Wikipedia

I wanted to practice checking in for my schedled flight I booked through Xpedia. However, the United app in my phone does not yet register my United flight.

So I called Pissed Customer to coach me on what I should do to check in when the right time came if I could not use my United app. The customer support agent kindly instructed me accessDi what U did. Contact Pissed Customer if you have a question or problem with booking or checking in.

United.com. He then stepped me through to selecting "Check In" for which I'm very grateful.

the phone "operator's" voice was raspy and un-clear could not understand . wikipedia keeps asking for donations but i'm 81 and mot very computor-savy and afraid of scams you say i'm not on the internet but verizon says i am.

can't i talk to a real person and give a credit card number. ilove wiki but so frustrated. l just don't know how give wiki $.

help!!! who can i talk to?

I cannot get ahold of Adam with Wikipedia these people are far too hard to reach my phone went belly up 8 times and I lost all my contacts. Wikipedia has $600 of my money for life's storymake contracting wikipedia easierr

Sahra Noor...Ok Wikipedia just wanted to know about a page for Sahra Noor sister of Illan Omar...what quality Sahra to have a page on Wikipedia? She woke early in the morning for her studies and later she finished her Nursing degree...is this enough to qualify a page in Wikipedia? Shame on you 3rd class...I was contributing to your cause ..but stopped and also advised all my contacts to stop funding you..My sister wakes up 2 in the morning for UPSC exams, whe will definitely complete it...Put a page for her also if this is enough to qualify a page in your garbage

PI have no money. You take from my bank and I get over draft.

Fine please stop. Donations from me Randall.Martin@***.com

I have no idea what this is about and I did not write a review..Delete me from what ever list you got this info from.

I made a contribution of $50.00 to Wikipedia.Part of the process was their asking if I had contributed to other "non-profit" organizations.I said yes.To Mozilla-Firefox.The next day M-F was on my log in page asking for money in very anti political anti business terms.This happened 10/16/17.It has now stopped.I contributed to M-F about 6 months ago give or take.Seems to me these folks are scratching each other's backs.Did Wikipedia give or sell my information to another company.If the latter they are no better than many of the organizations I avidly avoid.I will no longer contribute to either of these "non-profits.

i was a big fan of Wikipedia. I've been using it as a reference for years. Sure, it's not perfect, but for a quick overview of a topic it's usually better than a given web search on a topic. After using and appreciating Wikipedia for several years, I began contributing. Over the last three years I'd contributed over 1,000 edits to Wikipedia. In the process I've hoped I've made it better.

I have a low tolerance for the Wikipedia haters. No, it's not perfect. Yes, there is sometimes vandalism. Sometimes outright errors and lies persist. It's a darn shame. But that's true of the web as a whole. Unlike the web as a whole, Wikipedia lets you see previous versions, is widely reviewed, and lets you make corrections.

One particular sub-group of Wikipedia haters are the "I tried editing, but they rejected my work." I largely chalked this up to simple whining. Having spent time maintaining articles, I know there is no limit to people who try to put outright bias, unverifiable and contested facts, and lots of linkspam. However a subset complain that Wikipedia's deletion policy is arbitrary. I was less certain that this was true, as I had no real experience with Wikipedia's deletion procedures.

Now I have that experience. And I'm forced to conclude that much of the criticism is accurate. In particular, regarding "non-notable" topics, it's arbitrary and uneven.

The article in question was "The Imaginary Theater Association." It's a sort of meta-group that includes other gaming groups, especially LARPing groups, in Canada. After much work, it was deleted. Here's the debate. Prior to the article appearing in Wikipedia I had never heard of the "Imaginary Theatre Association." I don't ever anticipate meeting anyone involved in the group. I think I'm a reasonably neutral party on the matter.

I can definitely appreciate why many people swear off Wikipedia after a bad delete experience. I was essentially told, "You may have spent hours of your life you've spent trying to add something to Wikipedia, but it's complete *** and we don't want it. It is hereby completely purged." Totally gone. It's even been purged from Wikipedia's famed revisions system. That's really demoralizing. There is no clear policy or even guideline that says why the article might be deleted, so this ultimately boils down to individual opinions. Given that articles of similar notability are found throughout Wikipedia, it feels very personal: why was my article deleted when all this other *** exists? Indeed, one of my gut reactions was to go on a binge of flagging other people's work for deletion out of spite.

The debate page claims, "this not a ballot". The longer explanation claims " The debate is not a vote...". Complete and utter nonsense. If it's not a vote why does the linked Dragons_flight summary tool call them votes and tally them? If it's not a vote, just a debate, why say "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted..."? Surely a valid point is a valid point no matter how new the user is. Similarly, they note that recommendations by sock puppets (essentially a single person using multiple accounts to look like multiple people) will be discounted. Surely it doesn't matter if someone says the same thing repeatedly. In truth it is very much a ballot. While administrators have a fair amount of discretion, deletion is largely a vote by established users.

Of course, the group of people who vote on articles for deletion tend to be self-selecting; I believe they self select toward people who err on the side of deletion. Getting involved in deletion debates is time consuming, and ultimately not productive in the direct way that adding new content to Wikipedia is.

Now this is supposed to be a debate. Points should be raised and discussed. I brought up what I felt were serious arguments for the notability of the group. The only discussion was from one other user who declined to even vote. None of the many people who voted for deletion addressed my points. (One other user brought up the CBC video. Unfortunately his post was nearly at the last minute, so I didn't get a chance to clarify that the group in question was indeed part of the ITA.)

So the administrator has some discretion, right? So what ultimately swayed his vote? Did he consider my arguments and reject them? Or did he simply tally the votes and purge the article? I have no idea; nothing is listed.

