Wikipedia Avaliações 428

Wikipedia: An Unlicensed Distributor of Graphic Adult Imagery Disguised as Education

As a parent in 2026, I have implemented a total, router-level block on Wikipedia. It is no longer a "public utility"—it is a systemic safeguarding failure. While masquerading as an educational charity, Wikipedia’s architecture allows unprompted "ambushes" of R18-rated fetish imagery during benign searches for fruit (Oranges), animals (Orangutans), or medical terms. Because these graphic 3D sexual renders are tagged as "educational," they act as a digital Trojan Horse, bypassing Apple, Google, and standard UK parental filters.
The negligence is intentional. Under the Online Safety Act 2026, Wikipedia refuses to implement basic "Safety by Design" features, like an age-assurance toggle or a SafeSearch-compliant image filter. They prioritize the "freedom" of anonymous fetish-content creators over the safety of the public. If this content were displayed on a physical shelf in a Glastonbury shop, the owners would be prosecuted. Wikipedia should not be exempt from the moral and legal standards of the physical world just because it hides behind a search bar.
The proof is in the comparison: when Wikipedia is "vanquished" (using the -site:wikipedia.org trick) or replaced by modern, safer alternatives like Grokipedia, the internet returns to being a balanced, clean, and clinical environment for children. Wikipedia is the primary source of the very toxicity that makes the internet feel unsafe for families. I have submitted this evidence to the NSPCC, Ofcom, and my MP, Sarah D!ke. It is time to stop donating, start blocking, and starve this negligent dinosaur of its revenue.

Always asking for donations yet it's worth billions, hmm, okay, sounds like typical American capitalism tech bro thuggery to me.

No login with email address? Congratulations, must have been developed on Atari or Commodore 64...

If I could give Wikipedia 0 stars I would. I'm removing it as a search engine & replacing it with Grokipedia because Wikipedia it's no longer what it used to be. Anyone can go on & rewrite history to what suits them. There's no truth anymore & people are locking others out from correcting what the narrative has been changed to. Time for everyone who believes in the truth to do away with Wikipedia. It's affected politics, geopolitical agendas, religion etc etc etc.

Site devenu une catastrophe, on ne peut rien créer encore moins modifié... Wikipedia est en faillite ?? Vous avez ce que vous chercher.. Bon débarras 🤡🤡🤡🤡 et pas un centimes pour vous

Nice
But showing arrow

Way too much influence from the American government considering anything extra terrestrial related. You have failed misserably relating to an honest balanced view on this subject

Wikipedia is FAR from what it claims to be. There is an army of reviewers who completely own the process now, NO ONE can add or edit entries anymore. Imagine the worst HOA in history, that's what Wiki has become. Lets say you belong to a group or work for a company or own a car, you'd be the best person to update information about that topic right? Wrong. You are too close to it and will get banned by people who know nothing about the topic. The listing will remain outdated an innacurate. Worst of all, these people who now control Wiki are monetizing their monopoly over the site. Here is a typical sales pitch:

"How May We Help You?
Wikipedia is considered to be the World’s most significant tool for reference material. The Wiki links show up on the 1st page of Google 97% of the time. With a Page on one of the most revered reference tools, you are sure to get yourself or your business noticed. So if you're thinking of getting a Wikipedia Page created, it's the best time of the year. If you are interested in getting more information just respond back to this email."

I wont promote the specific company, but I get these emails all the time. They are offering to get your company a good listing on Wiki for a fee. That's because they can because Wiki isnt what it claims to be. Remember that when they ask for your donation. Try to edit something first and see how it goes. Or use the support options. Or the community options. You are 100A% locked out.

On a bloqué ma modification sur ma propre identité impossible de modifier malgré les sources de presse indépendantes. En fait c'est tout simplement de la désinformation, reste à savoir dans quel but... les contributeurs sont d'un ego surdimensionnes et savent mieux que vous comment vous vous appelez...en fait c'est affolant et dangereux !

I was reading about Donald Trump on wikipedia, I have no idea how wikipedia made it to 1.5 stars!

I have never had an unpleasant experience with Wikipedia and I have never bothered to inject my input on any competent and researched information including where they got the info from and sited all of their resources. Those of you who are complaining about not being recognized is redundant to the authenticity of what Wikipedia is about. Respectfully.

"it should be called 'The Killing of Charlie Kirk' not 'The Assassination of Charlie Kirk' because we don't know if it was politically motivated yet"

An actual 2 week long debate that Wikipedia had with itself. And yet there are people who will try and tell you that it's moderators are unbiased. Only trust that site for info on technical subjects, you can't trust it for anything political, social subjects or even film/game/TV info isn't trustworthy on Wikipedia. There's someone who will want to push their biases into the writing. The worst bit about all this is that AI companies are using the articles to train their AI engines, so you'll see chatGPT and Gemini repeating the same misinformation that's in Wikipedia.

This website is a spam and tried to coerce people to pay for their editors to edit a webpage. With the new AI tools available, this is no need to use this website at all.

I use Wikipedia every single day & I donate occasionally. The problem is that anyone can add comments to a Wikipedia page so you can't be 100% sure of the information. I've edited pages when I've seen mistakes.

It’s a measure of Wikipedia’s excellence that so many dim people have such partisan and pathetic objections to it.

I used to donate to Wikipedia because I used it often. I got banned for life without being told why. They will NEVER see another penny from me - ungrateful! Honestly, why ban someone without explanation? That is in NO way honorable!!

Ich finde Wikipedia super und nutze diese Informationsseite sehr oft. Egal über welches Thema ich mehr Infos brauche, Wikipedia weiss bescheid. Toll.

Used to love this site when they were unbiased. Alas, now they poorly maintain their pages and delete actual true information if it might go against whatever narrative their executive management is driving them with.

Very biased, left leaning and articles written in a way that try to persuade you to believe their narrative.

Napoleon Hill’s page for example contains baseless claims and attempts to persuade that he’s a con artist and a failure. Uses the word alleged to describe abuse which says a lot - they don’t know. In which case it shouldn’t be included in a fact focused encyclopedic website. Comes across as a biased persuasive opinion piece rather than fact based. Quite an insulting and defamatory article, in some areas.

Wikipedia unfairly rejects edits and bans experts, promoting biased agendas; trust it cautiously.

La révision de la page consacrée à Monsieur Gentillet ne me paraît pas objective. Les convictions politiques de l’auteur semblent s’y refléter, particulièrement dans la présentation de sa relation inexistante avec la Russie, alors que le soutien apporté par sa hiérarchie dans l’affaire récente est peu souligné. J’espérais que Wikipédia conserve une stricte neutralité de ton, mais ce n’est malheureusement pas le cas, et cela me déçoit.