-sustaining body of thought. It's rich in inter-wiki links which will enhance your original search by providing links to critical elements. Your destination starts in one place and depending upon how curious you are, takes you to places you didn't intend to go or knew existed. So, while most people think in terms of the present, Wikipedia provides you with enough information to think way beyond the beyond and envision what the future beholds. Check it out and just add the magic word "wiki" to your internet search.

See positive reviews
Top Critical Review

“Nothing but a far left tool”

S H.
3/30/21

I used to think Wikipedia was an alright organization. Not any more since their left side writing on former president Trump. Clearly they are using their organization to push a political view instead of providing true facts and only facts. What a crock this organization truly is. Thankfully, i don't have to use their service since there is still free choice at least for now.

See critical reviews

Reviews (148)

Rating

Timeframe

Other

Reviews that mention popular keywords

information (68) people (29) articles (21) time (37)
sh568
1 review
3 helpful votes
March 30th, 2021

I used to think Wikipedia was an alright organization. Not any more since their left side writing on former president Trump. Clearly they are using their organization to push a political view instead of providing true facts and only facts. What a crock this organization truly is. Thankfully, i don't have to use their service since there is still free choice at least for now.

andrijanar2
1 review
0 helpful votes
June 2nd, 2021

In what right mind someone would let a page exist when the majority of people can change the FACTS with lies?! Can someone explain this? I will never open wiki$#*!ia again, at least not for history articles. I guess even Adolf Hitler can be a saint in the eyes of the majority if they try to change the article. This page has to come down. It's filled with lies and incorrect information.

lanal113
1 review
7 helpful votes
January 5th, 2021

They lie, don't read politics or history. They turn all upside down. They embellish war criminals! They lie about World War 2. It's half truth, half lie so it would look like truth.
Don't read them. There are unprofessional people who write the articles. I once helped them with 20 pounds so they told me that now I can write any article I wish! So it's not about professionalism but as always about money!

Products used:
Wikipedia online

Service
Value
Quality
austinb201
1 review
0 helpful votes
December 20th, 2020

Multiple attempts to beg for $ during pandemic. Use advertisers if running a site is that expensive.

arnoldb80
3 reviews
5 helpful votes
April 7th, 2021

Internet users who want to publish useful words on Wikipedia are often Discriminated by Google. The Reason is that Wikipedia is from Google, this company does have a lot of interest/greed to control what users can see and what not even if it does have important words, for example useful words like [seodiscrimination] or [Negative Seo] will be blocked by the owners/administrators that does work on Wikipedia platform.
We did try to publish the word Seodiscrimination on Wikipedia, (see images)
Direct after publishing comes an owner/administrator from Wikipedia and does do Down Vote/Disapproved that word. (in a few minutes they do without to analyze if it is a useful word for internet users on the world wide web) and a moment later after doing that this administrator/fake account who did do that bad thing, will be removed/disappear on wikipedia, so that it does not any more exist, this way the users can not contact that administrator and ask them why they do that without any reason.(see images)

Why is the word Seodiscrimination so useful?

Seodiscrimination is a very useful word for all internet users, that will explain in a single/one word,
What the effect is because of Negative Seo, Ad Fraud, Click Fraud, Ranking Fraud, Scam Companies/Websites and many more.

We did also make an important website for all internet users, seodiscrimination dot com but google & Adwords now called Google Ads, does do everything to not to rank this site even if we do or best to have quality backlinks with quality articles pointed to this Landing Page.

emmanuele22
1 review
2 helpful votes
May 3rd, 2020

I recently by mistake tap on edit option of wikipedia while scrolling screen the pop up message displays say ( You have been blocked from editing wikipedia) SHOCKED I never ever have tried in my life and why will I edit that this is something which I have no concern I rarely use wikipedia. Can anyone tell me how can I block wikipedia in google search.

lisab1585
8 reviews
19 helpful votes
October 7th, 2020

I have recently looked up several different topics. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a factual, reliable source. This is why schools will not allow students to use wikipedia.

