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

View
×
  • Bookmark

    Wikipedia

Corporate Values

Overview

Wikipedia has a consumer rating of 3.97 stars from 145 reviews indicating that most customers are generally satisfied with their purchases. Consumers satisfied with Wikipedia most frequently mention many times, online encyclopedia and reliable source. Wikipedia ranks 2nd among Open Source sites.

  • Value
    15
  • Quality
    15
Positive reviews (last 12 months): 33.3%
Positive
4
Neutral
1
Negative
7
View ratings trends
5
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

“Well known resource for basically any task you may have to it”

Stephen P.
3/23/20

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.

See positive reviews
Top Critical Review

“They lie about politics or history! Don't read them.”

lana l.
1/5/21

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!

See critical reviews

Reviews (145)

Rating

Timeframe

Other

Reviews that mention popular keywords

information (68) people (29) articles (21) time (37)
lanal113
1 review
1 helpful vote
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.
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]
emmanuele22
1 review
1 helpful vote
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.
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.
lisab1585
7 reviews
6 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
rons338
Ron S.
15 reviews
33 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.
jonj121
1 review
6 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.
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
293 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.

stephenp364
7 reviews
8 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.
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.
serenas12
3 reviews
28 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!
jesser2
68 reviews
149 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.
kazukih
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.
kirki3
Kirk I.
0 reviews
0 helpful votes
October 31st, 2018
I want to go talk to one of the Users who blocked the IP for the school. So me as a principal went to go talk to a user. But then a user named Boing! Said Zebedee was lying to the admin and claiming someone who I'm not. He insulted me by saying I was just a kid. Not only that was discriminating but that was a complete lie. He absolutely cannot prove that.

So he convinced the admin block the IP. The admin told me to create an account. So I did. When I went to got talk to him he mentioned to use the school email to prove that I was the principal. So I tried to do that but the county-board is in charge of the content used in the email. They told me that I can't do that because editing Wikipedia is considered a hobby-based activity and not to help the school in any way. By the way the admin is named Huon. Anyway, Huon said that I will be blocked since I can't do that (in a sarcastic manner).

Then another user by the name of Jpgordon heard the lies form Boing! And said a was a sock according to checkuser. Since I made the account on a school computer, the sock master made his account on there as well. But we have nothing alike, not the same edits and not the same email. Then when I told them it was a mistake, Boing! Was furious and blocked me as revenge. I emailed to a bunch of users how they mistreated me and Boing! Kept on blocking me with his juvenile behavior. Then I went to go talk to him in Meta wiki. I told him respectfully that I didn't like what he said. He called that a troll and he doesn't know what it is. He processed to have my account locked. Then he went on a rampage and deleted every statement and called me a "Turbulent Schoolboy troll" He was clearly being unprofessional.

He told the Email group to tell lies and told me to give ID to stop the cyber-bullying. My rule is went someone is rude to me I don't provide just like in the real world. I refused to do that until I get an apology. I have not relieved it and the email staff was get as rude as him. I told him in a final email that what he is doing can affect Wikipedia, but guess what else happened, he locks me.

Boing! Said Zebedee is the most immature people I have seen in years. If you go on Wikipedia, then avoid him at all cost. He ruined my experience and I don't want the same for you. Boing! Is using his powers abusively and I say that term loosely. Do not associate with him at all.

Tip for consumers:
Stay away from him at all cost.

Service
Value
Quality
helenm123
81 reviews
143 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.
Quality
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.
accomplicek
5 reviews
24 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
elizabethm108
69 reviews
65 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.
philk25
1 review
3 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.
fredd156
Fred D.
2 reviews
0 helpful votes
January 9th, 2021
LET IT BE FOREVER KNOWN...

HERE IS THE LIST OF ALL WIKIMEDIA SPONSORS, EMAIL ALL WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION SPONSORS, BENEFACTORS TO WALK AWAY FROM THIS WIKIOCCULTISM OF WIKIGNORANCE & WIKIHYPOCRISY = WIKISCUM ETERNAL!

https://wikipedoia.blogspot.com/2020/12/wikimedia-aka-wiki-pedo-ias-global-list.html

StevenJ81 tried to fix somebody's privacy and crappy WMF banned him for doing the right thing. They did not block him permanently but he was told to get lost without being publicly humiliated:

These users are guilty of huge crimes:

Incubator. Wikimedia. Org/w/index. Php? Title=Incubator: Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=4671611&oldid=4671546

Global privacy violations started by antandrus (the ant-satan instigator), dannyS712, vermont, bsadowski1, tegel, radiX, ruslik0, ~riley, majora, achim55, masumrezarock100 etc...

Incubator. Wikimedia. Org/w/index. Php? Title=Incubator: Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=4661517&oldid=4661514

Incubator. Wikimedia. Org/w/index. Php? Title=Incubator_talk: Administrators/Archive1&diff=4773524&oldid=4769171

Some poor ljupco's privacy (an innocent lamb) has been violated beyond any repair and for this WMFoffice will pay more than deatly and rememeber it forever!

Ljupco's name will be on these scumabags lips in the last second of their miserable, wasted, crappy lifes. THERE WILL BE NO FORGIVENESS, ALSO FOR JIMBO WALES & KATHERINE MAHER & KALLIOPE & SEFIDARI!

Incubator. Wikimedia. Org/w/index. Php? Title=Incubator: Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=4755521&oldid=4755520

Incubator. Wikimedia. Org/w/index. Php? Title=Incubator: Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=4770853&oldid=4770852

Incubator. Wikimedia. Org/w/index. Php? Title=Incubator: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2019-&action=history

incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antandrus&action=history

Using police as scare tactic:

simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/31.217.28.46

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antandrus&action=history

incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:StevenJ81&diff=4732614&oldid=4732570

http://encyclopediasupreme.org/wikipedoia/WIKIPEDIA-IS-SUPREME-MISINFORMATION.jpg

Tip for consumers:
NEVER, EVER SUPPORT THIS TRASH, IT IS ABSOLUTE GARBAGE, NOT ENCYCLOPEDIA; THIS IS PLACE WHERE ONLY WIKIJUNGLE LAW RULES: WIKIOCCULTISM OF WIKIGNORANCE, WIKIHYPOCRISY TO SAY THE LEAST...

Products used:
OUR FAMILY'S PRIVACY HAS BEEN VIOLATED ON EVERY CORNER!!! WE CANT USE ANY SERVICES!

Service
Value
Shipping
Returns
Quality

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

See reviews as you browse with our Chrome extension

4.0
145 reviews
Have a question about Wikipedia?