Member since December 2017
- Reviews 2
- First to Review 0
- Very Helpful 3
- Funny 0
- Fraud Buster 0
- Great Find 0
- Well Said 0
- Thank Yous 0
- Fans 0
- Profile Views 462
I'm someone who thinks silently throughout the day. Is interested in health, technology, business, how the world works, and really a whole boatload of other things to varying degrees. Thank's for spending your precious time reading this. I've tried to keep it brief as the directions requested ;).
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!
“A unreliable website”
• Previous review
Wikipedia is a website I go to many times, and is a good starting place to learn about a particular subject. But although, it is an untrustworthy site that is not often accurate and, sometimes frankly biased. You have to take everything you read there with a grain of salt (especially now). Anyone can write for them which isnt bad, but they advertise themselves like there the almighty settler of information, when in fact they shouldnt be taken (the information there) alone with nothing to back it up! Most pages on Wikipedia are false, it is really a mess. Also, it has a one star for user friendliness. The only reason Im tarring it 3 stars is because of its much info.
Webmd is a very biased company, they are basically (seem as if) part of the advertising branch of drug companies, and have a reputation for being that biased. Almost all of there articles are pushing artificial medicine as being safe and "regular" even though there are many other forms. I read a article aimed at teenagers and it was very biased concerning some emotional topics and actually sped out false information. They seem to embody something of a very unapproachable and non-understanding type.
They will unlikely approach topics with a clear view. All they say should not be understood to any extent as facts. I have left the reviewing of this company for as it is, any good review I discuss about this company would only appear after a massive turnover of the company.
Hassell Has Earned 3 Votes
Hassell K.'s review
of WebMD earned a Very Helpful vote
Hassell K.'s review
of Wikipedia earned 2 Very Helpful votes
Hassell hasn’t received any thanks yous.
Hassell doesn’t have any fans yet.
Hassell isn’t following anybody yet.
Similar Reviewers on Sitejabber
Wikipedia is unique helpful website. The editing feature is great since many people have...
Very reliable website that is easy to edit (for better or for worse). Rarely fictitious and often...