Wikipedia Sucks Customer Reviews and Feedback

From Everything.Sucks

Revision as of 18:00, 30 August 2020 by Patriziaparolini (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Wikipedia is a multilingual online encyclopedia created and maintained as an open collaboration project by a community of volunteer editors using a wiki-based editing system. It is the largest and most popular general reference work on the World Wide Web. It is also one of the 15 most popular websites ranked by Alexa, as of August 2020. It features exclusively free content and no commercial ads. It is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization funded primarily through donations.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source because is editable by anyone, it may contain mistakes for days according to a publication on

"Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself."


Tell the world why Wikipedia sucks!

I certify that this review is based on my own experiece and is my opinion of this person or business. I have not been offered any incentive or payment to write this review.


Enter Code

Former Employee - Senior Administrator-SAP Basis says

"I worked at Wikimedia Foundation full-time for more than a year Cons: They dont care about privacy of an individual. Especially when they kick you out they spill the beans on you and publish lies all over internet. You are dead to them. You are not human. There is a book: how bunch of nobodies built wikipedia and that is very true, super nobodies forever!!! One should never deal with wikimedia in any shape or form, wikimedia/wikipedia aka wikipedoia should never be sponsored, they are too liberal and not neutral to say the least!~~~!!!"


"I worked at Wikimedia Foundation Cons: PHP. Low pay. Fear of changes. Top management has almost completely flipped since Lila took over in 2015. (including bosses who have come and gone since then) It's really tough to get work done when your boss keeps changing."


"I have been working at Wikimedia Foundation Cons: Management is clueless. I was glad to hear that the current executive director is stepping down. Hopefully, slowly WMF will be able to recover from the damage that she and her cronies did to Wikipedia and its culture."

Current Contractor - Consultant says

"I have been working at Wikimedia Foundation for more than a year Cons: Dysfunctionally personality based and poor constancy of purpose. It's far too US centric to run a global project."

Current Employee - Anonymous Employee says

"I have been working at Wikimedia Foundation full-time Cons: Two words -- Top Management. I have never worked in a place where I have seen such incompetent management. It's anybody's guess how the folks got their jobs. They have no experience or previous credentials to run an organization or website of this magnitude. They keep fumbling from one bad decision to another without any accountability and repercussions. The board is either sleeping or does not care about Wikipedia. To help Wikipedia grow, the top management needs to be replaced. WMF has barely met any of its targets but the top management has not been held anyone accountable. There is no job security. WMF is a revolving door. People are fired for no reason every month. Every month 2-3 people leave the foundation either fired or leave on their own because they are frustrated. But the management keeps celebrating their culture without even acknowledging that they have talent retention problem. I was not able to figure out why you would hire smart people, make their work hard & frustrating and fire them for no reason."


"I have been working at Wikimedia Foundation Cons: Management has absolutely no idea of how things work in practise, constantly under-resources projects and is divided between people who have never seen wikipedia before and people who have been here so long they've fossilised. The gap between "how management sees the world" and "how employees see the world" is almost as great as the gap between management and end users."

Current Employee - Anonymous Employee says

"I have been working at Wikimedia Foundation full-time for more than 5 years Cons: As expressed in many reviews here, the leadership culture and specifically the c-team, their incentives and thinking, are really prime examples of American corporate leadership culture gone wrong. Little to no accountability, deep distrust, inability to hear "no", self-serving and personally ambitious, disrespectful of the values of staff and movement, focused on corporatizing and growing their control over participating as respectful partners to staff and volunteers. Years of negative staff surveys, particularly around leadership vision and accountability are basically shrugged off. The situation is particularly bad for middle and upper managers or people with significant experience. It can be a good place to work, but do not expect effective, thoughtful, values driven leadership. And do not trust the responses from HR or whoever that it is being "fixed". Thats been the song and dance for 5+ years of ups and downs. The incentives are not there for the leadership to change their behavior or way of thinking. HR can only do so much, and they too report to 2 c-levels who are part of the problem. So it is likely to remain this way, though more ups and downs, leaders coming and going, until economic circumstances or governance reforms force a change."

