Co-founder Larry Sanger is calling on the platform to revive its commitment to neutrality as Congress investigates alleged foreign manipulation of the site.
The internet’s front page is facing an unprecedented level of scrutiny over allegations of systematic left-wing bias in its entries.
Wikipedia’s entrenched bias is the subject of a congressional investigation and a blistering manifesto from cofounder Larry Sanger, whose “Nine Theses” calls for an overhaul of Wikipedia’s operations and the sources it relies on.
Sanger’s manifesto spotlights the left-wing bias in Wikipedia’s treatment of sources. The platform’s list of reliable sources includes MSNBC, The Nation, the New Republic, Mother Jones, and other left-leaning outlets. In contrast, Wikipedia dismisses right-wing outlets such as Fox News and the New York Post as unreliable.
To rectify the problem, Sanger suggests Wikipedia should enable multiple, competing articles with explicit frameworks. He also proposes an end to Wikipedia’s source-blacklist policy toward disfavored media outlets.
Sanger makes several other recommendations for Wikipedia to get back on track. He advises the website revive its original neutrality policy to clarify that articles cannot take sides on contentious issues, even if there is a consensus viewpoint among the mainstream media and academic establishment. Similarly, he proposes an end to Wikipedia’s “consensus” model of decision-making because it has been turned into a tool used to stifle dissent and consolidate power.
Sanger believes Wikipedia must repeal his ironic directive to “ignore all rules” and finally reveal who the site’s authority figures are. Most of Wikipedia’s power users are anonymous, despite Wikipedia’s enormous traffic and cultural influence.
Sanger also calls for Wikipedia to adopt a public feedback system for entries, prohibit bans on users, and adopt a legislative process through the creation of an editorial charter and elected assembly of users.
Earlier this week, Sanger’s manifesto drew buzz online because of his interview with conservative commentator Tucker Carlson. Billionaire Elon Musk caught wind of Carlson’s interview and mused about launching “Grokipedia,” a competitor to Wikipedia that would rely on Musk’s artificial intelligence program.
“We are building Grokipedia @xAI. Will be a massive improvement over Wikipedia. Frankly, it is a necessary step towards the xAI goal of understanding the Universe,” Musk posted on X. Musk was responding to a post about Wikipedia’s left-wing bias from David Sacks, President Trump’s AI czar and an influential venture capitalist.
In a statement, the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit umbrella of Wikipedia, reiterated its support for open knowledge and referred to its existing oversight mechanisms.
“The values of the Wikimedia Foundation reflect our unwavering commitment to reliable knowledge, neutrality, and constant improvement. Wikipedia informs; it does not persuade. Some recent commentary overlooks the constant, high-quality volunteer oversight and strong safeguards already in place on Wikipedia,” the statement reads, with a link to a Medium post about the safeguards.
“These protections allow volunteer editors to exercise their right to free expression, while upholding knowledge integrity. The site’s rigorous policies, high editorial standards, protection of user privacy, and transparent processes have empowered 260,000 volunteers to create more than 65 million articles across 300 languages. Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia that is always improving.”
Before Sanger’s manifesto, the House Oversight Committee launched an investigation into potential foreign manipulation of Wikipedia entries. The investigation began in August when Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R., Ky.) and Representative Nancy Mace (R., S.C.) wrote a letter to Wikimedia Foundation CEO Mary Iskander.
“The Committee recognizes that virtually all web-based information platforms must contend with bad actors and their efforts to manipulate,” the lawmakers wrote.
“Our inquiry seeks information to help our examination of how Wikipedia responds to such threats and how frequently it creates accountability when intentional, egregious, or highly suspicious patterns of conduct on topics of sensitive public interest are brought to attention.”
Comer and Mace highlighted a study from the left-wing Anti-Defamation League detailing potentially systematic antisemitism and anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia. The lawmakers also cite an article from the nonpartisan Atlantic Council about Russian influence on Wikipedia and AI.
Another report on Wikipedia’s anti-Israel bias came from tech news outlet Pirate Wires, which conducted an investigation into a network of dozens of pro-Hamas editors and their efforts to manipulate contentious entries. The Pirate Wires investigation prompted Wikipedia to ban six editors involved with the pro-Hamas campaign, the tech outlet reported. Pirate Wires regularly covers left-wing bias on Wikipedia and editorial disputes on the site during intense news cycles.
Other critics have highlighted the Wikimedia Foundation’s donors because of the support it receives from multiple left-wing foundations.
“While Wikipedia often presents itself as a nickel-and-dime outfit that really needs site users to pay for its upkeep, the Wikimedia Foundation that publishes the site is a $180 million operation that takes funding from major institutions, including institutions associated with the professional Left,” said Michael Watson, research director at the right-leaning Capital Research Center.
“Among its ‘major benefactors’ are the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, which supports left-of-center advocacy on environmental, economic, and arts issues; Michael Moritz’s Crankstart Foundation, which supports left-wing immigration advocacy, and the Rockefeller Foundation, which supports left-of-center climate advocacy,” Watson added.
Complaints about Wikipedia’s left-wing bias from conservatives are not new. In 2024, the Manhattan Institute released a study showing the site’s entries on conservatives are far more negative than for their liberal counterparts, as NR previously reported. Some of Wikipedia’s descriptions had already made their way into AI models developed by Open AI, the company known for creating ChatGPT.
Three years ago, an intense editing war on Wikipedia took place over the definition of “recession” when the Biden administration disputed economists’ traditional explanation of the term. Conservatives accused Wikipedia of giving the Biden administration an assist when it temporarily prohibited editing the page after a user removed the existing definition of the term.
The latest cause of conservative outrage about Wikipedia has been the editors’ treatment of the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Conservatives have strongly criticized Wikipedia’s description of Kirk and its attempt to portray him as a conspiracy theorist. Suspected gunman Tyler Robinson has yet to stand trial on a slew of charges for the assassination of Kirk.
Last month, Wikipedia editors debated whether Kirk’s widow Erika is notable enough for her own entry. Erika Kirk’s public profile has risen dramatically following the assassination of her husband. She is now CEO of Charlie Kirk’s activist group Turning Point USA. Her entry remains available on Wikipedia.