uraanc
4 reviews
16 helpful votes
March 27th, 2020

When I edit something, it changes it. I am helpful to a page but those stupid, SH*TTY, Crappy people

johnniea17
1 review
1 helpful vote
October 21st, 2020

I was blocked from editing until 2022! No reason! Help! This is extremely unfortunate. I love sharing my knowledge and brains on this site and now I cannot do that. The people of Wikipedia cannot survive without my brainpower! Get me unblocked! I loved this site and I cherished it. It was my world. Please... don't leave me Wikipedia. PLEAAAASSSEEEE! I LOVVVVEEEE YOUUU COMMMEEE BACCKKKK. I will never be using this site again! This is extremely unfortunate. I will never forgive you.

Service
ginnyd2
40 reviews
54 helpful votes
January 25th, 2021

It is said that the universe is expanding at 150,000 mph. I'm not sure if even God knows. But on Earth, as we witness the miracle of the technology revolution, none of us can be masters of our universe and that's where Wikipedia plays an invaluable role. This online encyclopedia is in itself an expanding universe of almost anything you need to know and the "go to" place for everyone. It's so amazing that your knowledge about anything will expand faster than what would have been possible without it. If you're a parent with young children, this site must be bookmarked. In fact, if you're still alive, this should be bookmarked.

The nice thing about Wikipedia is that it is neutral, can be edited by anyone, tends to be highly accurate since changes to content undergo the scrutiny of contributing editors, and is an ongoing self-sustaining body of thought. It's rich in inter-wiki links which will enhance your original search by providing links to critical elements. Your destination starts in one place and depending upon how curious you are, takes you to places you didn't intend to go or knew existed.

So, while most people think in terms of the present, Wikipedia provides you with enough information to think way beyond the beyond and envision what the future beholds. Check it out and just add the magic word "wiki" to your internet search.

rons338
Ron S.
15 reviews
40 helpful votes
December 5th, 2019

They claim it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but Wikipedia does have a policy of banning users based solely on sexual orientation. Wikipedia has also removed my edits when I've tried to add useful links or correct the disinformation that dominates some pages, and Wikipedia banned my IP address when I complained. In my experience, Wikipedia is run by arrogant, immature jerks using silly pseudonyms while pretending they're heroes for poorly running a website full of biased articles while claiming to be neutral. Information on Wikipedia is not a reliable - that's according to Wikipedia, not just me. And it seems that Wikipedia is begging for money every other month. The begging messages are becoming more and more obtrusive. I won't donate, and I feel that Wikipedia is in decline because they drive away editors and there are good alternatives now. I've noticed an increasing number of articles with obsolete information on Wikipedia. What's truly sad is that many kids and some adults might actually believe that the completely biased articles on Wikipedia are neutral and factual. You could end up regretting ever supporting Wikipedia just like I do. Some people don't know that Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales got his start by peddling pornography, which doesn't offend me but seems hypocritical when he only supports freedom for some. Jimmy Wales has also made fun of college students who cite Wikipedia. It had potential, but I've long ago given up on the idea of it being anything other than a den of disinformation ruled by power-hungry snowflakes.

icarop
2 reviews
1 helpful vote
August 10th, 2019

This site is good, have big informations. But sometimes it has false information in articles. Big help in college searchs

jonj121
1 review
10 helpful votes
December 27th, 2019

It contains lot of factually/technically incompetent, biased and erroneous information. On technical subjects it's usually incomplete of just plain wrong. On non-technical subjects it's so socially and politically biased that it's almost humorous, if it weren't so sad. I call it the world's greatest source of uninformed, incorrect and biased information.

