Wikipedia’s Left-Wing Bias

Wikipedia is my favorite website. I donated thousands to Wikimedia Foundation.

Before Wikipedia, all we had were printed encyclopedias—out of date by the time we bought them.

Jimmy Wales, a libertarian, created a web-based, crowdsourced encyclopedia.

Crowd-sourced? A Britannica editor called Wikipedia “a public restroom.” But Wales won the battle. Britannica’s encyclopedias are no longer printed.

Wales, congratulations

But recently, I learned that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger now says Wikipedia’s political pages have turned into leftist “propaganda.”

That’s upsetting. The editing was taken over by Leftists?

Sadly, yes. It was checked.

All editing is done entirely by volunteers. Wales hoped that there would be enough political viewpoints to counter biases.

But that’s not what’s happening.

Leftists love to write. Conservatives build things: homes, businesses, farms.

The pattern is obvious when comparing political donations from various professions: Surgeons and oil workers, truck drivers and loggers lean right, while artists, bartenders and librarians lean left.

Conservatives don’t have as much time to tweet or argue on the web. Leftists do. It’s something they love to do. This helps them to take control of media, universities, Wikipedia, and now, Wikipedia.

Jonathan Weiss is what Wikipedia calls a “Top 100” Wikipedian because he’s made almost half a million edits. He says he’s noticed new bias: “Wikipedia does a great job on things like science and sports, but you see a lot of political bias come into play when you’re talking current events.”

Weiss is not conservative. He voted for Ralph Nader and Al Gore in presidential elections. Never voted for a Republican. “I’ve really never identified strongly with either political party,” he says.

Maybe that’s why he notices the new Wikipedia bias.

“People on the left far outweigh people on the center and the right … a lot (are) openly socialist and Marxist.” Some even post pictures of Che Guevara and Lenin on their own profiles.

These are the people who decide which news resources Wikipedia writers can cite. Wikipedia’s approved “Reliable sources” page rejects political reporting from Fox but calls CNN and MSNBC “reliable.”

Good conservative outlets like The Federalist, The Daily Caller, and The Daily Wire are all deemed “unreliable.” Same with the New York Post (That’s probably why Wikipedia called Hunter Biden’s emails a conspiracy theory even after other liberal media finally acknowledged that they were real).

Wikipedia does not allow Fox to be included, but it approves hard-left media such as Vox, Slate and The Nation. Mother Jones is also approved. Jacobin, a socialist publication, is also approved.

Until recently, Wikipedia’s “socialism” and “communism” pages made no mention of the millions of people killed by socialism and communism. Even now, deaths are “deep in the article,” says Weiss, “treated as an arcane academic debate. But we’re talking about mass murder!”

The communism page even adds that we cannot ignore the “lives saved by communist modernization”! This is absurd.

Look up “concentration and internment camps” and you’ll find, along with the Holocaust, “Mexico-United States border,” and under that, “Trump administration family separation policy.”

What? Former President Donald Trump’s border controls, no matter how harsh, are very different from the Nazi’s mass murder.

Wikipedia does say “anyone can edit.” So, I made a small addition for political balance, mentioning that President Barack Obama built those cages.

My edit was taken down.

I wrote Wikipedia founder Wales, stating that if Wikipedia now uses only progressive source material, I would no more donate.

He replied, “I totally respect the decision not to give us more money. I’m such a fan and have great respect for you and your work.” But then he said it is “just 100% false … that ‘only globalist, progressive mainstream sources’ are permitted.”

He offered examples of left-wing media Wikipedia rejects, such as Raw Story and Occupy Democracies.

I’m glad he rejects them. These sites are childishly far left.

I then wrote again to ask why “there’s not a single right-leaning media outlet Wiki labels ‘reliable’ about politics, (but) Vox, Slate, The Nation, Mother Jones, CNN, MSNBC” get approval.

Wales stopped responding then to my emails.

Unless Wikipedia’s bias is fixed, I’ll be skeptical reading anything on the site.

COPYRIGHT 2222 BY JFSPRODUCTIONS, INC.

The Daily Signal offers a variety perspectives. Nothing here should be taken to mean that The Heritage Foundation views are represented. 

Do you have a comment about this article? Please email to share your thoughts. letters@DailySignal.com, and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Make sure to include the URL of the article or the headline, as well as your name and hometown.