Wikipedia Co-Founder Brands Site a 'Deeply Biased Opponent of Democracy'
Larry Sanger calls out encyclopedia site for bias
Wikipedia co-founder, Larry Sanger, has warned the encyclopedia site has become “more one-sided than ever."
Sanger's remarks come amid the website's entries for Black Lives Matter, the 2020 election, and President Donald Trump’s two impeachments.
Sanger was critical about how some Wikipedia entries are sourced.
“In short, and with few exceptions, only globalist, progressive mainstream sources—and sources friendly to globalist progressivism—are permitted,” he wrote in an article on his website.
Sanger said that some outlets like The Daily Telegraph, The Wall Street Journal, and The Weekly Standard are sometimes allowed to be sourced.
Still, Wikipedia editors are “careful never to leave the current Overton Window of progressive thought.”
Unlike big tech giants, Wikipedia largely relies on unpaid volunteers to handle issues regarding entries and other aspects of the site’s management.
The website has 230,000 volunteer editors who work on crowdsourced articles and more than 3,500 “administrators," Reuters reported.
Sanger also suggested Wikipedia’s editors have “systematically purged conservative mainstream media sources” because its editors “do not want what they dismiss as ‘misinformation,’ ‘conspiracy theories,’ etc., to get any hearing."
"In saying so, they (and similarly biased institutions) are plainly claiming exclusive control over what is thinkable.
"They want to set the boundaries of the debate, and they want to tell you how to think about it.”
He also noted Wikipedia had banned Fox News’s political reporting, the Daily Mail, and the New York Post from being used as sources.
Among those banned include Breitbart, The Blaze, The Daily Wire, The Gateway Pundit, and Newsmax.
“Many mainstream sources of conservative, libertarian, or contrarian opinion are banned from Wikipedia as well, including Quillette, The Federalist, and the Daily Caller,” he added.
“Those might be contrarian or conservative, but they are hardly ‘radical’; they are still mainstream.
"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.”
“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,” Sanger wrote in conclusion on his website.
“Democracy cannot thrive under such conditions: I maintain that Wikipedia has become an opponent of vigorous democracy.”
He argued Democracy “requires that voters be given the full range of views on controversial issues so that they can make up their minds for themselves.”
“If society’s main information sources march in ideological lockstep, they make a mockery of democracy.
"Then the wealthy and powerful need only gain control of the few approved organs of acceptable thought; then they will be able to manipulate and ultimately control the all-important political dialogue,” Sanger concluded.