natalieh307
1 review
0 helpful votes
July 6th, 2021

The media, social media, government and now Wikipedia are truly shameless in their attempt to control the minds thus actions of Americans. If people don't wise up to these tactics and think logically for themselves, FREE of the influence of their television, our right to do such things as write a review like this will be taken from us before we know it. How on earth a human being has no regard for their personal freedom is mind blowing. How someone could possibly believe that a government they have never met and do not personally know has their best interests at heart AND that the government should be allowed to enact laws that dictate their life is foolishness to the highest degree. The idea that one person should be able to silence another because they don't like what's being said in the antithesis of freedom? This cancerous belief that more laws will banish hatred, racism, and usher in peace is. The laws will work to bring silence as they are intended, and that silence will be of ALL people. It will be of EVERYONES freedom and EVERYONES right to free speech. The arrogance of Americans that support this ideology to aggressively "silence the haters" or anyone with "potentially harmful information" (ie: anyone that disagrees with them) has blinded them to the fact that they are willingly being controlled by a movement/ideology of lies. They can't see that the goal is to ultimately control them JUST AS MUCH as those the ideology has fueled them to hate, silence and seek to punish. In the name of peace, love, and justice... right?
We should all stand and fight for the freedoms of one another. Stop being so thin skinned because someone doesn't like what you do, how you live, dress, or think. Racism, hatred, and lies are unfortunate evils that have been around forever. Removing one's right to choose them does not eradicate these evils. It merely enslaves us all to the grandiose ideology that a government of mere men and woman will somehow not be ruled by selfishness or greed as they dictate to us our rights and promise to "take care of us."
I would hope that every American would first remember that men and women died to protect our right to choose to hate one another, choose to love one another, choose to do what's right or choose to do what's wrong. Do I like it when someone chooses to hate me because of the color of my skin. Or chooses to hate me because of my personal beliefs? Or for no reason at all? No. However I'm so very thankful for their freedom to CHOOSE.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -John Acton
The crucial choice for all Americans is to choose to support freedom for All and to protect All freedom of speech. Otherwise we will ALL soon find ourselves without it and by the time that happens it will be to late. Under the guise of peace and love someone absolutely corrupt will have all the power to enforce what they Choose upon us.

blakeh37
Blake H.
3 reviews
13 helpful votes
March 25th, 2018

My edit was reverted by a moderator for "vandalism" even though I cited a source then when I brought this up with her I got a warning for no reason! I'm done with Wikipedia and their power trip moderators! Never again.

Also I hate Wikipedia's interface it's old and it's like a Windows 95 application, it's a complete pain to do edits. It's in serious need of modernization.

Service
Value
Shipping
Returns
Quality
paulc635
9 reviews
306 helpful votes
August 27th, 2018

I learned the hard way never to use wikipedia as a citation during online scientific debate, as on two occasions the person I was debating simply went and edited the page I cited to say something different. The pages were on Classical Mechanics and Exothermic Reactions and the vandalism to the latter has never been undone, making the page factually inaccurate to this day. I suppose the place is fine for stuff like the history of Harry Potter, but for science? No - it is completely unreliable and not to be trusted.

Tip for consumers:
Never use for citations. Ever.

wikir
1 review
1 helpful vote
March 20th, 2020

2020 update: Wiki says it has reliable info on corono. Lol. Right...

(I won't be donating to Wiki. This is why.) Self important obnoxious knowitalls who write incomprehensible c ap that probably didn't answer the question you had

I don't have the Wiki site on my bookmarks. One of the main purposes of wiki is as such: People want their names to appear in the credits on your screen.

-update 2019 - quite frankly, horsec*ap.

When I browse wiki, I see many articles where "trusted posters" have obviously spouted off their own bias. Try giving a fact of the item if you (... gasp) don't live, breathe, eat and w nk wiki?

If Wiki does disappear? The most notable thing I won't be able to look up, is how many episodes of <TV series> there are.

Wiki is technically "the online encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone"
Wiki is actually "the online reference that can only be edited by people who have already edited 1,000 articles, otherwise the changes will be deleted".

