Top 10 Worst Things About Wikipedia

A lot of vandalism isn't even clever. If it goes unnoticed for a while (yes, this occasionally happens), it's sometimes a real pain to clean up. It's sad to see that some people would rather destroy something than build it.

I wonder what kind of person thinks it's funny to replace an entire article about Abraham Lincoln with "LOLZ HEZ the sucks" or some other nonsense. I guess it takes a stupid person.

I once looked up John Lennon, the musician, and someone had replaced his entire youth with a biography of John Lenin, founder of the USSR. I hate Wiki vandals.

When you try to edit out inappropriate language from articles, your changes are often reverted, and you may even be threatened with a block. The site is supposed to be friendly for all viewers, but when unnecessary profanity is included in articles, such as in the B-52 bomber article, it ruins the experience. This is one of the reasons I had to install an advanced profanity filter.

This is mainly a problem when it comes to updating outdated information. Source-obsessed individuals revert any edit that tries to update an article simply because there's no "reliable source."

Yes, there are some factual inaccuracies in articles that are not constantly monitored. At least some are locked to prevent vandalism and misinformation. If the source looks skeptical, Google is your friend.

This issue is much worse than vandalism because you might get an important fact wrong, believing it was accurate because Wikipedia told you so! I guess you just have to be smart enough to check two or three other sites.

I see a lot of misinformation on that website, and it gets worse every time when an article is full of fake information.

This is one of the reasons they've been petitioned in the past.

These major users can get away with reverting all edits from casual contributors and sending them talk messages threatening to have them blocked if they don't adhere to their impossibly high standards.

All it takes is for you to delete someone's non-constructive edit before they start harping on you, claiming you're destroying their right to free speech or asserting that there is an underground conspiracy against them.

Some people use it as their Facebook. I thought I was sad...

Some users make it their entire life's mission to revert all edits they don't see as living up to their impossibly high expectations.

Typos are especially common in articles regarding anime, Asterix, and all the other stuff that hardly gets English attention.

Well, you can just simply edit it, even without being registered on the site.

So annoying! If you really watch Winx Club, you should know that it's spelled Sophix, not Sofix.

Wikipedia is generally very accurate and easy to use. However, there can often be a lack of information. This problem is especially aggravated by a very strict application of the notability guideline, which means that some people, groups, companies, events, etc., that aren't deemed noteworthy often have no page on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is never complete, so there will always be incomplete details here and there.

It's funny watching them change their policy on what images can and cannot be used every other day, and then complain that Wikipedia's articles are useless without images.

This is annoying. It has led to good pictures being shrunken, which makes them less pleasant.

The average time spent patrolling articles on Wikipedia each day is more than 14 hours. Also, admins are constantly changing rules to favor themselves and maintain their power. This article shows just how ridiculous it has become to be an admin.

You have to study copyright laws, write essays about them, and then write another essay about "what would I do in a certain situation."

The truth is, those losers are just making things very hard so THEY CAN STAY IN POWER, NOT SHARE POWER, AND NOT BE MONITORED BY FELLOW ADMINS. New admins would mean no more exclusivity and less power to boss others around.

That's right, because the Spanish Wikipedia isn't the same as the English Wikipedia, many things are different: the information, the album covers (in the Spanish version, there aren't images for the album covers), and many other things.

For some reason, the French Wikipedia is the only one with a page about El Goonish Shive, despite it being an American webcomic. You'd think it would have a page on the English Wikipedia, but nope!

For a free-content encyclopedia that allows you to plagiarize its content, they sure have a big fit if you don't put every little letter into your own words. Then they pounce on you for point-of-view violations.

Ah yes, the ones whose lives revolve around Googling stuff they agree with and pushing it onto other people. Seriously, read the rules, folks. Your essay about how the War in Iraq was the right way to go or about the vast anti-communist conspiracy doesn't belong here.

I'm a moderate conservative, and I hate it when people (yes, even conservatives) push their views on others. If we didn't have conservatives and liberals, there would be no point in being America.

It is propaganda when referring to political bias and is alt-left.

I voted for Willy on Wheels, but this is annoying too. Deletionism is an extension of taking the site too seriously and treating it like a paper encyclopedia (which it is not). It is often cited as a top reason why Wikipedians leave.

I can kinda see why, though. It isn't always reliable. I think they should at least let you use it as long as there are sources to back it up.

This is so annoying. You always use Wikipedia for work, then when you hand it in, the teacher says, "What were your sources?" Oh, shut up.

Then you visit the site and figure it out yourself the next day: I don't know what I am teaching today.

It was a hoax that claimed he was a suspect in the assassinations of John F. and Robert Kennedy.

The infamous page-move vandal now has millions of unoriginal, uncreative clones. Boring!

I want the real answer, not some nonsense that obviously makes no sense.

Daisy is infinitely worse!

Anyone who was a member in 2005 remembers how controversial userboxes were. People thought it was worth banning members and doing mass deletions over a set of harmless HTML. Such drama!