Former Employee - Anonymous Employee says

"I worked at Wikimedia Foundation full-time for more than 3 years Cons: If you are NOT on a non-profit career path and want to grow and improve your skills and career, then this is NOT the place for you. It is difficult to find a career path at Wikimedia. Although there are still a few star employees scattered throughout the organization, most of the talent has left over the last couple years. If you compare the majority of senior level staff (C-Level, Directors, etc.) with their counterparts from other organizations, they are typically a notch or two below in experience, skill-set, and talent. It's almost ridiculous, how bad the leadership has been over the years. If Wikimedia did not have an amazing project like Wikipedia to lean on, it would receive a ONE star rating. Although you'll be working on an amazing project -- Wikipedia -- the phenomenal growth period is over and your contribution/impact will be marginal at best. Wikimedia also claims to champion several organizational values such as transparency, openness, and fairness, but it can't live up to any of them. If you want to work with the brightest and most innovative diligent minds in product/technology, you should go to another company (and there are lots of options out there). You'll also get compensated much better elsewhere."

Former Employee - Anonymous Employee says

"I worked at Wikimedia Foundation full-time for more than a year Cons: First career for many of the employees - HR tends to hire people they know or people who are volunteers in the Wikipedia community leading to an unstable, unprofessional, often weird environment. Staff have to answer to community members who contribute to websites and it's often confrontational and bossy. Community will override changes made to websites if they want and complain very publicly if they dislike actions taken by Foundation. Leadership often lacks professionalism when handling harassment, hiring, privacy, and community interactions. Nothing like you'll ever experience at any other company or organization. Turnover rate is fairly frequent, staff averages less than two years. Many good people leave this place broken, and have a hard time getting jobs due to the Foundation being a non-profit not a tech firm. Double standards about firings - one person does one thing that is terrible and they get a slap on the wrist, others do things that could have been helped and get fired. Recent firing of one employee was posted on a mailing list and was published in online news outlets, no other organization or company would do that to a low level employee. Lots of partying at conferences and sometimes in house - can be OK but sometimes excessive and can distract you from your job. Start up mentality leads to people sleeping at the office, expecting video games and special treatment."

Former Employee - Anonymous Employee says

"I worked at Wikimedia Foundation full-time for more than a year Cons: Cons in a nutshell? Great ideas but poor execution. I found the management team lacking and often felt the Foundation had to constantly hit the reset button. Management focused less on merit but more on popularity. It was all a bit dysfunctional (and slightly abusive mentally). It was not the flat organization they claimed to be. An organized, results-driven person will find themselves completely frustrated in no time at all."

S.W. says

"No longer is Wikipedia a trusted source of information. I feel like I'm reading the writings of the "intellectual" division of George Soros headquarters. Today I found a great alternative: infogalactic. com It's like Wikipedia but better, and without the extremely biased BS."

Arm Arsham says

"Lost its credibility and is hugely politically influenced."

Sailor Sedna says

"They defended Pedoflix's Cuties. Need I say more? "Block Site" is one of my best friends in this case."

Joe says

"I used to like Wikipedia years ago to look up and research about anything but now everything is all being written from a far-left point of view. They go around labelling and telling lies about anything that doesn't fit their narrative or view. I had to research on Wikipedia and they are disgusting as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, Snopes, Politifact, Apple, and the rest of big tech and MSM are. They support censorship over free speech very much and if anyone is not within their leftist ideologies then you will be censored and labelled by them. Wikipedia is not suggested by any teachers and professors as a reliable source at all because there is dishonest stuff written by ignorant people. Do not donate to Wikipedia as they deserve to be shut down due to their gross behaviour writing nonsense garbage trying to rewrite history and everything else. Whatever they hate, it makes me go into those sites and figure out the reason why and I'm not one bit surprised at all. All they can say is racist, homophobic, xenophobic, white supremacist, nazi, bigot, and whatever label card they can think of because it is getting very old and tiresome since they can't dispute an argument or any discussion at all. It is very childish and typical with those liberals acting like 12 years old going around ruling the internet like bullies they all are. Wikipedia is complete nonsense garbage as racism, bigotry, and sexism come from all races, sizes, shapes, and sexes. Liberals are easily the very most closed-minded people with very limited views out there. They don't like any opposite opinions, views, beliefs, truth, facts, and evidence to support their claims. I no longer will use Wikipedia anymore as I will take my research elsewhere and will be supporting any alt-tech sites for free speech as I will no longer be silenced by those big-tech anymore. It's sickening, evil, controlling, and manipulating!"

