Wikipedia
Reviews and Complaints

Wikipedia is a site that can really be great if it wasn't for all the haters out there. More and more people are starting to realize that there are some admins who are really racist and sexist. They keep blocking my IP address and account, just because I try to correct them. I can't believe how one-sided and biased some of these articles can be. When it comes to topics like the Vietnam War, Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, and more, it feels like a lot of the time, I'm hearing just one side of the story. And unfortunately, that side is often sexist and harmful to people who aren't white guys.

It's not just me who has had this experience, either. There are a lot of people out there who are fed up with the bullying and ignorance on Wikipedia. That's why I think it's so important for Wikipedia to start taking action against these admins and editors. Maybe they could even team up with an NGO or something to help put an end to all this. One thing is for sure - something needs to be done to stop this kind of racism and sexism from spreading online.

Wikipedia is an absolute nightmare! If you are looking for a reliable source of information, you should probably stay away from here. As an average person in their mid 40s, I can tell you for a fact that the information available on this website is shoddy at best. You will find everything from false broadcast airdates to inaccurate scientific information. The folks over at Wikipedia are trying their best, but if you ask me, it is nothing but a reductive version of *THE WHOLE ENTIRE INTERNET*! It is as if the people who contribute here do not have much better to do with their time.

If you take anything from this review, it's that you cannot use Wikipedia as a reliable source. To be honest, you might get more accurate information from the person sitting next to you on the bus! I know this might seem harsh, but it's the truth. If you want to avoid *lazy journalism and inaccurate research*, you'll have to scour the internet yourself. Believe me, it's tedious work, but it's better than the alternative.

In conclusion, I would not recommend relying on Wikipedia for your information needs. The people running this website have a lot of work to do if they want to make it a reliable source. It's up to you to verify the accuracy of what you read on this site. Keep your eyes open and your mind sharp, and you'll be fine.

Wikipedia is a website that I visit quite often. It's a great place to start when I want to learn about a specific topic. However, I must say that it is not a completely trustworthy site. Sometimes, the information provided is not accurate, and other times it is downright biased. Therefore, it's essential to take everything written on the site with a pinch of salt, especially nowadays.

While it's good that anyone can write for Wikipedia, they over-hype their role in providing information. They claim to be the ultimate source of information, when in reality, one should not rely solely on the information from this site. It's important to have other sources to back up the data. The vast majority of pages on Wikipedia contain false information, which creates a chaotic mess.

The site's user-friendliness is not up to par and earns it only one star. Despite this, I still gave it three stars because of the vast amount of information it provides. In summary, if you need to know about a topic, use Wikipedia as a starting point but then double-check and verify any information with other sources.

Wikipedia is without a doubt the top contender for generating search results on Google. It's got a lot of clout and influences people all over the world. Sadly, with great power comes great responsibility, and Wikipedia has not been entirely successful in staying unbiased. Despite their best efforts, the platform has transformed into a propaganda machine, doling out information that's either bias one way or another. To put it bluntly, virtually every topic has its own petty biases with page editors assuming the role of the ultimate authority in their selected domain.

It's a sorry state for sure because Wikipedia used to be different; it used to be a reliable source of information with minimal bias. However, this isn't the case anymore, and one can't trust the information on the site without cross-referencing it with another source. It's downright discouraging because if the once-great Wikipedia has fallen victim to biases, then what hope does the rest of the internet have?

The media, unfortunately, is biased everywhere these days, and Wikipedia is no exception. However, the site has a fair amount of influence and reach, making it essential for the information to be unbiased and honest. Sadly, that isn't the case anymore, and readers have to be aware of the inherent biases on the site, a far cry from its original intent.

Ultimately, Google steers us in the direction of what to believe and whatnot; if that doesn't scare you, then I don't know what will! If you're easily swayed and don't want to stir up any controversy, then by all means, swallow your propaganda pills and stay quiet. However, if you want to think logically, question facts, and form your own opinions independently, then it's not going to be a smooth sail. You'll have to navigate various biases and propaganda from all over, and it won't be easy.

All in all, Wikipedia is not the site it used to be. It's a shame, really, because with its influence and reach, it can make a significant impact on the world. However, we can't blame the site entirely because biases are the norm these days, and every platform - big or small - has them. However, the difference between a good platform and a terrible one is how open they are about the biases. Wikipedia, sadly, has failed in this regard. You have to be diligent and fact-check everything you see on the site if you want to know the truth.

First and foremost, Wikipedia is an information hub that has revolutionized how people access information on the internet. It is incredibly useful to have a platform that provides access to a vast array of information on various topics. Reading articles and learning about subjects that interests you is truly fascinating and the rabbit hole that follows can keep you occupied for hours on end.

However, there are elements of the website that could be improved. One of them is the issue of the credibility of some articles. While Wikipedia's aim is for its contributors to provide reliable information, this does not always occur. Some articles may lack verifiable sources which can lead to misinterpretation of facts or misinformation. Checking the reliability of the sources myself is a hassle. While the number of users using and editing the website is increasing, it would be beneficial to have a moderation system to check the quality of articles and ensure that they meet Wikimedia's standards for reliable information.

Another issue on Wikipedia is related to its moderators. The administration team is responsible for ensuring that the website remains appropriate for everyone, but at times, some moderation decisions can be perceived as biased. Some pages or posts may be removed because the moderators deem them inappropriate, which could be problematic if those pages or posts contain reliable information. Some users may find that the current system is unfair and prevents different perspectives from being heard.

