Home » Social Media » Spilling the tea on Wikipedia Reviews

Spilling the tea on Wikipedia Reviews

The passage of time has given birth to many innovations and revolutions in the world that have played an important in developing society into what it is today. New inventions have been able to surface, making life more comfortable for all civilizations. Apart from innovation in the industry, many new ideas and cultural norms have become mainstream, making life much freer and more convenient for people. 

Advances in the world have brought much good in the life of people, but the reality of this world is there is always another side to the story. The recent popularity of social media platforms and other forums has provided a platform to the people to voice their concerns openly. If utilized accurately, these platforms can be a medium where a single person can spread enlightenment on a much wider scale than ever possible. However, they’re also ways that these platforms can prove to be malevolent for society. 

Apart from all other good changes and trends that have become the norm in this world, a particular trend brings more harm than good to society. Reviews of a service provider or product are something that took their sweet time to become mainstream. Initially, reviews were made only through word of mouth. Over time the idea was adopted of creating forums where these reviews could be showcased for the world to see. This would be beneficial for everyone. If the company provides quality services and goods, the users would appreciate them and instantly gain more popularity and an increase in customer base. If the company was not up to par, the users could raise their concerns which could help the company better themselves while helping the users better determine whether or not to opt for them. 

The world adopted this idea with great haste, with reviews being available to see and made on huge platforms such as google, amazon, and a fairly popular review platform trust pilot. However, this revolution of betterment was soon adopted by parties with either ill-intensions or no other meaningful purpose in life to create idiotic controversies. It has been observed that the use of reviews for selfish gains and purposes is becoming more and more popular. Some examples of such uses are with new companies paying third parties to create pseudo accounts and fabricate reviews that glorify the company. This is used to expedite the reach of the company and start their income cycle as soon as possible. Although not evil per se, this is a poor and unjust use of reviews that are meant to explain the reality of the quality of service of a company.

Another newly established norm is using these reviews platforms to wrongly accuse a company and try to get them “canceled.” Cancel culture has been gaining great popularity, and although it serves a great purpose, there are certain ups and downs to this recently started trend. Companies that have become a big name in the industry but continue to provide zero value to their customers can be called out openly for their behavior. This, if supported by a big enough number of users, can be successful in making them own up and improve on their mistakes or be at the danger of losing all clientele. However, nowadays, people who have a vendetta to carry out or feel entitled are posting wrong reviews that have nothing to do with reality. One such case of unreal reviews defaming an established platform is the one taking place on a trust pilot between fake reviewers and Wikipedia editors.

Wrongful Accusation

Wikipedia is a platform where factual information about anyone that is anyone is available. Wikipedia has become a kind of gold standard for people who have achieved considerable success in their lives or been of substantial service t society. Wikipedia was created to have a platform where people can know more about the world’s history. However, recently it has been observed that people are trying to use it as the ultimate promotional campaign.

Being on Wikipedia would indeed mean that a person or company is trustworthy if Wikipedia verified it; therefore, anyone trying to make their name in the world tries to become published there. Many small-time business owners or people with passable noteworthiness publish their articles on Wikipedia in the hope of increasing their client base. However, their misconception begins when they think that Wikipedia is a not strictly managed platform. Wikipedia has become a gold standard because the editors employed by the platform ensure that all information written is noteworthy and accurate. As soon as articles of nature that are promotional are made life, the editors assess them and reject them on valid bases. And it’s not like this fact is hidden from the world. Wikipedia has a showcased list of guidelines that need to be fulfilled in order to be published and accepted by Wikipedia. However, people do not care for them and still try shooting their shots. After being rejected, these people make fake profiles on platforms like Trust pilot and try accusing Wikipedia editors of being biased or being a sellout. 


These reviews are just a petty way of venting out anger on someone else’s account. None of these reviews have a speck of truth behind them, and many of such profiles, if viewed, will show proof of being recently made and fake. It is important that we as people know the difference between genuine reviews and reviews that serve selfish purposes.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

twelve + fourteen =