Wikipedia Reviews 65

Wikipedia is biased and unreliable. At colleges and high schools, it is considered inappropriate to even use wikipedia as a source.

Wikipedia is "Fact Checked" by activists. Serious peer reviewed posts will be removed and the "poster" (Scientist) will be banned if the post does not fit their narrative. This is simple to check if your posts are removed and you are banned by checking the bio of the person that banned you. They will have no qualifications in anything but will state their political affiliation.
I will cite one example; The Troposphere-This has gone from thousands of word accurate chemical and physical fact about the Troposphere to a few lines of nothing on multiple times for years.
There is nothing factual about anything on Wikipedia as it is activist's political doctrine. Do not fund any one of their fundraisers until they turn to peer reviews

While Wikipedia is a good website, some of the information can be false. I learned a few stuff from there.

However, I got blocked a few months ago just for trying to be a better person. While I did do a few things wrong earlier, I just wanted to make a fresh account and be a better person! But no, they won’t let it happen. Also, when I appealed my block, and admin rejected my appeal and started the paragraph with “and”. Thought they were supposed to use good English.

Also, some of their policies, such as that you can’t really write about something you like or are connected to, such as a club you go to, are bad.

Overall, even through the stress it caused me I’d still recommend it as READ ONLY. EDITING IS WHAT CAUSES STRESS.

Great website for searching information I need.

It has become common wisdom to visit Wikipedia for knowledge. I am aware for sure that Wikipedia is not correct when it comes to historical facts. I have found that most of the articles relating to recent history of Sri Lanka and personnel have a lot of errors while some are downright wrong. I presumed that the Edit function is there to correct what is misquoted or simply wrong. Articles are written by individual with very little or no knowledge of the real facts. It could be that they would wish to record history the way they would like to see it with their biases by twisting the facts. The irony is that they have blocked my IP address in order that I could not edit anymore. By deduction, the other 'facts' they have recorded should be such that too. People, especially children should be warned not to believe that Wikipedia not the gospel.

I became an editor soon after it was created in the early aughts. I haven't done a lot of editing, but I've read the rules & been following how it works as I use it all the time. It certainly isn't perfect, but it's excellent as it can be for a volunteer & bot-run organization. I have checked sources & they're usually very good. There's a wealth of information!

Doctor Dae Yun Kim Ph.D.: Wikipedia is untrustworthy. More posted to Pacific International University,Victoria,Australia.

Ikke kun fordi læreren siger det, før eksamen, men samtidigt fordi, at Wikipedia er ikke længere, hvad det var i starten - et sted, hvor almene mennesker, kunne danne overblik over deres viden - og dele denne viden med andre.

Siden er idag politisk ladet, liberal specifikt - og det ser man reflektere i artikler.
F.eks. forskellen mellem artiklen, om Donald Trump - og Joseph Biden.

Selvom Britannica mangler en del artikler, som kun Wikipedia- og andre sider har skrevet om - så de emner, som Britannica også har skrevet om - er betydningsfuld dybere, mere faktuelle end præget med forfatterens personlige mening, og det kan anbefales, at støtte deres journalistik, m. et Premium-abonnement - hvorved man kan anbefale emner, de mangler og kan skrive om.

Wikipedia er muligvis klassificeret som en non-profit, men Britannica bringer kvalitet viden, til den generelle befolkning.

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.

Unfortunately just full of biased propaganda now
This also includes the moderation of the website, edit propaganda to the truth and you're ip banned.

Wikipedia has always been an untrusted source to be taken as "ones two cents." This has massively increased as I've seen blatant lies on different pages. Sadly, it appears to be massively biased and left leaning. Recently, I checked a page to learn a little bit and found outrageous false statements. It is opinion based, not fact based. Remember that before using this source.

gut informational web

Wikipedia is great man
thats alrigght

VERY USEFUL SITE, WHETHER WE WANT QUICK OR ELABORATE INFORMATION. WE ALL HAVE USED IT EXTENSIVELY IN OUR LIVES INCULDING FOR SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS. GRATEFUL.

