Top Ten Worst Things About WikipediaI love Wikipedia as much as the next person, but that doesn't make it any less annoying than the rest of the big websites out there.
Yeah, considering it's very easy for anyone to edit, this is a huge possibility. Thankfully it is also easy to undo any edits done by trolls.
A lot of vandalism isn't even clever, and if it goes unnoticed for a while (yes, this occasionally happens) it's sometimes a real pain in the bum to clean up. So sad to see some people would rather destroy something than build it.
I wonder what kind of person thinks its 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 Wikivandals.
Lol, this shouldn't be here. Lack of censorship is a good thing since wikipedia can provide some info from cited articles so this is not a good point.
Wikipedia's still a good website, but sometimes, since some articles aren't constantly monitored, factual inaccuracies occur
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 one is much worse than vandalism because you might get an important fact wrong because Wikipedia told you it was right! I guess you just have to be smart enough to check 2 or 3 sites.
I don't hate wikipedia but it's just so annoying because my school blocked it just because anyone can write on it.
All it takes for you to delete their (non-constructive) edit before they start harping on you, saying you're destorying their right to free speech, or claim that there is an underground conspiracy against them.
Some people use it as their Facebook. O_O I thought I was sad...
It's just a site.
This would be one of the reasons they've been petitioned in the past.
Wikipedia is generally very accurate and easy to use. However, there can often be a lack of information. This problem is aggravated esp. by a very strict application of the notability guidline, which means that some people, groups, companies, events, etc.. , that weren't very noteworthy often have no page on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is never complete, so there will be always incomplete details there and there.
I must admit I kind of like this because I sometimes use Wikipedia as a quick guide as to whether something is well known but yeah that sounds very frustrating.
This makes it harder for me to create a good article and let it not get deleted. I have six that I created.
Especially common on articles regarding anime, Asterix and all the other stuff that hardly gets english attention.
Well? You can just simply edit it, even being unregistered to the site.
So annoying! If you really watch Winx Club, you should know that its spelled 'Sophix' not 'Sofix'.
This bothers me anywhere.
The website claims that all users should practice civility towards other users. Evidently that doesn't apply to administrators. About 75% are some of the most power-hungry emotionally-unstable people out there. All you have to do is disagree with them once, and BAM! You're gone for life
Yeah. Admins in general (not just Wikipedia) nowadays are just highly abusive, unlike before.
I agree. There are so many overzealous admins on this site.
For a free-content encyclopedia that allows you to plagarize its content, they sure have an awful big fit if you don't put every little letter into your own words, and than pounce on you for point of view violations.
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'd have a page on the English Wikipedia, but nope!)
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 there isn't images for the album covers) and many other things
I can kinda see why, though. It isn't always reliable. I think they should at least let you get info from it as long as there's sources to back it up.
This is so annoying. You always use Wikipedia for work, then when you hand it in he/she says "what were your sources? " Oh shut up
Then you visit the site and figure it out yourself next day: I don't know what I am teaching today.
I really want to though.
It was a hoax that said he was a suspect in the assassinations of John F. and Robert Kennedy.
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 the vast Anti-Communist conspiracy doesn't belong.
I'm a mod-con and I hate it when people (yes yes even conservatives) push their views on others. Hey if we didn't have conservatives and liberals there would be no point in being America.
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. This has lead to good pictures being shrunken, which makes them less pleasant.
The infamous page-move vandal now has millions of unoriginal, uncreative clones. Boring!
I want the real answer, not some crap that obviously makes no sense
Anyone who was a member in 2005 remembers how controversial userboxes were. People thought that it was worth banning members and doing mass deletions over a set of harmless HTML. Such drama!
The most complicated part is that every time I search for literatures a picture of Tom Sawyer is even more annoying when I download a Wiki app.
When I'm trying find something out there is all this complicated crap