Wikipedia

Информация, как техническая так и политическая содержит много непроверенных данных, которые приводят к неверному восприятию реального (истинного) понимания.

I love Wikipedia. It is great if you want easy access to information without having to search too deep on the web. I'd say more than 90% of the time, the articles are accurate and true. It's a shame we can't use this site in schools even though there are moderators whose job it is to validate the accuracy of the articles. There's even references where you can see where the writer got their information. I don't know what I would do without Wikipedia, and I am very grateful they are providing their almost unlimited arsenal of knowledge for free. I've donated to this site before and will do it again.

I find it odd that the reviews offering negative evaluations of Wikipedia seem to offer simply topics where they purport information to be disinformation. They seem to lack any specifics and merely suggest some whole issue is misrepresented. For example, if I look up Ukraine War, I just don't seem to find some statement of fact that may readily be challenged. When I look at controversial issues discussed, I might question indeed the overall thrust of an article but errors in factual specifics elude me. Checking sources is always advisable in any publication. I have not seen disinformation in Wikipedia as of yet.

It can be hard to get new topics added. In particular, I know of the rejection of pages for an influential database technology (with US patents) and for a digital standards organisation, and yet there was a page for a US-based comedy series that was never shown in Europe. Not everything in the technical pages is correct, or even fully accepted. It can be seen that some of these pages have taken material from multiple sources that conflict with each other -- basically, some subjects have no precise or universally agreed description. On the other hand, some pages -- especially in physics or mathematics -- have almost been contrived to be unintelligible to the lay person. This is subtly important because it poses the question of whether the site is be educational or not.

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.

We know facts are facts however, the composers of each blog has a definite political & religious leaning.
The way in which the facts are logged indicates an apparent leaning unto a negative connotation, almost targeting religious persons and their political affiliation. If a reader is merely looking for facts and not writings which point to an opinion, this is not where you will want to seek your information. Folks, I cannot say where is a good platform for ALL correct information without editorializing. Current times show everyone is going to get their opinion across one way or another.

Instead of asking the public for donations you should request the profiles of the people you have all of their personal information for the donations since it's their business you are promoting. With the times we are in they should be able to contribute $2.75

Wicked-Pedia is absolute bull$#*!. Based on opinion and not fact.
Anyone can "add" or "edit' factual definitions or descriptions and alter them into hearsay and/or opinion.
DON'T believe what you read.
GO TO THE LIBRARY.

It is a biased information dump. It does not allow facts to be posted only what is convenient. Recommend not donating to it. Recommend not spending your time on it.

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.

Wiki is amazing. But you have to be attentive, because some articles might be incorrect. So I recommend to recheck the information before taking it from wikipedia. Also it is sad that such a great service searches for donations all the time. I truly hope they will manage find enough resources for further growth. Well done, keep going!

Wikipedia is generally a reliable source for information, especially recent news and more obscure topics. Granted, some articles are tenuous and need more verification, and Wikipedia has a vandalism and slight problem, but in my experience the Wikipedia interfaces make it easy for anyone to just correct any wrongs as long as the information is correctly referenced. I would give it a B plus because, although it's convenient, it's not always correct, so double check every Wikipedia article if you think something is wrong.

I used to think Wikipedia was an alright organization. Not any more since their left side writing on former president Trump. Clearly they are using their organization to push a political view instead of providing true facts and only facts. What a crock this organization truly is. Thankfully, i don't have to use their service since there is still free choice at least for now.

Wikipedia is the number one search result on google for almost anything, that gives it a lot of power. Sadly, power corrupts and despite their best intention, it has become a mouthpiece for propaganda. And not just political propaganda either. Virtually every topic has its own petty bias, with page editors getting to be the ultimate authority in their chosen domain. Sure, all the media is biased these days in one way or another, it's just that Wikipedia used to be different. Now it's just another place to be misinformed. Remember: ultimately google tells you what to believe these days. If you're stupid you keep bucking the system, talking to people directly and forming your own opinions. If you're wise to it all, you just play along. Swallow your propaganda pills and don't make a fuss. For heavens sake, don't rock the boat. You'll upset Miss Google and she gets very, very angry.

Firstly, Wikipedia has a lot of sources that are not factual, this is why students are not allowed to use it for research papers. Secondly, most of what you read is edited by immature ignorant jerks. And the guidelines don't get me started with the guidelines. I wish I can give it a -1 out of 5, but oh well.

My edit was reverted by a moderator for "vandalism" even though I cited a source then when I brought this up with her I got a warning for no reason! I'm done with Wikipedia and their power trip moderators! Never again.

Also I hate Wikipedia's interface it's old and it's like a Windows 95 application, it's a complete pain to do edits. It's in serious need of modernization.

If you go on to Wikipedia and spend a few hours or days viewing conservative people/events of note and liberal/democratic events of note there is a pretty disturbing bias on the way the information is presented to the reader and also the ability of the general public to revise or add to that information. For example a liberal supported Wikipedia reading will almost always allow you to edit but if that edit does not align with the opinion or view the the Wikipedia hierarchy you will end up in an EDIT WAR within minutes and then get suspended without ever being allowed to have a conversation about why your edit or addition is indeed factual. If you want to edit or add to a conservative person or event page those are almost always locked for editing with the excuse that they are trying to prevent vandalism or edit wars. It's really bad for anything related to politics or culturally sensitive matters.

For other topics of interest where subjective bias is not applicable it is okay but the bias regarding politics leaves me questioning the validity of anything related to history of countries and people of note as as well.