---
Review

Generally I'm not keen on wiki, because the info always seems to be inane details spewed over several pages, when what I actually want is "an answer". I'll google a question (other search engines may be available), and what I'm looking for is a single number, or one fact. Wiki will give me a hurl of several pages, and I often end up closing it, and googling again.

After the reference of life, I now know that giving you an answer is not "the writers" primary objective. They just want to pour as much of themselves down your throat as poss, you'll see their name in the credits, and think, wow. Yeah. Look at that/them.

As in anything, there is the "writers clique". If you are one of the lab coats in the central boiler room, then by dammit, anyone who questions you must be an imbecile. (if you are a first time user and attempt an edit, and you do not follow precise protocol, you Will be shot. What do you mean you are not familiar with wiki procedure? Any wiki regular will tell you that no human exists who does not know exactly how wiki works)

If you are one of the bunsen burner protectors, then if you see anything original that hasn't just been copied from somewhere else, you have to run to the lab coat, and say yes sir hello sir, INTERNETS VANDALISMS sir".

The bunsen burner protector will then notch up on the wiki bed post, and the lab coat will get another coating of keyboard dioxide and be a step close to the much covetted title of "wa*kiest wiki". *=c of course.

The base around which wiki revolves is not fact (or truth), but ctrl-c, and look at my edit. LOOK AT IT.

It's telling, that if you look up a scientific formula, there might be half a page on it. Look up a "reality TV" show, and you'll be scrolling. Wiki does seem to be great on giving you reams of unintelligible s**te on certain subjects. But. There are many people who want you to read, not "s**te", but "THEIR s**te".

Example of wiki-incomprehensibility:

Type something into google. Click on the wiki definition
Type the same thing into google, click on the google result that says "definition, in normal human language terms that is understandable"

Brief example: what is marxism

Google answer:
Quick Answer. Marxism, to put it rather simply, is a type of economic system proposed by Karl Marx in which there are no classes. The government would control all resources and means of production to, in theory, ensure equality.

[this is understandable]

Wiki Answer: Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that views class relations and social conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and takes a dialectical view of social transformation. [It originates from the works of 19th-century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.]

"yah. Right." [close window]

Second example: what is microphonics

Answer: when a headphone cable rubs against your top, you hear the rubbing vibrations through the earphones

Wiki answer: Microphonics or microphony describes the phenomenon wherein certain components in electronic devices transform mechanical vibrations into an undesired electrical signal. The term comes from analogy with a microphone, which is intentionally designed to convert vibrations to electrical signals.

[what in the f? Someones brain is so far up their own xrse, they are experiencing microphonics]

tiennak
1 review
3 helpful votes
April 25th, 2018

This is the most horrible site in the world you can literally go and edit stuff if I were the person who created Wikipedia I would take the site off completely. So tell the creator to remove it. I think some of the facts are true but then some of them are not, so take away the site completely, please.

stephenp364
7 reviews
10 helpful votes
March 23rd, 2020

Well known resource for basically any task you may have to it. If you need some information which needs immediate details along with facts, please disclose them all entirely. I assume it have good solid reviews cause there is big reason for that.

jesser2
70 reviews
160 helpful votes
March 1st, 2017

Because Wikipedia is paranoid and hates anyone who changes anything, they have blocked all tMo-Bile users for at least a year.

I mean, I used to do this, I would change an actress or singer's birthday to 69 and then go into airplane mode when they banned me and do it all over again.

But if you're on a tmobile phone, good luck.

Also, besides that, the site is crawling with neoNazis. You can't use the word "nazi" it is filtered.

It's a site full of young adult men from English/German countries.

