Review Time
Wikipedia is "Fact Checked" by activists. Serious peer reviewed posts will be removed and the "poster" (Scientist) will be banned if the post does not fit their narrative. This is simple to check if your posts are removed and you are banned by checking the bio of the person that banned you. They will have no qualifications in anything but will state their political affiliation.I will cite one example; The Troposphere-This has gone from thousands of word accurate chemical and physical fact about the Troposphere to a few lines of nothing on multiple times for years.There is nothing factual about anything on Wikipedia as it is activist's political doctrine. Do not fund any one of their fundraisers until they turn to peer reviews
While Wikipedia is a good website, some of the information can be false. I learned a few stuff from there.However, I got blocked a few months ago just for trying to be a better person. While I did do a few things wrong earlier, I just wanted to make a fresh account and be a better person! But no, they won’t let it happen. Also, when I appealed my block, and admin rejected my appeal and started the paragraph with “and”. Thought they were supposed to use good English.Also, some of their policies, such as that you can’t really write about something you like or are connected to, such as a club you go to, are bad. Overall, even through the stress it caused me I’d still recommend it as READ ONLY. EDITING IS WHAT CAUSES STRESS.
It has become common wisdom to visit Wikipedia for knowledge. I am aware for sure that Wikipedia is not correct when it comes to historical facts. I have found that most of the articles relating to recent history of Sri Lanka and personnel have a lot of errors while some are downright wrong. I presumed that the Edit function is there to correct what is misquoted or simply wrong. Articles are written by individual with very little or no knowledge of the real facts. It could be that they would wish to record history the way they would like to see it with their biases by twisting the facts. The irony is that they have blocked my IP address in order that I could not edit anymore. By deduction, the other 'facts' they have recorded should be such that too. People, especially children should be warned not to believe that Wikipedia not the gospel.
I became an editor soon after it was created in the early aughts. I haven't done a lot of editing, but I've read the rules & been following how it works as I use it all the time. It certainly isn't perfect, but it's excellent as it can be for a volunteer & bot-run organization. I have checked sources & they're usually very good. There's a wealth of information!
I added a page of a low power TV station. It was flagged for potential deletion (ultimately, it was deleted) and discussion because the station 1) wasn’t that old, and 2) wasn’t relevant for merely being a pass-through for minor subchannel networks. I could cite many other stations that fit that same description, but they weren’t flagged for deletion. Besides, it still exists and therefore merits a page. Then, they want you to donate money to them.I sent a email and cited this incident as one reason I don’t donate money and why I’m hesitant to add information and make Wikipedia better place. I was met with gaslighting saying I need be constructive in my response. Why should I do that when they already made up their minds to delete the contribution for reasons that don’t make any sense?Other edits are often undone by other aggressive contributors that have nothing better to do but start an editing war because they think they know everything. Yet, it’s always your fault, not theirs.
Claim your business profile now and gain access to all features and respond to customer reviews.
