Wikipedia co-founder says the site is ‘more one-sided than ever’
By Jenny Goldsberry
Co-founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger wrote a blog post last week warning readers that the site became too one-sided and that one side is on the left. Moreover, he told me in an interview today that leftists “specifically and aggressively target every significant media property for takeover.”
He has warned about the bias for some time. As a co-founder of Wikipedia he watched the platform change from its original intent and objectivity.
Sanger wrote in a blog titled Wikipedia is more one-sided than ever:
“In short, and with few exceptions, only globalist, progressive mainstream sources — and sources friendly to globalist progressivism — are permitted.”
“It is not too far to say that Wikipedia, like many other deeply biased institutions of our brave new digital world, has made itself into a kind of thought police that has de facto shackled conservative viewpoints with which they disagree,” he wrote. “Democracy cannot thrive under such conditions: I maintain that Wikipedia has become an opponent of vigorous democracy.”Larry Sanger, Wikipedia cofounder
Meanwhile, Wikipedia bans conservative sites like Fox News, the New York Post, and the Federalist from being official sources. “Those might be contrarian or conservative, but they are hardly ‘radical’; they are still mainstream,” he wrote. “So, how on earth can such viewpoints ever be given an airing on Wikipedia? Answer: often, they cannot, not if there are no ‘reliable sources’ available to report about them.”
Sanger speculated that the left orchestrated Wikipedia’s bias.
“On the one hand, the left specifically and aggressively target every significant media property for takeover—this is the well-known ‘long march through the institutions.'” he told this reporter in an interview. “On the other hand, there’s an answer more specific to Wikipedia: they don’t require self-identification. So anonymous people could make a big impact on the site.”
As a result, “editorial decisions and direction are determined by a shadowy group of people who happen to be good at playing a fraudulent sort of game,” Sanger said.
In the meantime, Wikipedia will continue to claim they’re a neutral encyclopedia.
“The mere claim is good enough for a lot of uncritical and uninformed people,” Sanger said. “But more importantly, the claim gives cover to the news media who, sharing Wikipedia’s bias, are only too happy to shore up Wikipedia’s self-presentation. After all, they’re ‘neutral and unbiased,’ too, don’t you know!”
You can follow Jenny Goldsberry on Twitter @jennyjournalism.