(Natural News) Anyone who has ever looked something up online has probably come across the collaboratively modified encyclopedia Wikipedia. After all, it is the world’s fifth biggest website. While some people may consider it authoritative simply because it is so vast, attracting an estimated 6.1 billion followers each month and making up the most-read work of reference in history, it is so prone to error and bias that many people now simply click right past it and many reasonable teachers won’t accept it as a source for reports. One person who’s especially distrustful of Wikipedia, however, is one of its own co-founders, Larry Sanger.
At first, Wikipedia was written and monitored by a community of volunteers who worked together and raised flags when information was not backed up with facts. This battle of ideas was at the heart of the platform’s original commitment to neutrality. However, times have changed, and it has now become an increasingly biased source, in many cases taking a liberal viewpoint that often comes across as propaganda.
In 2007, Sanger left the site and said that it was “broken beyond repair.”
Sanger gives examples of Wikipedia’s bias
He recently sat down with Lockdown TV’s Freddie Sayers to discuss the sad state of the site. For example, he pointed out, “You can’t cite the Daily Mail at all. You can’t cite Fox News on socio-political issues either. It’s banned. So what does that mean? It means that if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream center-Left media, then it’s not going to appear on Wikipedia.”
This can be demonstrated by looking at the site’s coverage of COVID. According to Sanger, its articles on the topic parrot the viewpoints of the World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization, the CDC, the World Economic Council and Dr. Fauci. He said, “There’s a global enforcement of a certain point of view, which is amazing to me, amazing to a libertarian or a liberty-loving conservative.”
He went on to support the notion of the establishment view being espoused by many of Wikipedia’s pages by citing the example of Eastern medicine, which he says is dealt with in a dismissive and judgmental tone. In addition, he said that the viewpoint of Christianity is a very liberal one that one might find in mainline denominations rather than from the point of view of people who believe in the Bible.
Writers and editors paid to change Wikipedia entries to suit special interests
He also discussed how Wikipedia’s entries are distorted, with companies like Wiki PR paying writers and editors to change articles and not identifying them. He believes that the site’s ubiquity in the world is what has led to so much undue influence, saying, “So there’s a very big, nasty, complex game being played behind the scenes to make the article say what somebody wants them to say. “
He also explained why neutrality is so important online, saying that we need to give people the tools required to think about issues. When someone is trying to find basic information about topics, they don’t want to be led by the nose, he said. “We are free individuals who want to make up our own minds,” he added.
Sanger also pointed to the entry for U.S. President Joe Biden, which he said includes very little about the concerns many Republicans have about him. He said, for example, that there should have at least been a paragraph about the Ukraine scandal in his entry. A few days after the interview, someone moved information about the scandal into the same paragraph, but the message remained that there was no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Biden.
Although Wikipedia likes to position itself as “the encyclopedia anyone can edit,” it is really just a powerful medium for special interests to control the flow of information to the public and influence people’s opinions. Unfortunately, like many sources of information online, many people don’t realize they are not getting the full story and are making decisions based on biased information.
Sources for this article include: