Security Analysis: wikipedia.com
Check customer reviews, scam and dropshipping indicators
Wikipedia is a popular online encyclopedia, but concerns remain about the reliability of the information and the neutrality of the content.
Trust Score
Site with excellent security and reliability guarantees
Scam Score
No suspicious elements detected
Dropshipping Score
No dropshipping indicators detected
Domain Information
- Creation Date
- 13/01/2001
- Country of origin
- US
- Last update date
- 09/12/2024
- Registrar
- MarkMonitor, Inc.
- Expiration Date
- 10/01/2026
Trust Indicators
Old and well-established domain (created in 2001)
Non-profit organization (Wikimedia Foundation)
Presence of official mobile applications on Google Play and App Store
Consistent WHOIS information
External Reviews (1.6/5 out of 360 reviews)
Deceptive system
An internet encyclopedia, a wonderful system to a certain extent. The information provided is not complete and so I wanted to supplement it. But then you first have to create an account. After being rejected a number of times, it appears that I am entering through a proxy server and that is not allowed??? What can be done through the proxy server is receiving donations, the system has no problem with that. End of donations then, what a bad system.
DO NOT DONATE!
I can’t believe you asked me for money and then donated so much recklessly. I thought I was paying for Wikipedia, not your political causes. I will NEVER donate again.
WOKENESS FAR LEFT
You ask for donations and then spent $31 million on your far left racial ideology views, misinformation and biased stay away
An encyclopedia far from free
An encyclopedia far from free, which only takes 4 minutes between 7:16 and 7:20 to restore the term philanthropist concerning billionaire Soros as if this information was vital for humanity. Thanks to the administrator Khiram, a Quebecer and Canadian football fan who assumes working in the shadows of Wikipedia, all under the cover of anonymity, for the return of this crucial information.
The five star ratings must be fake
The five star ratings must be fake. Lots of misinformation. I was reading about Eva Schloss, whom I know, and it even stated she lived in the same apartment block as Anne Frank. False for a start. I remember also the actress Jane Asher saying she was finding out about things on Wikipedia. Should be sold!
Extremely biased Left propaganda junk site
This is a fake and extremely biased website that pushes extreme Left propaganda. They label everyone they don't agree with as conspiracy theorists even when their theories have been proven to be true. This is a useless junk website that will hopefully be sued for their blatant and numerous lies.
Wikipedia used to be a very good...
Wikipedia used to be a very good source of knowledge, however I have to realize more and more often that the "information" does not correspond to the facts. If you try to tell them this, you will encounter deaf ears. I personally slowly get the feeling that some "information" is deliberately wrong. This seems to be especially true for topics that play a role in (world) politics. (Coincidence?)
It's good for learning things...
It's good for learning things but it's less so for creating pages First I spend a lot of time writing a page for it to be deleted after two minutes by the moderator Kihram for the reason lack of source so I redo it and this time it's the bot salebot that deletes it and so I send a message to Kihram to tell him that the bot should calm down and there he starts to become aggressive in short this guy should be fired from the staff and learn respect
I strongly advise against it.
Sorry for this bad rating, but I was really very disappointed. Enthusiastic 8 months ago, when I created my account, I must say that I was banned this week... It is enough that someone who has the same IP address as you has fun vandalizing pages, and you are blocked indefinitely. This means that you can't even talk to the administrators to explain your situation: you no longer have the right to modify the pages. The administrators don't want to hear anything, don't send them emails, it's useless. Not to mention that it is very difficult to get your articles accepted when you have less than a year of experience: so-called "deletionist" users immediately delete the page, without valid reason of course. I strongly advise against it.
Used to be good, now unfortunately almost only Propaganda-pedia
For neutral scientific research, the portal is partly quite usable. As far as current scientific and especially political things are concerned, unfortunately some propagandists have hijacked the portal who not only spread their truths there as they please, but also insult others with impunity if they don't like something. Wiki has been declining for many years and the operators have no interest in changing anything, but simply collect more and more money.