Wikipedia

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.

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!

It is user-created and un-scholarly, any article on anything controversial is typically either biased or incomprehensible because sentences contradict each other, or are otherwise so watered down that it is not worth the effort. "Just checking for a simple facts" is not an excuse to use Wikipedia, there is no way to confirm with all the edits whether the content is genuine or has been skewered over time by biased users.

Wikipedia is a catastrophe for public knowledge precisely because it allows anyone to pretend to be an expert on a topic, when they likely are not and the person is unknown and their motives are not known. Wikipedia sounds great for an idea, but expertise is required for controversial topics.

All you have to do now is go to Google Scholar to find scholarly work, the popularity of Wikipedia these days can only be ascribed to the dominance of Wikipedia on the internet as a first search result and laziness or lack of awareness by people to find professional, scholarly books that are accessible via sites like Google Scholar.

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 is also a major contributing website used in the current versions of AI (Chat gpt 4) You've probably noticed that internet searches are now more meaningful. It's rich in inter-wiki hyperlinks which will enhance your original search by providing links to all types of relevant info. 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. Just add the magic word "wiki" to your internet search query, and enter this phenomenal website.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

You can try to pull the "but it could have been written by a 3 year old" card out for this site but it wouldn't be realistic. Wikipedia is well moderated and there's something to be said for the fact that it appears in the top ten of nearly every internet search.

In fact, I think wikipedia is probably MORE accurate than other "encyclopedias" because of HOW it is moderated.

Either way, if you've been browsing the internet for more than 10 minutes you probably already know (and have used) wikipedia. You don't need yet another review telling you that it's a good thing. You already know.

REASONS TO USE:
[1] Well moderated
[2] Amazingly diverse information library
[3] Relevant to almost every search for information

REASON TO LOSE:
[1] None.