Wikipedia

2.3
2.3 from 271 Reviews and Ratings
Unclaimed Profile
Business profile not claimed
This business hasn’t yet claimed their profile on our platform and may be unaware it's listed. As a result, their rating might not fully reflect their customer service or responsiveness.

Average Rating

2.3

/
5

271 Reviews

5 Star
22%
4 Star
12%
3 Star
2%
2 Star
4%
1 Star
60%

Filtered Reviews

Filter Reviews

Review Time

Wikid-Lie-pedia

For many years I used to donate to Wikipedia - not any more.It has become clear that it has sadly been co-opted into a propaganda tool and outright smear campaign against many reputable scientists whose professional opinions contradict 'The Science'. Many have tried to correct errors on their web pages and complain that the page mysteriously reverts to its old form. Other entries have been 'disappeared'.It is sad that it is part of the political narrative-control machine, when it started as such an altruistic idea.

1
Date of experience: Jan 01, 0001
Why are Wikipedia so evil toward truth

Why are Wikipedia so evil toward truth? Its writers slander people who are opposed to media lies. They are cowards and the truth will find you out. Co-conspirators to murder are the Wikipedia writers who slander and defame anti-covid narrative scientists and writers. Shame on you all.

1
Date of experience: Jan 01, 0001
Wikipedia is a ZERO!!!!

I would give Wikipedia a zero if it was available. They only post liberal nonsense about whoever they desire and when you call them out on it they claim nothing to do with it. It is just your average reader that contributes what a lot of garbage. I hope no one contributes to this biased bull crap! It should go far far away!!!!

1
Date of experience: Jan 01, 0001
I went on Wikipedia to check what it…

I went on Wikipedia to check what it said about a prominent youtube star with a large following. There should have been a lot of information there but what was more prominent was a recent episode. I went on the "talk" button and found that several of their own editors had said the article was biased and one that it reads like a real hatchet job. Quite likely the subject could sue for defamation. I will certainly not be donating any more money to Wikipedia

1
Date of experience: Jan 01, 0001
Wikipedia is no longer reliable

Not only has Wikipedia become 101% WOKE and corrupting the truth, it is not reliable. IF you search Lia Thomas, who has been in the news for weeks, because the he-she broke all women's swimming records, far beyond what 99.9% could ever reach, there is ZERO search results at Wikipedia.

1
Date of experience: Jan 01, 0001
Superb help in tracing the business behind Arlo

Superb help in tracing the business behind the Trust Pilot listing of "Arlo Smart Home" It is Arlo Technologies Inc.Arlo Smart Home has many red unsatisfactory single star ratings on Trustpilot. Criticisms and problems remain unanswered and the website unclaimed.Confusion reigned on the Trustpilot website with a scenery design business having unsatisfactory reviews concerning home security equipment!Trustpilot do not list Arlo Technologies that uses the same "Smart Home" website address. Trustpilot can only provide the error message "Ooops" if, with an intent to provide a review, I insert the business name with the appropriate information.The Arlo linking can become complex with website references dedicated to different Countries.Thank you Wikipedia! I consider you are providing the right information in focussing on the root business name and not, as with Trustpilot, the subsidiary websites or temporary trading names.The latter procedure can lead to fraud if a business or its Directors close and restart under similar names!I have certainly been happy to make a small donation to Wikipedia to help keep in customer orientated and not influenced by the need for income from advertising or other sources.

5
Date of experience: Jan 01, 0001
So much left

But it depends by article. If you don´t dig into politics but nature or science, it may give you the right direction. But don´t expect to learn everything from Wikia, you will need more verified source. If you are on a trip being hungry and have McDonald´s in front of you, sometimes it won´t ruin your health, right? Just don´t overdo it.

4
Date of experience: Jan 01, 0001
I personally know people that have been…

I personally know people that have been lied about continuously by this supposed trustworthy site, do not trust it, it allows people to input false narratives without any scrutiny, many many many lies on this website.

1
Date of experience: Jan 01, 0001
WIKIPEDIA AND LIFE

Wikipedia is my important source of knowledge. They don't charge you a penny for all the information they provide so I have to chip in.

5
Date of experience: Jan 01, 0001
Biased Information

As mentioned in several other reviews, all information on Wikipedia is user-created, internally reviewed, and moderator approved. As with a TON of internet information being passed off as "news" and "fact", there is no standard for these labels any more. Nowhere is there an authoritative source with which this information can be compared and proven. Yes, users generally cite sources, sometimes they're even required to have sources; however, those sources are often incestuous - circular references that feed off each other, rather than having any foundation outside of the echo chamber.

1
Date of experience: Jan 01, 0001

Is this your business?

Claim your business profile now and gain access to all features and respond to customer reviews.

Business Details

  • Wikipedia is a free, web-based, collaborative, and multilingual encyclopedia. It is the largest and most popular general reference work on the internet, consisting of freely editable content by a community of volunteers. Operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization, it aims to provide a summary of all human knowledge to everyone, globally.