Wikipedia

I added a page of a low power TV station. It was flagged for potential deletion (ultimately, it was deleted) and discussion because the station 1) wasn't that old, and 2) wasn't relevant for merely being a pass-through for minor subchannel networks. I could cite many other stations that fit that same description, but they weren't flagged for deletion. Besides, it still exists and therefore merits a page.

Then, they want you to donate money to them.

I sent a email and cited this incident as one reason I don't donate money and why I'm hesitant to add information and make Wikipedia better place. I was met with gaslighting saying I need be constructive in my response. Why should I do that when they already made up their minds to delete the contribution for reasons that don't make any sense?

Other edits are often undone by other aggressive contributors that have nothing better to do but start an editing war because they think they know everything. Yet, it's always your fault, not theirs.

Instead of asking the public for donations you should request the profiles of the people you have all of their personal information for the donations since it's their business you are promoting. With the times we are in they should be able to contribute $2.75

You are not accurate nor biased.
So many inaccurate information.
You are not credib6 and I would never use you.

I take exception to Wikipedia's definition of " Intelligent design (ID) [as] a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as 'an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins'[1][2] though it has been found to be pseudoscience.[3][4][5]."
This is an obvious lie concocted, not by scientists, but by internet trolls of the lowest common denominator. ID does not concern itself with God at all, it simply says that, instead of Darwinian random processes responsible for lie, it is a design process that gives rise to massive complexity and functional interdependence at the level of cell development. Origin of life theories have never been able to demonstrate a naturalistic route from pre-biotic chemistry to life. In that sense, ID continues to make more sense than alternative theories. References to God are personal and in no way necessary to formulate the design argument.
It amazes me that Wikipedia, despite its lofty claims, is no better than any other social media platform given to the spreading of dis and misinformation, and outright lies. I will never again make a financial contribution to Wiki for that very reason.

This is such a 'fake news' website. Why do you think all that information is free? They want us to believe all the stuff that they are pedal pushing out to to us. They create pages to report other websites as fake news but, where is the proof? This tactic of theirs undermines free and critical thinking. Hey wikipedia, if you're not threatened by the so called 'fake news', then just leave them alone. The truth will all come out in the end... maybe that's what you're really threatened by.

I used to support Wikipedia and donate, which I did back in 2014. But in recent times I find that what I read is outside of what they should be publishing. Wikipedia claim on multiple profiles it published (about people and organisations) that many of them propagate misinformation. They provide no real evidence of this. Those people and groups they publish things about that I read, are supported by massive informed movements (not funded by Big Pharma or main stream media). Recently the EU Parliament with the help of these movements involving many brave people, identified atrocities committed by organisations during the Covid period. These organisations want control and censorship over anyone outspoken that goes against their narrative, which can only point to money. By not editing objectively the information written, they themselves (Wikipedia) are propagating misinformation. They should stay independent of this and they do not. One good example of this is Dr John Campbell from the UK. He has only ever presented the truth and evidence based information from reputable sources. What is said about him let alone many others is far from correct information, which means it is misinformation. Wikipedia also reported information on Russia's military with no real evidence. This is simply wrong no matter what we think of Russia and the war. From what we understand today about Wikipedia, any one of a thousand or more editors working for Wikipedia can protect any article which leads me to believe that any one of them could possibly receive back-handers to do so. Many issues arose with Wikipedia information when Donald Trump became president too. You can read this all online and I have provided some clips. Wikipedia seldom substantiates the things it publishes well, especially controversial information. If you can't substantiate it properly, do not publish it. Moreover I think Wikipedia should only provide generic information about anything and anyone, without bias. Because Wikipedias information is almost editable to anyone, it can never be reliable. Many education organisations and media groups are not allowed to quote Wikipedia information for this reason. While many things it publishes seems to be fine, there are more than enough misleading information pieces to make Wikipedia quite unreliable as a whole. The world does not need such an online resource that is skewed and unreliable in providing any information about anything. They can not be trusted, this is clear.

We know facts are facts however, the composers of each blog has a definite political & religious leaning.
The way in which the facts are logged indicates an apparent leaning unto a negative connotation, almost targeting religious persons and their political affiliation. If a reader is merely looking for facts and not writings which point to an opinion, this is not where you will want to seek your information. Folks, I cannot say where is a good platform for ALL correct information without editorializing. Current times show everyone is going to get their opinion across one way or another.