Amy says

"Wikipedia was once a respectable website. I used to donate every year. NO MORE. They have a bunch of far-left propagandists writing the content of entries, perfectly fine with damning anyone or any organization they don't like, with the label of white supremacy. The contributors are watering down the meaning of this label by applying it to everything they don't like. It's getting real old, and it makes once-respectable sites like Wikipedia a COMPLETE joke. They are actively participating in the destruction of free speech."

pussycat123ist says

"They lie, don't read politics or history. They turn all upside down. Wikipedia embellish war criminals and Nazi! They lie about World War 2. It's half truth, half lie. Wikipedia absolutely could not care less about truth and facts. They blame innocent terribly suffering people of USSR. They said that Russian people invaded with Hitter together the Europe! Its horror! 22 million Russian people died from Germans Nazi. Hitler bombed unprepared sleeping USSR. at 4 am! Nazis put knives in pregnant women's wombs and killed the babies, burned women and children alive, cut on halves children in front of mothers, and mothers in front of children! They burnt whole villages alive together. The horror Russian people suffered unbelievable. This nation still cries in pain. But what we read on Wikipedia? They say its USSR with Hitler together invaded Europe! This is most horrendous words they could say! It is because 22 million of Soviets solders and innocent people died the Europe and Europeans are still alive and live in peace! Where is gratitude? Where is truth and dignity? Even simplest biography dates and events of world famous opera singers they managed to write the wrong way. I watched on tv how the world famous opera singers said to their audience why there is wrong information on Wikipedia about them. Singers answered that they tried to correct it by contacting to the staff of Wikipedia but received arrogant answer from them that Wikipedia knows better their life events than they themselves! and after that they ignored singers completely! It's outrageous! Singers even offered to write the article themselves! But they were told that they cannot write about themselves. So for Wikipedia its ok to lie but people they write about are not allowed to correct them! There are still lies and wrong information on Wikipedia! So this is the time I understood that managers and owners of Wikipedia are not interested in truth and facts. They are interested in satisfying their own super egos, pride, arrogance and self-righteousness! Hundreds of millions of people who were watching tv now know that Wikipedia lie and they should not trust Wikipedia any more. I bet they all stopped reading articles on Wikipedia forever. I used to love Wikipedia in the beginning but now all I see is lying, incorrect, arrogant, dishonest, ignorant, self righteous people there! They got tiny power over people and events. Now their minds and hearts rot from abuse of this tiny power! Don't read them. There are unprofessional people who write the articles. I once helped them with 20 pounds so they told me that now I can write any article I wish! So it's not about professionalism but as always about money!"

Jamie LaCombe says

"I used to love wiki and would use it as a main source of info and donated several times. No longer. Wiki has become about as accurate as fact checkers on facebook and become about as reliable in searching out truths as Snopes. Which is to say very very unreliable. Wiki has swung so far left that it doesn't even bother trying to hide its bias. They will never get another click from me."

Kent Dixon says

"Wikipedia gives inaccurate and misleading reviews of people, they are a dishonest corporation."

Katus Bera says

"Really unreliable. I am shocked to be honest. i always knew that you can't use Wikipedia for research purposes, for obvious reasons. However i have never thought that an obvious false information is so hard to change. I just sent a request and i almost got blocked by a hyper sensitive egoistic author. Wikipedia does not offer any solution to that. NEVER USE IT"

Brian Edwards says

"Full of crap. They say trump is making false claims about election fraud when there is evidence, that just shows how much crap this site is all about. Trump will win on basis of election fraud and Wikipedia will delete it but you know what it will be too late. There’s very little sites that are true to there word in 2020"

Muslimun Hassa says

"I find it Very annoying, they are always asking for money, they need to use advert so it can fund it self. Or start charging people if they want historical information etc, also Wikipedia must make sure and check out the person background scholarship whoever is giving or putting the information."

Kunde says

"Blocked me from editing details about my own company. You would think that people at Wiki are not brain dead and then comes a garbage called Cabayi and tries to play God..."

Veronica L says

"I used to use Wikipedia. I even helped them out here and there with $5-10 a year. No more. They allow content on there that's not even true. The first lady is a porn star? That made it's way to the news. Even if you hate her, it's not even true. And they have all kinds of porn when you're trying to find actually find non-porn content. I'm not sure if this is still accurate, but at one time, they were also on the news for having child porn. It's disgusting! I'm done with the website."

Joel Vargas says

"They contain a lot of valuable human knowledge, but their moderators are biased power hungry folks. They keep off notable articles, reject good sources, and are politically biased. It’s one of the best concepts in world history marred by petty human ego and greed, sadly."

George A says

"What I noticed was all the centrist groups that leaned slightly to the right were all termed Right wing extremists!! Do not touch this site!!"

Nana says

"All the information on it came from people who wrote about them self so they can say any thing not true also the information from history came from bad resource which most false and not true , they should do research better about about what they writing , misleading people not a nice thing to do on website so don’t relay on this site at all, and go to check another resource better that this one"