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

Developed in part with a grant from
the National Science Foundation
  • Bookmark


Corporate Values


Wikipedia has a consumer rating of 4.07 stars from 133 reviews indicating that most consumers are generally satisfied with their purchases. Wikipedia also ranks 2nd among Open Source sites.

  • Value
  • Shipping
  • Returns
  • Quality
View ratings trends

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

“The customer service team was very friendly and helpful”

Giannina T.

All the items I ordered in this boutique were of excellent quality, but the bust was of little importance in the dresses. I would definitely recommend dresses with hoops to someone whose bra size does not exceed 36C. As for the skirts I ordered, they fit very well and are very flattering. The customer service team was very friendly and helpful.

See positive reviews
Top Critical Review

“Please, PLEASE DO NOT TRUST Reviews or order from this site! The company writes the 5 Star Reviews..”

Raegan L.

PLEASE, take my word for it and do not order from this site unless you are okay with wearing cheap, torn clothing! You also cannot trust the reviews on Trustpilot! This company had my review removed from the site as I am sure they have done with others! I'm assuming because I did not have an order number? Or continue responses with shady co? They are also doing a REALLY poor job writing their own 5 Star reviews! Some are even copied and pasted (twice on the same review) by accident I'm assuming? They are trying to cover up all the negative reviews, but trust if a company is capable of giving this type of service then that is the type of service they give! Regardless of how many FAKE, 5 Star Reviews they are able to write themselves! Original Review: Took advantage of Teenager! My Granddaughter ordered 7 things from this site for Christmas (2 years ago), only 4 showed up and none of them were the correct items and were also not even the same color as what she ordered! She says looks like cheap knock off, not as picture showed at all. We were charged for all items. Arrived in dirty bag, no paper, receipt, Nothing! Updated Review: You Flagged me for removal because I didn't leave order number.. Really!? All makes since now, you don't put receipt in the bag so that the customer has no record of purchase, or the order number, and you get to remove all the negative reviews. Genius! LOL I don't have order number because you sent us nothing! Items weren't even wrapped in tissue. SOME Items did FINALLY arrive (2 did not), but 1 shirt was ripped, they were wrong sizes (EXTREMELY Small!) and they were Bootleg knock offs, also received the wrong colors, and items were not what was in the photos online at all! Example: 1 item was to be a leather jacket What arrived? An Ugly, brown polyester coat that stops just under her breasts. The ripped shirt was torn right across front so is useless and can't be sewn. She did like 1 shirt but it was red and was to be black (red wasn't even an option in this style) BTW.. Teenager doesn't think to write anything down when ordering online... Lesson Learned, NEVER AGAIN! .................................................................................. We have no order I.D. because she forgot the password to that email address, the one used. .................................................................................. Romwe, You shouldn't have had my review removed.. now I will make my duty to warn everyone on EVERY SINGLE SITE I can!!! Everyone Else, You've been warned..

See critical reviews

Reviews (133)




Reviews that mention popular keywords

information (65) people (27) articles (21) time (34)
1 review
0 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.
4 reviews
0 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
Ron S.
16 reviews
22 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.
1 review
2 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.
2 reviews
1 helpful vote
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.
Blake H.
3 reviews
10 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.
9 reviews
278 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.

1 review
0 helpful votes
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".


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]
2 reviews
1 helpful vote
May 24th, 2019
Wikipedia is unique helpful website. The editing feature is great since many people have knowledge they can add in real time to correct, And For only $5, people can make a contribution to keep Wikipedia online. Even if we only contribute every few years, we show our respect for knowledge and for everyone else using the Internet, and Yeah some of the information is not entirely 100% accurate, just as many encyclopedias contain errors or become obsolete. Wikipedia was a great idea, and has been useful to millions.
3 reviews
27 helpful votes
May 10th, 2018
I started using Wikipedia some years ago to get more clarity on things like herbs and medications. I then started using it for some political info. That means like a source to START and better my research. Let's face it sometimes Wikipedia is entertaining too! I happened upon an article that gave me chills . After racking my mind with the info I went back to Wikipedia to see if there was any proof of the claims. The claim was that there is a certain group that has basically pirated Wikipedia by hiring writers to slant info towards their religious and political agenda. I read several queries and I came away bothered. Bothered because the info is indeed slanted and provides more emotional input than FAIR facts. These are not some children who play on the internet they have been taught how to convey their one sided political messages in attempt to keep favor. I will not say who these people are but I challenge you to guess. You can not have facts that leave your group pristine and without complicity. Sooooo no ! I use Wikipedia for info that dies not attempt political swaying, or mind control!
1 review
1 helpful vote
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.
151 reviews
2,431 helpful votes
December 21st, 2017
Wikipedia is the greatest and most useful encyclopedia that ever existed. It is damn near impossible to go an entire day without consulting Wikipedia. It has rich content that provides very comprehensive and informative details on nearly every subject, topic, individual, or event under the sun.
5 reviews
19 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.
75 reviews
101 helpful votes
January 16th, 2017
Be careful of the information that you learn on this website, many articles contain contradictions and factual inaccuracies in them. The website is open to whomever wants to edit and write articles, therefore exercise critical thinking skills and take facts learned from the articles on this website with a grain of salt. Recommended with reservations and advice.
3 reviews
1 helpful vote
October 31st, 2018
I like wikipedia because you find information about pretty much anything. If you are a curious person and bored you can just go to wikipedia, go to a random article and learn something new. It might not be very practical, but it might help you think of something more interesting to do. Obviously its not a place to do scientific research, but the sources on articles can often times be quite valuable and help you find a more detailed source of information. Wikipedia is a great place to read biographies about real people. It can also be used as an unbiased news site.
10 reviews
66 helpful votes
June 29th, 2017
Wikipedia is basically an online encyclopedia. It haves numerous articles of information on just about everything. Even though there are a few mistakes in some of the articles and sometimes the information isn't always accurate, I believe this website deserves a 5 star rating, because Wikipedia normally knows what they're talking about. Wikipedia is a great, well known place to find out what you need to know.
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.
64 reviews
129 helpful votes
March 1st, 2017
I just got yet another block for "block evasion" even though my IP wasn't under any block at the time. They will block people without any sort of warning. What happened was that some other IP address edited my talk page in a way that made me seem like it was me, but it wasn't.

