Wikipedia Reviews 19

Absolutely abysmal website. Yes, it really is. A few things need fact checking - "Anyone can edit Wikipedia". Nonsense. You lock articles and block people to maintain the group narrative. You'll write a defamatory article on an individual/group you don't like or consider controversial, then lock it "to prevent misinformation". When in reality it looks much more like a desire to cause some kind of political stir. Then you have the b @ lls to ask (or more like blackmail) for donations... Google gives you millions every year anyway. There's definitely a reason all the editors and admins are anonymous. They know their conduct is problematic and can't face being directly scrutinised, possibly? Just avoid.

Extremely biased to the point that they flat out lie, hide facts that to not fit their agenda and invent and twist others that they like.

Complete waste of time and futhermore the site is full of lies and far from reality. Where a normal encyclopedia should be the explainer of reality, Wikipedia is completly biased. It favours a small group of communists.

Wikipedia is one of the world's largest and most widely used online encyclopedias, offering free access to millions of articles in over 300 languages. Founded in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, it operates as a nonprofit under the Wikimedia Foundation.

I often use Wikipedia for research and general knowledge. It’s easy to navigate, and most articles are well-structured and informative. I especially like that information is frequently updated by contributors from around the world. Sometimes citations are missing or articles could be clearer, but overall it’s a very helpful resource that I rely on regularly.

Narrative control, rewriting history as in the novel, 1984,by Orwell. Do not fund and avoid if you value your objectivity.
Stay informed, not concerned conditioned. Tis a tough path, there are more waking up than you know.
Peace and Love, Paul

Ultra left wing ideology presented as facts! In a word DANGEROUS. Please steer clear of this site if you wish to increase wisdom. Last thing this site is about is facts. No mostly propaganda, very little truth. That's verified by the multiple blocks tried in stopping this review. Forced to give 2 stars when giving 1 star to give this review is stopped

They are absolutely not neutral, in no way of the world they can be considered neutral

I'm on my 6th appeal with Wikipedia and I used today's date because because I just got another rejection right before I wrote this, although this has been foing on 6 months. The reply was, Sorry, but it is clear you are not ready to contribute to the encyclopedia at this time. Right... It's better tonlet editor's make articles with half truths and be able to lie to ban people. I got banned literally for a made up reason, said Bishnonen. Ponyo, another editor, is using a comment from someone else, PaleoNeonate and him talking about his personal mystical experiences. Then, they tacked on that I was incomprehensible. Kundalini falls into 3 categories and had they bothered to fact check any of a huge swath of data i gave them, they also would understand the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra is not the only text that explains Kundalini. I cited Shrimad-Bhagavatam canto 4.23.1-4.23.23, where ot clearly describes King Prthu performing austerities to awaken his Kundalini, deapite being a Bhakta and devotee of Shri Krishna. Upon completion he left his body. This is the middle nondual aspect of Kundalini. There is left hand, which is tantric sex of 3 kinds that are white, red, and black. Dravidian Aaiyyanism, which I cited uses left hand black tantra. Any tantra that uses sex as a catalyst falls to the left. Then, there is right hand tantra, which is achieved through Meditation and Breath, not an external catalyst. They couldn't seem to grasp such a simple concept. Then, it is repeated denial of appeals, even though the ban is based on multiple lies. They just didn't fact check. I've found more errors in the app than you coukd shake a stick at. The website is hardly better. Often, they take down the original information and misconstrue it. How do I know that about the website? I used to write tons of articles when you weren't being controlled. I also have the pictures for the inevitable email I'll get for this article. This website is pretty lax about responding back when proof is given and there are multiple reviews I gave the information for and the reviews are still gone.

It's too bad that on this review site you can't leave a star because Wikipedia this site doesn't work it has a bad search catalog and then if you want to create your own page it gets deleted right away even if you say true things

Very nice platform,
History, conspiracy, and many remable story'
There is also a Podcast on YouTube with beautiful topics
Lets talk about wikipedia