Wikipedia

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.

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.

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

The problem with Wikipedia is that bias and slanderous intent is allowed in writings becdause anyone is allowed to contribute and there is no system of monitoring or review.

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 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.

All articles are very well written and informative. Very useful for general knowledge about almost anything you can think of. I love this site! Its just so simple to use.

I have trusted this site for a long time. Every article is so accurate and informational. Very helpful for research, or just finding facts about things.