Don't use it if you want to succeed in life.

accomplicek
5 reviews
26 helpful votes
May 1st, 2016

Wikipedia would be thrown out of court for heresay. As a human in my mid 40's, I've been a living witness to some of the information posted there. Everything from broadcast airdates to scientific information is bastardized here. Sure, they try, but isn't Wikipedia *really* a reductive version of *THE WHOLE ENTIRE INTERNET*?! Using Wikipedia as a reliable source is as ridiculous as asking the guy on the bus sitting next to you. Good luck with that. If you want to get away from *lazy journalism/research*, you have to stay away from Wikipedia and scrub the 'net yourself.

jefb1
1 review
1 helpful vote
September 7th, 2016

As a source of information, I might give Wikipedia 2 or 3 stars. They do have an extensive collection, but certainly not everything. But, the quality of writing in ways that make the information accessible to anyone is very inconsistent. The authors (and Wikipedia should encourage this) should link to external sites for more technical content.

I just tried posting a set of 4 interrelated pages. And, I'm already screaming and thinking about posting elsewhere.

1. The whole interface is obtuse and far more difficult than it needs to be.
2. Instructions are often wrong (e.g., they say to click on "Save Page" when there is no such button or link) or incomplete (they say to do so and so, but they give you no clue as to where to do this).
3. To get help, you have to go through this completely ridiculous process of posting a question. Why not just have a forum in the typical forum format? Why make it so difficult? It took me 6 tries to get a question posted.
4. They should have all of their instructions and taboos posted in a one simple to access and read area. But, no... they make you dig for it, just guess, or find out the hard way when they reject a page.
5. There should be a way to easily communicate with one individual who made a decision to reject so that you have a consistent way of making changes.

I've worked extensively on Wikidot sites and with their forum. There is a night and day difference. I just find Wikipedia to be frustrating in all aspects from the posting angle, and, I'm not sure how to express this, but there is some deeply embedded ignorance/stupidity or arrogance that prevents them from doing something other than a giant framework of obsolescence. Some group needs to do something better and push out Wikipedia.

Service
Quality
abhimanyud
1 review
0 helpful votes
October 8th, 2020

The pages given on the site are quite informative. Plus if the data given on a topic has not been verified then it is mentioned on the page.

tiziaf
7 reviews
5 helpful votes
June 10th, 2020

Wikipedia saved me so many times at school and I love what these guys did for free. I donate every year some money because the advantages that this website gives are too many for not donating even one euro.

elizabethm108
76 reviews
98 helpful votes
January 21st, 2017

While I use Wikipedia from time to time and I can distinguish the articles that are well substantiates ( most of the time) and the ones that may be amateurish, I still get some good information (most of the time) but this rating is about this particular article (don't know how it was published). This article entitled Noah's Arc states that there's no evidence of a universal flood (this has been proven and is out of question), then it also says that Noah's Arc would have been an impossibility (It has been reproduced and I think it's in Texas, they just won the category of tax exemption in a law suit with the government). So, my point is, I happen to know that the idea of the flood is scientific and proven, but how about someone that doesn't know that and rely on Wikipedia? I know that many artciles are scrutinized, but this one went away away off the radar. Needs to be either corrected or removed. Just thought I should share.

Q&A (5)

Answer:

That's how they are. They call everything they don't like "vandalism." They called it vandalism when I wrote on my own user page about how I disagreed with decisions that were made. I guess this is an old post, but it still matters, and they haven't changed at Wikipedia in any way that I'm aware of.

By Ron S.
See more answers (2)
Answer:

La primera ves que ultilize el servicio al cliente me respondieron muy rapido

By Duvan j.
Answer:

Una compañia legitima muy confiable y lo mejor que es gratis

By Duvan j.

Can’t see your question? Ask to get answers from the Wikipedia staff and other customers.

Posting guidelines
Typical questions asked:
  • How long does shipping take?
  • What is the return policy?
  • Where is the company located?

Sitejabber for Business

Gain trust and grow your business with customer reviews

About the business

Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, created and edited by volunteers around the world and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Company Representative

jonatans1
Jonatan S.

How do I know I can trust these reviews about Wikipedia?

  • Sitejabber’s sole mission is to increase online transparency for consumers and businesses
  • Sitejabber has helped over 100M consumers make better purchasing decisions online
  • Suspicious reviews are flagged by our algorithms, moderators, and community members
Have a question about Wikipedia?