Wikipedia
reviews and complaints

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.

The universe is like, way big and stuff, right? Like, I don't even think God knows how big it is. But, like, here on Earth, we've got this awesome thing called the internet and, like, Wikipedia is, like, the coolest thing on there. It's basically, like, a huge encyclopedia with anything and everything you could ever wanna know. Seriously, it's, like, the go-to site for everyone and their mom.

The best part about Wikipedia is that, like, anyone can edit it. But, don't worry, it's not, like, a free-for-all. There are, like, editors who make sure the information is accurate and stuff. Plus, there are, like, so many links to other pages that you'll never run out of things to learn about. It's, like, a never-ending rabbit hole of knowledge, you know?

If you're a parent, you, like, need to have this site bookmarked. And if you're, like, still alive, you should definitely have it bookmarked too. Trust me, you'll be, like, a genius in no time.

Anyway, what I really love about Wikipedia is that it's neutral. It's not, like, some biased news site or anything. It just gives you the facts, ma'am. And, like, seriously, the amount of information on there is, like, insane. You can start off reading about one thing and end up hours later on a completely different subject.

So, like, basically, if you're not using Wikipedia, you're missing out big time. Just, like, add the magic word "wiki" to your internet search and you're good to go.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that has a lot of information on a variety of topics. Many people use it as a reference when they need to learn something new or just want to find out more about a particular subject. However, some internet users have had negative experiences when trying to contribute to the website.

It seems that Google, which is the parent company of Wikipedia, has a lot of control over what content is allowed on the site. This means that useful words and phrases, such as "seodiscrimination" or "negative seo," are often blocked by the site's administrators. These words can be important for internet users who want to understand the negative effects of things like ad fraud, click fraud, ranking fraud, and scam companies.

When users try to publish these words on Wikipedia, they are quickly shut down by the site's owner or an administrator. These administrators sometimes use fake accounts to downvote or disapprove of the content, and then disappear so that users cannot ask them why they made these decisions.

Despite these issues, there are still ways for internet users to get the information they need. For example, some people have created their own websites, like seodiscrimination.com. However, these sites can be difficult to rank on Google because the company seems to be actively suppressing their visibility.

Overall, while Wikipedia can be a great resource for information, it is important for internet users to be aware of the potential for censorship and discrimination. As long as people are willing to explore alternative sources and create their own content, they can still find the information they need to make informed decisions online.

Wikipedia claims to be the one-stop-shop for all your informational needs and anyone can edit it, but my personal experience says otherwise. I've tried to add relevant links and correct disinformation on several pages, but to no avail. They banned me without any reason, and when I raised my complaint, they even banned my IP address. This website never fails to disappoint me with its biased articles, and the editors there are a bunch of immature, arrogant jerks pretending to be heroes of information. They use silly pseudonyms, and it's hard to tell if these are real people or just bots running this completely unreliable information hub.

Wikipedia begs for money every other month with their obtrusive messages, and it's time people realize that there are better alternatives available now. There are so many articles on the site with obsolete information, and many are so biased that one might think they are neutral and factual. It's disheartening to see young kids and even some adults relying on this website for accurate information.

I recently found out that the founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, had a history of selling pornography online - something that doesn't bother me as an individual, but it seems hypocritical given his stance on freedom of speech. Wales is also known for mocking college students who cite Wikipedia as a source in their papers.

In conclusion, Wikipedia might have had potential, but it has long been a den of disinformation run by power-hungry snowflakes. It's been a while since I stopped supporting them, and I urge others to do the same before they regret it like I do.

I have mixed feelings about Wikipedia. Although it offers an immense collection of articles, there are some gaps in the information available. However, the quality of the writing is not consistent, and it's not always accessible to everyone.

One of my biggest complaints is that the interface is difficult to navigate. I recently tried to post a set of interrelated pages, and it was a nightmare. First of all, the instructions were often incomplete, and I had to guess where to do certain things. Secondly, the process to get help is ridiculous. Why can't they just have a forum where you can ask questions?

Even when you manage to get help, you have to go through countless hoops to post a question. It shouldn't take six tries to get a question posted. Furthermore, there should be a way to communicate with the person who rejected your post so that you can make the necessary changes.

In my experience, Wikidot sites are much easier to work with. They have a friendlier interface and a forum where you can easily get help. Wikipedia, on the other hand, seems to be stuck in the past. They make it difficult to post anything, and it's almost as if they don't care about improving the user experience.

Overall, I think Wikipedia is a valuable resource, but it could be better. They should make the interface more user-friendly and offer more comprehensive instructions. Additionally, they should have a dedicated helpline or forum where users can get immediate assistance. Until they make these improvements, I'll continue to use other resources.

I gotta be real, I never thought Wikipedia was gonna make it big. With all the ads and commercialization on the interwebs, it seemed unlikely that something like Wikipedia, with no ads and no one getting paid to contribute, would even get a second glance. But boy was I wrong. I don't even need to explain what Wikipedia is or what it does, because everyone knows about it and uses it on the daily.

I used to work at a search engine (yeah, I gotta pay the bills too sometimes) and I remember five years ago, Wikipedia wasn't seen as a legit source of information. People thought it wasn't reliable and it wasn't as high up in the rankings as other, more traditional information sources. But slowly and surely, the debate over Wikipedia's usefulness has been won and it's now the go-to for anyone who needs information on almost anything. Even if some pages aren't 100% accurate or objective, people still wanna see it before lookin' elsewhere for other resources.

Sure, there's always gonna be some issues with Wikipedia, just like with any Wiki project. There's always some factional fighting or problems with biases gettin' in the way. But even with all that, it's still the number one place people go to for information online. And let's be real, it would be super dumb for a search engine to ignore that and not put Wikipedia at the top of their search results.

