[This review pertains to the English Wikipedia]Sometimes, there's vandalism, but it's often quickly reverted.Wikipedia isn't the disinformation pit people still claim it is, and articles have citations in them.------------------------------------------------Note: Some of the reviews on this page are harmful, such as:+ the one from the person who edited a page on their corporation (which is discouraged per WP:COIEDIT)+ the one that parrots claims of fraud in the 2020 election (ironically, without any evidence)+ the 1-star review complaining about the "Dome of the Rock" article not listing it as a mosque - even though it isn't even a mosque - not understanding that the blue lock ~ means only registered accounts 30+d old and with 500+ edits can edit the article ~ is used to mitigate that same vandalism everyone complains about+ the second review complaining about how editing with a conflict of interest on Wikipedia (e.g. promoting your own corporation on Wikipedia) is frowned upon+ the review writing the site off as propaganda without evidence+ the *many* ironic reviews claiming the site is all lies, (you guessed it) with no elaboration or evidence to their claims+ the review writing the George Floyd 'protests' off as left-wing lies, and in the same vein, all of the other politically motivated reviews claiming that it's all liberal bias+ the many reviews that don't account for the fact that vandalism is usually reverted quickly+ the review claiming right-wing bias+ "Admins ban anyone who looks at any pages" (this isn't how Wikipedia works at all, as they can't see who's looking at a page)
