While we don't verify specific claims because reviewers' opinions are their own, we may label reviews as "Verified" when we can confirm a business interaction took place. Read more

To protect platform integrity, every review on our platform—verified or not—is screened by our 24/7 automated software. This technology is designed to identify and remove content that breaches our guidelines, including reviews that are not based on a genuine experience. We recognise we may not catch everything, and you can flag anything you think we may have missed. Read more

See what reviewers are saying

Rated 1 out of 5 stars

Wrong information. Left wing propaganda. Brainwashing. Totally biased. Rewrite history and geography. Not trustable at all. If you want true facts, real information and the truth, stay away from this... See more

Rated 1 out of 5 stars

Wiki never misses an opportunity to subtly provide negative circumstances or tidbits about conservative famous individuals. They even do so with a disclaimer that the info may need more verification,... See more

Rated 1 out of 5 stars

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... See more

Rated 4 out of 5 stars

I use Wikipedia regularly for general info. I take its content with a pinch of salt, I don't accept everything I find there, neither do I reject it all. I understand the information has been source... See more

Company details

  1. Search engine company
  2. also in
  3. Software company
  4. Web collaboration platform

Information provided by various external sources

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.


Contact info

1.4

Bad

TrustScore 1.5 out of 5

462 reviews

5-star
4-star
3-star
2-star
1-star

No history of asking for reviews

This company hasn't invited their customers, so reviews may not be representative

How this company uses Trustpilot

See how their reviews and ratings are sourced, scored, and moderated.

1.4

All reviews

(462)

52 reviews in the last 12 months

Write a review
Companies on Trustpilot aren't allowed to offer incentives or pay to hide reviews. Reviews are the opinions of individual users and not of Trustpilot. Read more

Rated 1 out of 5 stars

It's full of criminals who slander

It's full of criminals who slander, oppress and deny people from proper courts.

Jails in some countries are healthier than English Wikipedia. I am scared to think about more isolated languages...

Dozens of crazy criminals are very active and not going anywhere since Jimmy Wales doesn't even admit their existence.

Jimmy Wales was busy with $5 scams.

Jimmy Wales doesn't care about tortured children in his projects. Jimmy Wales only cares to scam stupid and rich Sweden in 2019 with really loud lies. That's his top priority. I noticed this in 2021. Proofs were super easy to find.

They don't understand even English. Other shitholes from Jimmy Wales aren't better. I don't have energy to report them.

They play Russian roulette even with salaries. This is so horrible.

They don't apologize for their criminals and crimes.

Kill, bomb and nuke. That's the only language they understand.

I like some content and respect people behind good content but organisation is so flawed in many ways.
Their emergency emails are pretty much ignored. It's really broken. Few or nobody cares about it.

Most medical content isn't wrong but not peer reviewed by governments and big experts. Don't listen to poor people from poor countries. You may easily fail with your medical condition if you are unlucky.

Many other important topics are pretty empty after 20 years. Most things are about history. Not about modern geography, engineering, science, software.

They also turn art, concerts, movies, music and theatre into boring and useless stuff.

Jimmy Wales never owned a movie theater, but you blindly trust him every time in all art... You people are crazy. You've all been doing this for decades. All the people I see on this planet are clearly crazy.

They even have "Wikipedia is not" page where they pretty much confirm the scam. Nobody cares about it.

Jimmy Wales is crazy. Jimmy Wales is a scammer.

Indian zoomers who are just reading this cannot invalidate my findings and my experiences. They only care about shiny things. They don't care about wasted time and money.

You should act more responsible than overfinance the budget of this serial scammer.

I also reported Jimmy Wales as a scammer to Australia, but with less detail as their form was limited for some reason...

I highly recommend suing him for millions of years if possible in your country. He's such an entrepreneur.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is pretty incompetent about Wikipedia in WHO.

12 September 2024
Unprompted review
Rated 1 out of 5 stars

Worst information website ever

Wikipedia is the worst information website that I have ever seen in my life. Full of biased and false information everywhere. Only allow small group of admins to control this website’s content. They will do anything to threaten/bully you and ask you to pay for create and update pages. They can also block and ban you whenever they want. No independent/neutral point of views, no freedom of speech and absolutely far from “free” encyclopedia and “real” news. DO NOT TRUST THIS WEBSITE!!!