So it looks like Wikipedia is gonna be the main hub for everyday inquiries on the internet for a long time. And that's pretty rad, if you ask me. No ads, no one getting paid, just a bunch of people coming together to create an awesome resource for everyone to use, for free. It's kinda like the way the internet was supposed to be in the first place, before it got all corporate and stuff. If you're lookin' for a cause to donate to, support Wikipedia. It's totally worth it.

Wikipedia is a great resource for information and I find that most of the information is pretty accurate, although sometimes there are mistakes. If you are thinking about editing an article, just be aware that there are some challenges you might face.

For me, I decided to edit the Hurricane Irene article, which I thought was a relevant edit. However, I encountered some issues with a user named Jason Rees who kept deleting my edit. I found him to be quite stubborn and difficult to work with. To make matters worse, his friend HorsesareReal also got involved and started arguing with me.

Things escalated quickly when they accused me of something called sock puppeting, which I had never heard of before. They claimed that I was using multiple accounts to manipulate the page, but I told them that I only had one account. Unfortunately, they did not believe me and blocked my account.

Then, things really went downhill when they accused me of having two other accounts named Flasty Jam and Snazzy Fam boi. I had nothing to do with these accounts, but they didn't believe me. It turned out that one of my students had made those accounts on the same computer as me. I explained this to them, but they refused to listen.

I tried to talk to an admin named Yunshui, but they were very rude to me and banned my talk page. This was frustrating because I felt like they were not willing to listen to my side of the story. Eventually, I gave up and told them what they wanted to hear, which was that I was sock puppeting. This was a lie, but I just wanted to move on. They made me wait six months before I could come back, which was a big inconvenience for me.

To make matters worse, I tried to ask a few questions on the Wikipedia IRC and got banned by a user named Chrissymad for seemingly no reason. None of the other admins had a problem with me, so I was confused as to why she acted that way.

Overall, I think that Wikipedia has some issues with their user community. There are some people who are not willing to listen to others' opinions and can be very stubborn. This can make it difficult to edit pages or resolve disputes. However, I still think that Wikipedia is a valuable resource and I will continue to use it. If you do run into problems, I would recommend either making a new account or trying to talk to a different admin.

Wikipedia (wikipedia.org) is an online resource that is much like a digital encyclopedia, providing a wealth of information on various topics. Many people use Wikipedia as a source for research or to simply satisfy their curiosity about a particular subject. It is quite impressive to see how much information is available on this site, and it is always being updated with new information.

It is unfortunate that some people view Wikipedia in a negative light, as they believe that it is contributing to the control of their minds by external forces. This is a common concern in today's society, as people are bombarded with information from many different sources. However, it is important for people to think for themselves and not be influenced by everything they see or hear. This is especially true when it comes to information that is available on the internet.

One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it provides a platform for people to share information freely. People from all over the world can contribute to the site, and this ensures that a wide range of perspectives and opinions are represented. Of course, there are people who abuse this freedom by posting inaccurate or biased information, but the Wikipedia community is diligent about monitoring and correcting this.

As with any online resource, Wikipedia does have its limitations. It should never be the sole source of information for any type of research, as it is a collaborative effort and not always 100% accurate. It is always a good idea to cross-check information found on Wikipedia with other sources to verify its accuracy.

In conclusion, Wikipedia is a valuable resource that provides a wealth of information on various topics. It should be viewed as a starting point for research rather than the final word on a subject. While it is important for people to be cautious about their sources of information, it is equally important to give credit where credit is due. The people who contribute to Wikipedia are passionate about sharing their knowledge with others, and this is something to be celebrated. As long as people continue to view Wikipedia in a positive light and use it responsibly, it will remain a valuable resource for years to come.

I have mixed feelings about Wikipedia. On one hand, it's supposed to be a source of information on pretty much everything you could think of. On the other hand, I often find myself drowning in a sea of irrelevant details when all I wanted was a single fact or number.

What's worse, it seems like the people who write for Wikipedia are more interested in promoting themselves and their own opinions than actually providing accurate information. I've stumbled upon several articles where the "trusted posters" were clearly biased and spewing their own views.

And don't even get me started on the editing process. If you're a newbie and try to make a change, be prepared to walk on eggshells. If you don't follow the precise protocol, you'll be immediately shot down and told that you don't know how Wikipedia works. But if you're part of the "writers clique", then it's okay to push your own agenda.

But on the other hand, there are some articles that are actually really informative. Just don't expect them to be written in normal human language. It seems like many of the articles are written in a way that only people with PhDs can understand. Sometimes, I'll find myself Googling the same question, but clicking on the search result that gives me the "definition in normal human language".

All in all, I guess Wikipedia is hit or miss. It's great when you want to learn about certain scientific concepts, but not so much when you want a straightforward answer to a simple question. And let's not forget the egos of the writers who populate the site.

ng for help on there once but he ended up just threatening to ban me from there too. It's like he has a personal vendetta against me.

Despite all of this, I still believe in the concept of Wikipedia. It's an amazing platform for people to come together and share knowledge. The beauty of it all is that anyone can contribute and add to the collective knowledge of humanity. It's a shame that there are administrators like Sergecross73 and Ferret who abuse their power and ruin the experience for others.

In the end, I would still recommend Wikipedia to anyone looking to learn or add to the knowledge base. Just be careful and be aware that there are people out there who will abuse their power and ruin your experience if they don't like you. It's a shame that it has come to this, but that's just the reality of the situation. Let's hope that things will change in the future and the Wikipedia community can be a safe and friendly place for everyone to share their knowledge.

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.