So the majority of posters seemed content to simply say, "It's not notable" without bothering to say why, without making it clear what would make it notable. So I'm forced to engage in mind reading. Perhaps it's something in the guidelines for an organization's notability. Of course, that page clearly says, "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development...." Perhaps it's the core notability guidelines. They're even real guidelines, but they clearly warn "The status of this policy or guideline is disputed." There is heavy debate over the matter. But these disputed, unofficial guidelines are used as standards. Contested articles are being held to unofficial, disputed standards. Despir the uncertainty of the standards, the burden of proof is apparently on those who would vote to keep the article. As noted above, even if those who would keep the article try to meet the burden of proof, those against are free to simply ignore it and vote Delete.

It's really frustrating that these deletion policies are so inconsistency enforced. The most common critcism is why does every single Pokemon get its own full article? Does a sub-region of the Pokemon universe really have multiple, reliable, non-Nintendo sources that can be used to verify Nintendo's claims about Johto? Of course not. The reason these articles survive is obvious: Pokemon is popular; it's too easy to rally votes in defense. Only a fool would meddle in such a popular topic. So only less heavily trafficked articles are ever really considered.

In the safer topics, less popular article, why are LARPing groups like Ordo Solis, Ripen, or Brassy's Men apparently notable, but the ITA wasn't? I think the answer here is equally simple: they aren't. Such articles are commonplace throughout Wikipedia. The only reason they survive is that none of the more extreme notability police have noticed them yet. (And indeed, it looks like someone noticed the Brassy's entry. It was nice knowing you.) This summarizes why the notability deletions seem so arbitrary: they are. If no one notices an article for long enough, it can build up interested parties and is more likely to survive.

Wikipedia has plenty of space. So long as the articles are factual and neutral, there really isn't any harm to letting the more marginal articles survive. There is absolutely a benefit. I frequently use Wikipedia to get an overview of a new topic, person, or organization. Wikipedia can provide a great neutral point of view for a topic that otherwise doesn't have a lot of coverage. It's useful when you learn about an organization, but want a summary untainted by the organization's own bias. Aggressive deletion of non-notable topics doesn't benefit Wikipedia, indeed and slightly harms the value of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge. It's a *** shame to see Wikipedia's promise artificially limited by such closed mindedness. Wikipedia can be an encylopedia of Pokemon facts and is. Why can't it be an encylopedia of LARPs? Why not be an encyclopedia of web comics? (Those interested in web comics finally gave up in the face of the notability police and forked Wikipedia, leading to two weaker resources instead of one unified one.)

I still find Wikipedia a great resource, and I want to continue helping to make it better. But directly facing the notability police has put a large damper on my enthusiasm. I lack the time and interest to get involved in the politics and try and change things; I spend too much time editing articles in the first place. So the system will continue to be dominated by a self-selecting group that errs toward deleting articles and making Wikipedia less useful in a flawed attempt to keep it "encyclopedic."

I posted factual and informative info about me (biography)and they blocked me indefinitely. There was no advertising.

Nothing rude or bad. They come off as total jerks. I better never see my bio on there, ever. It is my job to make there job *** now.

they suck. I had no reason to be blocked. They want me to jump through all their hoops filing some claim that wasn't even my fault. I have no respect for them or their site now.

It is run by a bunch of monkeys on ego trips and they make me sick. Boycott Wikipedia.

For several years Wikipedia was posting information about my dental company that was incomplete and misleading to customers. When I contacted Wikipedia yhey told me that anyone can post to their website about any subject regardless of whether they are qualified or not to talk about this subject.

I told them this can be very damaging to companies to have erroneous information on their encyclopedia posted by unqualified people. We proceeded to re-educate the public by posting the correct information on Wikipedia about our products and how to repair it. Wikipedia stated we had only one type of thermoplastic when in fact we had 5 different thermoplastics. Each thermoplastic with different properties for different applications. Wikipedia said our thermoplastics were not repairable when in fact we have special procedures for each of our thermoplastics to be repaired by the dentist and by the dental lab. So the information they had posted was incorrect.

My dad, started our dental company over 49 years ago and pioneered the thermoplastic industry for dentistry. And to this day hundreds of companies have copied Flexite and been trained by Flexite about thermoplastics for dentistry. Our Flexite Company was greatly harmed by misleading information on Wikipedia for many years. This incorrect information was first posted over 5 years ago. I recently found this article and made the corrections but now Wikipedia has erased it from their website. I believe Wikipedia owes us and appology and should now allow us to post the correct facts about Flexite on their encyclopedia. Wikipedia had incorrect information on their website for over 5 years which was harmful to our company. Flexite is a very safe product, world recognized for quality for over 49 years. FDA Type II registered, Safety and Leaching Tested at Johns Hopkins University, Endorsed by Clifford Allergy Institute and ISO9001 certified. Wikepedia said they do not allow posting of accurate information by the source. That is fine but then when someone posts something incorrect about a company Wikipedia should allow the company to respond and post the accurate information.

You would not ask Post Cereal about a Kelloggs product. You would not go to Toyota to get accurate information about a GM Car. I want everyone to know that when they read something on Wikipedia it is not always correct. This is just opinions of different people and these people do not even have to be qualified to write for Wikipedia. And that in my book is a big credibility problem. Don't believe what you read on Wikipedia. Always checkout another more accurate source.

I have had a free account to edit with Wikipedia for quite some time; reason being is because you can make articles for the website by doing that. I added the religion of somebody without a proper source and now one of the users has indefinatly blocked me because of it.

When I tried to request a block repeal I got some user back saying that they wouldn't do it because I didn not show that I "Understood their policy".

They are trying to make everyone bow down to them and make them do what they want! It's ridiculous!