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

Stress 24/7

"The world's largest source of information"? More like "the world's largest joke." As if all the political bias and shadowbans weren't bad enough, even seemingly normal articles like those for Joy Division are under heavy surveillance by gatekeeping admins. I added sourced genres for the articles of 'Unknown Pleasures' and 'Closer' that came from an encyclopedic book. However, an admin named FMSky removed them because they were not based on popular opinion. The book, 'A History of Rock and Dance Music' by Piero Scaruffi, is widely available and can be found on Google Shopping. FMSky also told me that they aren't an admin, but they behave like one anyway as they are often involved in censoring articles.Eventually, another admin named Woovee visited my page to tell me that an ENTIRE committee of admins agreed on my source being unwelcome. This is just because the book author's website is self-published. I cited the book, not the website. It felt like a school conference, but worse. Woovee also told me that it's the journalist's opinion that matters, not the user's. In reality, it's the Wikipedia admins that control the whole narrative. Woovee told me this when I removed the "gothic rock" genre from the 'Closer' article, not realizing that a music review already mentioned the genre in the article. In short, Wikipedia is the right-hand man of TikTok, ruining the world one step at a time. If you want to support Joy Division, buy their merch, stream their music, perhaps even get inspired by them. The admins mentioned in this review are actually normal users like you and me, but are completely brainwashed by Wikipedia's toxicity. If you're still thinking of supporting this dystopian database, you're better off peeling potatoes at a food drive or pushing your luck on a dating site/app.

1
Date of experience: Jan 01, 0001
Crime!!!

Crime! Misleading is crime. Wikipedia is misleading public. Sitejabber/Simple.Wikipedia. Org Reviews.

1
Date of experience: Jan 01, 0001
Wikipedia org uk, is not reliable source.

The administrates do a very BAD job. They interfere way too much, when editors who think they own Wikipedia over step their position. All who edit should be treated with equal respect.Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source, as information is long out of date in many articles. In fact Wikipedia should have a fake news warning.If you try and update information with multiple references, it will still be removed almost instantly.It is very worrying how many other internet services use Wikipedia as their main source of information. The WWW is becoming very unreliable and frustrating.Please be very careful when relying on Wikipedia.

1
Date of experience: Jan 01, 0001
If i could give this site a -5 i would

If i could give this site a -5 i would. When looking for a honest opinion on a person or company i seem to be getting a left view on everything. It amazes me why this site get so much airplay, its wrong . Avoid this info site , you night as well make something up in your head

1
Date of experience: Jan 01, 0001
Content written principally by the unemployed

Content is flagrantly opinionated with content written by anyone, particularly the unemployed with excess time on hand.

1
Date of experience: Jan 01, 0001
By Dae Yun Kim

By Dae Yun Kim: Wikipedia is not accurate & misleading public with unreliable information. Wikipedia claim, Pacific International University is diploma mill, but this is inaccurate, because I attended California Pacific School Of Theology/Glendale, California(associated with Pacific International University), & attended California Pacific School Of Theology physically for 2years & got through all the process & received Ph.D. degree from Pacific International University. And also Wikipedia talked about accreditation, but since Pacific International University is religious Exempt University, Pacific International University is exempted from U.S. education regulation & standard. Therefore Pacific International Univesity degrees are legal, lawful. And also since Pacific International University degrees are religious degrees, Pacific International Degrees are recognized by religious organizations. And therefore conclusion is that, Pacific International Degrees are constitutional & legitimate degrees. Therefore since Wikipedia was hurting all the graduates Of Pacific International University through inaccurate information, I want Wikipedia close down in order to protect future victims. And these people are people who received degree from Pacific International University(associated with California Pacific School Of Theology/Glendale, California). Pat Boone(Celebrity), Warren Duffy(Celebrity), Carlbaugh(Celebrity), Jack Van Impe(Celebrity), Ye Young Su(예영수/korean celebrity pastor). John Blanchard(celebrity). 1999 graduation key note speaker(Jerry Falwell/celebrity), 2000 graduation key note speaker(Pat Robertson(celebrity), 2001 graduation key note speaker(John Blanchard/celebrity), graduation key note speaker(David Hockking). Therefore I am proud to became alumnus of Pacific International University.

1
Date of experience: Jan 01, 0001
Wikipedia is plagued

Wikipedia has been plagued by inaccuracies for many years. The open editing process allows anyone to present falsehoods as facts without providing any factual evidence to support their claims. The information on Wikipedia is often misleading and at times discriminatory towards minority groups. Google should stop recommending this unreliable source as do other search engines. The lack of editorial oversight and fact-checking makes Wikipedia an untrustworthy reference that frequently publishes biased, incorrect content masquerading as truth. Until Wikipedia implements stronger quality control and vetting procedures, it should not be treated as a credible resource.

1
Date of experience: Jan 01, 0001
The gorilla skeptics are the editors…

The gorilla skeptics are the editors spoiling a 'free' resource into their own viewpoint. They change content as their are heavily biased, in denial of real issues and unable to hear a view other than their own.Wikipedia was a great idea but become a victim and victimised by its own success. No-one to police the editors/ police of Wikipedia.

1
Date of experience: Jan 01, 0001
all paid articles

all paid articles, showcases of artists and products that can only be added by paying the publishers, shameful and dangerous regarding sensitive topics such as health therapies and medical products

1
Date of experience: Jan 01, 0001
Edited by gorilla skeptics

Edited by gorilla skeptics. Lead with their American bias not for open discussion and / or reference

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.