what would be another negative thing to say about wikipedia?

- info can be edited by anyone therefore info can be subjective

- can't be used for scholarly research

- not trusted by educational institutes such as schools and universities

btw the links don't really give you viruses, but sometimes the links are dead.

Oh, wow. As a former Wikipedia editor, there are so many, many negative things I could tell you. To be concise, I will limit myself here to ten top reasons, which should be more than enough to get you started:

1) Except for a handful of protected articles, editing of articles on Wikipedia is open and instant. This means that any troll, vandal, fanboi, spammer, propagandist, revenge-seeker, political hack, conspiracy theorist, tinfoil-hatted nutter, narcissist, power-tripper or libeler can add their "improvements" to it.

2) Wikipedia's central "Neutral Point of View" policy ("NPOV") is fundamentally illogical and has nothing to do with what the rest of the world understands as "neutrality". As a result, "NPOV" means whatever the admin putting the boot in on you says it means. It is the most gamed rule on Wikipedia.

3) Anonymous editing, a thing strongly protected on Wikipedia, encourages people to be abusive and irresponsible toward others. Wikipedia is basically Usenet 2.0.

4) Despite continuing lame attempts to get more experts to participate, Wikipedia has always harbored a culture that is very hostile to experts. The opinion of a Teenage Mutant Wiki Admin means far more than that of an expert would has studied the subject for decades.

5) Wikiality (wikispeak: "consensus"), the process by which truthiness is determined. Like so many other common words used on Wikipedia, "consensus" does not bear even a passing resemblance to its meaning in the dictionary.

6) Wikipedia exploits the mentally ill and those with addictive personalities without pity or scruple. It is an unhappy and unhelpful place for such people.

7) Wikipedia's badly designed and vaguely defined system of governance resembles a primitive feudal system. Wikipedia is essentially run by online warlords.

8) Wikipedia serves as a convenient platform revenge and defamation, and it has often been exploited by unscrupulous people for just that purpose.

9) Drama, drama, drama!

10) Last, but certainly not least, wikipediots (a/k/a Frei Kultur Kinder). That is, wiki zealots who are quite convinced that Wikipedia has already achieved a state of near perfection, and who respond with hostility and derision to any serious criticism of Wikipedia, or to any serious reform proposal. Wikipediots also have a strong tendency to be confused by facts. Accordingly, attempting to reason with them is inadvisable.

Not just Wikipedia.

-any info may not be true anywhere

-people only get viruses from their own negligence

-I've never seen any inappropriate videos or pictures on Wikipedia

ermm, okay info is true (ppl work with checking it)

links at the bottom does never give you virus (what make you think that)

inappropirate pictures? well thats YOUR fault for wanting to know about it right?

lol fail.

people just copy a thing and paste it there

they dont think about the thing