BUT I DISLIKE THE FORMAT OF HAVING AN ARTICLE FOR EVERYTHING. RATHER IT SHOULD BE LIKE A ENCYCLOPAEDIA, SHOWING VARIOUS DIVISION OF TOPICS, RIGHT IN THE MAIN PAGE.
I ALSO DISLIKE THEIR BEGGING FOR PAYMENT FROM INDIAN READERS.

Extensive and updated information available.

The website is useful for information, but the information and the system of censorship means that the information is not reliable. Wikipedia do not follow their published policies. It is not clear if this is intentional or due to systemic biases, but ultimately their system is currently broken, and the self-policing isn't fixing it.

After studying Wikipedia for a considerable length of time, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn: Wikipedia is the new Ministry of Truth and an affront to digital democracy.

It makes no difference if your edit contributions are constructive, neutral, or destructive. It doesn't matter if you are a decent editor or a vandal. It even doesn't matter if you follow the rules or not. The establishment is a hive mind that will treat you as a "threat" just because it can and all while using "security" as an excuse for terminating your account and keeping it terminated.

So no matter how long you edit or how much support you give, WIKIPEDIA WILL ALWAYS JUDGE YOU BY THE COLOR OF YOUR PROFILE (i.e., block logs, SPI reports, etc.) and never by the quality of your contributions. Wikipedia discriminates by blocking and/or permanently banning "enemies" (i.e., editors who care about facts and challenge arbitrary authority) all while touting itself as an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit".

Don't agree? Then conduct the following test:

1) Open the English Wikipedia to the entry on the Proto-Greek language. Notice that the article contains laughably outdated scholarship that is treated as if it's current.

2) Click the edit option and replace the existing html code with the html code from the more factually accurate version of the same entry timestamped 20:26 12 December 2022 (or 20:32 11 December 2022).

3) Click on the blue button to publish everything and then watch as your edit gets undone by another user who will classify it as "vandalism", "sockpuppetry", and/or "meatpuppetry".

Still don't agree? Then look up what happened to User:MastioDziwkioDerbioBlizkio whose only "crime" was putting back a better version of an article about the kithara, a Greek instrument, on 07:35 8 December 2022.

And don't bother contacting any oversight division in Wikipedia because the people there will just tell you to go somewhere else and offer no help.

As for Wikipedia administrators, their continued corruption has proven Larry Sanger right since they claim to "fight the good fight" against vandalism but in reality are vandals themselves.

Don't agree? Look up User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (sock account of User:LukasPietsch), a Wikipedia administrator who outed himself years ago as Lukas Pietsch on Google Groups. Who is Lukas Pietsch? An English language scholar from the University of Hamburg who thinks it's "so cool" to "argue against the use of scholarly sources, misquote other people's work and misrepresent historical facts in order to push [his] view in wikipedia" (his words, not mine; go to forum thread #24326 on Wikipedia Review for more info).

That Lukas Pietsch is now the "go to guy" of what an anonymous editor calls the "SS Skanderberg sock circus" (i.e., Albanian ultranationalists) speaks volumes as to how much Wikipedia has fallen.

Lastly, NEVER donate money to Wikipedia, or even the Wikimedia Foundation, because it has become "Trashpedia" and aptly described as such (read Subhash Kak's "Wikipedia or Trashpedia?", 2019).

But is there any way to fix Wikipedia? The answer is "no" unless: A) Larry Sanger replaces Jimbo Wales as head of the Wikimedia Foundation and reforms Wikipedia, or B) Elon Musk purchases the Wikimedia Foundation, fires the entire administrator class, fires the Board of Trustees, and lets the free market relegate Wikipedia to wherever it deserves to be. It will be a cold day in hell though if either of those two things happen.

An invaluable reference source put together by volunteers and usually the information if peer reviewed.
References are nearly always provided, so if you are uncertain about the relevance or appropriateness to your research then check the source of the reference.
Almost no other web resource provides this cross-checking. Invaluable - thank you!

Thank You!!!! :-)