Rant Roasters/Wikipedia

'''This is a critique (actually, roast would be more accurate) of bad reviews relating to Wikipedia. This might actually be popular enough to start its own wiki.'''

I don't trust it (andrea l., Sitejabber)
"This is such a 'fake news' website. Why do you think all that information is free? They want us to believe all the stuff that they are pedal pushing out to to us. They create pages to report other websites as fake news but, where is the proof? This tactic of theirs undermines free and critical thinking. Hey wikipedia, if you're not threatened by the so called 'fake news', then just leave them alone. The truth will all come out in the end... maybe that's what you're really threatened by."

'''Are you actually fucking serious? Believing that a free encyclopedia run by a non-profit organization is "fake news" in any way is dumb. This is just typical "woke" bullshit. The "truth" is that you're stupid for believing this in any way.'''

Awful. (Henry B., Sitejabber)
"Firstly, Wikipedia has a lot of sources that are not factual, this is why students are not allowed to use it for research papers. Secondly, most of what you read is edited by immature ignorant jerks. And the guidelines don't get me started with the guidelines. I wish I can give it a -1 out of 5, but oh well."

'Can you explain how'' Wikipedia's sources are "not factual" (and by that, I mean that they're factually incorrect, not contrary to your personal views)? Wikipedia has policies against using any old journal or website. Second, Wikipedia isn't allowed to be cited in research papers because anyone can edit it. For example, I could make up some crazy bullshit about the President and put it in the Wikipedia article. This makes Wikipedia itself an unreliable source, but that doesn't mean that the sources it cites in its articles are unreliable as well. Finally, Wikipedia's guidelines at least try to be reasonable; the only issue I see with them is that there's too many.'''