| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | acurleegirlee (15)
06/03/2008 | I have mixed feelings about wikipedia. On the one hand, you can find information about pretty much anything under the sun. On the other hand, that information can come from basically anyone, so its validity is definitely questionable. I've used wikipedia a lot, but mostly to check facts I already suspected or just for personal use. In college, I think a lot of people got into trouble for using it as a real source. While I have to say, I've found most of the info to be valid, you just really never know, so it's not the best source to cite.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
 | XAgent (32)
06/02/2008 | One of the greatest and fastest sources of information on the web. Not to mention its many sub sites like wookieepedia.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
 | MissPackRat4Jesus (44)
05/19/2008 | I'd have to say this is one of the best information sources on the Internet.
(2 voted this helpful, 1 funny and 0 agree) |
 | uncnc08 (50)
12/17/2007 | It is very informative on most subjects, Just don't know how accurate some things are. you can find out anything about everything on this website.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 2 agree) |
 | Molfan (65)
09/29/2007 | question how valid this site is. It sounds like anyone can come on and put what they want on wikipedia. would not use it if I had to get facts on something or someone.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
 | jgls (14)
09/29/2007 | usually my first source for information, but you have to take it with a grain of salt. about a year ago i discovered that the person whom i was researching was a pole smoker.
(2 voted this helpful, 1 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Yogurt (15)
06/07/2007 | Wikipedia is cool but, I wonder about its validity sometimes.
(6 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | oscargamblesfro (86)
05/31/2007 | Wikipedia is all right, and has some really solid stuff, but as others note there are inaccuracies and biases and I much prefer the human element of this site. Wikipedia's too technical and there's too much 'let's put a red flag up here and here and here too.' Who gives a...
Wouldn't it be funny if RIA and Wikipedia changed places just for one day. Wikipedia could red flag it by saying " This enormous article about "Sir Thomas More" has nothing to do with dog food." This article about chewing tobacco uses biased language. Britney Spears did not spearhead "The Boxer Revolution." This Finnish death metal guitarist tribute fails to acknowledge sources.
(6 voted this helpful, 1 funny and 0 agree) |
 | irishgit (160)
05/31/2007 | I has its uses, as a quick and dirty (emphasis on both words) reference tool, and as a starting place for more.
It is full of inaccuracies and opinions, rather than facts. Check the data with other (preferably non-Internet) sources if the subject is important.
Don't mistake what I'm saying here. There is some high quality work on there, well cited and well written. But there is a lot of dubious stuff too, and recent scandals around some of the administrators "qualifications",and the CEO's "oh well" response to same, doesn't exactly breed confidence.
(7 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | GenghisTheHun (184)
05/31/2007 |  UPDATE TO UPDATE: Although I disagree with several points in his posting, I am in overall agreement with the posting by ThatOnePerson about Wikipedia. I have discovered a cabal of editors, an "old boy network," if you please. They give each other awards and back each other up to an incredible extent. They act as idealogical gatekeepers, and it appears that the left is in almost total control. Try to write something that is politically incorrect or goes against the lefto grain and see how far you get. Wikipedia is going to be a bad joke among scholars unless it is able to clean house and set standards. UPDATE: Well, kamylienne is right about the politics of Wikipedia. I have been doing some writing and editing, and boy, politics is all over the place. Point of view is rampant and there are all kinds of cliques and alliances and cabals. It tends to remind me what my dad always said, "Believe nothing what you hear and half of what you read. Check it out first."
ORIGINAL COMMENT: I have been working on the RIA entry on Wikipedia and it has been quite an education. There is a huge number of editors out there who have all kinds of comments on the work that you do. Some is good and helpful and some is, well, you know.
I must admit though that the process is incredible. I started on a couple of other items and did some work on the Spanish Civil War.
