San Francisco, CA 94105, US
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.
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.
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.
I try not to use it as a source for research, but pretty good website if you want to find some interesting facts.
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.
Needless to say that wikipedia is a great online informational website where you are sure to get loads of information about practically any subject.
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.
Wikipedia is one of the natural wonders of the internet. A totally free resource to learn and get data about pretty much anything. It should be bookmarked by everyone.
Wikipedia needs no introduction, most people on the internet has visited this site multiple times. Its a great fee resource for information on most anything. You can learn a lot just by surfing through their different article. Check out the random page link for interesting articles.
No ads makes the website so easy to use. The amount of information they give on any one subject is amazing.
What can I say about Wikipedia. This is the first stop for anything you don't know. Excellent
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia (successfully funded by donations) that anybody can edit, is a very wonderful website. It seems to have a very non-bloatware design that loads fast without any gimmicks. It is the website where you can learn things. I have contributed to Wikipedia and that information is still there! There is a good thing and a bad thing about that. The bad thing is that Why wasn't that information there in the first place?! I mean, the information that they had before was completely WRONG. There is also a few information that isn't approved by Wikipedia. As a result, there is Wikia. Usually I have no problem adding the information to Wikipedia itself. I just have to be sure to find other "encyclopedic" websites to add in the list of citations.
UPDATE: Unfortunately, Wikia became Fandom and Wikipedia is a biased website. If you read the guidelines and the Essay Of Style and even if your information qualifies under those guidelines, they will delete it if they are disturbed. Simply because they don't like it. Meanwhile other similar information goes unchallenged. I advise people boycott them. Do not give Wikipedia your time nor money.
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.
When I study or need to satisfy my curiosity, I visit here.
I've never seen wrong information yet there. It's hard to believe the information is made by volunteers. I thank them..and the founder.
Wikipedia provides good info and this site also provides editing services if there is any mistake you find in the data.
wikipedia almost has correct data. i collect data from here and others many people get data and information.
Wikipedia has quality content that help student and other people with correct information.
Many times i took data from wikipedia. Most of the time i got good marks in my assignments and research papers. thank you wikipedia.
Tip for consumers: Use this for quality data
Wikipedia is one of those sites where you never know what might come up. If I could, I would have clicked 'I think this website is ON for ages ?'. It really depends on what you search.
Best free encyclopedia, whenever I have a question, I turn to Wikipedia.
all articles are very well written and informative. Very useful for general knowledge about almost anything you can think of. I love this site! Its just so simple to use.
Customer Questions & Answers
Votes Thanks for voting!
Maybe you can begin by trying to write proper English.