Despite these shortcomings, I appreciate the usefulness of Wikipedia. It is a treasure trove of knowledge that one can easily access, even on a mobile device with limited storage, without ever having to leave your home. Thanks to Wikipedia, you can learn about virtually any topic from anywhere, at any time. Wikipedia remains a valuable asset to the internet.

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.

Wikipedia is one of the most popular websites on the internet. It is an online encyclopedia that contains articles on almost any topic that you can think of. The best thing about Wikipedia is that it is user-created, making it accessible to everyone. Unfortunately, its user-created nature also means that it is un-scholarly.

While many articles on Wikipedia contain valuable information, its reliability is often questionable. The site has a problematic reputation when it comes to controversial topics. Many of the articles on these subjects are biased or are written in a way that contradicts itself. Some of these articles also contain so much jargon that it is incomprehensible for the average user.

Many people use Wikipedia as their go-to source when checking for simple facts. Although it can be a useful resource for some topics, using it as a sole source of information is not recommended. With Wikipedia, there is no guarantee that the information you are reading is genuine. Anyone can edit the articles on the site, which means that there is a possibility that biased users may skew the information.

Wikipedia is an excellent idea, but it has its flaws. The site's openness means that anyone can pretend to be an expert when they likely are not. The moderators of the site do their best to keep the articles as accurate as possible, but there is only so much they can do.

For controversial topics, it is recommended that you do additional research to ensure that the information you are reading is accurate. One way to do this is to use Google Scholar to find scholarly work. Professional, scholarly books are accessible through this site, and they are usually written by experts in their respective fields. These works are often reviewed and peer-reviewed, making them more reliable than articles found on Wikipedia.

In conclusion, while Wikipedia can be a useful resource, it is not always the most reliable option. Its user-created nature means that its accuracy can sometimes be questionable. It is recommended that you do additional research to ensure that the information you are reading is accurate. Using Google Scholar or other scholarly sites can help you find reliable sources for your research.

Hey guys, I've been using Wikipedia for a while now, and in my humble opinion, it's a great resource for getting information about almost anything, ranging from herbs and medications, to political issues and beyond. As a reliable source to start my research, Wikipedia has never let me down!

But let's be honest, sometimes Wikipedia can be pretty entertaining too! I remember stumbling on an article that gave me goosebumps - it was about a certain group that had taken control of Wikipedia by hiring writers to influence the information on it so that it aligned with their religious and political agenda. I was intrigued and decided to investigate further.

After looking through a few articles and sources, I ended up being a bit uneasy. It was obvious that the information was slanted, and had more emotional input than actual facts. These people are not naive kids who play on the internet, but experts who have learned to convey their one-sided political message in an effort to sway opinions and map out their own agendas.

I won't tell you who these people are, but I can definitely say that they have good intentions to protect their group's interests. But this also means that the information that they present may not always present an unbiased view.

So, in conclusion, I usually use Wikipedia only for information that is unbiased and doesn't attempt to manipulate my opinion or control my mind. Nonetheless, it's still a pretty cool source of information that can be relied on most of the time.

Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia is a really great site, you know? It's funded by people donating their hard-earned money and it's open for everyone to edit. It's got a simple design so it doesn't take forever to load like some other sites out there. It's just a place to learn new things and expand your knowledge, you know?

I personally have added to Wikipedia in the past and guess what? That information is still there, how cool is that? But there's a little bit of a catch, if you know what I mean. If my information is still there, what was on the site before? Because what they had was completely WRONG. It's not all sunshine and rainbows on Wikipedia, though. Some of the information that is posted there isn't always approved by them. But never fear, there's always Wikia to fall back on.

Adding information to Wikipedia can be a breeze, ya know? Just gotta find other, ahem, "encyclopedic" websites to back up your information and then you're golden. Or so you thought. Unfortunately, Wikia changed its name to Fandom and Wikipedia is a bit biased, if you catch my drift. Even if your information qualifies under their guidelines and Style Essay, they'll delete it if they're not happy. Just because they don't like it. Meanwhile, other similar information goes untouched.

So, to sum it all up, my advice to you is to boycott them. Don't waste your time or money on Wikipedia.

Wikipeedia is a website that many people use to gain knowledge about all sorts of topics. However, while it is a useful tool for learning, it is not always completely accurate. For instance, in the article about traditional food in Burundi, there are some inaccuracies that need to be addressed.

First and foremost, it is important to understand that the food in Burundi varies depending on which region you are in. In some areas, people grow lots of potatoes, sweet potatoes, Amasaka, Uburo, Amahonda, beans, peas, and also have cows for consumption, milk, goats, and of course chickens and vegetables. In other areas, people mostly grow cassava, yams, rice, sugarcane, beans, amateke, bananas, palm oil, and have a lot of fish from the lakes. Some places even grow tea and coffee! It is important to understand the vast variety of traditional foods that are consumed in Burundi.

Sometimes, the information on Wikipedia can be limited to only what is found in cities and stores. However, it is important to understand the whole picture and to learn about food production in all regions of Burundi. Oranges, ripe bananas, lemons, amapera, mangos, Imitagafero, papayas, amashu (cabbage), lengarenga (a type of red root), amashindwe, tangerines, and mandazis are also consumed in Burundi. The country has many small rivers where fish can be caught and enjoyed, like the delicious fish from Lake Tanganyika.

We appreciate the effort that Wikipedia puts into researching traditional foods in Burundi, but it is important to dig deeper and explore all the ways food is produced and the variety of foods available in different regions. So, while we might be considered poor, our food is excellent and diverse. Therefore, it is crucial to travel around and research it well before posting on Wikipedia.