The Wickedness of Wikipedia

Ten or fifteen years ago Wikipedia was a biased progressive outfit, but still in general a fairly reliable source of information. Despite their ideological preferences, its editors actually did try to be fair and objective much of the time.

Not any longer. Wikipedia, like most other major online resources, has abandoned any pretense of balance. If a topic has any current political relevance (and what doesn’t these days?), Wikipedia suppresses any information that doesn’t fit the Narrative.

Wikipedia’s co-founder caused a stir recently with his remarks about the unreliability of the resource he helped develop. Below is a Swedish take on Larry Sanger and the leftward march of Wikipedia.

Many thanks to LN for translating this article from Fria Tider:

Founder: “Do not trust Wikipedia”

July 18, 2021

Wikipedia’s left turn has now gone so far that no one should trust what is written in the digital encyclopedia. That’s what Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger says, reports the Daily Mail.

Larry Sanger — who co-founded Wikipedia in 2001 with Jimmy Wales — comes forward with harsh criticism in an interview with the site Unherd.

Last year Sanger caused a stir when he stated in a blog post that Wikipedia’s neutrality policy is now “dead” because the content on the site is so politically rigid.

Also on Swedish Wikipedia, there is a group of left-wing activists who angle the content of articles concerning political issues to the detriment of their opponents. Since right-wingers do not have the strength to create accounts on the site and oppose this, left-wing activists can continue with their behavior.

Larry Sanger tells Unherd that he no longer trusts the encyclopedia he once created himself.

Left-wing activists have distorted English-language Wikipedia to the point that many articles can now be considered pure propaganda, he states.

When asked if you can trust the encyclopedia, he answers: “You can trust that Wikipedia will give you a reliable establishment point of view on almost everything.”

Sanger takes as an example the way articles about left-wing politicians such as Joe Biden are cleaned up on critical issues, and the Republican perspective is notable in its absence. However, articles about politicians on the right like Donald Trump are full of criticism from a left-wing perspective.

The corruption scandal surrounding Joe Biden’s son Hunter can hardly be read about at all on Wikipedia, the founder further points out.

“The little that you find is extremely biased and sounds like a letter from a defense lawyer.”

Sanger says that there are actually a lot of Republicans who use Wikipedia and would like to go in and create more balance in the articles. But they are stopped by the left-wing activist administrators.

“It is quite remarkable considering that the policy of neutrality still applies.”

Larry Sanger adds: “If only one version of the truth is allowed, it provides a huge incentive for rich and powerful people to take control of things like Wikipedia to strengthen their power. And they do.”

9 thoughts on “The Wickedness of Wikipedia

  1. So now it’s Wickedpedia. Thanks for letting me know.
    BTW, can we create our own ‘encyclopaedia? (original spelling)

    • Years ago, they solicited articles in a long list of subjects from the general public. That seems like one way of starting up an encyclopedia if that’s what you want to do.

  2. Vox Day created InfoGalactic as an alternative to Wikipedia.

    This is from InfoGalactic’s “In The News” section:

    Let Them Be Fake
    French Clinics Offering Vax Passports to Non-Vaccinated

    Senile Fake President Urges More Big Tech Censorship
    Drooling Child-Sniffer Wants Vaccine Skeptics Banned

    Georgia County Ballot Images Prompt Speculation
    “Massive Errors And Provable Fraud”

    Lindsey Graham Threatens GOP Walkout on Spending Bill
    Not the First Time He Has Followed Dems

    Bezos Planning to Go to Space Tomorrow
    Expected to Fly Higher Than Branson Did

    Belgium Welcomes Back Jihadis, Jihadlets
    Magic Dirt Will Surely Work This Time

    Europe Still Flooded
    I’ve A Suggestion To Keep You All Occupied

  3. There is a Wikipedia article on me. When it appeared about twelve years ago, I felt flattered. No one else in my college department was the subject of a Wikipedia entry. My friend Larry, the owner of my favorite bar, would brag to his customers that a guy who was well-known enough to be the object of an article at Wikipedia. (By the way, I have no idea who started or the entry or what the motivation was, but it was not self-started.)

    Then one day, seating myself at the counter, Larry asked me, “Have you looked at what Wikipedia is saying about you?” What he showed me, on his fancy cell phone, shocked and outraged me because now described me as an extremist and lathered me with other toxic words and labels. Another friend who had joined me for drinks said that he would go in and re-edit the page, which he did. From that moment, I looked in at least once a week, and when when someone had altered the article in a contemptuous direction, I set it back to the minimal entry that my friend had established.

    I am nobody. But somebody (or somebodies) wanted to use Wikipedia to calumniate me, as they were free to do. I am a de Maistrian reactionary, it is true, but people who live more meaningful lives than I do don’t even know what a de Maistrian reactionary is. Somebody, nevertheless, wanted condemn me for having traditional notions and defending them in public discourse.

    Yes — Wickedpedia — as another commentator cannily puts it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.