Wikipedia Reviews 

Wikipedia is absolute garbage !! There’s so many lies on that vulgar site I don’t understand how It’s still up on the internet ! Avi Yemini is not a political activist, he’s a journalist but I couldn’t expect anything more from a Wikipedia protagonist disguised as a writer that can’t tell the difference between his anus from a hole in the ground ! How is James O’Keefe a “far right activist” ? James O’Keefe has done more investigative journalism than the fools at CNN along with these other fake news networks. Anyone that takes Wikipedia seriously as a source of knowledge should throughly get their head examined.

Once a great site but now it appears to be used for political purposes
Untrustworthy site

Not what it used to be. It has become a totally one-sided source of information.

Don’t bother making valuable edits or contributions to Wikipedia for the pages that desperately need it because some “admin” with a power trip will just delete it all for no real reason whatsoever. Waste of time website.

I love Wikipedia. For all its "buts" and weaknesses, it is still an amazing and unique source of shared knowledge.

I just Wikipedia made it easier to donate. Their checkout is just so quirky and anti-smooth. I simply don't have the time and energy to overcome its awkwardness. Please make it easier to contribute.

The serious repercussions of Wikipedia's lack of integrity should not be taken lightly. Its clear left-wing leanings have caused a sense of instability and doubt. The vast majority of the website's contributors have a far-left ideology, resulting in a skewed portrayal of conservatives and oftentimes inaccurate statements. Unfortunately, there is no way to completely get rid of these biases, making it impossible to trust the content.
Jimmy Wales, the CEO of Wikipedia, has shown his approval of the website's tendency to display a biased perspective against conservatives. For instance, the terms 'far-right', 'white nationalist' and 'conspiracy theorist' are used to label right-wing figures such as Laura Loomer and Tommy Robinson, but the same terms are not applied to radical far-left figures like Cenk Uygur and Kyle Kulinski. It is therefore essential that you are aware of this when you are accessing information through Wikipedia.

Not neutral anymore. Woke radical left biased propaganda machine!
I was appalled with some articles bias, especially on culture war, something that was supposed to be neutral is now part of the left machine. Wikipedia should be investigated for suspicious donations.
Just went into browser blocked filter, goodbye.

A long time ago you could trust that Wikipedia would provide all sources or angels on all topics or articles.
You could trust this because it was openly crowdsourced.

However Wikipedia has now been infected by fanatical extreme posionus users who work in harmony to ruin, censor and destory information.

At current time you cannot rely on that all sources has been noted or that any information has been removed for historical events.
This is not only tied to recent events but also historical events from hundres of years ago.

Wikipedia is a great site for looking up multiple articles for numerous subjects. They are all contributed by other people who wish to make a difference in sharing information.

I thing it is a good thing for this world

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.

Wikipedia is not reliable, neither free nor neutral. Wikipedia is the worst website that I have known. Their administrators are very strict and rigorous, and they always forbids articles and comments in which they disagree, while imposing their point of views. For example, they confirms (with fake sources) that Argentina is an NATO ally, imposing all users in Wikipedia including Me; when in reality Argentina was never an NATO ally nor partnern.

In addition, Argentina lost their "non-NATO major ally" status in the year 2012 (one decade ago). So I had suggested them to remove Argentina from that list, but they always replied me with their rude comments and censorhip. And now I can assure that they only want to keep pro-USA and pro-UK information, even forgetting the so-called "neutral point of view".

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, definitively. It's only an website for disinformation.
And not only that, it's more: Wikipedia is very poor in images/photos. Any other website has much more photos than Wikipedia

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.

The article on Dr. John Campbell is utter lies. They didn't even bother to find out the truth. They probably rely on American Pharma for donations and are therefore puppets.

It's extremely bias reporting lies as fact is criminal.
Thy will lock the lies so that thy can't be changed or edited.
If you like freedom of speech, are a Patriot in the United States, and want to keep our constitution, I'd avoid and boycott thus company.

I've had a Wikipedia account since 2011. I've made thousands of edits in that time. Also, it allows editing other Wiki websites like Wikiquote, etc. I use Wikipedia multiple times every day and can't imagine the Internet without it.

Biased articles, ran like a cult. Tried adding some missing information and was being treated like I was a criminal. They blocked my account and recommened I payed for training and became a part of their wikipedia moderation team. It all felt very culty

I use Wikipedia regularly for general info. I take its content with a pinch of salt, I don't accept everything I find there, neither do I reject it all. I understand the information has been sourced freely and maybe with individual bias.
If I went into a town square and asked people randomly about certain topics, I would most likely get 90% noise and disinformation. That's OK.
Quite often somewhere to start though isn't it?
With Wikipedia I can be just as discerning.

Dangerous government propaganda place. For example, read the "semi-protected" article about Michael Yeadon. Completely biased. Be very careful and skeptical for anything your read at wikipedia.

If you make account on Wikipedia then make an article the mods will change the article to something else like remove it or ban your account.
I went I first saw wikipedia put some news in on site, which kind of strange. Think mods and admins went some fishy things on site. I found acticle that talks about wikipedia admin put werid things like b00bs on wikipedia for 8 years until 2015. They dont care about your edits on Wikipedia, the admins are really strict, An example is ‪Adeletron 3030‬. When an admin find you on site they start harass you hard, I think there is werid people on the Wikipedia. I learned Wikipedia is bad site in hard way so you dont go the site.
Please don't use Wikipedia thanks :-)

1/5 stars due admins can harass and put werid edits on Wikipedia and they make site feel different, The user interface on Wikipedia looks outdated too.