Wikipedia Avis 65

If they are doing their job right, they will piss off those who dislike reliably-sourced facts. And indeed they have! Partisan accusations from all sides only serve to further Wikipedia's credibility. In an increasingly commercialized and manipulative Internet, you can trust Wikipedia to write neutrally and based on reliable sources. There are many errors, of course, and I'm glad we can all work to fix them.

I often use Wikipedia to quickly look up information or get general background on topics. Articles are usually well-structured and easy to navigate. Sometimes information can be outdated or incomplete, especially on niche subjects, but overall it's a useful and accessible resource.

I can usually rely on getting reliable, non-biased information from this website. Comparatively, it's the best source of information.

The encyclopedia of Propaganda and Fake News.

I had a very negative experience on this website. I was banned from editing because I was, supposedly, making "unsourced" edits for certain pages, which is false, because I actually did provided sources, but the moderators were dismissive and didn't even bother to actually check if the links I provided were actually valid or nor, and just dismissed them because I didn't provide them properly, even when I literally showed them the links when messaging them. They are also very rude and use a lot of condescending language, showing they have nothing but contempt for their own userbase.

Please avoid contributing for Wikipedia. It is a very thankless experience.

Wikipedia has become a left-wing propaganda machine, and sadly so, since wikipedia still hold high regards among most people and news orgs.

It's full of blatant lies and biased articles - locked and wihtout room for nuance or discussion.

i love editing wikopeida

Wikipedia provides free and accessible knowledge to anyone with an internet connection.
It is the largest encyclopedic reference work ever compiled in human history.
Built by a global community of volunteer editors, it embodies collective intelligence.
Its availability in over 300 languages helps to break down information barriers.
As a living resource, it is continuously updated, reflecting real-time changes.
It serves as an excellent starting point for research on nearly any subject imaginable.
The commitment to a neutral point of view promotes a balanced understanding.
Being a non-profit, it remains free of advertising and commercial influence.
It empowers individuals by democratizing access to information globally.
Ultimately, it stands as a monumental testament to human collaboration and curiosity.

Amazingggggg

I am currently doing a PhD in Biofield science and integrative medicine. When I searched for Biofield Science and Reiki on Wikipedia it did not present a single accurate fact in it's entire summation of these topics dismissing them as pseudoscience rubbish. There was not even a distant approximation of the current research. I sent over 50 randomised controlled trials on Reiki from peer reviewed journals some ranked no. 1 for e.g. Frontiers Jounral and this was the reply "A rambling list of unreliable sources. All the research is weak/fraudulent, as sensible sources say. Wikipedia doesn't indulge woo." Obviously author didn't read the research and likely wouldn't have a clue how to assess it given their utterly unscientific biased view of the world. I wouldn't go within 1000 miles of Wikipedia after reading that claptrap. Disgusted.

utter junk, tried to help with editing incorrect information for a page and my account was banned, and now they wont let me delete my account OR change my username to one that isnt personally identifiable. So much for GDPR!

History facts are no longer to be trusted on wikipedia.

Wikipedia is managed by a huge gang of extreme far left unemployed activists who are incredibly arrogant and disrespectful.
They do not deserve such a platform to force their biased point of view upon people, they reference progressive/socialist online blogs, far left news media and pseudo-scientists with no peer reviewing. Wikipedia is “Fact Checked” by even more far left-activists, as I said.
Right now, Wikipedia is very unreliable, at Colleges and High Schools, it is considered inappropriate to even use Wikipedia as a source.
Serious peer reviewed posts will be removed and the poster (Scientist/Expert) will be banned if the post does not fit their narrative or ideology. By checking the bio and edit/moderation status of the person that banned you, they will have no proper qualifications, but will state their political affiliation, you can also confirm it by checking their edit history and discover their true biased nature.
There is almost nothing factual about many articles on Wikipedia, as it has become activist's political doctrine, even the hard sciences are not safe from them.
Do not fund any one of their fundraisers until they turn to peer reviews and no bias references, which maybe could never happen.

I have been using Wikipedia for decades and watched it grow from its humble beginning to a state-of-the-art resource for accurate knowledge. There is an impressive army of volunteers that make sure any forms of mis- and disinformation is held at bay. The great strength of Wikipedia is that it's community-driven rather than commercial and I hope it will stay that forever, which is why I am chipping in myself.

Literally one of the greatest things ever given to us by the internet. It isn't perfect, but the fact that we have free, ad-free access to a fount of human knowledge at the tip of our fingers whenever we want is truly amazing. I do not understand how anyone could disapprove of Wikipedia and I encourage everyone to donate, to keep it available and free, while you still can.

Wikipedia is managed by a gang of tyrans. They expect us to collaborate to the articles for free and are incredibly arrogant and disrespectful. I have never been treated this badly while trying to work as a writer. There is no way I am going to donate one single cent or one more second of my time to this organization. Fire those tyrans that are ruining this platform. They do not deserve such a platform to force their point of view upon people.

Wikipedia is anti semitic and it shouldn’t exist!

Fake news and jeek's silliness. It's the same sad level of reddit and quora. Turn of internet and open the books.

Wikipedia still succeeds in its almost impossible task of being freely editable while striving for reliability.

Negative reviews have been posted here suggesting its editors are "activists" – but generally this seems to mean that the editors are trying to preserve an idea of truth in a post-truth world.