Wikipedia Anmeldelser 

An invaluable reference source put together by volunteers and usually the information if peer reviewed.
References are nearly always provided, so if you are uncertain about the relevance or appropriateness to your research then check the source of the reference.
Almost no other web resource provides this cross-checking. Invaluable - thank you!

Thank You!!!! :-)

One sided, biased, censored. Not trustworthy because too many fake stuff

One sided, biased, censored. Not trustworthy!

Keeps asking me for money and spreads false information.

fantastic source and amazing how it links you to articles and books with more information :)

terribly biased articles. Locked, and unable to edit them, talk pages ignored. Avoid articles on race, and nationalities as those with a majority just elect their own countrymen to support them in the administration process and back them up, and other administrators are afraid to stand up to them in case they don't get elected next time, why waste your time when the content is unreliable, the majority opinion wins, its a popularity contest, as opposed to being about facts.

Wikipedia has really changed the way we gather information and it might be the most useful website ever. I've used Wikipedia for some years and almost never had issues with incorrect information or improper writing.

The layout is the worst ever and I will never accept it, use an extension like Wikiwand so you dont get eye cancer haha

Does my homework, but Wikipedia support HK Independence. You know HK Is China and always will be

In 1988 - Damien Yves Daniel BIZEAU. 29/04/1971 (FRANCE) - I had a "luxurious", really AMAZING Irish experience: three weeks in Southern Irland during the summer; at my sole and unique personal expenses (everything included, I was only 17 years old). It was super ! Will be back :-) with women friends... HALF GRAND AMERICAN PIANO etc. Thanks to wiki.org :-)

It does my homework.
Nothing more to say

When Ever I need a Perfect info about my study. I visit wikipedia. Why some people are posting negative reviews about them.

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but then anyone can be a reviewer. If you have verifiable evidence, as long as you add it to the article, it's acceptable. Knowing to look at the references rather than the article is a good way to use Wikipedia, as the article may need editing. I've lost hours surfing the different topics on there, and found so much information that my brain can't take it all in! I'd love to do a 6-degrees of separation of the articles on there!

I have two PhDs and many scientific publications, on Wikipedia’s discussion pages I asked for the correction of a number of articles on other topics, that make FALSE STATEMENTS and which use FAKE NEWS as sources, and I did it with all due respect and décor. They didn’t correct anything but BLOCKED me (a certain “LuchoCR” but that is a fake name, all I know is that the guy is from Costa Rica) and insulted me with a lot of humiliating, untruthful, demeaning terms, I only asked them to CORRECT the articles. Many other serious scholars I know, including American and British ones, have received similar aggressive mistreatments, harassments and intimidations, even more, I learned about Wikipedia’s employees who are treated that way. Wikipedia behaves like the MAFIA or like groups outside the law. There’s no PEER REVIEW WHATSOEVER ON WIKIPEDIA, so the people who writes there lacks the most minimum academic qualifications to write on an “encyclopedia”, they wouldn’t even get to secretaries nor to motorcycle messengers in a serious university. I even complained to wikipedia’s LEGAL DEPARTMENT (whom, too, are some certain ANONYMOUS users who don’t reveal their true identities) and I was basically told is that, if I didn’t like it, I should sue them in the US, they claimed only to be exerting their RIGHT TO FREE EXPRESSION. Then they shouldn’t call themselves an “encyclopedia” if what they are expressing is TENDENTIOUS PERSONAL OPINIONS under anonymity, instead of scientific or proven facts. In those articles, just like that, they wrote that (according to them), certain politicians are “murderers”, “thieves”, “terrorists”, “drug dealers”, etc., and take a number of FAKE NEWS as source, despite none of those politicians has any trials or lawsuits against and much less have been convicted of anything at all, in what seems to be quite a MISINFORMATION campaign by Wikipedia, under the false and glorified name of “encyclopedia”, by a CLIQUE of ANONYMOUS ADMINISTRATORS and LIBRARIANS or under FAKE NAMES who take advantage of their anonymity, not only to exert aggressive conducts that would be FELONIES in any other place that wasn’t the internet, but to “officialize” FAKE NEWS, CALUMNIES and present pretty many FALSEHOODS as “official”, in what seems to be a series of CRIMINAL FELONIES, taking advantage of anonymity and of the fact that many of the directly affected, being from or living in other countries, would have a hard time suing them in the US. WIKIPEDIA’s DISCLAIMERS confess that all or part of what they publish is FALSE, UNETHICAL, ILLEGAL or OBJETIONABLE. Even articles on science topics on WIKIPEDIA, according to a study by NATURE, hve at least 4 errors and omissions, many more than Encyclopedia Britannica. While articles on science are pretty poor, WIKIPEDIA’S articles on history or politics are 0,0% reliable for being plagued by FALSE STATEMENTS and FAKE NEWS. MIT decided not to admit Wikipedia nor its sources in academic works at MIT, that’s the size of the issue. I don’t recommend WIKIPEDIA whatsoever, BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL AND USE OTHER WEBSITES AS ACADEMIC REFERENCE: besides routine “gang”-like behaviors and aggressions towards users and editors and towards their own employees, a big part of the information is FALSE.

Wikipedia shouldn't have a three star rating! It was the learning platform of our childhood and you all know it!

found a side that was simply cool on the wiki. it was named cool and the info was just "I am cool".
not good as a trustworthy source, but good for an overlock on a subject.....kinda.

Great site to find info.

Who is better than Wikipedia? Wiki is the best :)

Has come in useful so many times, proof that people will act selflessly without monetary incentive.