Wikipedia Reviews

I will never donate another penny to Wikipedia after learning that a large portion of their current writers fact checkers are communist marxist apologists I think Vaush Look this guy up on Youtube is a good example of the kinds of people you are relying on for critical information when you decide to use Wikipedia It used to be a valuable reliable site But that was then this is now I do not consider it trustworthy anymore My teachers were right all along Wikipedia is not a good source of information I will never donate another penny to this communist apologist organization

Incredible how left wing fascists have overtaken Wikipedia You cannot find a single article without a complete political bias Even when trying to edit it gets rejected The worst is looking up stuff related to communism and China only to find stuff seeming to be written by Hitler and Xi themselves I ve come back after seeing Wiki suspended 12 admins harrassing HK freedom advocates including death threats Apparently according to Wikipedia China is one of the most free countries when it comes to religious freedoms That is absolutely not true and quite a polar opposite of reality I ve updated to 2 stars after seeing some relevant clean up and suspension of malicious actors

The system is broken and over-taken by admins who cannot be impartial or unbiased The content is now the result of popular opinion rather than fact based or citeable sources They block users who point out that information has no citable source if the information is popular

This site whilst interesting constantly bombards its viewers with begging messages for money Upon opening the site a pop up appears asking for donations Shut that down and another appears And so on tiddly pom Please donate via Paypal Maestro MasterCard etc etc Nothing more infuriating than a site that constantly interfere with ones enjoymentSuffice it to say I will use this site again unless the begging ceases

Wikipedia is clearly a useful source of information and opinions but it is badly let down by the lack of transparency of its editorial process which allows the website editors aka the Community to use anonymous identities Because of this it is possible to spend a lot of time and effort adding factual content to an article within one s area of expertise only to find that the self-appointed editor of the article whose identity is never publicly disclosed vetos the additions by deleting or hiding them in order to preserve a sense of proprietorship In essence the process favours the select few who are able and willing to devote substantial time to their editorial policing role In this sense Wikipedia is closer to political activism than scholarship Furthermore the claim that all content is subject to strict editorial oversight is clearly false - the volume of information on Wikipedia is simply too large for this to happen The reality is that all kinds of rubbish is published while elsewhere diligent efforts to add useful information are rejected without right of appeal I have donated in the past but will not do so again until transparency standards improve