Wikipedia Reviews

It is a good website from doing a school paper to finding information about potential clients I use this website very often and barely ever have an issue One issue that I sometimes get On some of the pages there is too much writing and it becomes difficult to understand what the website person is attempting to tell you

Certainly useful for first insights into a subject but DO NOT just accept everything on there as fact Most banal things or issues and clear fact on science and technology are usually spot on and to a detailed enough technical level that it matches dedicated sites for those subjects However anything with a political dynamic or anything contentious is subject to bias and propaganda creeping in so be careful to research further and draw your own conclusions

Wikipedia is an amazing information platform It really helps in get information and increase my IQ

Good site for general info that can be filled with trolls

Helpful at most times I used to just read on wikipedia all day when I was still in University

Good site with lots of info I use this site whenever I want to know anything from scratch I find this useful and informative

My account was blocked but after a few days of emailing it was unblocked and things were back to normal

Comprehensive details of all the topics you ever dreamed of I ve learnt a lot from wiki although it is editable by users the dadmta is mostly accurate and helpful

Very helpful though issue is you sometimes need to double check other websites to make sure that the facts are correct

This review pertains to the English Wikipedia Sometimes there s vandalism but it s often quickly reverted Wikipedia isn t the disinformation pit people still claim it is and articles have citations in them ------------------------------------------------Note Some of the reviews on this page are harmful such as the one from the person who edited a page on their corporation which is discouraged per WP COIEDIT the one that parrots claims of fraud in the 2020 election ironically without any evidence the 1-star review complaining about the Dome of the Rock article not listing it as a mosque - even though it isn t even a mosque - not understanding that the blue lock means only registered accounts 30 d old and with 500 edits can edit the article is used to mitigate that same vandalism everyone complains about the second review complaining about how editing with a conflict of interest on Wikipedia e g promoting your own corporation on Wikipedia is frowned upon the review writing the site off as propaganda without evidence the many ironic reviews claiming the site is all lies you guessed it with no elaboration or evidence to their claims the review writing the George Floyd protests off as left-wing lies and in the same vein all of the other politically motivated reviews claiming that it s all liberal bias the many reviews that don t account for the fact that vandalism is usually reverted quickly the review claiming right-wing bias Admins ban anyone who looks at any pages this isn t how Wikipedia works at all as they can t see who s looking at a page