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

    Wikipedia

Corporate Values

Overview

Wikipedia has a consumer rating of 4.12 stars from 129 reviews indicating that most consumers are generally satisfied with their purchases. Wikipedia also ranks 2nd among Open Source sites.

  • Service
    9
  • Value
    12
  • Shipping
    3
  • Returns
    3
  • Quality
    12
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

“Wikipedia,...Best Encyclopedia”

ClarkKent K.
12/21/17

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.

See positive reviews
Top Critical Review

“Corrupt.”

paul c.
8/27/18

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.

See critical reviews

Reviews (129)

Rating

Timeframe

Other

Reviews that mention popular keywords

information (64) people (25) articles (20) heart heart heart (3) time (33)
jesser2
63 reviews
127 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.
helenm123
63 reviews
97 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.
philk25
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.
paulc77
Paul C.
80 reviews
96 helpful votes
August 16th, 2014
Would be better if only veteran members can edit pages. I hate the fact that anyone can edit them. There are some pages that upset me and that's what takes three stars off of this site. Some pages are editable and I even want to edit the Sonic the Hedgehog 2006 video game page, but it's semi-protected. That's about it.

Tip for consumers: Don't create an account. You won't be able to edit any page anyway.

jessies29
2 reviews
6 helpful votes
April 10th, 2013
I'm so perturbed with Wikipedia! It's suppose to be free but you have these moderators who can decide what pages should stay or become deleted. I've found several pages where information is inaccurate or credible information was deleted. The site is so unreliable that my nephew's middle school gave instructions not to use that site for reports.
tomm
6 reviews
36 helpful votes
May 1st, 2009
There is a reason my Composition professor banned us from using Wikipedia for our papers; anybody can add/edit information to the pages without registering or without citing sources

An example would be when Comedian Artie Lange was reported to have died on his Wikipedia page. He is alive and well.
dougc8
3 reviews
6 helpful votes
August 31st, 2012
I've used this site many times to research things, and found it to be incredibly useful. But recently I had the opportunity to post up information on Wiki pages that deal with an issue that I specialize in, and I found out how dysfunctional Wikipedia was. As near as I could tell I was in full compliance with their posting policies, but every time I posted information, it was taken down immediately. When I asked why, I was told it was because I was not an expert. When I probed further it became clear that the person who thought I was not an expert clearly knew far less about the posting topic than I did, and wasn't really qualified to judge my expert status either way. I actually am the Only independent national expert on the topic that I was posting on. After 3 days of back & forth discussions with "citizen monitors" who would not let me post any information, I came to the conclusion that the volunteers who control the posting process and have the right to take down legit postings were poorly trained, and that it would take less time to use other venues to get information out on my topic.
So given the problem that I had trying to contribute useful information on a topic, I have to assume that many other Wiki pages are also compromised by the actions of poorly trained volunteers at Wikipedia.
serenas12
3 reviews
26 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!
flastyj
3 reviews
7 helpful votes
September 24th, 2018
Wikipedia is a place to get information and most of the information is accurate (remember I said most). However if you make an account or just want to edit in general then you might want to watch out.

For me I wanted to edit the Hurricane Irene article but some random dude (Jason Rees) keeps on deleting my edit. It was a relevant edit but the dude don't want to accept it. He is very stubborn. Then his friend (HorsesareReal) came along and started to join and started to argue with me too. Then I told her that I was not new to Wikipedia and that I had an old account that I haven't touched in 1 and a half years and I forgot the username. Then she accused me of Sock puppeting even though there was no actual proof that I sock puppeting. To sock puppet you have to do really bad things when you make another account. So they blocked me. A guy named (Jasper Deng) was involved too.

They were two accounts that they claim it was mine. "Flasty Jam" (ironically) and "Snazzy Fam boi" both which I had nothing to do with. I have a Wikipedia club at school and I wanted to make my new account called "Flasty Jam" but someone already took it. So I put a "2" at the end. Then when I got blocked found out who "Flasty Jam" and "Snazzy Fam boi" were. It was one of my students. I told them to retire the accounts and no longer use them; so they did. They were using the same computer because the computers were full in the library. So they made the accounts in the same computer.

So I stated there was an error in the block. They used this thing called CheckUser and I told them that there is an error but they think it's a lie because they just won't realize it because they are going off of what an inferior machine said. One admin named (Yunshui) basically cursed me out and banned my talk page just because they don't want to talk to me and claim I was being disruptive even though that was a lie.

So I decided that I should give them want they wanted and I told a lie saying I was sock puppeting even though I wasn't. They accept it but said I have to wait six months. If I wait six months then the club would be over. I tried to explain to them but they are quick to shut me up. I think that's really immature.

One more thing. I was on the Wikipedia IRC to ask a few questions. A girl named (Chrissymad) keeps on thinking that I wanted to do an unblock request for some reason. So she wanted me to shut up and banned me. In fact none of the admins whom I have talked to wanted me to leave.

As an alternative I changed the club name to Fandom Wiki club. As for wikipedia they are some arrogant, stupid, and obnoxious people whom I have dealt with. That hurts Wikipedia if they don't have good customer service. If your account gets banned then make a new account or something or just forget it.

Tip for consumers: If you get banned, it's best to forget it or make another account if you really want to do it.

1 rating was submitted through the Sitejabber Browser Extension

Q&A (1)

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)

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.
Other

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?