I am now starting on the Battle of Teruel, 1937-38 and I am digging for all my books. I found about four or five so I am off to the races. If you have any thoughts about RIA or (chortle) the Battle of Teruel, please feel free to go to the sites and add away.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | ThatOnePerson (6)
05/30/2007 |  wikipedia is a problem. I am not
trying to be some ungrateful jerk by attacking this but instead a
detector of crap. Wikipedia was a good idea in theory but became like
all things supposedly aiming to be democratic: dictatorial. The
founder(s) of wikipedia had a great idea but it became, not an
encyclopedia but instead, an instrument for propaganda and a false
form of information. See, the problem with wikipedia is that it has a
hierarchy that is not completely, how'd you say, neutral. Read an
article about socialism(or rights) and it is like reading a piece of
propaganda for socialism, wile capitalism's article is more of a in
theory it works but here is criticism and more criticism. Check
out the wikiquote for capitalism and socialism, there is a big
difference in the amount of criticism each page has. The biggest
piece of crap that wikipedia does is its goal to both be ignorant and
turn a blind eye to ignorance. They use fallacies of logic such as
strategic word usage in order to convey one side of a political
issue. One good example is how they use words such as progressive
and rights in clearly a one sided and BS manner. I know a lot
of you atheist out there who art of the cult of science (i.e. You
blindly support a form of secularism and squelch any opposition even
if science proves you wrong) think that labelling something like the
Young Earth belief as pseudo-science is unbiased, but it is in fact
very biased. Calling religion fake science is just some stupid
atheist way of not thinking and blindly following their own prophets
(charles darwin, karl marx, and peter singer [their names don't
deserve to be capitalized]). Another thing about wikipedia is that it
lacks any true value in society. When you use a real encyclopedia for
research you get two things (usually): 1, clear words; and 2, a long
enough article for you to understand something about the subject.
Wikipedia seems to have a bunch of arrogant administrators and
arrogant inner-circle editors. wikipedia has neither of those two things.
My lastish argument is this: what is
the point of wikipedia? Before wikipedia there was something called
GNE (recursive acronym for GNE is Not an Encyclopedia) that
never really got anywhere because of wikipedia. The idea was smart:
have a repository of information that is appropriate but can be
anything (no scumbag editors dumping new articles because they go
against their personal beliefs). It was a repository where you could
actually explain stuff in English and you could go in-depth, not some
worthless scan-over like wikipedia. If you want the truth instead of
a horridly abridged subjective lie then make a GNE-like thing or cry.
try to make a page about Libertarian Wiki and it will be deleed
within three days. More info about wikipedia is:
(here)
(here)
oh and one last thing: the wikipedia
article about Fascism is BS. fascism is not nazism. nazism is an
ideology that combined atheistic and animalistic views on humans wile
contradicting itself with non animalistic freedoms especially in
economics. Fascism is an ideology that stresses the view that humans
are conscience, sentient, non instinct-relient beings but that there
are times when the opportunity benefit outweighs the opportunity cost
when it comes to harmful acts (there is more to this than that simple
sentence). because of that fascism is much like a safer version
capitalism and wikipedia is wrong and is lying to millions!
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | numbah16tdhaha (165)
03/16/2007 | I like Wookieepedia better. Its the Star Wars wiki...
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | 93century (39)
03/16/2007 | Finding the list of gay, bisexual celebrities was quite an experience for me!
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | ILikePie (54)
03/14/2007 | Amen!
The most convenient encyclopedia ever. I don't know how we did homework without it.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
 | kamylienne (84)
03/13/2007 | It's a great place to find initial info about a variety of topics, but, as with any resource, it shouldn't be your only source. Having recently hopped into Wikipedia, I've found that a personal politics do play (at least) a little part in there. But, to be fair, Wikipedia doesn't seem any more or less reliable than print sources.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Mad Hatter (40)
03/13/2007 | I use it quite often, and it helps out alot. And on a wierd note, I start off by going to the Recent Deaths section.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | BlueOrchid (45)
10/30/2006 | I enjoy it because of the fact that sometimes you need to look stuff up and not have the time to search for hours on the internet because a topic won't cover other points you may want/need to know. Wikipedia keeps it all together and that's what I love about it.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
 | Djahuti (57)
10/30/2006 | Wickipedia is super.The prefix "Wicce",fyi,means to know,and is related to the words Wisdom and Witch.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | SharonParry (46)
10/29/2006 | Wikipedia is something that can't be beat as far as research tools go. I use it for all kinds of things. There is virtually no subject you can think of that you cannot get some helpful info on. If you do find something they're a bit short on, you can help them out by going to this site...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | kingguiness (13)
10/08/2006 |
Not 100% accurate as anyone can put what they want and change information as well.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
| RIAUSA (5)
10/07/2006 | A great resourse.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
 | Vudija (101)
10/01/2006 | A great source for quick information; yea I love it...
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | CanadaSucks (51)
09/28/2006 | Underwhelming research, kids. . .anyone can write for that sham of an intellectual website. . .you can start there, but don't finish your work there. . .
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
| 1-23 OF 23 | View All |
