Kerby Anderson

An article about Wikipedia began like this: “I launched the site in 2001. Today’s it’s been captured by anonymous editors who manipulate articles to fit their ideological biases. Here’s my plan to fix it.” It was written by Larry Sanger, who says “Wikipedia was founded on an idealistic mission to provide the world’s information for free.”

The evidence for left-wing bias can be found, for example, in the platform’s list of reliable sources: MSNBC, The Nation, Mother Jones, and The New Republic. Unreliable sources are Fox News, the New York Post, and The Federalist.

He proposes nine theses to return Wikipedia to its original vision. These include enabling competing articles, abolishing source blacklists, and a revival of the original neutrality policy.

He is also calling for more accountability. That can be achieved, he argues, by revealing who Wikipedia’s leaders are. There are 62 accounts with the most authority, but only 14.5 percent of these accounts reveal a full, real name. He also wants to allow the public to rate the articles posted by Wikipedia and provide feedback.

He laments that the original “consensus” model for decision-making has been turned into a tool used to stifle dissent and consolidate power. The original idea was to lay out a plurality of viewpoints in a coherent and balanced way.

His comments come at the time when Congress has been investigating Wikipedia. The focus of the investigation, so far, has been on the allegation that foreign entities have manipulated Wikipedia entries.

Complaints about bias in Wikipedia articles is not new. I first started writing about them 16 years ago. What is new has been the complaints from one of the founders of Wikipedia.