If they got rid of the corrupt admins like Favonian and Materialscientist, they could be a much better site.
But right now they care way too much about punishment rather than spreading knowledge. It's depressing that Google will instantly send people to Wikipedia for most searches.
Severin V.
6 reviews
11 helpful votes
October 21st, 2017
I have trusted this site for a long time. Every article is so accurate and informational. Very helpful for research, or just finding facts about things.
58 reviews
44 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.
2 reviews
1 helpful vote
May 1st, 2018
wikipedia is the best page, because I can find any topic of whatever, although many teachers do not consider it a reliable source.
2 reviews
3 helpful votes
March 20th, 2018
• Updated review
Hi, I've previously written a less then positive review of Wikipedia, but have come to be much more fond of it over the past couple of months. I still think that when it comes to participating in Wikipedia from the side of editing pages and participating in there community they can be often unfriendly (not always of course). But I have realized that Wikipedia is quite impressive. I think they have done a good job with what resources they have and that opinion of mine goes especially for the top administration. Wikipedia does provide in fact very accurate information for most of there articles. They don't hire famous professionals in there fields like other encyclopedias, which I would say are a tad more accurate, but Wikipedia provides tremendously more information about any given topic then the usual encyclopedia. They've put trust in people and barred people from doing 'whatever thing' sparingly, and they have managed to allow people to produce a high quality COMPREHENSIVE, (which is unusual) encyclopedia. I visit it often for researching small and large things often. Is it a perfect fact book? No, most of there pages contain at least a few errors within them, and my experience has been that it is hard to edit them quickly, but they are usually tiny issues. They have provided a, for the majority, highly accurate and largely comprehensive encyclopedia that helps with my research especially often. Everything for the most part, is, properly written. Maybe people are relying on it much more often then they should, but it is very helpful when properly used, thanks for this resource, Wikipedia!
A unreliable website
March 20th, 2018
• Previous review
Wikipedia is a website I go to many times, and is a good starting place to learn about a particular subject. But although, it is an untrustworthy site that is not often accurate and, sometimes frankly biased. You have to take everything you read there with a grain of salt (especially now). Anyone can write for them which isnt bad, but they advertise themselves like there the almighty settler of information, when in fact they shouldnt be taken (the information there) alone with nothing to back it up! Most pages on Wikipedia are false, it is really a mess. Also, it has a one star for user friendliness. The only reason Im tarring it 3 stars is because of its much info.
4 reviews
4 helpful votes
February 22nd, 2017
I love Wikipedia! Where else can you learn everything you wanted to know all in one place. I get lost here for hours!
37 reviews
56 helpful votes
November 1st, 2015
Admin Eumolpo blocked my account and erased all my contributions after I added a video-critic about Italian Political Religious Economical business moviment "Comunione e Liberazione".

He just mentioned ¨vandalism¨ in his blocking tag, I contacted him several times in several ways but no answer.

Tip for consumers: Remember that all what you have written on Wikipedia can be deleted without any reason by any administrator.

1 review
2 helpful votes
January 30th, 2016
Wikipedia is a wonderful concept and potentially great site. Problem is, for years, racist, sexist, administrators have blocked various IP addresses and accounts I used to correct their racism, and erroneously on-sided, biased articles regarding sexism, Vietnam War, Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, etc. Wikipedia or another organization (possibly an NGO, etc) should do more to end bullying by some of the wikipedia Admins/editors and to also ensure that articles don't spread racism and ignorance at the expense of females, Africans, Indians, and non-Europeans.

Q&A (2)


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)

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

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?