Wikipedia

While controversial I feel that Wikipedia is an interesting and important tool to internet users. It provides the opportunity for people to collaborate with complete strangers to further the availability of knowledge to people. The fact that it is easy to use makes it a common site for students especially and though most instructors would discourage its use, if not the use of the actual page one can use the source lists that are available on the page to find published sources that are credible in most instances. The best way to change the perception of this tool would be to educate its users on the better ways to use the tool to their ends, especially at a student level while continuing to allow the freedom it allows for most to edit and help to endow others with knowledge.

Be careful of the information that you learn on this website, many articles contain contradictions and factual inaccuracies in them. The website is open to whomever wants to edit and write articles, therefore exercise critical thinking skills and take facts learned from the articles on this website with a grain of salt. Recommended with reservations and advice.

I think Wikipedia is a fun site and gives you a good broad overview of things. However, the content often has errors and it is not a fully reliable source for information. I will put it this way, my daughter tried to use it was a source for a research paper and the teacher gave the entire class a lesson about finding more valid sources. That is not intended as a putdown to Wikipedia. It is good, general knowledge but if you are seriously researching something you need to dig deeper.

Wikipedia. It's a site where a person can learn about many topics. The main concern is that since anyone can edit or post pages on Wikipedia, the site can contain inaccurate information (which is why teachers strongly discourage using Wikipedia as a reference on essays and research papers).

Wikipedia is great as it has info on a lot of things, especially for school reports/essays/ETC. I wish schools/colleges could let us use Wikipedia for our reports as it easily helps out a lot and has a lot of their info backed up with sources to weed out fakers or trolls with false information.

Wikipedia has just about everything such as information about my favourite music artists and a timeline that keeps you updated about Covid-19. Who needs to watch the news when it's all in 1 simple place?

While not being a replacement for traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia.com is a great place for people to be able to look up information on a variety of topics and to gain the general understanding if different topics. They provide access to different references where more information can be obtained, fun facts, and useful information for students and scholars alike.

Their website has already paved the way for new forms of internet technology that allow for users to edit the content of a website and collaborate to come up with the correct information. Wikipedia is edited by the people for the people and is an example of a democratic website that is working.

Wikipedia is great. Only one problem. They keep asking for donations and from what I read, they make TOO MUCH money for being a non profit company.

Money is money though and I'm not surprised but the service they offer to the world has helped millions so I'm not going to rate them poorly even though they are greedy.

One of the best and most well written sites on the internet. Anyone can add an article, or change an existing one. Amazingly, virtually all articles are very well written and informative. Very useful for general knowledge about almost anything you can think of.

Anytime you want to get a decent overview on a topic, this is a good site. They have information on just about everything! Warning to college students though, this is NOT an acceptable source to be sited for information on papers.:-)

While I use Wikipedia from time to time and I can distinguish the articles that are well substantiates ( most of the time) and the ones that may be amateurish, I still get some good information (most of the time) but this rating is about this particular article (don't know how it was published). This article entitled Noah's Arc states that there's no evidence of a universal flood (this has been proven and is out of question), then it also says that Noah's Arc would have been an impossibility (It has been reproduced and I think it's in Texas, they just won the category of tax exemption in a law suit with the government). So, my point is, I happen to know that the idea of the flood is scientific and proven, but how about someone that doesn't know that and rely on Wikipedia? I know that many artciles are scrutinized, but this one went away away off the radar. Needs to be either corrected or removed. Just thought I should share.

Awesome site. But... the editors are sometimes a bit like "Hitlers" to new comers. I think it would be better if the editors were supervised and treated new users with respect for the contributions they make to help improve the site.

If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can't share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors

I trust this site. Dispite popular believe, WIkipedia is reliable. If anything false is put up there, depending on how popular it is, it will be removed or classified as "Sorce Needed". All in all they are truthful.

They block you as soon as you write anything that doesnt fit thier agenda. I wrote about a business and even though theres 3000 other businesses on there. They claim I wrote about my own. Theres no point in writing stuff the fake checkers will just block you feom thier moms basement

I use this site everyday. It provides reliable information on every topic. It is always up to date and accurate. I wish that I had the internet and a website like this when I was a kid. This site is very easy to navigate. I have it bookmarked on my favorite list!

It contains lot of factually/technically incompetent, biased and erroneous information. On technical subjects it's usually incomplete of just plain wrong. On non-technical subjects it's so socially and politically biased that it's almost humorous, if it weren't so sad. I call it the world's greatest source of uninformed, incorrect and biased information.

There is a reason my Composition professor banned us from using Wikipedia for our papers; anybody can add/edit information to the pages without registering or without citing sources

An example would be when Comedian Artie Lange was reported to have died on his Wikipedia page. He is alive and well.

I added a page of a low power TV station. It was flagged for potential deletion (ultimately, it was deleted) and discussion because the station 1) wasn't that old, and 2) wasn't relevant for merely being a pass-through for minor subchannel networks. I could cite many other stations that fit that same description, but they weren't flagged for deletion. Besides, it still exists and therefore merits a page.

Then, they want you to donate money to them.

I sent a email and cited this incident as one reason I don't donate money and why I'm hesitant to add information and make Wikipedia better place. I was met with gaslighting saying I need be constructive in my response. Why should I do that when they already made up their minds to delete the contribution for reasons that don't make any sense?

Other edits are often undone by other aggressive contributors that have nothing better to do but start an editing war because they think they know everything. Yet, it's always your fault, not theirs.

When I started to write about myself on Oct 16th and it was under draft until Liz sent me a message saying to remove the promotional material part so I did and then Athaenara all of a sudden deleted without explanation! So I had to start all over again and received a message from Nearlyevil665 saying it was not accepted. This doesn't make sense because I am an actor and everyone out there deserves to know about me, life. History and how I became successful in acting.

I take exception to Wikipedia's definition of " Intelligent design (ID) [as] a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as 'an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins'[1][2] though it has been found to be pseudoscience.[3][4][5]."
This is an obvious lie concocted, not by scientists, but by internet trolls of the lowest common denominator. ID does not concern itself with God at all, it simply says that, instead of Darwinian random processes responsible for lie, it is a design process that gives rise to massive complexity and functional interdependence at the level of cell development. Origin of life theories have never been able to demonstrate a naturalistic route from pre-biotic chemistry to life. In that sense, ID continues to make more sense than alternative theories. References to God are personal and in no way necessary to formulate the design argument.
It amazes me that Wikipedia, despite its lofty claims, is no better than any other social media platform given to the spreading of dis and misinformation, and outright lies. I will never again make a financial contribution to Wiki for that very reason.

This Website has many mistakes in research and Isn't good because many users have trust in you and as a result, most of Wikipedia information contains false and misleading information you must correct this!

Wikipedia is a nice website with all the information and knowledge about different stuff. I browse it mostly for geographical contents like countries, places, and cultures.