Review Time
I am currently doing a PhD in Biofield science and integrative medicine. When I searched for Biofield Science and Reiki on Wikipedia it did not present a single accurate fact in it's entire summation of these topics dismissing them as pseudoscience rubbish. There was not even a distant approximation of the current research. I sent over 50 randomised controlled trials on Reiki from peer reviewed journals some ranked no. 1 for e.g. Frontiers Jounral and this was the reply "A rambling list of unreliable sources. All the research is weak/fraudulent, as sensible sources say. Wikipedia doesn't indulge woo." Obviously author didn't read the research and likely wouldn't have a clue how to assess it given their utterly unscientific biased view of the world. I wouldn't go within 1000 miles of Wikipedia after reading that claptrap. Disgusted.
"Who can we trust? No one—not even Google—can truly be trusted. The entire information industry is corrupted and compromised for personal interests, one way or another. And now we expect AI to be the solution? It will just be more of the same, a reflection of everything already out there. We humans are the producers of this rubbish; in every sense, we have only ourselves to blame."
Wikipedia is managed by a huge gang of extreme far left unemployed activists who are incredibly arrogant and disrespectful.They do not deserve such a platform to force their biased point of view upon people, they reference progressive/socialist online blogs, far left news media and pseudo-scientists with no peer reviewing. Wikipedia is “Fact Checked” by even more far left-activists, as I said. Right now, Wikipedia is very unreliable, at Colleges and High Schools, it is considered inappropriate to even use Wikipedia as a source.Serious peer reviewed posts will be removed and the poster (Scientist/Expert) will be banned if the post does not fit their narrative or ideology. By checking the bio and edit/moderation status of the person that banned you, they will have no proper qualifications, but will state their political affiliation, you can also confirm it by checking their edit history and discover their true biased nature.There is almost nothing factual about many articles on Wikipedia, as it has become activist's political doctrine, even the hard sciences are not safe from them.Do not fund any one of their fundraisers until they turn to peer reviews and no bias references, which maybe could never happen.
I have been using Wikipedia for decades and watched it grow from its humble beginning to a state-of-the-art resource for accurate knowledge. There is an impressive army of volunteers that make sure any forms of mis- and disinformation is held at bay. The great strength of Wikipedia is that it's community-driven rather than commercial and I hope it will stay that forever, which is why I am chipping in myself.
Literally one of the greatest things ever given to us by the internet. It isn't perfect, but the fact that we have free, ad-free access to a fount of human knowledge at the tip of our fingers whenever we want is truly amazing. I do not understand how anyone could disapprove of Wikipedia and I encourage everyone to donate, to keep it available and free, while you still can.
Wikipedia is managed by a gang of tyrans. They expect us to collaborate to the articles for free and are incredibly arrogant and disrespectful. I have never been treated this badly while trying to work as a writer. There is no way I am going to donate one single cent or one more second of my time to this organization. Fire those tyrans that are ruining this platform. They do not deserve such a platform to force their point of view upon people.
Wikipedia still succeeds in its almost impossible task of being freely editable while striving for reliability. Negative reviews have been posted here suggesting its editors are "activists" – but generally this seems to mean that the editors are trying to preserve an idea of truth in a post-truth world.
Claim your business profile now and gain access to all features and respond to customer reviews.
