WikipediaReviews 175

Hi, I've previously written a less then positive review of Wikipedia, but have come to be much more fond of it over the past couple of months. I still think that when it comes to participating in Wikipedia from the side of editing pages and participating in there community they can be often unfriendly (not always of course). But I have realized that Wikipedia is quite impressive. I think they have done a good job with what resources they have and that opinion of mine goes especially for the top administration. Wikipedia does provide in fact very accurate information for most of there articles. They don't hire famous professionals in there fields like other encyclopedias, which I would say are a tad more accurate, but Wikipedia provides tremendously more information about any given topic then the usual encyclopedia. They've put trust in people and barred people from doing 'whatever thing' sparingly, and they have managed to allow people to produce a high quality COMPREHENSIVE, (which is unusual) encyclopedia. I visit it often for researching small and large things often. Is it a perfect fact book? No, most of there pages contain at least a few errors within them, and my experience has been that it is hard to edit them quickly, but they are usually tiny issues. They have provided a, for the majority, highly accurate and largely comprehensive encyclopedia that helps with my research especially often. Everything for the most part, is, properly written. Maybe people are relying on it much more often then they should, but it is very helpful when properly used, thanks for this resource, Wikipedia!

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.

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.

Because Wikipedia is paranoid and hates anyone who changes anything, they have blocked all tMo-Bile users for at least a year.

I mean, I used to do this, I would change an actress or singer's birthday to 69 and then go into airplane mode when they banned me and do it all over again.

But if you're on a tmobile phone, good luck.

Also, besides that, the site is crawling with neoNazis. You can't use the word "nazi" it is filtered.

It's a site full of young adult men from English/German countries.

Don't use it if you want to succeed in life.

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.

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.

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.

As a source of information, I might give Wikipedia 2 or 3 stars. They do have an extensive collection, but certainly not everything. But, the quality of writing in ways that make the information accessible to anyone is very inconsistent. The authors (and Wikipedia should encourage this) should link to external sites for more technical content.

I just tried posting a set of 4 interrelated pages. And, I'm already screaming and thinking about posting elsewhere.

1. The whole interface is obtuse and far more difficult than it needs to be.
2. Instructions are often wrong (e.g., they say to click on "Save Page" when there is no such button or link) or incomplete (they say to do so and so, but they give you no clue as to where to do this).
3. To get help, you have to go through this completely ridiculous process of posting a question. Why not just have a forum in the typical forum format? Why make it so difficult? It took me 6 tries to get a question posted.
4. They should have all of their instructions and taboos posted in a one simple to access and read area. But, no... they make you dig for it, just guess, or find out the hard way when they reject a page.
5. There should be a way to easily communicate with one individual who made a decision to reject so that you have a consistent way of making changes.

I've worked extensively on Wikidot sites and with their forum. There is a night and day difference. I just find Wikipedia to be frustrating in all aspects from the posting angle, and, I'm not sure how to express this, but there is some deeply embedded ignorance/stupidity or arrogance that prevents them from doing something other than a giant framework of obsolescence. Some group needs to do something better and push out Wikipedia.

Wikipedia would be thrown out of court for heresay. As a human in my mid 40's, I've been a living witness to some of the information posted there. Everything from broadcast airdates to scientific information is bastardized here. Sure, they try, but isn't Wikipedia *really* a reductive version of *THE WHOLE ENTIRE INTERNET*?! Using Wikipedia as a reliable source is as ridiculous as asking the guy on the bus sitting next to you. Good luck with that. If you want to get away from *lazy journalism/research*, you have to stay away from Wikipedia and scrub the 'net yourself.