Wikipedia

I love Wikipedia! Where else can you learn everything you wanted to know all in one place. I get lost here for hours!

Great for looking up info quickly. Simple to use, good design, Plenty of links so you don't need to constantly look up every big word you see.

Multiple attempts to beg for $ during pandemic. Use advertisers if running a site is that expensive.

Probably the most unlikely success given the commercialization of the web, this is one of the best-known and most frequently used information resources there is. It's so popular there's no point in trying to describe it.

From time to time I've done some actual paid work for a living - not often, I wouldn't want to make a habit of it - at a search engine. So I happen to know that around five years ago, Wikipedia wasn't regarded as an entirely reliable resource and didn't get the help up the rankings that other, more traditional resources did. But eventually the lengthy debate over Wikipedia's usefulness has been largely won and it's widely recognized now as the site that people expect to see at the top of searches when they're looking for information on almost any subject. Even if a page may not be entirely accurate or objective, that's what people want to see before they look elsewhere for other, perhaps more academic (or more expensive) resources.

There will always be some concerns, that goes without saying with any Wiki project. It's widely known that there's some factional infighting in some organizations and beliefs and the encyclopedia has been subverted from time to time by people who are more interested in promoting their bias than anything else. But even if there is a chance, however remote, that a Wikipedia page might not be entirely factual or up to date, nevertheless it's what we all want and expect to see when we search for information and it would be foolish for a search engine to ignore that.

Which means that Wikipedia is now and is likely to continue to be the major information source for everyday inquiries on the web for the forseeable future. And there's not an ad in there, and nobody gets paid to contribute. Which is what the driving philosophy of the worldwide web was always intended to be, if you're old enough to remember back that far, and really it's quite remarkable that the project has not only survived, but risen to such status. If you're looking for a good cause to donate to, you could do a lot worse than support this one.

This site is a life saver, I use it often. Even though people add or edit the info, most of the time it is accurate.

You are not accurate nor biased.
So many inaccurate information.
You are not credib6 and I would never use you.

WikiPedia - This site is an encyclopedia reader's dream come true.:-) It is also good for quick blurbs or descriptions for "what/where is that!?".

I love this site! Its just so simple to use. :) I trust the information and it so nice to be user of wikipedia.org

I use it all the time! They have an article on almost everything. I would say the most complete version humanities collective knowledge on the web.

A top-notch online encyclopedia for readers. The creator is a genius, to come with such a great idea.

The pages given on the site are quite informative. Plus if the data given on a topic has not been verified then it is mentioned on the page.

Wikipedia almost has correct data. I collect data from here and others many people get data and information.

Nothing but good things to say about this site. Complete, interesting and professional. End of story.

Wikipedia is the best page, because I can find any topic of whatever, although many teachers do not consider it a reliable source.

This site is good, have big informations. But sometimes it has false information in articles. Big help in college searchs

I wouldn't have graduated without Wikipedia, and contrary to popular belief, the information on there is pretty legit

Completes narratives in order to misinform the public about anything that doesn't go along with main stream media

You guys research isn't always the truth. Like in Burundi with traditional food, it's all depands on province where you're from. Some of us grow patatoes, lots of them, sweet potatoes, Amasaka, Uburo, Amahonda, beans, peas and also grow cows not for decoration but to sell and eat, use milk as well, goats and not forgetting chicken including vegetables and misigati-sugar canes -. While other provinces grow cassava, yam, sweet potatoes, sugar canes, beans, amateke, rice, maize, bananas, Palm oil, and live near lakes and fishing a lot. Some grow tea and coffee, and chicken too, and all the good stuff. We appreciate your research but please dig dipped, visit everywhere not just in the city where there isn't anything grown beside heat :) then write good information. Whatever happens to oranges, ripe bananas, lemons, amapera, mangos, Imitagafero, papayas, amashu (cabagge), lengarenga ( red root), amashindwe, tangerines, mandazis, fish from Lake tanganyika or other small rivers? Like I said, travel, do your research, don'tstay in the city where they buy everything in the store and think that the milk is produced from a bycicle then put it on the page. We might be poor, but we have good food.

Wikipedia is a great site, I can find everything about any topic, I disagree with the new law

When I edit something, it changes it. I am helpful to a page but those stupid, SH*TTY, Crappy people

I used to support Wikipedia and donate, which I did back in 2014. But in recent times I find that what I read is outside of what they should be publishing. Wikipedia claim on multiple profiles it published (about people and organisations) that many of them propagate misinformation. They provide no real evidence of this. Those people and groups they publish things about that I read, are supported by massive informed movements (not funded by Big Pharma or main stream media). Recently the EU Parliament with the help of these movements involving many brave people, identified atrocities committed by organisations during the Covid period. These organisations want control and censorship over anyone outspoken that goes against their narrative, which can only point to money. By not editing objectively the information written, they themselves (Wikipedia) are propagating misinformation. They should stay independent of this and they do not. One good example of this is Dr John Campbell from the UK. He has only ever presented the truth and evidence based information from reputable sources. What is said about him let alone many others is far from correct information, which means it is misinformation. Wikipedia also reported information on Russia's military with no real evidence. This is simply wrong no matter what we think of Russia and the war. From what we understand today about Wikipedia, any one of a thousand or more editors working for Wikipedia can protect any article which leads me to believe that any one of them could possibly receive back-handers to do so. Many issues arose with Wikipedia information when Donald Trump became president too. You can read this all online and I have provided some clips. Wikipedia seldom substantiates the things it publishes well, especially controversial information. If you can't substantiate it properly, do not publish it. Moreover I think Wikipedia should only provide generic information about anything and anyone, without bias. Because Wikipedias information is almost editable to anyone, it can never be reliable. Many education organisations and media groups are not allowed to quote Wikipedia information for this reason. While many things it publishes seems to be fine, there are more than enough misleading information pieces to make Wikipedia quite unreliable as a whole. The world does not need such an online resource that is skewed and unreliable in providing any information about anything. They can not be trusted, this is clear.

I think that light in the box is great. I ordered my wedding dresses there and it wasperfect.

Always find what I'm looking for on wikipedia. Love it!