January 1, Wikipedia Bias Stirs Conservative Concerns

Wyatt’s Take

• Wikipedia’s control by a small group shapes what America reads.
• Conservative voices and non-globalist views are routinely sidelined.
• The site’s ‘consensus’ hides real debate and dissent.

Wikipedia isn’t just any website—it’s become the backbone of online information, showing up on platforms everywhere from Google to smart speakers. That means what happens on Wikipedia shapes what much of America knows and believes.

Wikipedia’s co-founder, Larry Sanger, is blowing the whistle. He’s been a critic since 2004, but now he’s laid out a detailed plan to fix what he calls the “Wikipedia Crisis.” In a recent interview, Sanger broke down his “Nine Theses,” warning about serious bias in the way Wikipedia operates.

Sanger explains consensus on Wikipedia isn’t true consensus.

“On Wikipedia, an article that is completely one-sided and quite controversial is often declared… to represent the community ‘consensus.’ If this sounds ridiculous, that’s because it is. The plain fact is that Wikipedian consensus is no consensus at all.”

According to him, decisions get driven by a small group who agree with each other—not by open discussion.

This kind of control shows up especially on topics like gender and politics. Sanger says,

“Wikipedia simply represents as the consensus position whatever the most powerful people on the platform say is the case. If it really represents a consensus of anything, it is the consensus of everyone who thinks in the approved way.”

He adds, unpopular or dissenting views, including those held by some scientists, are silenced or ignored.

The problem runs deep because Wikipedia editors now tend to come from one group: the “Western ruling class.” Sanger calls their outlook “Globalist, Academic, Secular and Progressive.”

“There are approaches to the subject matter that are simply left out because they aren’t found in Western universities. It is increasingly hard to find conservatives’ perspectives, even stated critically on Wikipedia.”

Sometimes, he says, conservative figures end up misrepresented or insulted instead of accurately described.

Another issue is how Wikipedia only trusts a narrow list of news sources. Editors made up color-coded categories for what’s “reliable.” For example, conservative news sites can be banned, while state-controlled outlets like China Daily or Al Jazeera get counted as reliable.

“It’s very clear looking at that [Reliable Sources] page that the Wikipedia editors have declared a favored point of view. It’s definitely no longer a neutral point of view.”

Sanger warns many faith and ethnic communities also get a raw deal.

This kind of bias matters because it controls what most Americans see first when they search for answers. It makes it harder to get a true sense of all sides. If you care about fair play online, these are problems we can’t ignore.

Wyatt Matters

People in the heartland want honesty and a fair shake. When big websites only show one side, regular folks lose trust in what they read. We deserve real debate, not information filtered by an elite few.

Read the full story