Is en.wikipedia.org Legit?

“Wicked-Pedia sucks”

Wicked-Pedia is absolute bull$#*!. Based on opinion and not fact. Anyone can "add" or "edit' factual definitions or descriptions and alter them into hearsay and/or opinion. DON'T believe what you read. GO TO THE LIBRARY.

“Could be a better resource if dominant know-it-all types didn't undo page creations and edits”

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. Products used:Left reviews Service Quality

“ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE”

Wikipedia is unique helpful website. The editing feature is great since many people have knowledge they can add in real time to correct, And For only $5, people can make a contribution to keep Wikipedia online. Even if we only contribute every few years, we show our respect for knowledge and for everyone else using the Internet, and Yeah some of the information is not entirely 100% accurate, just as many encyclopedias contain errors or become obsolete. Wikipedia was a great idea, and has been useful to millions.

“I'm greatful this site exists.”

I love Wikipedia. It is great if you want easy access to information without having to search too deep on the web. I'd say more than 90% of the time, the articles are accurate and true. It's a shame we can't use this site in schools even though there are moderators whose job it is to validate the accuracy of the articles. There's even references where you can see where the writer got their information. I don't know what I would do without Wikipedia, and I am very grateful they are providing their almost unlimited arsenal of knowledge for free. I've donated to this site before and will do it again. Tip for consumers:This site is handy if you need access to quick information. Products used:Wikipedia

“Contribution Donations”

Instead of asking the public for donations you should request the profiles of the people you have all of their personal information for the donations since it's their business you are promoting. With the times we are in they should be able to contribute $2.75

“Has become nothing but propaganda tool”

You are not accurate nor biased. So many inaccurate information. You are not credib6 and I would never use you.

“I do not find Wikipedia to be distributing disinformation in the articles I have examined.”

I find it odd that the reviews offering negative evaluations of Wikipedia seem to offer simply topics where they purport information to be disinformation. They seem to lack any specifics and merely suggest some whole issue is misrepresented. For example, if I look up Ukraine War, I just don't seem to find some statement of fact that may readily be challenged. When I look at controversial issues discussed, I might question indeed the overall thrust of an article but errors in factual specifics elude me. Checking sources is always advisable in any publication. I have not seen disinformation in Wikipedia as of yet.

“Probably the most important site on the internet”

It is said that the universe is expanding at 150,000 mph. I'm not sure if even God knows. But on Earth, as we witness the miracle of the technology revolution, none of us can be masters of our universe and that's where Wikipedia plays an invaluable role. This online encyclopedia is in itself an expanding universe of almost anything you need to know and the "go to" place for everyone. It's so amazing that your knowledge about anything will expand faster than what would have been possible without it. If you're a parent with young children, this site must be bookmarked. In fact, if you're still alive, this should be bookmarked. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that it is neutral, can be edited by anyone, tends to be highly accurate since changes to content undergo the scrutiny of contributing editors, and is an ongoing self-sustaining body of thought. It is also a major contributing website used in the current versions of AI (Chat gpt 4) You've probably noticed that internet searches are now more meaningful. It's rich in inter-wiki hyperlinks which will enhance your original search by providing links to all types of relevant info. Your destination starts in one place and depending upon how curious you are, takes you to places you didn't intend to go or knew existed. So, while most people think in terms of the present, Wikipedia provides you with enough information to think way beyond the beyond and envision what the future beholds. Check it out. Just add the magic word "wiki" to your internet search query, and enter this phenomenal website. Tip for consumers:Like many people, questions about things come to mind. Even though search, aided by AI is getting more intuitive, it's not perfect. But it is no mistake that AI makes heavy use of Wikipedia because it is so resourceful.

“Lies, lies, lies.”

I take exception to Wikipedia's definition of " Intelligent design (ID) [as] a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as 'an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins'[1][2] though it has been found to be pseudoscience.[3][4][5]." This is an obvious lie concocted, not by scientists, but by internet trolls of the lowest common denominator. ID does not concern itself with God at all, it simply says that, instead of Darwinian random processes responsible for lie, it is a design process that gives rise to massive complexity and functional interdependence at the level of cell development. Origin of life theories have never been able to demonstrate a naturalistic route from pre-biotic chemistry to life. In that sense, ID continues to make more sense than alternative theories. References to God are personal and in no way necessary to formulate the design argument. It amazes me that Wikipedia, despite its lofty claims, is no better than any other social media platform given to the spreading of dis and misinformation, and outright lies. I will never again make a financial contribution to Wiki for that very reason.

“Does not take long to detect where they lean”

We know facts are facts however, the composers of each blog has a definite political & religious leaning. The way in which the facts are logged indicates an apparent leaning unto a negative connotation, almost targeting religious persons and their political affiliation. If a reader is merely looking for facts and not writings which point to an opinion, this is not where you will want to seek your information. Folks, I cannot say where is a good platform for ALL correct information without editorializing. Current times show everyone is going to get their opinion across one way or another.

“High ideals but problematic coverage”

It can be hard to get new topics added. In particular, I know of the rejection of pages for an influential database technology (with US patents) and for a digital standards organisation, and yet there was a page for a US-based comedy series that was never shown in Europe. Not everything in the technical pages is correct, or even fully accepted. It can be seen that some of these pages have taken material from multiple sources that conflict with each other -- basically, some subjects have no precise or universally agreed description. On the other hand, some pages -- especially in physics or mathematics -- have almost been contrived to be unintelligible to the lay person. This is subtly important because it poses the question of whether the site is be educational or not.