6 September 2024
Unprompted review
Rated 3 out of 5 stars

I would not donate

I believe that all internet has been a destructive force for humanity and therefore I cannot in good conscience donate to Wikipedia

17 August 2024
Unprompted review
Rated 1 out of 5 stars

Information controlled unrighteously

Information controlled unrighteously.
Wars happened after noting 'verification needed' next to an article that appears to be a fake news.
And then gets blocked immediately with a claim 'not here to build Wikipedia'.

Wikipedia clearly already sold, secretly.
Or just an ancient serpent who receives the entire world!

Don't use it.
Use other ones.

10 August 2024
Unprompted review
Rated 1 out of 5 stars

Stress 24/7

"The world's largest source of information"? More like "the world's largest joke." As if all the political bias and shadowbans weren't bad enough, even seemingly normal articles like those for Joy Division are under heavy surveillance by gatekeeping admins.

I added sourced genres for the articles of 'Unknown Pleasures' and 'Closer' that came from an encyclopedic book. However, an admin named FMSky removed them because they were not based on popular opinion. The book, 'A History of Rock and Dance Music' by Piero Scaruffi, is widely available and can be found on Google Shopping. FMSky also told me that they aren't an admin, but they behave like one anyway as they are often involved in censoring articles.

Eventually, another admin named Woovee visited my page to tell me that an ENTIRE committee of admins agreed on my source being unwelcome. This is just because the book author's website is self-published. I cited the book, not the website. It felt like a school conference, but worse. Woovee also told me that it's the journalist's opinion that matters, not the user's. In reality, it's the Wikipedia admins that control the whole narrative. Woovee told me this when I removed the "gothic rock" genre from the 'Closer' article, not realizing that a music review already mentioned the genre in the article.

In short, Wikipedia is the right-hand man of TikTok, ruining the world one step at a time. If you want to support Joy Division, buy their merch, stream their music, perhaps even get inspired by them. The admins mentioned in this review are actually normal users like you and me, but are completely brainwashed by Wikipedia's toxicity. If you're still thinking of supporting this dystopian database, you're better off peeling potatoes at a food drive or pushing your luck on a dating site/app.

6 July 2024
Unprompted review
Rated 1 out of 5 stars

Crime!!!

Crime! Misleading is crime. Wikipedia is misleading public. Sitejabber/Simple.Wikipedia. Org Reviews.

3 July 2024
Unprompted review
Rated 1 out of 5 stars

A lot of propaganda

It's very obvious that Wikipedia has a lot of nonsense or so called disinformation, the same (corrupt) propaganda stories (lies) the governments want you to believe.
Not a reliable source to get your information from. It is always from a "left side" point of view. I can't even imagine that there are people who donate to this junk site.

27 June 2024
Unprompted review
Rated 1 out of 5 stars

Wikipedia org uk, is not reliable source.

The administrates do a very BAD job. They interfere way too much, when editors who think they own Wikipedia over step their position. All who edit should be treated with equal respect.

Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source, as information is long out of date in many articles. In fact Wikipedia should have a fake news warning.

If you try and update information with multiple references, it will still be removed almost instantly.

It is very worrying how many other internet services use Wikipedia as their main source of information. The WWW is becoming very unreliable and frustrating.

Please be very careful when relying on Wikipedia.

13 June 2024
Unprompted review
Rated 1 out of 5 stars

If i could give this site a -5 i would

If i could give this site a -5 i would. When looking for a honest opinion on a person or company i seem to be getting a left view on everything. It amazes me why this site get so much airplay, its wrong . Avoid this info site , you night as well make something up in your head