While I do visit Wikipedia on occassion to learn about Great Apes, or Somalia, or what a molecule is, I will never, ever, ever donate a penny to this "fake news" encyclopedia. If you want to see hate or bias, a la CNN style, then read up on Wikipedia's description of the Mar A Lago FBI raid or how Wikipedia newly defines "recession". Wikipedia is pure communist, Democrap hate and propoganda.

I love Wikipedia. It is great if you want easy access to information without having to search too deep on the web. I'd say more than 90% of the time, the articles are accurate and true. It's a shame we can't use this site in schools even though there are moderators whose job it is to validate the accuracy of the articles. There's even references where you can see where the writer got their information. I don't know what I would do without Wikipedia, and I am very grateful they are providing their almost unlimited arsenal of knowledge for free. I've donated to this site before and will do it again.

Firstly, Wikipedia has a lot of sources that are not factual, this is why students are not allowed to use it for research papers. Secondly, most of what you read is edited by immature ignorant jerks. And the guidelines don't get me started with the guidelines. I wish I can give it a -1 out of 5, but oh well.

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!

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!

Wikipedia is the number one search result on google for almost anything, that gives it a lot of power. Sadly, power corrupts and despite their best intention, it has become a mouthpiece for propaganda. And not just political propaganda either. Virtually every topic has its own petty bias, with page editors getting to be the ultimate authority in their chosen domain. Sure, all the media is biased these days in one way or another, it's just that Wikipedia used to be different. Now it's just another place to be misinformed. Remember: ultimately google tells you what to believe these days. If you're stupid you keep bucking the system, talking to people directly and forming your own opinions. If you're wise to it all, you just play along. Swallow your propaganda pills and don't make a fuss. For heavens sake, don't rock the boat. You'll upset Miss Google and she gets very, very angry.

I find it odd that the reviews offering negative evaluations of Wikipedia seem to offer simply topics where they purport information to be disinformation. They seem to lack any specifics and merely suggest some whole issue is misrepresented. For example, if I look up Ukraine War, I just don't seem to find some statement of fact that may readily be challenged. When I look at controversial issues discussed, I might question indeed the overall thrust of an article but errors in factual specifics elude me. Checking sources is always advisable in any publication. I have not seen disinformation in Wikipedia as of yet.

If you go on to Wikipedia and spend a few hours or days viewing conservative people/events of note and liberal/democratic events of note there is a pretty disturbing bias on the way the information is presented to the reader and also the ability of the general public to revise or add to that information. For example a liberal supported Wikipedia reading will almost always allow you to edit but if that edit does not align with the opinion or view the the Wikipedia hierarchy you will end up in an EDIT WAR within minutes and then get suspended without ever being allowed to have a conversation about why your edit or addition is indeed factual. If you want to edit or add to a conservative person or event page those are almost always locked for editing with the excuse that they are trying to prevent vandalism or edit wars. It's really bad for anything related to politics or culturally sensitive matters.

For other topics of interest where subjective bias is not applicable it is okay but the bias regarding politics leaves me questioning the validity of anything related to history of countries and people of note as as well.

The problem with Wikipedia is that bias and slanderous intent is allowed in writings becdause anyone is allowed to contribute and there is no system of monitoring or review.

When I started to write about myself on Oct 16th and it was under draft until Liz sent me a message saying to remove the promotional material part so I did and then Athaenara all of a sudden deleted without explanation! So I had to start all over again and received a message from Nearlyevil665 saying it was not accepted. This doesn't make sense because I am an actor and everyone out there deserves to know about me, life. History and how I became successful in acting.

They block you as soon as you write anything that doesnt fit thier agenda. I wrote about a business and even though theres 3000 other businesses on there. They claim I wrote about my own. Theres no point in writing stuff the fake checkers will just block you feom thier moms basement

I used to think Wikipedia was an alright organization. Not any more since their left side writing on former president Trump. Clearly they are using their organization to push a political view instead of providing true facts and only facts. What a crock this organization truly is. Thankfully, i don't have to use their service since there is still free choice at least for now.

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.

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

Wissensportal, dass sich überwiegedn aus Spenden fianziert. Viele Artikel, die soweit einschätzbar häufig auch faktentreu sind

In what right mind someone would let a page exist when the majority of people can change the FACTS with lies?! Can someone explain this? I will never open wiki$#*!ia again, at least not for history articles. I guess even Adolf Hitler can be a saint in the eyes of the majority if they try to change the article. This page has to come down. It's filled with lies and incorrect information.