“I don't trust it”

This is such a 'fake news' website. Why do you think all that information is free? They want us to believe all the stuff that they are pedal pushing out to to us. They create pages to report other websites as fake news but, where is the proof? This tactic of theirs undermines free and critical thinking. Hey wikipedia, if you're not threatened by the so called 'fake news', then just leave them alone. The truth will all come out in the end... maybe that's what you're really threatened by.

“Misinformation Propagator”

I used to support Wikipedia and donate, which I did back in 2014. But in recent times I find that what I read is outside of what they should be publishing. Wikipedia claim on multiple profiles it published (about people and organisations) that many of them propagate misinformation. They provide no real evidence of this. Those people and groups they publish things about that I read, are supported by massive informed movements (not funded by Big Pharma or main stream media). Recently the EU Parliament with the help of these movements involving many brave people, identified atrocities committed by organisations during the Covid period. These organisations want control and censorship over anyone outspoken that goes against their narrative, which can only point to money. By not editing objectively the information written, they themselves (Wikipedia) are propagating misinformation. They should stay independent of this and they do not. One good example of this is Dr John Campbell from the UK. He has only ever presented the truth and evidence based information from reputable sources. What is said about him let alone many others is far from correct information, which means it is misinformation. Wikipedia also reported information on Russia's military with no real evidence. This is simply wrong no matter what we think of Russia and the war. From what we understand today about Wikipedia, any one of a thousand or more editors working for Wikipedia can protect any article which leads me to believe that any one of them could possibly receive back-handers to do so. Many issues arose with Wikipedia information when Donald Trump became president too. You can read this all online and I have provided some clips. Wikipedia seldom substantiates the things it publishes well, especially controversial information. If you can't substantiate it properly, do not publish it. Moreover I think Wikipedia should only provide generic information about anything and anyone, without bias. Because Wikipedias information is almost editable to anyone, it can never be reliable. Many education organisations and media groups are not allowed to quote Wikipedia information for this reason. While many things it publishes seems to be fine, there are more than enough misleading information pieces to make Wikipedia quite unreliable as a whole. The world does not need such an online resource that is skewed and unreliable in providing any information about anything. They can not be trusted, this is clear.

“Buone informazioni”

Ottimo sito per avere ogni tipo di informazione vera in poco tempo. Alcune volte le informazioni risultano un po' difficili da comprendere ma per il resto mi ha aiutato molte volte! Service Quality

“Wissen”

Wissensportal, dass sich überwiegedn aus Spenden fianziert. Viele Artikel, die soweit einschätzbar häufig auch faktentreu sind

“Wikipedia is heavily Liberal/Fake News/Communist biased - like the New York Times, or CNN”

While I do visit Wikipedia on occassion to learn about Great Apes, or Somalia, or what a molecule is, I will never, ever, ever donate a penny to this "fake news" encyclopedia. If you want to see hate or bias, a la CNN style, then read up on Wikipedia's description of the Mar A Lago FBI raid or how Wikipedia newly defines "recession". Wikipedia is pure communist, Democrap hate and propoganda.

“Awful.”

Firstly, Wikipedia has a lot of sources that are not factual, this is why students are not allowed to use it for research papers. Secondly, most of what you read is edited by immature ignorant jerks. And the guidelines don't get me started with the guidelines. I wish I can give it a -1 out of 5, but oh well. Tip for consumers:Do not be a Wikipedia editor. It’s not worth it. Go outside and spend time with family and friends. Life is short. Products used:Wikipedia……………… Service Value Quality

“Misc”

Multiple attempts to beg for $ during pandemic. Use advertisers if running a site is that expensive.

“An awesome place for a curious mind”

I like wikipedia because you find information about pretty much anything. If you are a curious person and bored you can just go to wikipedia, go to a random article and learn something new. It might not be very practical, but it might help you think of something more interesting to do. Obviously its not a place to do scientific research, but the sources on articles can often times be quite valuable and help you find a more detailed source of information. Wikipedia is a great place to read biographies about real people. It can also be used as an unbiased news site.

“Well known resource for basically any task you may have to it”

Well known resource for basically any task you may have to it. If you need some information which needs immediate details along with facts, please disclose them all entirely. I assume it have good solid reviews cause there is big reason for that.

“Saved me so many times”

Wikipedia saved me so many times at school and I love what these guys did for free. I donate every year some money because the advantages that this website gives are too many for not donating even one euro.

“They lie about politics or history! Don't read them.”

They lie, don't read politics or history. They turn all upside down. They embellish war criminals! They lie about World War 2. It's half truth, half lie so it would look like truth. Don't read them. There are unprofessional people who write the articles. I once helped them with 20 pounds so they told me that now I can write any article I wish! So it's not about professionalism but as always about money! Products used:Wikipedia online Service Value Quality

“I've begun looking at Wikipedia in a new light.”

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!

“Big platform for small minds”

Wikipedia is the number one search result on google for almost anything, that gives it a lot of power. Sadly, power corrupts and despite their best intention, it has become a mouthpiece for propaganda. And not just political propaganda either. Virtually every topic has its own petty bias, with page editors getting to be the ultimate authority in their chosen domain. Sure, all the media is biased these days in one way or another, it's just that Wikipedia used to be different. Now it's just another place to be misinformed. Remember: ultimately google tells you what to believe these days. If you're stupid you keep bucking the system, talking to people directly and forming your own opinions. If you're wise to it all, you just play along. Swallow your propaganda pills and don't make a fuss. For heavens sake, don't rock the boat. You'll upset Miss Google and she gets very, very angry. Tip for consumers:Just another place to hear peoples opinions Products used:Wikipedia… Service Value Quality

“The review”

This site is good, have big informations. But sometimes it has false information in articles. Big help in college searchs