Wikipedia Has Been Taken Over By The Far Left

As internet users got lazier and less concerned with facts, the stigma around Wikipedia diminished. Be honest, when’s the last time your Twitter battle preparation didn’t include Wikipedia.com?

Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, who is frequently critical of the site, has finally had enough of you keyboard warriors trusting the site he helped invent. According to Sanger, if you are using Wikipedia for information, you might as well read the New York Times. Not because both often cite inaccurate information, but because both services have a clear left-wing bias.

Sanger claims that Wikipedia allows hyperlinks only for websites that lean well to the left. Meaning, if CNN, Slate, and other like-minded outlets don’t cover a story, that story will not appear on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia’s founder explains the site has become ruined by left-wing bias pic.twitter.com/19ZBoHImAd

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) July 16, 2021

“In short, and with few exceptions, only globalist, progressive mainstream sources — and sources friendly to globalist progressivism — are permitted,” Sanger adds on his website. “Wikipedia is more one-sided than ever.”

“It is not too far to say that Wikipedia, like many other deeply biased institutions of our brave new digital world, has made itself into a kind of thought police that has de facto shackled conservative viewpoints with which they disagree,” he added. “Democracy cannot thrive under such conditions. I maintain that Wikipedia has become an opponent of vigorous democracy.”

Sanger points to President Joe Biden’s Wikipedia page as an example:

Biden’s article, if you look at it, has very few concerns Republicans had about it. So if you want to have something that remotely resembles the Republican take on Biden, you’re not going to get it from the article.

And there is a paragraph – and it’s quite a long article, so there should be at least one paragraph – on the Ukrainian scandal. Very little of this can be found in Wikipedia. The little that can be found is extremely biased and really reads like a defense attorney’s brief.

The paragraph in question quickly moves past Biden’s involvement with Ukraine to instead zone in on Donald Trump:

“In September 2019, it was reported that Trump had pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the allegations of misdeeds of Biden and his son Hunter Biden. Despite the allegations, as of September 2019, no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Bidens had been produced.”

Here’s a shocker, sit down before you read this: there’s not a single mention of Hunter Biden’s laptop on Joe Biden’s Wikipedia page. Given that emails found on the laptop contain information about Joe Biden, that’s quite an omission.

Sanger may be disgruntled, but he’s telling the truth.

Wikipedia has also banned links to Daily Mail and Fox News for socio-political issues, Sanger says.

While Wikipedia execs are undoubtedly annoyed by Sanger’s recent comments, his claims could inadvertently bolster Wikipedia’s reach. Now that the word is out about Wikipedia’s strong political bias, how long before CNN, ESPN, and the Washington Post endorse Wikipedia as a trusted source?

Is Wikipedia about to go mainstream?