Wikipedia Reviews 

Not only has Wikipedia become 101% WOKE and corrupting the truth, it is not reliable. IF you search Lia Thomas, who has been in the news for weeks, because the he-she broke all women's swimming records, far beyond what 99.9% could ever reach, there is ZERO search results at Wikipedia.

Superb help in tracing the business behind the Trust Pilot listing of "Arlo Smart Home" It is Arlo Technologies Inc.

Arlo Smart Home has many red unsatisfactory single star ratings on Trustpilot. Criticisms and problems remain unanswered and the website unclaimed.

Confusion reigned on the Trustpilot website with a scenery design business having unsatisfactory reviews concerning home security equipment!

Trustpilot do not list Arlo Technologies that uses the same "Smart Home" website address. Trustpilot can only provide the error message "Ooops" if, with an intent to provide a review, I insert the business name with the appropriate information.

The Arlo linking can become complex with website references dedicated to different Countries.

Thank you Wikipedia! I consider you are providing the right information in focussing on the root business name and not, as with Trustpilot, the subsidiary websites or temporary trading names.

The latter procedure can lead to fraud if a business or its Directors close and restart under similar names!

I have certainly been happy to make a small donation to Wikipedia to help keep in customer orientated and not influenced by the need for income from advertising or other sources.

I personally know people that have been lied about continuously by this supposed trustworthy site, do not trust it, it allows people to input false narratives without any scrutiny, many many many lies on this website.

Wikipedia is my important source of knowledge. They don't charge you a penny for all the information they provide so I have to chip in.

As mentioned in several other reviews, all information on Wikipedia is user-created, internally reviewed, and moderator approved. As with a TON of internet information being passed off as "news" and "fact", there is no standard for these labels any more. Nowhere is there an authoritative source with which this information can be compared and proven. Yes, users generally cite sources, sometimes they're even required to have sources; however, those sources are often incestuous - circular references that feed off each other, rather than having any foundation outside of the echo chamber.

Horrible Atmosphere.

I was a new editor and was helping add some famous people and new notable people and as usual they say "oh we arnt all about the NEWS ARTICLES" yet when you put NEWS in they say it's not notable enough because it's a tabloid! Like can I just say for anyone working at WIKIPEDIA your guidance is utter gobbledygook like it makes no sense and it's discrimination to people. Also I tried to add someone and they said oh we are blocking this name from being created into an article. I am sorry but the reason the article has been created LOADS OF TIMES is because they are well known so instead of saying oh it's NOT NOTABLE enough then MOANING that it keeps getting made why don't you see that the she's in the media it's clear she's well known so why say "oh she's not notable" yet she represents so many people. Pathetic!! Then they block you for sock puppets when you haven't broken the rules. Utter unbelievable!

When I started to write about myself on Oct 16th and it was under draft until Liz sent me a message saying to remove the promotional material part so I did and then Athaenara all of a sudden deleted without explanation! So I had to start all over again and received a message from Nearlyevil665 saying it was not accepted. This doesn't make sense because I am an actor and everyone out there deserves to know about me, life. history and how I became successful in acting.

Wikipedia has played an invaluable part in doing the much needed research when purchasing a pocket watch for a collection I had spent many years obtaining.
I have contributed along the way as I felt wikipedia has given me so much free knowledge that I should repay that even if only a small amount. Now I am finishing off my ships clock collection I have no doubt Wikipedia will be a research tool I use the most.

They should be ashamed to ask for donations, the donations should be made for the people that needs care or help, like cancer patients, etc. and not for a site where they take a lot of money without even working themselves, the most surveys are done by citizens free of charge, and you suddenly ask to be paid for nothing that you do?
Shame on you, you better close the site anyway it is unnecessary now.

Terrible website where a mod can ban whoever he dislike... 0 quality check of the provided information to the public, again a mod can pass his opinion as the "truth".

Like many other Americans, I’ve been using Wikipedia for many years now as an accessible database of somewhat reliable information. I have even donated to Wikipedia for several years in a row in order to do my part and help the site function without the need for annoying advertisements. However I immediately stopped donating to the organization once it ceased to be a politically neutral and unbiased source for information.

Wiki was great years ago at first. I used it and supported it. Now it's turned to political diatribe. Too bad.

In my opinion Encyclopedias should be the best of human being, compiling true knowledge and neutral information in order to improve our common destiny, culture, as human wherever we live, whoever we are. However and very unfortunately, Wikipedia is prone to lobbies promoting ideas (English, religious - Abrahamous religions and the most sectarians one, I won't comment...) over other. This way, Wikipedia is loosing all its neutrality and quality of Encyclopedia. As long documents promote ideologies rather than knowledge, for me it is not an universal Encyclopedia but rather a site of opinion, which, unfortunately Wikipedia is. The only luck of Wikipedia is that scientific/students are contributing to the site, giving interesting introduction about specific field. Take books or scientific articles and read rather than consulting Wikipedia is my advice. Very sad to have donate $ to this opinion site which is note an encyclopedia.

False information! Do not trust what you read on Wikipedia.

I have noticed that information on Republicans or conservative politicians contains language to negatively prejudice the reader. For instance, wording such as "far right Republican"(why not Conservative), "American Nationalist"(why not American Patriot), "Anti-abortionist"(why not Pro life), "Right Wing"(why not Conservative), and others are used to describe Republicans, while Democrats are described as "Democratic"(not far left Democrat), "Socialist"(not radical socialist), "Pro Immigration"(not pro illegal immigration), "Activist"(not far left activist), and others without using adjectives which connote negative qualities. The bias is very evident and a lot of editorializing instead of factual reporting.

An amazing human project but plagued with terrible bias. And on lesser known subjects, the quality and trustworthiness of the material precipitously declines. Reforms needed to shore up the project.

Incredible how left wing fascists have overtaken Wikipedia. You cannot find a single article without a complete political bias. Even when trying to edit, it gets rejected. The worst is looking up stuff related to communism and China, only to find stuff seeming to be written by Hitler and Xi themselves. I've come back after seeing Wiki suspended 12 admins harrassing HK freedom advocates including death threats. Apparently, according to Wikipedia, China is one of the most free countries when it comes to religious freedoms. That is absolutely not true and quite a polar opposite of reality. I've updated to 2 stars after seeing some relevant clean up and suspension of malicious actors.

Although sometimes you get some weird and not accurate information from wiki, you can use it for reference and there are plenty of data on their side about everything and anything.

I really think this Wikipedia tart has to come down, for good. There are false history articles that are supported by the majority of nations but are a complete hoax, lies. It used to be useful but the conditions of how the information is added or changed have no logic or historical background! No facts, no truth! This is a piece of tart of a page. You don't deserve stars