Информация, как техническая так и политическая содержит много непроверенных данных, которые приводят к неверному восприятию реального (истинного) понимания.
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 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.
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.
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.
Wikipedia is a Great online free content encyclopedia. Can be edit and create new pages and publish articles, contents about a person, site, business or even word. Excellent place to find any information's.
Answer: That's how they are. They call everything they don't like "vandalism." They called it vandalism when I wrote on my own user page about how I disagreed with decisions that were made. I guess this is an old post, but it still matters, and they haven't changed at Wikipedia in any way that I'm aware of.
Answer: La primera ves que ultilize el servicio al cliente me respondieron muy rapido
Answer: Una compañia legitima muy confiable y lo mejor que es gratis
Wikipedia has a rating of 2.8 stars from 174 reviews, indicating that most customers are generally dissatisfied with their purchases. Wikipedia ranks 1st among Open Source sites.