13 June 2024
Unprompted review
Rated 1 out of 5 stars

By Dae Yun Kim

By Dae Yun Kim: Wikipedia is not accurate & misleading public with unreliable information. Wikipedia claim, Pacific International University is diploma mill, but this is inaccurate, because I attended California Pacific School Of Theology/Glendale, California(associated with Pacific International University), & attended California Pacific School Of Theology physically for 2years & got through all the process & received Ph.D. degree from Pacific International University. And also Wikipedia talked about accreditation, but since Pacific International University is religious Exempt University, Pacific International University is exempted from U.S. education regulation & standard. Therefore Pacific International Univesity degrees are legal, lawful. And also since Pacific International University degrees are religious degrees, Pacific International Degrees are recognized by religious organizations. And therefore conclusion is that, Pacific International Degrees are constitutional & legitimate degrees. Therefore since Wikipedia was hurting all the graduates Of Pacific International University through inaccurate information, I want Wikipedia close down in order to protect future victims. And these people are people who received degree from Pacific International University(associated with California Pacific School Of Theology/Glendale, California). Pat Boone(Celebrity), Warren Duffy(Celebrity), Carlbaugh(Celebrity), Jack Van Impe(Celebrity), Ye Young Su(예영수/korean celebrity pastor). John Blanchard(celebrity). 1999 graduation key note speaker(Jerry Falwell/celebrity), 2000 graduation key note speaker(Pat Robertson(celebrity), 2001 graduation key note speaker(John Blanchard/celebrity), graduation key note speaker(David Hockking). Therefore I am proud to became alumnus of Pacific International University.

31 May 2024
Unprompted review
Rated 1 out of 5 stars

Wikipedia is plagued

Wikipedia has been plagued by inaccuracies for many years. The open editing process allows anyone to present falsehoods as facts without providing any factual evidence to support their claims. The information on Wikipedia is often misleading and at times discriminatory towards minority groups. Google should stop recommending this unreliable source as do other search engines. The lack of editorial oversight and fact-checking makes Wikipedia an untrustworthy reference that frequently publishes biased, incorrect content masquerading as truth. Until Wikipedia implements stronger quality control and vetting procedures, it should not be treated as a credible resource.

1 May 2024
Unprompted review
Rated 1 out of 5 stars

The gorilla skeptics are the editors…

The gorilla skeptics are the editors spoiling a 'free' resource into their own viewpoint. They change content as their are heavily biased, in denial of real issues and unable to hear a view other than their own.

Wikipedia was a great idea but become a victim and victimised by its own success. No-one to police the editors/ police of Wikipedia.

8 May 2024
Unprompted review
Rated 1 out of 5 stars

all paid articles

all paid articles, showcases of artists and products that can only be added by paying the publishers, shameful and dangerous regarding sensitive topics such as health therapies and medical products

7 May 2024
Unprompted review
Rated 4 out of 5 stars

Works fine if you're not a dipshit

Haven't had any problems with the more popular articles, more obscure ones like random roads or buildings are easier to spread misinformation on but overall a great service. Edits usually stay up if you follow the rules and provide explanations and sources.

11 February 2024
Unprompted review
Rated 1 out of 5 stars

Tendentious north americanist and…

Tendentious north americanist and atlanticist lies about everything, everyone knows this eternally. Lies about everything in general, it's hard to see an article in which there are not a lot of lies, regardless of the topic. Some of these articles touch on the ridiculousness, including scientific ones, they are out of the real world and they are tendentious "pre-packaged" lies, just to make people laugh.

8 February 2024
Unprompted review
Rated 1 out of 5 stars

I have made donations to Wikipedia

I have made donations to Wikipedia, but no more. It appears that certain pages are being 'edited' towards 'one' groups opinion which to me is biased. Even going as far as disrespectfully removing professional qualifications. The choice of wording being used by this group of editors within certain pages leaves a lot to be desired. It's plain nasty and mocking in some cases. That is not professional and is not something I expect to see in an online encyclopedia. Incredibly disappointed.

23 January 2024
Unprompted review

Is this your company?

Claim your profile to access Trustpilot’s free business tools and connect with customers.

Get free account

The Trustpilot Experience

Anyone can write a Trustpilot review. People who write reviews have ownership to edit or delete them at any time, and they’ll be displayed as long as an account is active.

We use dedicated people and clever technology to safeguard our platform. Find out how we combat fake reviews.

Learn about Trustpilot’s review process.

Here are 8 tips for writing great reviews.

Verification can help ensure real people are writing the reviews you read on Trustpilot.

Offering incentives for reviews or asking for them selectively can bias the TrustScore, which goes against our guidelines.

Take a closer look